[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41703-41716]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16488]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542; FRL-9822-7]
RIN 2060-AR85

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Additional Qualifying
Renewable Fuel Pathways Under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program;
Final Rule Approving Renewable Fuel Pathways for Giant Reed (Arundo
Donax) and Napier Grass (Pennisetum Purpureum)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule approves pathways for production of renewable
fuel from giant reed (Arundo donax) and napier grass (Pennisetum
purpureum) as feedstocks. These pathways are for cellulosic biofuel,
for purposes of the Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS), under Clean
Air Act (CAA) as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA). EPA has determined that renewable fuel made from napier
grass and giant reed meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction
requirements for cellulosic biofuel under the requirements of the RFS
program. In response to comments on the proposal concerning the
potential for these crops to behave as invasive species, EPA is
adopting additional registration, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that were developed to address the potential for GHG
emissions related to these concerns. Approval of

these pathways combined with the related provisions will create
additional opportunities for regulated parties to comply with the
advanced and cellulosic renewable fuel requirements of the RFS program,
while ensuring that these feedstocks do not pose a significant
likelihood of spread into areas outside the intended planting area.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 11, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edmund Coe, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality (MC6401A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-8994; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action are those involved
with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels,
including gasoline and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such as ethanol
and biodiesel. Regulated categories and entities affected by this
action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Examples of potentially
                Category                   NAICS \1\ Codes      SIC \2\ Codes           regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...............................              324110                2911  Petroleum Refineries.
Industry...............................              325193                2869  Ethyl alcohol manufacturing.
Industry...............................              325199                2869  Other basic organic chemical
                                                                                manufacturing.
Industry...............................              424690                5169  Chemical and allied products
                                                                                merchant wholesalers.
Industry...............................              424710                5171  Petroleum bulk stations and
                                                                                terminals.
Industry...............................              424720                5172  Petroleum and petroleum
                                                                                products merchant wholesalers.
Industry...............................              454319                5989  Other fuel dealers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\2\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria of Part 80, subparts D, E and F of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have any question regarding
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

Outline of This Preamble

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    B. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action
II. Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways Under the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program, Using Giant Reed and Napier
Grass
    A. Feedstock Production and Distribution
    B. Fuel Production, Distribution, and Use
    C. Summary
III. Additional Provisions Addressing Invasiveness Concerns for
Giant Reed and Napier Grass
    A. Discussion of Comments on Invasive Species
    B. Registration, Reporting, and Record Keeping Requirements to
Address Potential Invasiveness
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments)
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species
    L. Congressional Review Act
V. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    In this final rule, EPA is approving a pathway for production of
renewable fuel from giant reed (Arundo donax) and napier grass
(Pennisetum purpureum) as feedstock for purposes of the RFS program.
EPA has determined that renewable fuel made from napier grass and giant
reed meet the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction requirements for
cellulosic biofuel under the requirements of the RFS program. EPA is
also adopting additional registration, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to minimize the potential spread outside of the intended
planting areas of giant reed or napier grass that was planted for the
purpose of producing renewable fuels under the RFS program. These
additional requirements are necessary to minimize the potential that
the feedstock will spread to areas outside the intended planting area.
Such unintended growth could result in additional GHG emissions from
activities needed to control and remove the invasive plants, which have
not been factored into our lifecycle analysis.
    EPA is issuing this final rule based on its evaluation of the
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of this pathway for production of
renewable fuel from these feedstocks. The approach for establishing a
renewable fuel pathway is based on the requirements related to
greenhouse gas reductions that are part of the RFS program, under Clean
Air Act (``CAA'') Section 211(o) as amended by the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA''). This rulemaking modifies the RFS
regulations published at 40 CFR 80.1400 et seq. The RFS program
regulations specify the types of fuels eligible to participate in the
RFS renewable fuel program and the procedures by which renewable fuel
producers and importers may generate Renewable Identification Numbers
(``RINs'') for the qualifying renewable fuels they produce through
approved fuel pathways. See 75 FR 14670 (March 26, 2010); 75 FR 26026
(May 10, 2010); 75 FR 37733 (June 30, 2010); 75 FR 59622 (September 28,
2010); 75 FR 76790 (December 9, 2010); 75 FR 79964 (December 21, 2010);
77 FR 1320 (January 9, 2012); 77 FR 74592 (December 17, 2012); and 78
FR 14190 (March 5, 2013).
    Approving the new fuel pathways according to the provisions of this
rule will provide biofuel producers opportunities to increase the
volume of advanced, low-GHG cellulosic biofuels

under the RFS program. EPA's comprehensive lifecycle analyses in the
January 5, 2012 proposal show significant lifecycle GHG emission
reductions from fuels produced from giant reed and napier grass, as
compared to the baseline (petroleum-based) gasoline or diesel fuel that
they replace. However, the lifecycle analyses assume no significant
indirect greenhouse gas emissions associated with actions to remove or
remediate the unintended spread of these feedstocks outside of the
intended planting area. This rule includes provisions designed to
ensure that this assumption is realized, and were developed in response
to comments raised during the public comment period.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of this Regulatory Action

    This rule approves new pathways for production of cellulosic
biofuel from giant reed and napier grass as feedstocks. The rule also
includes several provisions addressing invasiveness concerns regarding
giant reed or napier grass when it is grown as a feedstock for
production of renewable fuel.\1\ These provisions require either a
demonstration by the renewable fuel producer that the giant reed or
napier grass will not pose a significant likelihood of spread beyond
its intended planting area, or approval by EPA of a Risk Mitigation
Plan developed by the fuel producer that demonstrates the giant reed or
napier grass will not pose a significant likelihood of spread beyond
its intended the planting area. EPA's use of the term ``no significant
likelihood of spread beyond the planting area'' means that it is highly
unlikely there will be such spread. EPA is also including related
registration, reporting, and recording keeping requirements.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For purposes of this proposal, the term ``giant reed''
refers to the species Arundo donax and ``napier grass'' refers to
the species Pennisetum purpureum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways Under the Renewable
Fuel Standard (RFS) Program, Using Giant Reed and Napier Grass

    EPA's analysis of renewable fuel pathways using giant reed and
napier grass as feedstocks was originally published in the Federal
Register on January 5, 2012 as a direct final rule, with a parallel
publication of a proposed rule. Because relevant adverse comments were
received, EPA withdrew the direct final rule on March 5, 2012 (77 FR
13009). A second comment period was not issued, since the simultaneous
publication of the proposed rule provided an adequate notice and
comment process.
    For this rulemaking, EPA considered the lifecycle GHG impacts of
two types of high-yielding perennial grasses similar in cellulosic
composition to Panicum virgatum (switchgrass) and comparable in status
as an emerging energy crop. The grasses considered in this rulemaking
are giant reed (Arundo donax), and napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum),
also known as elephant grass. In the March 2010 RFS rule, EPA analyzed
the lifecycle GHG impacts of producing and using cellulosic ethanol and
cellulosic Fischer-Tropsch diesel from switchgrass. The midpoint of the
range of switchgrass results showed a 110% GHG reduction (range of 102%
to 117%) for cellulosic ethanol (biochemical process), a 72% (range of
64% to 79%) reduction for cellulosic ethanol (thermochemical process),
and a 71% (range of 62% to 77%) reduction for cellulosic diesel (F-T
process) compared to the petroleum baseline. In the March 2010 RFS
final rule, we indicated that some feedstock sources can be determined
to be similar enough to those modeled that the modeled results could
reasonably be extended to these similar feedstock types. For instance,
information on miscanthus indicated that this perennial grass will
yield more feedstock per acre than the modeled switchgrass feedstock
without additional inputs with GHG implications (such as
fertilizer).\2\ Therefore in the final rule EPA concluded that since
biofuel made from the cellulosic biomass in switchgrass was found to
satisfy the 60% GHG reduction threshold for cellulosic biofuel, biofuel
produced from the cellulosic biomass in miscanthus would also comply.
In the final rule we included cellulosic biomass from switchgrass and
miscanthus as eligible feedstocks for the cellulosic biofuel pathways
included in Table 1 to Sec.  80.1426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis in support of the
March 2010 RFS Final Rule, available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We did not include other perennial grasses such as giant reed or
napier grass as feedstocks for the cellulosic biofuel pathways in Table
1 at that time, since we did not have sufficient time to adequately
consider them. Based in part on additional information received through
the petition process for EPA approval of giant reed and napier grass
pathways, EPA has evaluated these feedstocks and is now including these
feedstocks in Table 1 to Sec.  80.1426 as approved pathways for
cellulosic biofuel pathways.
    As described in detail in the following sections of this preamble,
because of the similarity of these feedstocks to switchgrass and
miscanthus, EPA believes that new agricultural sector modeling is not
needed to analyze them. We have instead relied upon the switchgrass
analysis to assess the relative GHG impacts of biofuel produced from
giant reed and napier grass. As with the switchgrass analysis, we have
attributed all land use impacts and resource inputs from use of these
feedstocks to the portion of the fuel produced that is derived from the
cellulosic components of the feedstocks. Based on this analysis and
currently available information, we conclude that biofuel (ethanol,
cellulosic diesel, jet fuel, heating oil and naphtha) produced from the
cellulosic biomass of giant reed or napier grass has similar lifecycle
GHG impacts to switchgrass biofuel and meets the 60% GHG reduction
threshold required for cellulosic biofuel.

A. Feedstock Production and Distribution

    For the purposes of this rulemaking, Giant reed refers to the
perennial grass Arundo donax of the Poaceae family. Giant reed thrives
in subtropical and warm-temperate areas and is grown throughout Asia,
southern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and warmer U.S. states for
multiple uses such as paper and pulp, musical instruments, rayon,
particle boards, erosion control, and ornamental
purposes.3 4 Based in part on discussions with industry, EPA
anticipates continued development of giant reed as an energy crop
particularly in the Mediterranean region and warmer U.S. states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html.
    \4\ See Lewandowski, I., Scurlock, J.M.O., Lindvall, E.,
Christou, M. (2003). The development and current status of perennial
rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the U.S. and Europe. Biomass
and Bioenergy 25, 335-361.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Napier grass is a tall bunch-type grass that has traditionally been
grown as a high-yielding forage crop across the wet tropics. There is a
considerable body of agronomic research on the production of napier
grass as a forage crop. More recently, researchers have investigated
ways to maximize traits desirable in bioenergy crops. Practices have
been developed by USDA and other researchers to lower fertilization
rates and increase biomass production. Based in part on discussions
with industry, EPA anticipates continued development of napier grass as
an energy crop

particularly in Gulf Coast Region of the United States (more
specifically the growing region includes Florida and southern portions
of Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For a map depicting the northern limit for sustained
napiergrass production in the United States see Figure 1 in Woodard,
K., R. and Sollenberger, L, E. 2008. Production of Biofuel Crops in
Florida: Elephantgrass. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida. SS AGR 297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Crop Yields
    For the purposes of analyzing the GHG emissions from giant reed and
napier grass production, EPA examined crop yields and production inputs
in relation to switchgrass to assess the relative GHG impacts. Current
national yields for switchgrass are approximately 4.5 to 5 dry tons per
acre. Giant reed field trials conducted in Alabama over a 9-year period
showed an average yield of 15 dry tons per acre with no nitrogen
fertilizer applied after the first year.\6\ Fertilized field trials
have shown yields around 13 to 28 dry tons per acre in Spain, and 12
dry tons per acre in Italy (based on annual yields of 3, 14, 17, 16,
and 12).\7\ High yields have been demonstrated with unimproved giant
reed populations, and therefore there is potential for increased
biomass productivity through improved growing methods and breeding
efforts.\8\ Napier grass field trials have produced dry biomass yields
exceeding 20 tons per acre per year in north-central Florida. Using
currently available technology, average yields for full-season napier
grass should range from 14 to 18 tons per acre with future improvements
expected. Yield depends greatly on the type of cultivar and the amount
and distribution of rainfall and fertilization rates. There is
potential for increased biomass productivity through improved growing
methods and breeding efforts.\9\ In general, the yields for both of the
energy grasses considered here will have higher yields than
switchgrass, so from a crop yield perspective, the switchgrass analysis
would be a conservative estimate when comparing against the napier
grass, and giant reed pathways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Huang, P., Bransby, D., and Sladden, S. (2010).
Exceptionally high yields and soil carbon sequestration recorded for
giant reed in Alabama. Poster session presented at: ASA, CSSA, and
SSSA 2010 International Annual Meetings, Green Revolution 2.0; 2010
Oct 31-Nov 4; Long Beach, CA.
    \7\ Mantineo, M., D'Agnosta, G.M., Copani, V., Patan[egrave],
C., and Cosentino, S.L. (2009). Biomass yield and energy balance of
three perennial crops for energy use in the semi-arid Mediterranean
environment. Field Crops Research 114, 204-213.
    \8\ Lewandowski et al. 2003.
    \9\ Based on discussions with industry and USDA and Woodard and
Sollenberger (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, EPA's analysis of switchgrass for the March 2010 RFS
rule (75 FR 14791) assumed a 2% annual increase in yield that would
result in an average national yield of 6.6 dry tons per acre in 2022.
EPA anticipates a similar yield improvement for giant reed and napier
grass due to their similarity as perennial grasses and their comparable
status as energy crops in their early stages of development. Given
this, our analysis assumes an average giant reed yield of approximately
18 dry tons per acre by 2022 and an average napier grass yield of
approximately 20 dry tons per acre by 2022.\10\ The ethanol yield for
all of the grasses is approximately the same so the higher crop yields
for napier grass and giant reed result directly in greater ethanol
production compared to switchgrass per acre of production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ These yields assume no significant adverse climate impacts
on world agricultural yields over the analytical timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these yield assumptions, in areas with suitable growing
conditions, giant reed would require less than 40% of the land area
required by switchgrass to produce the same amount of biomass and
napier grass would require approximately 33% of the land area required
by switchgrass to produce the same amount of biomass due to their
higher yields. Even without yield growth assumptions, their currently
higher crop yield rates means the land use required for these crops
would be lower than for switchgrass. Therefore less crop area would be
converted and displaced resulting in smaller land-use change GHG
impacts than that assumed for switchgrass to produce the same amount of
fuel. Furthermore, we believe napier grass will have a similar impact
on international markets as assumed for switchgrass. Like switchgrass,
napier grass is not expected to be traded internationally and its
impacts on other crops are expected to be limited. Increased giant reed
demand in the U.S. for biofuels is not expected to impact existing
markets for giant reed, which are relatively small niche markets (e.g.,
musical instrument reeds).
2. Land Use
    In EPA's March 2010 RFS final rule analysis, switchgrass plantings
displaced primarily soybeans and wheat, and to a lesser extent hay,
rice, sorghum, and cotton. Napier grass, with production focused in the
southern United States, is likely to be grown on land once used for
pasture, rice, commercial sod, cotton or alfalfa, which would likely
have less of an international indirect impact than switchgrass because
some of those commodities are not as widely traded as soybeans or
wheat. Given that napier grass will likely displace the least
productive land first, EPA concludes that the land use GHG impact for
napier grass per gallon should be no greater and likely less than
estimated for switchgrass. Given that giant reed is in early stages of
development as an energy crop, there is limited information on where it
will be grown and what crops it will displace. We expect giant reed
will displace the least productive land first and would likely have a
similar or smaller indirect impact associated with crop displacement
than what we assumed for switchgrass.
    Considering the total land potentially impacted by all the new
feedstocks included in this rulemaking would not impact these
conclusions. In the switchgrass ethanol scenario done for the March
2010 RFS final rule, total cropland acres increases by 4.2 million
acres, including an increase of 12.5 million acres of switchgrass, a
decrease of 4.3 million acres of soybeans, a 1.4 million acre decrease
of wheat acres, a decrease of 1 million acres of hay, as well as
decreases in a variety of other crops. Given the higher yields of the
energy grasses considered here compared to switchgrass, there would be
ample land available for production without having any anticipated
adverse impacts beyond what was considered for switchgrass production.
This analysis took into account the economic conditions such as input
costs and commodity prices when evaluating the GHG and land use change
impacts of switchgrass.
    One commenter stated that by assuming no land use change for giant
reed and napier grass, the Agency may have underestimated the increase
in GHG emissions that could result from breaking new land. According to
the commenter, EPA assumed that these feedstocks will be grown on the
least productive land without citing any specific models or studies.
    The commenter appears to have misinterpreted EPA's analysis. EPA
did not assume these crops would be grown on fallow acres, nor did EPA
assume that switchgrass would only be produced on the least productive
lands. EPA assumed these crops would be grown on acres similar to
switchgrass, and therefore applied the land use change impacts of
switchgrass analyzed in the March 2010 RFS final rule. In that rule,
EPA provided detailed information on the types of crops (e.g., wheat)
that would be displaced by switchgrass. This

analysis took into account the economic conditions such as input costs
and commodity prices when evaluating the GHG and land use change
impacts of switchgrass.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Final Regulatory Impact Analysis Chapter 2, February
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Crop Inputs and Feedstock Transport
    EPA also assessed the GHG impacts associated with planting,
harvesting, and transporting giant reed and napier grass feedstocks in
comparison to switchgrass. Table 1 shows the assumed 2022 commercial-
scale production inputs for switchgrass (used in the March 2010 RFS
final rule analysis), average giant reed and napier grass production
inputs (USDA projections and industry data) and the associated GHG
emissions.
    Available data gathered by EPA suggest that giant reed may require
on average less nitrogen and insecticide than switchgrass, but more
phosphorous, potassium, herbicide, diesel, and electricity per unit of
biomass. Napier grass may require similar amounts of nitrogen
fertilizer application as switchgrass, less phosphorous, potassium and
insecticide than switchgrass, but more herbicide, lime, diesel and
electricity per unit of biomass. See Table 1 below.
    This assessment assumes production of these two new feedstocks uses
electricity for irrigation given that growers will likely irrigate when
possible to improve yields. Irrigation rates will vary depending on the
timing and amount of rainfall, but for the purpose of estimating GHG
impacts of electricity use for irrigation, we assumed a rate similar to
what we assumed for other irrigated crops in the Southwest, South
Central, and Southeast as shown in Table 1.
    Applying the GHG emission factors used in the March 2010 RFS final
rule, giant reed production results in slightly lower GHG emissions
relative to switchgrass production (a decrease of approximately 2 kg
CO2eq/mmbtu). Napier grass production results in slightly
higher GHG emissions relative to switchgrass production (an increase of
approximately 6 kg CO2eq/mmbtu).

                                     Table 1--Production Inputs and GHG Emissions for Switchgrass, Giant Reed, and Napier Grass (Biochemical Ethanol), 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Switchgrass                                     Giant Reed                                     Napier grass
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Emission  factors   Inputs  (per dry ton    Emissions (per mmBtu     Inputs (per dry ton    Emissions (per mmBtu     Inputs (per dry ton    Emissions (per mmBtu
                                                         of biomass)                fuel)                of biomass)                fuel)                of biomass)               fuel)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Fertilizer...........  3,29 kgCO2e/ton    15.2 lbs..............  3.6 kgCO2e............  5 lbs.................  1 kgCO2e..............  10 lbs................  2.4 kgCO2e.
                                 of nitrogen.
N2O...........................  N/A..............  N/A...................  7.6 kgCO2e............  N/A...................  4.8 kgCO2e............  N/A...................  7.6 kgCO2e.
Phosphorus Fertilizer.........  1,12 kgCO2e/ton    6.1 lbs...............  0.5 kgCO2e............  7.4 lbs...............  0.6 kgCO2e............  1.1 lbs...............  0.1 kgCO2e.
                                 of phosphate.
Potassium Fertilizer..........  743 kgCO2e/ton of  6.1 lbs...............  0.3 kgCO2e............  7.4 lbs...............  0.4 kgCO2e............  4.0 lbs...............  0.2 kgCO2e..
                                 potassium.
Herbicide.....................  23,45 kgCO2e/tons  0.002 lbs.............  0.003 kgCO2e..........  0.02 lbs..............  0.03 kgCO2e...........  0.4 lbs...............  0.6 kgCO2e.
                                 of herbicide.
Insecticide (average across     27,22 kgCO2e/tons  0.025 lbs.............  0.04 kgCO2e...........  0 lbs.................  0 kgCO2e..............  0 lbs.................  0 kgCO2e.
 regions).                       of pesticide.
Lime..........................  408 kgCO2e/ton of  0 lbs.................  0 kgCO2e..............  0 lbs.................  0 kgCO2e..............  100 lbs...............  2.9 kgCO2e.
                                 lime.
Diesel........................  97 kgCO2e/mmBtu    0.4 gal...............  0.8 kgCO2e............  1.4 gal...............  2.5 kgCO2e............  1.3 gal...............  2.2 kgCO2e.
                                 diesel.
Electricity (irrigation)......  220 kgCO2e/mmBtu.  0 kWh.................  0 kgCO2e..............  10 kWh................  1 kgCO2e..............  25 kWh................  2.7 kgCO2e.
    Total Emissions...........  .................  ......................  13 kgCO2e/mmBtu.......  ......................  11 kgCO2e/mmBtu.......  ......................  19 kgCO2e/mmBtu.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumes 2022 switchgrass yield of 6.59 dry tons/acre and 92.3 gal ethanol/dry ton, 2022 giant reed yield of 18 dry tons/acre and 92.3 gal ethanol/dry ton, and 2022 napier grass yield of 20 dry
  tons/acre and 92.3 gal ethanol/dry ton. More detail on calculations and assumptions is included in materials to the docket.

    GHG emissions associated with distributing giant reed and napier
grass feedstocks are expected to be similar to EPA's estimates for
switchgrass feedstock because they are all herbaceous agricultural
crops requiring similar transport, loading, unloading, and storage
regimes. Our analysis therefore assumes the same GHG impact for
feedstock distribution as we assumed for switchgrass, although
distributing giant reed and napier grass feedstocks could be less GHG
intensive because higher yields could translate to shorter overall
hauling distances to storage or biofuel production facilities per
gallon or Btu of final fuel produced.

B. Fuel Production, Distribution, and Use

    Giant reed and napier grass are suitable for the same conversion
processes as other cellulosic feedstocks, such as switchgrass and corn
stover. Currently available information on giant reed and napier grass
composition shows that their hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin
content are comparable to other crops that qualify under the RFS
regulations as feedstocks for the production of cellulosic biofuels.
Based on this similar composition as well as conversion yield data
provided by industry, we applied the same production processes that
were modeled for switchgrass in the March 2010 RFS final rule
(biochemical ethanol, thermochemical ethanol, and Fischer-Tropsch (F-T)
diesel) \12\ to giant reed and napier grass. We assumed the GHG
emissions associated with producing biofuels from giant reed and napier
grass are similar to what we estimated for switchgrass and other
cellulosic feedstocks. EPA also assumes that the distribution and use
of biofuel made from giant reed and napier grass will not differ
significantly from similar biofuel produced from other cellulosic
sources. As was done for the switchgrass case, this analysis assumes
energy grasses grown in the United States for production purposes. If
crops were grown internationally, used for biofuel

production, and the fuel was shipped to the U.S., shipping the finished
fuel to the U.S. could increase transport emissions. However, based on
analysis of the increased transport emissions associated with sugarcane
ethanol distribution to the U.S. considered for the 2010 final rule,
this would at most add 1-2% to the overall lifecycle GHG impacts of the
energy grasses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The F-T diesel process modeled applies to cellulosic
diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, and naphtha.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Summary

    Based on our comparison of switchgrass and the two feedstocks
considered here, EPA believes that cellulosic biofuel produced from the
cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin portions of giant reed and napier
grass has similar or better lifecycle GHG impacts than biofuel produced
from the cellulosic biomass from switchgrass. Our analysis suggests
that the two feedstocks considered have GHG impacts associated with
growing and harvesting the feedstock that are similar to switchgrass.
Emissions from growing and harvesting giant reed are approximately 2 kg
CO2eq/mmBtu lower than switchgrass, and emissions from growing and
harvesting napier grass are approximately 6 kg CO2eq/mmBtu higher than
switchgrass. These are small changes in the overall lifecycle,
representing at most a 6% change in the energy grass lifecycle impacts
in comparison to the petroleum fuel baseline. Furthermore, the two
feedstocks considered are expected to have similar or lower GHG
emissions than switchgrass associated with other components of the
biofuel lifecycle.
    Under a hypothetical worst case, if the calculated increases in
growing and harvesting the new feedstocks are incorporated into the
lifecycle GHG emissions calculated for switchgrass, and other lifecycle
components are projected as having similar GHG impacts to switchgrass
(including land use change associated with switchgrass production), the
overall lifecycle GHG reductions for biofuel produced from giant reed
and napier grass still meet the 60% reduction threshold for cellulosic
biofuel, the lowest being a 64% reduction (for napier grass diesel
produced through gasification and upgrading) compared to the petroleum
baseline. We believe these are conservative estimates, as use of giant
reed or napier grass as a feedstock is expected to have smaller land-
use GHG impacts than switchgrass, due to their higher yields. The
docket for this rule provides additional detail on the analysis of
giant reed and napier grass as biofuel feedstocks.
    Although this analysis assumes giant reed and napier grass biofuels
produced for sale and use in the United States will most likely come
from domestically produced feedstock, we also intend for the approved
pathways to cover renewable fuels from giant reed and napier grass
grown in other countries. We do not expect incidental amounts of
biofuels from feedstocks produced in other nations to impact our
assessment that the average GHG emissions reductions will meet the
threshold for qualifying as a cellulosic biofuel pathway. Moreover,
those countries most likely to be exporting giant reed, or napier grass
or biofuels produced from these feedstocks are likely to be major
producers which typically use similar cultivars and farming
techniques).\13\ Therefore, GHG emissions from producing biofuels with
giant reed or napier grass grown in other countries should be similar
to the GHG emissions we estimated for U.S. giant reed or napier grass,
though they could be slightly higher or lower. For example, the
renewable biomass provisions under the Energy Independence and Security
Act would prohibit direct conversion of previously unfarmed land in
other countries into cropland for energy grass-based renewable fuel
production. Furthermore, any energy grass production on existing
cropland internationally would not be expected to have land use impacts
beyond what was considered for switchgrass production. Even if there
were unexpected larger differences, EPA believes the small amounts of
feedstock or fuel potentially coming from other countries will not
impact our threshold analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Williams et al. (Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542-
0631); Letter from Petro Losa to Lisa Jackson and Boris Bershteyn,
dated October 10, 2012 (Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542-0625);
Virtue et al. at www.caws.org.au/awc/2010/awc201011761.pdf (Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542-0611); Information on Arundo donax
(Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542-0619).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our assessment of switchgrass in the March 2010 RFS final
rule and this comparison of GHG emissions from switchgrass and giant
reed and napier grass, we do not expect variations to be large enough
to bring the overall GHG impact of fuel made from giant reed or napier
grass to come close to the 60% threshold for cellulosic biofuel.
Therefore, EPA is including cellulosic biofuel produced from the
cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin portions of giant reed and napier
grass under the same pathways for which cellulosic biomass from
switchgrass qualifies under the RFS program.

III. Additional Provisions Addressing Invasiveness Concerns for Giant
Reed and Napier Grass

    As described the previous section, the lifecycle GHG assessment of
the pathways using giant reed and napier grass assumed that these crops
would not expand beyond their intended planting area and therefore did
not assume any significant GHG emissions resulting from actions to
remediate or remove this unintended spread. In response to the January
5, 2012 proposal, EPA received comments raising concerns about the
potential for the spread of these species beyond their intended growing
area. After considering these comments, EPA has decided to adopt
various changes to the RFS regulations to address the potential for
giant reed or napier grass to behave as invasive species beyond their
intended planting area. The supplemental requirements included in this
final rule support the lifecycle assessment discussed in section II
above and the determination that biofuels produced with these
feedstocks will meet the criteria of advanced and cellulosic biofuels
under the RFS regulations.

A. Discussion of Comments on Invasive Species

    In response to the January 2012 proposed rule, EPA received
comments highlighting the concern that by approving certain new
feedstock types under the RFS program, EPA would be encouraging their
introduction or expanded planting without considering their potential
impact as invasive species.\14\ Commenters stated that Arundo donax
(giant reed) and Pennisetum purpureum (napier grass) have been
identified as invasive species in certain parts of the country. These
commenters asserted that giant reed and napier grass ``are invasive
species within the definition of the Executive Order.'' \15\ Commenters
stated that EPA should not approve the proposed feedstocks until EPA
has conducted an invasive species analysis, as required under Executive
Order (E.O.) 13112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Comment submitted by Jonathan Lewis, Senior Counsel,
Climate Policy, Clean Air Task Force et al., dated February 6, 2012.
Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542-0118. ``Executive Order''
refers to Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species, signed February
3, 1999.
    \15\ Comments submitted by Robert L. Bendick, Director, U.S.
Government Affairs, The Nature Conservancy et al., dated February 6,
2012. Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542-0119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also received comments stating that giant reed is not
``invasive'' as defined by E.O. 13112, since giant reed ``only presents
problems of invasiveness

in riparian areas prone to torrential flooding . . . giant reed has
been grown responsibly in numerous places . . . without problems of
invasiveness.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Comment submitted by R. Timothy Columbus and Christopher G.
Falcone, Steptoe & Johnson LLP on behalf of The Chemtex Group, dated
February 13, 2012. Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542-0124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    E.O. 13112, signed in February 1999, calls for each federal agency
``to the extent practicable and permitted by law . . . not authorize,
fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or
promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United
States or elsewhere unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has
prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its determination
that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm
caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures
to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the
actions.'' \17\ The Executive Order defines ``invasive species'' as
``an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause
economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-02-08/pdf/99-3184.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Giant reed is listed as a noxious or invasive species by Texas,\18\
Nevada,\19\ and California,\20\ and these states have programs in place
to address invasive species concerns. Several other states also
consider giant reed a problem or threat \21\ and napier grass is
currently not recommended in Florida because of invasive potential.\22\
While not prohibiting its planting, Oregon has promulgated strict
regulations for the cultivation of giant reed anywhere in the
state.\23\ Other states, such as North Carolina, have specifically
determined that giant reed does not warrant listing as a noxious weed
in their state.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See http://info.sos.state.tx.us/fids/200701978-1.html.
Accessed on March 30, 2012.
    \19\ See http://agri.nv.gov/nwac/PLANT_NoxWeedList.htm.
Accessed on May 23, 2012.
    \20\ See http://pi.cdfa.ca.gov/pqm/manual/pdf/107.pdf. Accessed
on March 30, 2012.
    \21\ See http://www.gaeppc.org/list.cfm. Accessed on May 23,
2012.
    \22\ See http://www.fleppc.org/list/2011PlantList.pdf. Accessed
on May 212, 2013.
    \23\ See http://www.oregon.gov/oisc/docs/pdf/arundo603_052_1206.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2013.
    \24\ Letter from Stephen W. Troxler to Bob Perciasepe, dated
March 26, 2013. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542-0665.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the January 5, 2012 proposal, EPA included the proposed
lifecycle analysis of giant reed and napier grass. As discussed below,
EPA's lifecycle analysis of the renewable fuel produced from these
feedstocks assumes there are no significant indirect greenhouse gas
emissions associated with the spread and subsequent remediation of
these feedstocks when grown for biofuel production for the RFS program.
Based on this assumption, the lifecycle analysis does not include any
expenditures of energy or other sources of GHGs to remediate the spread
of these species, such as mechanical removal or chemical control
activities, outside of the locations where it is grown as a renewable
fuel feedstock for the RFS program.
    EPA is not in a position to estimate the magnitude of GHG emissions
that might be associated with any such remediation if the plants are
not controlled in this manner at these locations. Given this
uncertainty, EPA is not ready at this time to determine the percent
reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions and whether it satisfies the
threshold reduction in GHGs required under the Act, absent such an
assumption. Therefore EPA believes it is prudent to require renewable
fuel producers to commit to the necessary long-term mechanisms to
demonstrate that their production of renewable fuel from giant reed or
napier grass is consistent with this assumption, as a condition of
approval as a RIN-generating producer of renewable fuel under the RFS
program. By requiring the fuel producer to demonstrate no significant
likelihood of spread beyond the planting area EPA believes that the
approval of pathways to produce renewable fuel from giant reed or
napier grass is not likely to cause or promote the introduction or
spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere.

B. Registration, Reporting, and Record Keeping Requirements To Address
Potential Invasiveness

    EPA is requiring that registration for producers of renewable fuel
made from giant reed or napier grass would include submission by the
renewable fuel producer of a Risk Mitigation Plan (RMP) that
demonstrates measures are being taken to prevent the spread of these
species such that the production of giant reed or napier grass will not
pose a significant likelihood of spread beyond the planting area
designated in the plan for the feedstock used for production of the
renewable fuel. Alternatively, the fuel producer could demonstrate that
an RMP is not needed because under the circumstances giant reed or
napier grass does not pose a significant likelihood of spread beyond
the planting area. For example, an RMP may not be needed where the
growing area is an area or region outside the United States where giant
reed or napier grass is a native plant and growing it as a feedstock
will not lead to any additional spread of the plant. Registration of
the producer would therefore require either EPA approval of an RMP or
an EPA determination that no plan is needed based on the demonstration
noted above. RINs could not be generated for renewable fuel produced
using the giant reed or napier grass pathway absent such approval or
determination. EPA is also adopting related recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. The registration, reporting, and recordkeeping (RRR)
requirements are described in more detail below.
    The CAA defines renewable fuel as fuel produced from renewable
biomass,\25\ and the definitions of categories of renewable fuel, i.e.,
advanced biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and cellulosic biofuel, specify
the fuels' lifecycle GHG emissions compared to baseline gasoline or
diesel fuel GHG emissions.\26\ The definition of renewable biomass also
specifies certain conditions that biomass must meet to be considered
renewable biomass.\27\ The definitions of renewable biomass and
renewable fuels do not specifically address the potential environmental
impacts associated with the use of potentially invasive species as
feedstocks.\28\ Given the text and structure of section 211(o), EPA
does not consider environmental factors other than the lifecycle
analysis of GHG emissions and the definition of renewable biomass in
determining whether a fuel produced from biomass is a renewable fuel
for purposes of the RFS program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ CAA Sec.  211(o)(1)(J).
    \26\ CAA Sec. Sec.  211(o)(1)(B), (D), (E).
    \27\ CAA Sec.  211(o)(1)(I).
    \28\ Separately, the CAA directs EPA to consider additional
factors, including environmental impacts of the production and use
of renewable fuels, in the context of determining the required
volumes of renewable fuel for years where Congress does not specify
volumes, at CAA Sec.  211(o)(2)(B)(ii). In addition, Congress
mandated that EPA conduct certain studies and provide reports to
Congress on air quality impacts and other issues besides greenhouse
gas impacts associated with the RFS program. See CAA Sec.  211(q),
(v) and EISA Sec.  204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements for producers summarized above and discussed in
more detail below are a reasonable way to implement this authority when
considering the full lifecycle GHG emissions for renewable fuel
produced from giant reed and napier grass. EPA has included additional
registration, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in this rule,
to address EPA's lifecycle analysis and concerns related to the spread
of invasive species.

    EPA developed these additional requirements by building upon a
number of state, federal, and local mechanisms that are already in
place to reduce the potential invasive impacts of species such as giant
reed and napier grass. For example, if producers were to apply for the
Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP), USDA would require an
environmental assessment that analyzes the risk of invasiveness. In
addition, USDA's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) can also impose
restrictions on farmers interested in growing giant reed on CRP land.
    Furthermore, invasive species are controlled and regulated under
various existing federal and state guidelines. The Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the USDA regulates noxious weeds
under the authority of the Plant Protection Act (PPA). APHIS names the
regulated weeds in the noxious weed regulations (7 CFR part 360) that
may not be imported into the United States, or moved interstate,
without a special permit. The requirements included in this rule are
not intended to negate or supersede any local, state, or federal
authority to restrict or ban these feedstocks due to invasiveness or
other concerns.
    The potential for spread posed by potentially invasive feedstocks
may be greatly reduced through the use of best practices.\29\
Commenters referenced the voluntary best practices document developed
jointly by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, the NC State University Cooperative Extension, and the
Biofuels Center of North Carolina. Many of the recommendations
developed in this document are similar to the best practices USDA
describes for the management of similar energy crops such as
switchgrass and miscanthus.\30\ For example, both USDA and the North
Carolina voluntary standards recommend developing management plans that
avoid planting at sites without buffer areas and avoid feedstock
production in floodplains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Comment submitted by the Biofuels Center of North Carolina
and the Institute for Sustainable and Renewable Resources, dated
February 13, 2012. Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542-0123.
    \30\ See http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044768.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The spread of potentially invasive feedstocks is also controlled by
some states. For example, in Florida, biomass plantings are governed by
FL Rule 5B-57.011. According to the rule, a permit for biomass
plantings is required for two contiguous acres within one parcel of
land for any plant used for biomass production. The purpose of the
permitting process is to control the introduction into, or movement
within, Florida of plant species intended for biomass plantings. One
provision of the process is that no biomass permit shall be issued for
any planting of plants on the state noxious weed list or the federal
noxious weed list. In 2009, a company, White Technologies LLC, applied
for and received a permit to grow 80 acres of giant reed under the
Florida program.
    Under Oregon State Statutes, Chapter 570, Sec.  570.405, the Oregon
Department of Agriculture may establish control areas if after careful
investigation it determines that such areas are necessary for the
general protection of the horticultural, agricultural or forest
industries of the state from diseases, insects, animals or noxious
weeds. In March of 2011, the State created a control area for giant
reed in Morrow and Umatilla Counties. The regulation, with
restrictions, allowed for up to 400 acres of giant reed to be grown in
Morrow and Umatilla Counties for providing biomass for a test burn at
the Portland General Electric Boardman Power Plant.
    Given the potential for greenhouse gas emissions associated with
remediation of the spread of giant reed and napier grass, EPA believes
it is prudent to allow RINs to be generated for fuel produced from
these feedstocks only if they are grown, transported, and used to
produce fuel in a manner that is consistent with our lifecycle
analysis. EPA is requiring that producers of renewable fuel derived
from giant reed and napier grass must submit a Risk Mitigation Plan to
ensure that the production of giant reed or napier grass will not pose
a significant likelihood of spread beyond the planting area of the
feedstock used for production of the renewable fuel. EPA would consult
with the appropriate responsible governmental agencies, including USDA,
about the RMP, and would approve it if it meets the regulatory criteria
described in Sec.  80.1450(b)(1)(ix)(A). The producer or importer may
only generate RINs for fuel produced from these feedstocks if the
feedstocks were grown and transported in compliance with an EPA
approved RMP and if the producer follows the approved RMP. If the RMP
for a particular feedstock is not performed, any RINs generated for
fuel produced from that feedstock are invalid under Sec.  80.1431, and
the generation of invalid RINs is a prohibited act under Sec.
80.1460(b)(2), subject to civil penalties.
    Alternately, the producer could submit information and data showing
that no RMP is needed because under the circumstances giant reed or
napier grass do not pose a significant likelihood of spread beyond the
planting area. For example, EPA would consider not requiring an RMP in
cases where the growing area is an area or region outside the United
States where giant reed or napier grass is a native plant and growing
it as a feedstock will not lead to any additional spread of the plant.
While ongoing monitoring will not be required when it is determined
that an RMP is not needed, the recordkeeping requirements nonetheless
require the producer or importer to notify EPA within five (5) days of
any reported growth of the feedstock outside the intended planting
area. This will allow EPA to keep track of the growth and possible
invasive nature of the feedstock. Also, as per Sec.  80.1450(b)(2), the
producer or importer must submit an independent engineering report
every three years verifying all the information submitted at
registration. This will include the producer or importer's
demonstration that the feedstock presents no substantial likelihood of
spread beyond the intended planting area.
    In either case, EPA would require the producer to submit a letter
from the appropriate USDA office with its registration materials,
stating USDA's opinions regarding the likelihood of the feedstock
spreading beyond the planting area, and the sufficiency of the RMP (if
applicable) in addressing and mitigating such likelihood.
    EPA, again after consultation with USDA and any other relevant
governmental agencies, would make its determination regarding whether
the producer's plan demonstrates that there is not a significant
likelihood of the feedstock spreading beyond the intended planting area
prior to registering the renewable fuel producer and allowing RINs to
be generated for fuel produced from that feedstock.
    Risk Mitigation Plans would be required to incorporate approaches
that are already recognized as highly effective. One highly effective
approach to risk mitigation is Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
(HACCP).\31\ HACCP examines each phase of an invasive species pathway
to identify control and evaluation measures to reduce the likelihood of
spread. Applied within a coordinated HACCP strategy or plan, these
control and evaluation measures reinforce each other. To the extent
appropriate, HACCP should be incorporated into a Risk Mitigation Plan.
Also as part of the RMP, the producer would demonstrate how the

use of best management practices (BMPs), such as those developed by the
Invasive Species Advisory Committee \32\ for any species, by USDA for
miscanthus,\33\ and by the State of Oregon for Arundo donax,\34\ will
be used by the feedstock grower and how such practices will minimize
the potential spread of the renewable fuel feedstock. BMPs include the
development and implementation of mitigation strategies and plans to
minimize escape and other impacts (e.g., minimize soil disturbance),
incorporate desirable traits (e.g., sterility or reduced seed
production), develop and put in place dispersal mitigation protocols
prior to cultivation of biofuel plants in each region or ecosystem,
develop multiple year eradication protocols for rapid removal of
biofuel crops if they disperse beyond desired crop rotation period, and
develop plans for early detection and rapid response (EDRR).\35\ EDRR
efforts should also be incorporated into an RMP; such efforts should
demonstrate that the likelihood that invasions could be halted while
still localized and identify and employ cooperative networks,
communication forums and consultation processes through which federal,
state, and local agencies can work with other stakeholders to reduce
the risk of biological invasion. There are significant geographic gaps
in baseline distribution and abundance data for invasive species
including giant reed and napier grass. It may be difficult to determine
what plants gave rise to a newly found population and populations may
go undetected for long periods. For this reason, early detection rapid
response efforts should be conducted cooperatively with a priority on
halting the spread of the species. The RMP should include provisions
for the closure of the site once it is no longer used for production of
feedstock for biofuel use under the RFS program or upon abandonment by
the feedstock grower, including the destruction and removal of all
remaining feedstock. Site decommissioning planning is also required for
sites that have demonstrated that they do not need an RMP to prevent
escapes after active crop production and management operations have
stopped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/HACCP%20Training%20Manual.pdf.
    \32\ See http://www.invasivespecies.gov/home_documents/BiofuelWhitePaper.pdf.
    \33\ See http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044768.pdf.
    \34\ See http://www.oregon.gov/oisc/docs/pdf/arundo603_052_1206.pdf.
    \35\ http://www.invasivespecies.gov/global/EDRR/EDRR_documents/Guidelines%20for%20Early%20Detection %20&%20Rapid%20Response.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the RMP should include an on-going monitoring and
reporting component. The monitoring would cover the presence or absence
of the giant reed or napier grass, and the planting locations prior to
and during feedstock cultivation. Monitoring should be done during the
growing season, as well as extend for a sufficient period after the
field is no longer used for feedstock production to ensure no remnants
of giant reed or napier grass survive or spread. The details of a
monitoring and reporting plan, including the party responsible for
collecting and overseeing monitoring data, will be specific to the
project and planting site, and should account for and respond to any
applicable local, state or federal regulations. The area that needs to
be monitored would also be approved by EPA, in consultation with the
appropriate responsible officials. The area to be monitored should be
sufficient to detect any potential spread of the feedstock, both
surrounding the field of production and feedstock storage sites, along
the transportation route, and around the biofuel production facility.
    EPA is requiring the use of a third party auditor, independent of
the feedstock grower and renewable fuel producer to audit the
monitoring activities and reporting done by the renewable fuel producer
under the RMP on an annual basis as part of the producer or importer's
fourth quarterly report as set out in Sec.  80.1451(h)(5), subject to
approval of a different frequency by EPA. For growers who are new to
growing or harvesting invasive feedstocks, more frequent monitoring or
reporting may be required for the first growing cycle. It will be the
responsibility of the renewable fuel producer to identify this
competent independent third party as part of its registration
application. Any future changes to the use of a different independent
third party, or changes to any EPA approved management or monitoring
mechanisms or practices must be documented in a revised RMP, reviewed,
and approved by EPA in advance of the change. RINs generated for
renewable fuel produced from giant reed or napier grass without EPA's
approval for the RMP (where such a plan is required) would be invalid.
    The recordkeeping and reporting provisions would require producers
to obtain documentation about giant reed or napier grass feedstocks
from their feedstock supplier(s) and take the measures necessary to
ensure that they know the source of their feedstocks and can
demonstrate to EPA that they were produced in compliance with an RMP or
from land that EPA has determined will not create a significant
likelihood of spread beyond the planting area of the feedstock used for
production of the renewable fuel.
    Specifically, the reporting requirements for producers who generate
RINs from these feedstocks include a certification on renewable fuel
production reports that the feedstock was grown, harvested,
transported, and stored in compliance with an RMP or from land that EPA
has determined will not create a significant likelihood of spread
beyond the planting area. Additionally, producers will be required to
include with their quarterly reports a summary of the types and
quantities of these feedstocks used throughout the quarter, as well as
maps of the land from which the feedstocks used in the quarter were
harvested. EPA's recordkeeping provisions require renewable fuel
producers to maintain sufficient records to support their claims that
their feedstocks were grown and transported in compliance with an RMP
or from land that EPA has determined will not create a significant
likelihood of spread beyond the planting area.
    If submitting an RMP, the renewable fuel producer would also submit
a number of documents such as a letter documenting the feedstock
grower's compliance with all of the relevant federal, state, regional,
and local requirements related to invasive species, a copy of all state
and local growing permits held by the feedstock grower, and a
communication plan for notifying federal, state, and local authorities
if the feedstock is detected outside the intended planting areas.
Finally, the fuel producer would submit a copy of the agreement between
itself, the feedstock grower, and any intermediaries responsible for
the harvesting, transport and storage of the feedstock, establishing
the parties' rights and duties related to the RMP and any other
activities and liability associated with the prevention of the spread
of the feedstock. It is essential that the feedstock grower, fuel
producer, and any intermediaries responsible for the harvesting,
transport, and storage of the feedstock are clearly on notice of their
relative rights and duties in this situation because the regulations
will require the fuel producer to exercise a level of responsibility
for and oversight of the feedstock production, harvest, transport and
storage that may not normally exist in a buy-sell contract for
agricultural products. Finally, pursuant to existing regulations, EPA
may require additional information as needed at the

time of registration, which may be especially appropriate when the
agency considers the approval of a feedstock with risk of invasiveness.
    As part of the registration process, EPA will require information
on the financial resources or other financial mechanism available to
finance reasonable remediation activities and may require, where
appropriate, the fuel producer to include in an RMP a demonstration
that there is an adequate mechanism (such as a state-administered fund,
bond, or certificate of deposit) to ensure the availability of
financial resources sufficient to cover reasonable potential
remediation costs associated with the spread of giant reed or napier
grass beyond the intended planting areas. EPA would consult with USDA
and, as appropriate, other federal agencies on the need for and, where
appropriate, the extent of financial resources required for adequate
assurances of containment and remediation in the event of a spread.
USDA's letter on the suitability of an RMP (noted above) should include
these recommendations considering site specific characteristics. The
primary purpose of such a mechanism would be to ensure that the fuel
producer has the necessary finances to ensure that giant reed or napier
grass does not spread beyond the intended borders. In this way, we
believe such a mechanism would be consistent with the lifecycle
analyses for these pathways, which assume no significant indirect GHG
emissions from remediation activities. Since the expected result would
be additional assurance that preventive measures are taken, it would
further decrease the likelihood of spread and associated remediation
activities occurring, which is consistent with the assumption of the
lifecycle analysis. EPA believes that a robust RMP as discussed above,
combined with the additional measures to prevent spread of the
feedstock resulting from a financial assurance mechanism, would be
consistent with EPA's assumption of no significant indirect greenhouse
gas emissions associated with the spread and subsequent remediation of
these feedstocks grown for biofuel production for the RFS program.
    To further reduce the likelihood of growth beyond the planting area
for these feedstocks, EPA is also including additional consequences for
producers whose feedstock grows beyond the intended planting area. The
reporting requirements include a requirement that the producer notify
EPA and USDA and relevant agencies identified in the communications
plan as soon as practicable after detection of unintended growth
outside the planted area. We are also including provisions wherein
growth outside the planting area could result in a suspension of the
producer's registration and ability to generate RINs via that pathway
until remediation activities were completed and the potential for
further spread was addressed. Prohibiting the generation of RINs in
this situation would provide an incentive for the producer to conduct
better oversight of the feedstock supplier and prevent unintended
growth beyond the planting area, and would also ensure that the
generation of RINs via these pathways is consistent with the underlying
lifecycle analysis. Also, as noted above, if the RMP is not performed
as intended, any RINs generated for fuel produced from that feedstock
are invalid under Sec.  80.1431, and the generation of such invalid
RINs is a prohibited act subject to civil penalties. Those penalties
would be assessed according to CAA Sec.  211(d)(1), amounting to up to
$37,500 per violation per day plus any economic benefit or savings
resulting from the violations.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The modifications to the RFS regulations contained in this rule are
within the scope of the information collection requirements previously
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the RFS
regulations.
    OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained
in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 80, subpart M under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control numbers 2060-0637 and 2060-0640. The OMB
control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR
part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small
entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will not
impose any new requirements on small entities. The relatively small
changes this rule makes to the RFS regulations do not impact small
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
We have determined that this action will not result in expenditures of
$100 million or more for the above parties and thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. It only applies to
gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors
and marketers and makes relatively minor corrections and modifications
to the RFS regulations.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action only
applies to gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuel producers, importers,
distributors and marketers and makes relatively minor corrections and
modifications to the RFS regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)

    This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It applies to
gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors
and marketers. This action makes relatively minor corrections and
modifications to the RFS regulations, and does not impose any
enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to
E.O. 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard
intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This rulemaking does not change any
programmatic structural component of the RFS regulatory requirements.
This rulemaking does not add any new requirements for obligated parties
under the program or mandate the use of any of the new pathways
contained in the rule. This rulemaking only makes a determination to
qualify new fuel pathways under the RFS regulations, creating further
opportunity and flexibility for compliance with the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) mandates.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994))
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. These
amendments would not relax the control measures on sources regulated by
the RFS regulations and therefore would not cause emissions increases
from these sources.

K. Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species

    Executive Order (E.O.) 13112 (64 FR 6183 (Feb. 3, 1999)) calls for
each Federal agency to not take actions that it believes are likely to
cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species unless
the agency has determined its determination that the benefits of such
actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species.
EPA has determined that this rule is not likely to cause or promote the
introduction or spread of invasive species, since this rulemaking
requires the demonstration by the renewable fuel producer that the
growth of Arundo donax or Pennisetum purpureum will not pose a
significant likelihood of spread beyond the planting area of the
feedstock used for production of the renewable fuel.

L. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule the Federal Register.
This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

V. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for the rule finalized today can be found in
section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545(o). Additional
support for today's rule comes from Section 301(a) of the Clean Air
Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7542, and 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agriculture, Air pollution control, Confidential business information,
Diesel Fuel, Energy, Forest and Forest Products, Fuel additives,
Gasoline, Imports, Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: June 28, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 80 is
amended as follows:

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521(1), 7545 and 7601(a).

0
2. Section 80.1426 is amended by revising Rows K, L, and N of Table 1
in paragraph (f)(1), and by adding paragraph (f)(14) to read as
follows:
* * * * *

Sec.  80.1426  How are RINs generated and assigned to batches of
renewable fuel by renewable fuel producers or importers?

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *

         Table 1 to Sec.   80.1426--Applicable D Codes for Each Fuel Pathway for Use in Generating RINs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Production process
                 Fuel type                           Feedstock                requirements            D-Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
K Ethanol..................................  Cellulosic Biomass from   Any......................               3
                                              crop residue, slash,
                                              pre-commercial
                                              thinnings and tree
                                              residue, annual
                                              covercrops,
                                              switchgrass,
                                              miscanthus, Energy
                                              cane, Arundo donax, and
                                              Pennisetum purpureum;
                                              cellulosic components
                                              of separated yard
                                              waste; cellulosic
                                              components of separated
                                              food waste; and
                                              cellulosic components
                                              of separated MSW.
L Cellulosic diesel, jet fuel and heating    Cellulosic Biomass from   Any......................               7
 oil.                                         crop residue, slash,
                                              pre-commercial
                                              thinnings and tree
                                              residue, annual
                                              covercrops,
                                              switchgrass,
                                              miscanthus, energy
                                              cane, Arundo donax, and
                                              Pennisetum purpureum;
                                              cellulosic components
                                              of separated yard
                                              waste; cellulosic
                                              components of separated
                                              food waste; and
                                              cellulosic components
                                              of separated MSW.

                                                  * * * * * * *
N Naphtha..................................  Cellulosic biomass from   Gasification and                        3
                                              switchgrass,              upgrading.
                                              miscanthus, energy
                                              cane, Arundo donax, and
                                              Pennisetum purpureum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (14) A producer or importer of renewable fuel using giant reed
(Arundo donax) or napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) as a feedstock
may generate RINs for that renewable fuel if:
    (i) The feedstock is produced, managed, transported, collected,
monitored, and processed according to a Risk Mitigation Plan approved
by EPA under the registration procedures specified in Sec.
80.1450(b)(1)(x)(A); or,
    (ii) EPA has determined that there is not a significant likelihood
of spread beyond the planting area of the feedstock used for production
of the renewable fuel. Any determination that Arundo donax or
Pennisetum purpureum does not present a significant likelihood of
spread beyond the planting area must be based upon clear and compelling
evidence, including information and supporting data submitted by the
producer. Such a determination must be made by EPA as specified in
Sec.  80.1450(b)(1)(x)(B).
* * * * *

0
3. Section 80.1450 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(1)(x) to read as
follows:

Sec.  80.1450  What are the registration requirements under the RFS
program?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (x)(A) For a producer of renewable fuel made from Arundo donax or
Pennisetum purpureum per Sec.  80.1426(f)(14)(i):
    (1) A Risk Mitigation Plan (Plan) that demonstrates the growth of
Arundo donax or Pennisetum purpureum will not pose a significant
likelihood of spread beyond the planting area of the feedstock used for
production of the renewable fuel. The Plan must identify and
incorporate best management practices (BMPs) into the production,
management, transport, collection, monitoring, and processing of the
feedstock. To the extent practicable, the Risk Mitigation Plan should
utilize a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) approach to
examine each phase of the pathway to identify spread reduction steps.
BMPs should include the development of mitigation strategies and plans
to minimize escape and other impacts (e.g., minimize soil disturbance),
incorporate desirable traits (e.g., sterility or reduced seed
production), develop and implement dispersal mitigation protocols prior
to cultivation, develop multiple year eradication controls. Eradication
controls should follow an approach of early detection and rapid
response (EDRR) to unintended spread. EDRR efforts should demonstrate
the likelihood that invasions will be halted while still localized and
identify and employ cooperative networks, communication forums, and
consultation processes with federal, state, and local agencies. The
Risk Mitigation Plan must provide for the following:
    (i) Monitoring and reporting data for a period prior to planting
that is sufficient to establish a baseline, through crop production,
and extending beyond crop production for a sufficient period after the
field is no longer used for feedstock production to ensure no remnants
of giant reed or napier grass survive or spread.
    (ii) Monitoring must include the area encompassing the feedstock
growing areas, the transportation corridor between the growing areas
and the renewable fuel production facility, and the renewable fuel
production facility, extending to the distance of potential propagation
of the feedstock species, or further if necessary.
    (iii) Monitoring must reflect the likelihood of spread specific to
the feedstock.
    (iv) A closure plan providing for the destruction and removal of
feedstock from the growing area upon abandonment by the feedstock
grower or end of production.
    (v) A plan providing for an independent third party who will audit
the monitoring and reporting conducted in accordance with the Plan on
an annual basis, subject to approval of a different frequency by EPA.
    (2) A letter from the United States Department of Agriculture
(``USDA'') to the renewable fuel producer stating USDA's conclusions
and the bases therefore regarding whether the Arundo donax or
Pennisetum purpureum does or does not present a significant likelihood
of spread beyond the

planting area of the feedstock used for production of the renewable
fuel as proposed by the producer. This letter shall also include USDA's
recommendation of whether it is appropriate to require the use of a
financial mechanism to ensure the availability of financial resources
sufficient to cover reasonable potential remediation costs associated
with the invasive spread of giant reed or napier grass beyond the
intended planting areas. In coordination with USDA, EPA shall identify
for the producer the appropriate USDA office from which the letter
should originate.
    (3) Identification of all federal, state, regional, and local
requirements related to invasive species that are applicable for the
feedstock at the growing site and at all points between the growing
site and the fuel production site.
    (4) A copy of all state and local growing permits held by the
feedstock grower.
    (5) A communication plan for notifying EPA's Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, USDA, adjacent federal land management
agencies, and any relevant state, tribal, regional, and local
authorities as soon as possible after identification of the issue if
the feedstock is detected outside planted area.
    (6) A copy of the agreement between the feedstock grower and fuel
producer establishing all rights and duties of the parties related to
the Risk Mitigation Plan and any other activities and liability
associated with the prevention of the spread of Arundo donax and/or
Pennisetum purpureum outside of the intended planting area.
    (7) A copy of the agreement between the fuel producer and an
independent third party describing how the third party will audit the
monitoring and reporting conducted in accordance with the Risk
Mitigation Plan on an annual basis, subject to approval of a different
timeframe by EPA.
    (8) Information on the financial resources or other financial
mechanism (such as a state-administered fund, bond, or certificate of
deposit) that would be available to finance reasonable remediation
activities associated with the potential spread of giant reed or napier
grass beyond the intended planting areas, and information on whether it
is necessary to have any further such resources or mechanism. EPA may
require a demonstration that there is an adequate financial mechanism
(such as a state-administered fund, bond, or certificate of deposit) to
ensure the availability of financial resources sufficient to cover
reasonable potential remediation costs associated with the spread of
giant reed or napier grass beyond the intended planting areas.
    (9) EPA may require additional information as appropriate.
    (B) For a producer of renewable fuel made from Arundo donax or
Pennisetum purpureum per Sec.  80.1426(f)(14)(ii):
    (1) Clear and compelling evidence, including information and
supporting data, demonstrating that Arundo donax or Pennisetum
purpureum does not present a significant likelihood of spread beyond
the planting area of the feedstock used for production of the renewable
fuel. Evidence must include data collected from similar environments
(soils, temperatures, precipitation, USDA Hardiness Zones) as the
proposed feedstock production project site and accepted by the
scientific community. Such a demonstration should include consideration
of the elements of a Risk Mitigation Plan set forth in paragraph
(b)(1)(x)(A) of this section, fully disclose the potential invasiveness
of the feedstock, provide a closure plan for the destruction and
removal of feedstock from the growing area upon abandonment by the
feedstock grower or end of production, and explain why a Risk
Mitigation Plan is not needed to make the required determination.
    (2) A letter from the United States Department of Agriculture
(``USDA'') to the renewable fuel producer stating USDA's conclusions
and the bases therefore regarding whether the Arundo donax or
Pennisetum purpureum does or does not present a significant likelihood
of spread beyond the planting area of the feedstock used for production
of the renewable fuel as proposed by the producer or importer. In
coordination with USDA, EPA shall identify for the producer the
appropriate USDA office from which the letter should originate.
    (C) EPA may suspend a producer's registration for purposes of
generating RINs for renewable fuel using Arundo donax or Pennisetum
purpureum as a feedstock if such feedstock has spread beyond the
intended planting area.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 80.1451 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:

Sec.  80.1451  What are the reporting requirements under the RFS
program?

* * * * *
    (h) Producers or importers of renewable fuel made from Arundo donax
or Pennisetum purpureum per Sec.  80.1426(f)(14) must report all the
following:
    (1) Any detected growth of Arundo donax or Pennisetum purpureum
outside the intended planting area, within 5 business days after
detection and in accordance with the Risk Mitigation Plan, if
applicable.
    (2) As available, any updated information related to the Risk
Mitigation Plan, as applicable. An updated Risk Mitigation Plan must be
approved by the Administrator in consultation with USDA prior to its
implementation.
    (3) On an annual basis, a description of and maps or electronic
data showing the average and total size and prior use of lands planted
with Arundo donax or Pennisetum purpureum, the average and total size
and prior use of lands set aside to control the invasive spread of
these crops, and a description and explanation of any change in land
use from the previous year. (4) On an annual basis, the report from an
independent third party auditor evaluating monitoring and reporting
activities conducted in accordance with the Risk Mitigation Plan, as
applicable subject to approval of a different frequency by EPA.
    (5) Information submitted pursuant to paragraphs (h)(3) and (h)(4)
of this section must be submitted as part of the producer or importer's
fourth quarterly report, which covers the reporting period October-
December, according to the schedule in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section.

0
5. Section 80.1454 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(7) to read as
follows:

Sec.  80.1454  What are the recordkeeping requirements under the RFS
program?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) For any producer of renewable fuel made from Arundo donax or
Pennisetum purpureum per Sec.  80.1426(f)(14), all the following:
    (i) Records related to all requirements and duties set forth in the
registration documents described in Sec.  80.1450(b)(1)(x)(A),
including but not limited to the Risk Mitigation Plan, monitoring
records and reports, and adherence to state, local and federal invasive
species requirements and permits.
    (ii) Records associated with feedstock purchases and transfers that
identify where the feedstocks were produced and are sufficient to
verify that feedstocks used were produced and transported in accordance
with an EPA approved Risk Mitigation Plan or were produced on land that
the EPA determined does not present a significant likelihood of
invasive spread

beyond the planting area of the feedstock used for production of the
renewable fuel, including all the following:
    (A) Maps or electronic data identifying the boundaries of the land
where each type of feedstock was produced.
    (B) Bills of lading, product transfer documents, or other
commercial documents showing the quantity of feedstock purchased from
each area identified above, and showing each transfer of custody of the
feedstock from the location where it was produced to the renewable fuel
production facility.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-16488 Filed 7-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P