\196\ See the NAAQS for Ozone (80 FR 65292, 65302-65340, October
26, 2015).
    \197\ See 80 FR 65470 (October 26, 2015). A more detailed
discussion of the health and welfare effects of these pollutants can
be found in the final rules for the NAAQS for Ozone (80 FR 65292,
65302-65340, October 26, 2015), NAAQS for PM (78 FR 3087, January
15, 2013), and their ISAs, which are available at https://www.epa.gov/isa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Natural gasoline can have high benzene content, potentially
resulting in high levels of benzene in EFF. The EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) database lists benzene as a known human
carcinogen.\198\ Benzene causes leukemia by all routes of exposure, and
exposure is associated with additional health effects, including
genetic changes in both humans and animals and increased proliferation
of bone marrow cells in mice.\199\ A number of adverse noncancer health
effects including blood disorders, such as pre leukemia and aplastic
anemia, have also been associated with long-term exposure to
benzene.\200\ We believe that the EFF benzene standard, when finalized,
will limit benzene exhaust and evaporative emissions from FFVs that are
fueled by EFF. In addition, it will limit evaporative benzene emissions
from EFF distribution systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ U.S. EPA, ``Toxicological Review of Benzene (Noncancer
Effects),'' EPA/635/R-02/001F, at 22.
    \199\ Id. at 72, 108. See also, U.S. EPA, ``Integrated Risk
Information System Chemical Assessment Summary: Benzene,'' at
Section II, https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0276_summary.pdf.
    \200\ U.S. EPA, ``Toxicological Review of Benzene (Noncancer
Effects).'' EPA/635/R-02/001F. See also, Aksoy, M. (1989).
``Hematotoxicity and carcinogenicity of benzene.'' Environ. Health
Perspect. 82: 193-197; See also, Goldstein, B.D. (1988). ``Benzene
toxicity.'' Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 541-
554.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, we are proposing that emission products of EFF will
endanger public health and welfare. FFVs represent more than 6 percent
of the current vehicle fleet and approximately 25 percent of new light
duty vehicles produced in 2014. Given that FFVs tend to be newer
vehicles that are driven more than older vehicles, FFVs account for
nearly 8 percent of all light duty vehicle miles traveled in 2015.\201\
Thus, we believe that control of sulfur, benzene, and RVP in EFF will
lead to significant effective reductions in emissions of these air
pollutants and thus, benefits to public health and welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ EIA, ``2015 Annual Energy Outlook,'' http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to adopting a fuel control based on a finding that the fuel's
emission products contribute to air pollution that can reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, under CAA section
211(c)(2)(A), the EPA must consider ``all relevant medical and
scientific evidence available, including consideration of other
technologically or economically feasible means of achieving emission
standards under [section 202 of the CAA].'' The EPA has considered
medical and scientific evidence as well as other technologically or
economically feasible means of achieving emissions control using
vehicle controls. The EPA's analysis of the medical and scientific
evidence relating to the emissions impact from EFF is described in more
detail in various documents cited earlier, including the MSAT rule, and
the Ozone and PM NAAQS final rules and their associated Integrated
Science Assessments (ISAs). The EPA has also satisfied the statutory
requirement to consider ``other technologically or economically
feasible means of achieving emission standards under [section 202 of
the CAA].'' This provision has been interpreted as requiring
consideration of establishing emission standards under CAA section 202
prior to establishing controls or prohibitions on fuels or fuel
additives under CAA section 211(c)(1)(A).\202\ In Ethyl Corp. v. EPA,
the court stated that CAA section 211(c)(2)(A) calls for good faith
consideration of the evidence and options, not for mandatory deference
to regulation under CAA section 202 compared to fuel controls.\203\ As
a general matter, under Title II of the CAA, the EPA has adopted a
systems-approach towards mobile source standard setting (i.e., the
simultaneous promulgation of both engine and fuels requirements, under
CAA sections 202 and 211(c)). In so doing, the EPA considers
interactions between the designs of vehicles and the fuels they use in
order to assure optimum emission performance at minimum cost. The EPA
has previously promulgated various emissions standards for FFVs and FFV
engines under CAA section 202. These include the 2007 MSAT evaporative
emission standards applicable to diurnal and hot soak emissions for
FFVs that became fully effective in 2014 and more recently the Tier 3
final rule.\204\ In the Tier 3 rule, the EPA proposed both fuel quality
and emissions standards for FFVs but only finalized vehicle and engine
standards and certification fuel.\205\ As previously explained,
emissions certification testing of FFVs is required using both the test
fuel specified for conventional gasoline vehicles and a high ethanol
content FFV test fuel (E83). Regulatory specifications for conventional
gasoline emissions certification test fuel have long existed.\206\
Regulatory specifications for the high-ethanol content FFV
certification test fuel were finalized in the Tier 3 final rule and
will become mandatory for MY 2017 FFVs.\207\ As previously explained,
EFF must be substantially similar to vehicle certification fuel, under
CAA section 211(f).\208\ These proposed standards for EFF, which expand
on the Tier 3 proposal, will therefore restrict sulfur, benzene, and
RVP content in EFF and enable compliance with the MSAT benzene
evaporative standards as well as Tier 3 emission standards for FFVs
that were based on use of advanced emission control technology now in-
use by FFVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ See Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d. 1, 31-32 (D.C. Cir.
1976).
    \203\ Id. at 32, n.66.
    \204\ See 72 FR 8473 (February 26, 2007) and 79 FR 23414 (April
28, 2014).
    \205\ See 79 FR 23558 (April 28, 2014).
    \206\ See, e.g., ``The effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on
Emissions form Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet,'' EPA-420-R-14-
002. See also, Durbin, T. ``The effect of fuel sulfur on
NH3 and other emissions from 2000-2001 model year
vehicles.'' Atmospheric Environment 38, 2699 (2004).
    \207\ See 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014) and 40 CFR 1065.725.
    \208\ See 40 CFR 1801-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Section 211(c)(1)(B)
    We are also proposing requirements for sulfur content in EFF and
RVP limits for EFF under the second criterion of CAA section 211(c). We
believe that sulfur in EFF could significantly impair the emission-
control systems expected to be in general use in FFVs and FFV engines.
There are well documented studies on the impact of sulfur on emissions
control performance of exhaust catalyst systems.\209\ Sulfur is a well-
known catalyst poison because it inhibits and degrades the emissions
control performance of exhaust catalyst systems by selectively binding
and reacting, in some instances, with active sites and coating
materials.\210\ As a general matter, reducing fuel sulfur levels has
been the primary regulatory mechanism to minimize sulfur contamination
of the catalyst and ensure optimum emissions performance over the
useful life of a vehicle. As also explained in the Tier 3 final rule,
the impact of sulfur poisoning on exhaust catalyst performance and the
relative stringency of the Tier 3 exhaust emissions standards, when
considered together make a compelling argument for the virtual
elimination of sulfur from

fuel used in vehicles equipped with catalytic aftertreatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ See the Tier 3 final rule, 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014).
    \210\ Nat'l Petrochemical & Refiners Ass'n v. EPA, 287 F.3d
1130, 1143 (D.C. Cir. 2002); See also section IV.6 of the Tier 3
final rule preamble, which describes the substantial adverse effect
of high gasoline sulfur levels on emission control devices or
systems for Tier 3 vehicles and engines (79 FR 23463-23474, April
28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently no specifications in 40 CFR part 80 for natural
gasoline used as an EFF blendstock that would ensure that the resulting
EFF is suitable for use in FFVs. Additionally, natural gasoline can
have high sulfur content, potentially resulting in high levels of these
harmful components in EFF that could impair the performance of FFV
emissions control catalysts. As also previously explained, the EPA set
vehicle and engines standards, under CAA section 202, in the recent
Tier 3 rule that relied on sulfur reduction in gasoline. FFVs utilize
the same aftertreatment catalysts as gasoline vehicles, which are
adversely affected by sulfur in EFF in the same way as sulfur in
gasoline. Therefore, we believe that control of sulfur in EFF to 10 ppm
(the same as sulfur in gasoline) will significantly improve the
efficiency of emissions control systems currently in use in FFVs and
continue prevention of the substantial adverse effects of sulfur levels
on the performance of such emissions control systems when they operate
on any fuel.
    We also believe that high RVP levels in EFF could impair FFV
evaporative emissions control systems. FFVs are equipped with
evaporative canisters similar to conventional gasoline vehicles. These
canisters have limited storage abilities and fuel vapors must be
``purged'' each time the engine is operated. FFVs with properly
designed evaporative control systems are equipped with purging systems
that remove enough vapor as well as control fuel flow rates so that
purged vapor does not increase emissions. They are also designed to
regenerate their vapor storage capacity so that vapor can continue to
be controlled. However, when FFVs are operated on EFF with RVP levels
above the test fuels used during FFV certification the evaporative
canisters on FFVs can be overloaded resulting in excessive evaporative
emissions. Therefore, we believe that the RVP of EFF must be controlled
to ensure that FFVs are not subjected to EFF that exceeds the RVP of
test fuels used during FFV certification.
    CAA section 211(c)(2)(B) requires that, prior to adopting a fuel
control based on a significant impairment to vehicle emission-control
systems, the EPA consider available scientific and economic data,
including a cost benefit analysis comparing emission-control devices or
systems which are or will be in general use that require the proposed
fuel control with such devices or systems which are or will be in
general use that do not require the proposed fuel control. As
previously explained, there are existing emissions standards for FFVs
and FFV engines under CAA section 202, including the MSAT evaporative
emission standards applicable to diurnal and hot soak emissions for
FFVs,\211\ and more recently the Tier 3 final rule.\212\ For these
purposes, the EPA is relying on the Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs)
for the Tier 3 rule and 2007 MSAT rule.\213\ We believe that the
emissions control technology being used to meet these existing
standards would be significantly impaired by operation on EFF with
annual average sulfur levels greater than 10 ppm and current RVP
levels. Our analysis of the available scientific and economic data can
also be found in the Tier 3 RIA. The EPA is relying on the detailed
analysis of the environmental benefits of the Tier 3 sulfur standards
(Chapters 6 and 8), the analysis of the technological feasibility and
cost of controlling sulfur to the levels established in the Tier 3
final rule (Chapters 4 and 5), and the cost-effectiveness analysis of
the sulfur control and motor vehicle and engine emission standards
(Chapter 8). These EFF requirements, when finalized, will ensure that
emission control devices available for general use in FFVs can continue
to meet existing emission standards and would not be significantly
impaired by EFF with current sulfur and RVP levels, as well as when EFF
is made with natural gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ See 72 FR 8473 (February 26, 2007).
    \212\ See 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014).
    \213\ The Tier 3 RIA is available at https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/documents/tier3/420r14005.pdf and the MSAT RIA is available at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0036-
1168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Section 211(c)(2)(C)
    CAA section 211(c)(2)(C) requires that prior to prohibiting a fuel
or fuel additive, the EPA must make a finding that such prohibition
will not cause the use of another fuel or fuel additive ``which will
produce emissions which endanger the public health or welfare to the
same or greater degree'' than the prohibited fuel or additive. This
finding is required by the CAA only prior to prohibiting a fuel or
additive, not prior to controlling a fuel or additive.\214\ Since the
EPA is not proposing to prohibit use of sulfur, benzene, or RVP, but
rather controlling their levels in EFF, this finding is not required
for this proposed rulemaking. Nevertheless, the EPA does not believe
that these various controls for EFF will result in the use of any other
fuel or additive that will produce emissions that will endanger public
health or welfare to the same or greater degree as the emissions
produced by EFF with their current levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ See Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d. at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Section 211(f)
    The EPA is also proposing to regulate the elemental composition of
EFF, as we believe that elements that poison (deactivate) vehicle
emissions control catalysts such as anions or cations (e.g., metals)
can exist naturally in petroleum deposits or can be added in the
process of extracting such deposits. They can also become entrained in
either petroleum or ethanol products through contamination or could
purposefully be added to a fuel. As a result, the EPA limited the
elemental content for gasoline and gasoline additives to CHONS.\215\
Refiners are required to limit the elemental composition of the
gasoline they produce to CHONS, except for trace quantities of other
atypical elements. We are proposing to regulate EFF to consist only of
CHONS in the same fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ See 46 FR 38582 (July 28, 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As also previously explained, there are currently no specifications
in 40 CFR part 80 on the quality of natural gasoline used as EFF
blendstock that would ensure that the resulting EFF is suitable for use
in FFVs. Were natural gasoline used in EFF to contain non-CHONS
elements (e.g., metals and salts), either naturally or through
addition, it could also quickly destroy the effectiveness of FFV
emissions control catalysts. Thus, significant concern exists about the
potential increase in FFV emissions that might result from the
unregulated use of natural gasoline of uncontrolled quality as an EFF
blendstock. Additionally, other components of EFF (e.g., ethanol and
additives) can also contain non-CHONS elements that can adversely
affect FFV emissions control catalysts. We are also concerned about the
non-CHONS content of these components and the resulting effect on
emissions from FFVs.
    CAA section 211(f) requires fuel and fuel additives introduced into
commerce to be ``substantially similar'' to fuels or fuel additives
used in certification. This requirement applies to all fuels used in
motor vehicles, including FFVs. The term ``substantially similar'' is
not defined in the CAA and has been interpreted and historically used
to regulate the elemental content, molecular structure, and total
concentration of fuel and fuel

additives.\216\ Current emissions certification testing for FFVs is
required using both the test fuel specified for conventional gasoline
vehicles (E10, starting in MY 2017 vehicles) and a high ethanol content
FFV test fuel (E83). Regulatory specifications for conventional
gasoline emissions certification testing have long existed to ensure
that atypical elements are not present. Regulatory specifications for
the ethanol gasoline blends certification test fuel were finalized in
the Tier 3 final rule and will become mandatory for MY 2017 FFVs.\217\
Regulatory specifications were also set for the certification fuel for
gasoline (E10) in the Tier 3 final rule and will also become mandatory
of MY 2017 FFVs. These regulations ensure that FFV exhaust emissions
test fuel is composed only of CHONS. Thus, in order for EFF to meet the
statutory requirement in CAA section 211(f), it must consist only of
CHONS, as is the case for the gasoline and FFV certification test fuels
that are used in vehicle testing. That fuels introduced into commerce
be CHONS is fundamental to the EPA's understanding of ``substantially
similar'' as it relates to both certification fuels for FFVs (i.e., E85
and E10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ See, e.g., 73 FR 22277 (April 25, 2008), 56 FR 5352
(February 11, 1991), and 46 FR 38582 (July 28, 1981).
    \217\ See 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014) and 40 CFR 1065.725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing regulations under CAA section 211(f) that limit
elemental composition of EFF to CHONS. We are proposing that parties
must demonstrate the elemental composition of EFF using our authority
under CAA sections 114 and 208 to establish and maintain records, and
make reports.

V. CCS Implementation Under the RFS Program

A. Background

    CCS is a potentially important technology for reducing GHG
emissions from stationary sources. As described in the final standards
of performance for GHG emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed
electric utility generating units (``NSPS for EGUs''), it is important
to promote deployment and further development of CCS technologies that
allow for meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions from fossil
fuel-fired utility boilers.\218\ In that rulemaking, the EPA found that
partial CCS has been adequately demonstrated, is technically feasible,
and can be implemented at reasonable costs.\219\ The rulemaking also
found that partial CCS provides meaningful emission reductions and its
implementation will serve to promote further development and deployment
of the technology.\220\ We believe that allowing CCS as a technology
for reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for renewable fuels under the RFS
program would complement the NSPS for EGUs by providing another
opportunity for the deployment of this important GHG reduction
technology. CCS can also enhance the RFS program by allowing an
additional mechanism for renewable fuel producers to significantly
reduce their lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the production of
renewable fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ See 80 FR 64548 (October 23, 2015).
    \219\ See 80 FR 64548, 64558 (October 23, 2015).
    \220\ See 80 FR 64513 (October 23, 2015). In the NSPS for EGUs,
partial CCS refers to CCS with capture of a level of CO2
emissions lower than 90 percent. To meet the final standard of
performance of 1,400 lb CO2/MWh, a new, highly efficient
steam generating EGU would need to capture and store approximately
20 percent of its potential CO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has received petitions under the RFS program to apply CCS
to reduce the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with ethanol produced
as renewable fuel.\221\ Under such a process, a renewable fuel producer
would capture, treat, and compress CO2 produced from the
ethanol fermentation process. The captured CO2 stream \222\
would be transported and injected deep underground for geologic
sequestration (GS), the long-term containment of CO2 in
subsurface geologic formations such as deep saline formations or oil
and gas reservoirs.\223\ The capture and geologic sequestration of the
CO2 generated from ethanol fermentation could substantially
reduce the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the production of
renewable fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ The petitions have been received pursuant to 40 CFR
80.1416. See https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/pending-petitions-renewable-fuel-pathways for a list of petitions.
    \222\ The EPA's GHG Reporting Program defines CO2
stream as CO2 that has been captured from an emission
source (e.g., a power plant or other industrial facility) or
extracted from a CO2 production well plus incidental
associated substances either derived from the source materials and
the capture process or extracted with the CO2. See 40 CFR
98.6. In referring to captured CO2, this proposal
generally uses the terms ``CO2'' and ``CO2
stream'' interchangeably.
    \223\ The petitioners have indicated for purposes of their
application that the geologic sequestration of delivered
CO2 would be part of EOR operations, such that the
CO2 would be utilized for oil or gas extraction before
ultimately being geologically stored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action we are proposing registration, recordkeeping,
reporting, and RIN generation requirements that the EPA would use if we
were to allow CCS as a lifecycle GHG emissions reduction technology in
the context of the RFS program. At this time, the EPA is not proposing
to add a generally applicable CCS technology to an approved pathway in
Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426, but instead will evaluate, on an individual
basis, petitions that are received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 that
propose to use CCS. In this action we are proposing regulations that
would generally govern the use of CCS if and when such a pathway is
approved. Were a renewable fuel pathway involving use of CCS to be
created in the future, use of the pathway in the context of the RFS
program would remain voluntary and all other applicable existing RFS
regulations would apply.\224\ As discussed below, this proposal relies
substantially on other relevant EPA regulatory programs already in
place concerning the disposition of captured CO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ The RFS regulations at 40 CFR 80.1401 define advanced
biofuel as ``renewable fuel, other than ethanol derived from
cornstarch, that has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are at
least 50 percent less than baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions.'' Based on this definition, a future renewable fuel
pathway using CCS to produce ethanol as an advanced biofuel could
not use cornstarch as a feedstock, but could potentially use other
feedstocks (e.g., grain sorghum or barley).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Existing Regulatory Frameworks Related to CCS

    The EPA has already developed an effective and coherent regulatory
framework to ensure the long-term, secure, and safe storage of large
volumes of CO2. This includes air-side monitoring and
reporting requirements promulgated under the CAA through the GHG
Reporting Program (GHGRP) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program requirements that regulate
the underground injection of fluids \225\ in a manner that ensures
protection of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs).\226\
Together, the requirements of the GHGRP and the UIC Program provide a
regulatory framework that addresses the injection and geologic
sequestration of CO2, and provide the monitoring mechanisms
to identify and address potential leakage. This proposal

builds upon these existing regulatory frameworks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ The EPA's UIC regulations define the term fluid to include
any material or substance which flows or moves whether in a
semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or any other form or state. See 40
CFR 146.3.
    \226\ The EPA's UIC regulations define USDW as an aquifer or its
portion: (a)(1) Which supplies any public water system; or (2) Which
contains a sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a public
water system; and (i) Currently supplies drinking water for human
consumption; or (ii) Contains fewer than 10,000 mg/l total dissolved
solids; and (b) Which is not an exempted aquifer. See 40 CFR 144.3.
For more information, see https://www.epa.gov/uic/general-information-about-injection-wells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The UIC Program is designed to ensure that injected CO2
remains isolated from USDWs. The UIC Program regulates the injection of
fluids through six categories of injection wells (i.e., Classes I
through VI). Class II wells are used to inject fluids associated with
oil and natural gas production activities, including CO2
injection for enhanced oil or gas recovery (EOR). Class II requirements
address site characterization, area of review, well construction (e.g.,
casing and cementing), well operation (e.g., injection pressure),
injectate sampling, mechanical integrity testing, plugging and
abandonment, financial responsibility, and reporting. Class VI wells
are used to inject CO2 for geologic sequestration.\227\ The
Class VI requirements address comprehensive site characterization and
project area delineation, computational modeling of the area of review,
financial responsibility, reporting and recordkeeping, injection well
construction, operation and permitting, testing and monitoring (e.g.,
of the well and project area), post-injection site care, and site
closure.\228\ These requirements are built upon decades of experience
regulating underground injection wells and help ensure the safe and
secure sequestration of large volumes of CO2 for long term
containment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ CO2 that is injected into oil and gas
reservoirs for the primary purpose of enhancing the recovery of oil
or gas (ER) are regulated as Class II enhanced recovery wells under
the UIC Program. Transitions to a Class VI permit would be
considered if the purpose of the injection activity changes from oil
or gas production, or if the risk of endangerment to USDWs is likely
to increase and cannot be addressed by the Class II UIC Program.
    \228\ For a summary of the UIC Program and more details on the
UIC Class VI Rule finalized in December 2010, see the UIC Geologic
Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide Web site at https://www.epa.gov/uic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40 CFR part 98, subpart RR, of the GHGRP establishes an accounting
framework for the geologic sequestration of CO2, including
monitoring and reporting requirements.\229\ The NSPS for EGUs
specifically requires that any affected EGU that captures
CO2 to meet the applicable emissions limit must transfer the
captured CO2 to a facility that reports under the GHGRP, 40
CFR part 98, subpart RR.\230\ Under subpart RR, facilities must: Report
basic information on the amount of CO2 received for
injection; develop and implement an EPA-approved monitoring, reporting,
and verification (MRV) plan; and report the amount of CO2
sequestered using a mass balance approach and annual monitoring
activities.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ More information on the relationship between the 40 CFR
part 98, subpart RR, of the GHGRP, and the UIC program can be found
in the preamble to subpart RR (75 FR 75060, December 1, 2010) and
the preamble to the UIC Class VI Final Rule (75 FR 77230, December
10, 2010).
    \230\ See 40 CFR 60.5555(f). Any affected unit that captures
CO2 to meet the applicable emissions limit must report,
under 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR, if the captured CO2 is
injected onsite. If the captured CO2 is sent offsite,
there is a requirement that the captured CO2 that the
permittee sends offsite of the EGU facility is transferred to an
entity that is subject to the requirements of subpart RR.
    \231\ See 40 CFR 98.446(a)(1), 40 CFR 98.446(b)(4), 40 CFR
98.448, 40 CFR 98.446(f)(9) and (10), and 40 CFR 98.446(f)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of this proposed rulemaking, a facility is
conducting geologic sequestration if it is reporting under 40 CFR part
98, subpart RR.\232\ The facility may hold either a Class II or Class
VI permit.\233\ The petitions that EPA has received to date under
80.1416 requesting EPA evaluation of renewable fuel production pathways
using CCS have stated that the geologic sequestration of CO2
would be part of EOR operations before ultimately being geologically
sequestered.\234\ The following sections discuss proposed requirements
that the EPA would use if we were to allow CCS as a lifecycle GHG
emissions reduction technology in the context of the RFS program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ Pursuant to 40 CFR 98.440(a), ``[t]he geologic
sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) source category
comprises any well or group of wells that inject a CO2
stream for long-term containment in subsurface geologic
formations.''
    \233\ Pursuant to 40 CFR 98.440(c), ``[t]his source category
does not include a well or group of wells where a CO2
stream is being injected in subsurface geologic formations to
enhance the recovery of oil or natural gas unless one of the
following applies: (1) The owner or operator injects the
CO2 stream for long-term containment in surface geologic
formations and has chosen to submit a proposed monitoring,
reporting, and verification (MRV) plan to EPA and received an
approved plan from EPA (2) [t]he well is permitted as Class VI under
the Underground Injection Control program.''
    \234\ The petitions have been received pursuant to 40 CFR
80.1416. See https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/pending-petitions-renewable-fuel-pathways for a list of petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Requirements for Use of CCS in Renewable Fuel Production

    This rulemaking proposes and seeks comment on a series of
registration, recordkeeping, reporting, and additional requirements
associated with the use of CCS as a lifecycle GHG emissions reduction
technology in the context of the RFS program. The proposed requirements
would apply only to renewable fuel producers that seek to achieve the
GHG reductions necessary to qualify for a given renewable fuel pathway
by using CCS as part of the renewable fuel production process. By
building on the foundation established in the GHGRP and UIC Program,
this proposal seeks to contribute to a consistent approach across the
EPA for facilities that use CCS. It is important to note that in this
action the EPA specifically seeks comment only on the proposed
requirements for use of CCS as part of the RFS program. This proposed
action is not seeking comments on the recently finalized NSPS for EGUs,
nor does it seek comment on any of the requirements under the UIC
Program or the GHGRP. Any such comments that are submitted on those
programs will be considered beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Furthermore, EPA is not proposing to consider use of CCS in any
particular application in the RFS program at this time, and any
comments suggesting its application in particular renewable fuel
production pathways will also be considered beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
1. Registration
    A renewable fuel producer seeking to use a pathway involving CCS
would be required to submit a CCS plan for review and approval by the
EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality as part of the facility
registration requirements under 40 CFR 80.1450. The CCS plan would
contain fundamental information regarding various elements of a given
CCS project, including information related to sequestration processes
and energy usage. This information is needed for the EPA to determine
the amount of geologically sequestered CO2 that should be
considered credited for purposes of lifecycle GHG emissions. The CCS
plan would also include a contract or contracts between the renewable
fuel producer (supplier of the CO2 stream) and the
designated sequestration facility (if not the same entity).
    The EPA is proposing that the CCS plan the renewable fuel producer
submits at registration would contain the following information:
    1. A statement of affirmation by the sequestration facility that
the sequestration facility will inject CO2 captured from the
renewable fuel production process in accordance with an MRV plan
developed pursuant to 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ Submission of registration materials under the RFS program
pursuant to 80.1450 and review of an MRV plan pursuant to 40 CFR
98.448 may occur concurrently. The MRV plan must be approved prior
to approval of registration under the RFS program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. A statement of affirmation by the renewable fuel producer using
a method approved by EPA--as part of the

response to a petition pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416--that lifecycle GHG
emissions associated with renewable fuel produced are no greater than a
specified threshold lifecycle GHG emissions value. We expect that the
lifecycle GHG emissions value would be calculated according to the
method discussed in the technical support document available in the
docket for this action. The EPA seeks comment on this method.
    3. If the CO2 is or will be transferred offsite to a
sequestration facility, a contract or contracts between the renewable
fuel producer and sequestration facility and any intermediate or
necessary parties demonstrating:
    a. The sale or transfer of CO2 from the renewable fuel
producer to the sequestration facility.
    b. The duty of the sequestration facility to inject the
CO2 for geologic sequestration.
    c. The geologic sequestration facility's duty to notify the
renewable fuel producer of CO2 surface leaks within 24 hours
of detection.
    d. Acknowledgement of the geologic sequestration facility's duty to
help the renewable fuel producer develop a remediation plan within 30
days of the EPA being notified by the renewable fuel producer of a
surface leak, providing information related to the date(s) the surface
leak occurred, the GHGRP facility identification number of the geologic
sequestration facility, a detailed description of how the leak
occurred, the amount of CO2 that leaked, and a description
of plans by the sequestration facility to remediate the leak. The
remediation plan would need to be submitted to the EPA within 30 days
of the EPA being notified by the renewable fuel producer of the surface
leak.
    e. Acknowledgement of the geologic sequestration facility's duty to
notify the renewable fuel producer within 30 days of its annual
submission to the EPA of all reports required pursuant to 40 CFR part
98 subpart RR.
    f. Acknowledgement of the geologic sequestration facility's duty to
notify the renewable fuel producer if the sequestration facility
submits a request pursuant to 40 CFR 98.441 for discontinuation of
reporting under 40 CFR part 98 subpart RR or ends sequestration
operations.
    g. Acknowledgement of the geologic sequestration facility's duty to
retain, for at least five years, all records required by the applicable
provisions of the UIC program under 40 CFR part 146, subpart H, and the
GHGRP pursuant to 40 CFR 98.3.
    In addition to requiring a CCS plan at the time of registration,
the EPA also proposes that the renewable fuel producer must provide a
description of the CO2 capture and sequestration process
and, if the CO2 is transferred to a sequestration facility
after capture, a description of the transfer process of the
CO2 from the renewable fuel production facility to the
sequestration facility. This description would be verified by a third-
party engineer as part of the required engineering review and must
include the mode of transport (e.g., whether CO2 is
transferred by pipeline or by container), as well as the projected
annual quantity of CO2 transferred. The EPA also seeks
comment on what, if any, additional registration requirements are
necessary.
2. Reporting and Recordkeeping
    The proposed requirements associated with use of CCS as part of the
RFS program would rely substantially, but not exclusively, on the
requirements, processes, and methodologies established in the GHGRP and
the UIC Program.
    The sequestration facility injecting CO2 captured from
the renewable fuel production process would submit an MRV plan and
would be required to meet all other applicable requirements under 40
CFR part 98, subpart RR, including all applicable reporting
requirements. Subpart RR provides a mechanism for facilities to account
for the quantity of CO2 sequestered on an annual basis
through a mass balance approach.\236\ Additionally, renewable fuel
producers that capture CO2 in order to sequester it
underground would also be subject to all applicable requirements under
40 CFR part 98, subpart PP, of the GHGRP, which is applicable to
suppliers of CO2. Importantly, under subpart PP,
CO2 suppliers are required to report the annual quantity of
CO2 transferred offsite, and indicate the CO2's
known end use, including geologic sequestration.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ Therefore, renewable fuel producers that achieve the GHG
reductions necessary to qualify for a renewable fuel pathway by
using CCS that are injecting CO2 onsite would be subject
to all applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart
RR. These producers must report to the EPA that onsite injection is
occurring, that they are reporting in accordance with the
requirements of subpart RR, and that no surface leaks occurred
during the appropriate compliance period. If the captured
CO2 is injected offsite, the renewable fuel producer
would not be considered a source category under subpart RR, but the
injecting geologic sequestration facility would be. If the captured
CO2 is injected offsite, we are proposing that at
registration the renewable fuel producer would be required to
demonstrate the injection is occurring offsite and affirm that the
offsite geologic sequestration facility that plans to inject the
CO2 underground will submit a MRV plan and meet all other
applicable requirements under subpart RR.
    \237\ See 40 CFR 98.426. Subpart PP requires suppliers of
CO2 that meet certain applicability requirements to
report CO2 supplied to the economy or injected
underground. This includes facilities with production process units
that capture and supply CO2 for commercial applications
that capture and maintain custody of a CO2 stream in
order to sequester or otherwise inject it underground. Suppliers of
CO2 under subpart PP must keep records on the mass of
CO2 captured from the relevant production processes. Data
from subpart PP includes the amount of CO2 that leaves
the ethanol facility for off-site underground injection and GS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Building on the foundation established by the UIC Program and GHGRP
helps contribute to a consistent and transparent approach for
facilities that use a renewable fuel production pathway involving CCS
under the RFS program. At the same time, we are proposing several
additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements in order to make
sure the emissions reduction requirements of the RFS program are met.
The EPA is proposing that producers of renewable fuel that achieve the
GHG reductions necessary to qualify for a renewable fuel pathway by
using CCS as part of the renewable fuel production process would have
to calculate the lifecycle GHG emission value (LEV) \238\ for each
batch of fuel produced using an EPA-approved method, maintain records
of these calculations, and periodically report these calculations to
the EPA.\239\ The renewable fuel producer would also report the
electronic GHGRP facility identification number of the geologic
sequestration facility and the GHGRP facility identification number of
the renewable fuel facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ The LEV for a given fuel is the GHG emissions as
calculated per Btu of fuel produced.
    \239\ A GHG calculation method is discussed in the memorandum,
``Example Method for Calculating Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Associated with Renewable Fuel Production including Carbon Capture
and Sequestration,'' available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also proposing provisions in keeping with the reporting
termination provisions of 40 CFR 98.441. These provisions establish
that a facility reporting in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR
part 98, subpart RR, must continue to report, ``until the Administrator
has issued a final decision on an [injection well] owner or operator's
request to discontinue reporting [under subpart RR].'' Pursuant to 40
CFR 98.441(b), the facility may discontinue reporting under 40 CFR part
98, subpart RR by making a demonstration that current monitoring and
model(s) show that the injected CO2 stream is not expected
to migrate in the future in a manner likely to result in surface
leakage or, in the case of UIC

Class VI wells, by providing a copy of the applicable UIC Program
Director's authorization of site closure. The EPA proposes that
renewable fuel producers using a pathway involving CCS would be
required to notify the EPA if a participating geologic sequestration
facility has filed a request for discontinuation under 40 CFR 98.441
and must update their RFS registration if the participating geologic
sequestration facility ends sequestration operations or if the
renewable fuel producer intends to sends to CO2 to a
different the geologic sequestration facility.
    The EPA is also proposing that, consistent with existing RFS
requirements, all records associated with the use of CCS under the RFS
program must be kept for five years to be consistent with other RFS
program requirements.\240\ The five-year records retention period is
ubiquitous across the EPA fuels programs and stems from the limitations
on bringing enforcement action for civil cases as described in 28
U.S.C. 2462.\241\ The EPA seeks comment on alternative or additional
reporting, termination of reporting, recordkeeping, and RIN generation
requirements that should be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ See 40 CFR 80.1454(n).
    \241\ 28 U.S.C. 2462 states that ``Except as otherwise provided
by Act of Congress, an action, suit, proceeding for the enforcement
of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise,
shall not be entertained unless commenced within five years from the
date when the claim first accrued[.]''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the petitions the EPA received suggests an alternative
crediting method relating to displacement of naturally occurring
CO2 extracted from domes. The suggested ``displacement
approach'' would consider CO2 from ethanol plants that is
captured and sent offsite for a commercial use (e.g., in beverage
carbonation, EOR \242\) as a co-product of the ethanol production
process that displaces CO2 from other sources. The emissions
that would have occurred from production and use of the displaced
CO2 would then be subtracted (as a credit) from the
lifecycle GHG emissions associated with ethanol production. Under a
displacement approach, the petition asserts that if the CO2
from the ethanol process is used for commercial purposes and replaces
CO2 from geologic reservoirs, it would represent a reduction
in the lifecycle GHG emissions of the ethanol on the basis that
displaced geologic CO2 remains underground and does not
enter the market. The petition further asserts that any surface leakage
that occurs during commercial usage would have happened regardless of
whether the source of the CO2 was from a geologic or ethanol
fermentation source. Under the displacement method, the petition
asserts that it is unnecessary to report or track the CO2
injected for EOR, along with any leakage or recycling during use in
EOR, as long as the renewable fuel facility can demonstrate that they
are displacing carbon that would have otherwise been supplied by a
geologic source.\243\ A report from the National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL) suggests that the market for CO2 is
supply-limited, in flux, and will rely on industrial sources for
expansion, making long-term displacement by fermentation sources
difficult to determine.\244\ The EPA is not proposing this crediting
approach, but seeks comment on its use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \242\ CO2 injected for GS (in the case where EOR is
not occurring) would not be considered under this approach because
no alternative sources of CO2 are displaced.
    \243\ The displacement approach is further discussed in the
memorandum, ``Example Method for Calculating Lifecycle Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Associated with Renewable Fuel Production including
Carbon Capture and Sequestration,'' available in the docket for this
action.
    \244\ ``Near-Term Projections of CO2 Utilization for
Enhanced Oil Recovery,'' DOE/NETL-2014/1648.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. RIN Generation
    The EPA is proposing that a renewable fuel producer using CCS to
achieve the GHG reductions necessary to qualify for a given renewable
fuel pathway can only generate RINs for a batch of renewable fuel if
the lifecycle GHG emissions for the batch are determined to be below
the threshold value for the applicable pathway by a method approved by
the EPA as part of its response to a petition pursuant to 40 CFR
80.1416.\245\ The EPA is also proposing that a renewable fuel producer
using a pathway involving CCS cannot generate RINs in a given calendar
year after the annual GHG report deadline in 40 CFR 98.3 for the
geologic sequestration facility unless the renewable fuel producer has
received verification from the geologic sequestration facility that the
geologic sequestration facility's applicable reporting obligations
under 40 CFR part 80, subpart RR have been satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ An example of a GHG calculation method is discussed in the
memorandum, ``Example Method for Calculating Lifecycle Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Associated with Renewable Fuel Production including
Carbon Capture and Sequestration,'' available in the docket for this
action. Rather than assigning specific emission limits for
individual stages of the CCS process, the example method would use
facility-specific data to calculate a lifecycle GHG emission value
for the renewable fuel produced, which could account for small
amounts of surface leakage and equipment usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Surface Leaks
    We are proposing that a renewable fuel producer using CCS to
achieve the GHG reductions necessary to qualify for a given renewable
fuel pathway could only generate RINs for a batch of renewable fuel if
the calculated lifecycle GHG emissions for the batch are below the
threshold value for the applicable pathway. In the context of using CCS
as a lifecycle GHG emissions reduction technology in the RFS program, a
calculation of lifecycle GHG emissions would consider whether
CO2 emissions through any potential surface leakage \246\
pathways identified in an EPA-approved MRV plan as specified in 40 CFR
98.448 could cause the lifecycle GHG emissions to exceed the threshold
value required for the approved pathway under 40 CFR 80.1416.\247\
While small, sporadic surface leaks may not have a significant impact
on the lifecycle GHG emissions of a fuel, particularly if the GHG
emissions are calculated on a 365 day rolling average, large surface
leaks could significantly increase the lifecycle GHG emissions for
batches of renewable fuels produced using a CCS pathway, which could
potentially preclude RIN generation for those batches. Although the EPA
believes such surface leaks would rarely occur, we are proposing a
series of RIN validation and remediation requirements that would be
applied to potentially invalid RINs (PIRs) generated for renewable fuel
produced using CCS. These proposed requirements would be in addition to
any validation and remediation requirements under the existing RFS
program.\248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ Surface leakage means the movement of the injected
CO2 stream from the injection zone to the surface and
into the atmosphere, indoor air, oceans, or surface water. See 40
CFR 98.449.
    \247\ As discussed above, EPA proposes that at the time of
registration, the renewable fuel producer must demonstrate, using an
EPA-approved approach, that lifecycle GHG emissions associated with
renewable fuel produced are no greater than a specified threshold
lifecycle emissions value. An example of a GHG calculation method is
discussed in the memorandum, ``Example Method for Calculating
Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Renewable Fuel
Production including Carbon Capture and Sequestration,'' available
in the docket for this action.
    \248\ In the RFS QAP rulemaking, the EPA established an
administrative process to help identify PIRs and help determine if
those PIRs were invalidly generated. See 79 FR 42078 (July 18,
2014). Under the administrative process described in 40 CFR 80.1474,
designated parties can identify a PIR (e.g., the renewable fuel
producer, a third-party auditor under QAP, or the EPA), and the
renewable fuel producer has an opportunity to demonstrate the
validity of the RIN or take appropriate corrective action within
certain timeframes depending on the party that identified the PIR.
If a renewable fuel producer fails to demonstrate that the PIRs are
valid (as determined by the EPA), corrective action from the
renewable fuel producer involves either retiring or replacing the
PIR. If the producer fails to retire or replace the PIR, the parties
that own or used those RINs for compliance may become responsible
for retiring or replacing the PIRs.

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

    A key element of the proposed surface leak remediation process is
the timely reporting of surface leaks by the renewable fuel producer to
the EPA. Under 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR, of the GHGRP, the geologic
sequestration facility is required to develop a strategy for detecting
and quantifying surface leakage of CO2 from the geologic
sequestration facility.\249\ Under the proposed surface leak
requirements, the renewable fuel producer would need to report that no
surface leaks that could cause the lifecycle GHG emissions to exceed
the threshold value required for the approved pathway under 40 CFR
80.1416 occurred during the appropriate compliance period. Should a
surface leak occur, under the proposed surface leak remediation
requirements the renewable fuel producer would need to report to the
EPA that detection of a surface leak occurred at a geologic
sequestration facility within 24 hours of notification by the geologic
sequestration facility that a leak has been detected.\250\ To help
limit the number of affected RINs, the EPA also proposes that such
emissions, once detected and reported, would result in a suspension of
the renewable fuel producer's ability to generate RINs under that
pathway.\251\ Failure to notify the EPA of a surface leak, submit a
remediation plan, or take corrective actions may result in a suspension
of the renewable fuel producer's RFS registration. We recognize that
the 24-hour notification period may appear to present logistical
challenges. However, we envision that a simple message from the
renewable fuel producer to the EPA's EMTS support line would suffice to
satisfy this requirement. We believe that allowing longer time periods
would increase the number of RINs affected by the surface leak and
further complicate the resolution of the PIR administrative process. We
seek comment on whether a longer reporting timeframe is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ See 40 CFR 98.448.
    \250\ As discussed above, if the CO2 is transferred
offsite from a renewable fuel facility to a sequestration facility,
then at registration the renewable fuel producer must submit a
contract(s) demonstrating the sequestration facility's duty to
notify the renewable fuel producer of CO2 surface leaks
within 24 hours of detection. The producer must then report
detection of the surface leak to the EPA within 24 hours of
receiving this notification or otherwise becoming of the surface
leakage. The EPA recognizes that it may take some time for the
geologic sequestration facility to determine if a leak, as defined
in 40 CFR 98.449, has in fact occurred.
    \251\ It should be noted that the renewable fuel producer could
continue to generate RINs using non-CCS pathways if they are able to
produce renewable fuel under another approved pathway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed surface leak remediation process, the renewable
fuel producer would need to submit a remediation plan to the EPA for
approval within 30 days of notifying the EPA of the surface leak. The
remediation plan would:
    1. If possible, demonstrate that the PIRs are not invalid. For
example, the producer could provide calculations showing that the
surface leak did not result in lifecycle GHG emissions exceeding the
GHG emission reduction threshold required for the renewable fuel
production pathway for which RINs were previously generated and for
future RINs that would be generated using the CCS pathway.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ We envision that one way that a renewable fuel producer
could mitigate the effects of a surface leak would be to sequester
GHGs in excess of the GHG reduction threshold for the D-Code for
RINs generated under the CCS pathway. For example, for a D5 RIN
generated under a CCS pathway, a renewable fuel producer could
reduce GHGs by 53 percent (instead of the minimum threshold of 50
percent). Over the course of five years of RIN generation, this
over-compliance could shield the producer from all but the largest
of surface leaks. We believe that parties that purchase these RINs
for compliance may drive renewable fuel producers to over-comply in
order to ensure that the RINs remain valid in the event of a surface
leak. The remediation plan process is an opportunity to allow the
renewable fuel producer to demonstrate that PIRs from surface leaks
are not invalid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Describe corrective actions that:
    a. When taken, would remediate the surface leak and that the
renewable fuel producer working with the geologic sequestration
facility was taking all necessary steps to ensure a high likelihood
that no further CO2 would be emitted that would cause the
lifecycle GHG emissions to exceed the threshold value required for the
approved pathway.\253\ Such demonstration may require the modification
of the producer's registration, structural or other alterations to the
geologic sequestration facility, or other steps as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ This demonstration must include an evaluation of any
potential surface leakage pathways identified in an EPA-approved MRV
plan as described in 40 CFR 98.448.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Demonstrate how the renewable fuel producer intends to take
corrective action for any PIRs resulting from the surface leak.
Corrective actions that could be part of a remediation plan could
include retiring the PIRs or purchasing and retiring replacement RINs
under 40 CFR 80.1474.
    Again, we recognize that the 30-day period for renewable fuel
producers to prepare and submit a remediation plan may appear to be a
short time frame. However, we note that if the surface leak was
immaterial (i.e., a leak so small that affected RINs generated under a
CCS pathway would continue to meet the applicable lifecycle GHG
reduction threshold), 30 days should be sufficient for a renewable fuel
producer to demonstrate that affected RINs are not invalid and resume
generating RINs from a CCS pathway. We believe that renewable fuel
producers wishing to generate RINs using a CCS pathway would want to
remediate the issues as quickly as possible to begin generating RINs
using that pathway again. Further, any the corrective actions described
in the remediation plan do not need to be implemented within 30 days.
Nonetheless, we seek comment on whether we should allow renewable fuel
producers generating RINs from a CCS pathway more time to prepare and
submit a remediation plan.
    Under the existing regulations, producers can already take
corrective action under the options above. However, we are proposing
that producers generating RINs under a CCS pathway would need to
provide additional information to that already required under the PIR
administration process (e.g., adjusted calculated GHG emissions for
affected RINs). This information would help the producer demonstrate
whether the affected RINs continued to meet the applicable GHG
reduction threshold.
    Under this approach, the renewable fuel producer is responsible for
submitting the remediation plan and ensuring that surface leaks are
remediated at the geologic sequestration site prior to the further
generation of RINs under a CCS pathway. We believe that continuing to
have the renewable fuel producer ultimately responsible for all aspects
related to the valid generation of RINs is consistent with our goals of
promoting compliance within the RFS. However, we seek comment on this
approach.
    We are proposing that all RINs generated under a CCS pathway during
the five years preceding the surface leak would be PIRs in the event of
a surface leak at the facility sequestering CO2 from the
renewable fuel production facility. Therefore, the GHG emissions
attributable to the leak would be applied equally to all PIRs. If the
producer could demonstrate that the average calculated GHGs for each
RIN continued to meet the RFS GHG threshold requirements, then under
this proposed approach those PIRs would not be invalid. If the
calculated GHG emissions for the PIRs fell below the RFS GHG reduction
threshold, then the producer would

need to retire and/or replace all of the PIRs.
    Under the proposed remediation process, failure to submit a
remediation plan or take appropriate corrective action would trigger
the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 80.1474 as discussed in the following
paragraph. In addition, the EPA would only allow the renewable fuel
producer to generate RINs using a CCS pathway after the EPA approves a
remediation plan and the renewable fuel producer takes appropriate
corrective action. If a renewable fuel producer does not notify the EPA
of a surface leak within 24 hours of detection, stop RIN generation as
described above, and comply with the PIR administrative procedures
outlined in 40 CFR 80.1474, the renewable fuel producer would be deemed
to have failed to have taken corrective action and all RINs generated
under the CCS pathway during the five years preceding the leak could be
considered invalid. However, the EPA is proposing that RINs generated
under the CCS pathway prior to the five years preceding the leak would
not potentially invalid.
    The EPA believes that the proposed remediation process as a
supplement to the existing PIR administrative process would allow
renewable fuel producers an opportunity to remediate PIRs resulting
from surface leaks without going through the process of replacing all
RINs generated using a CCS pathway prior to the surface leak. The EPA
recognizes that renewable fuel producers that generate RINs from a CCS
pathway may not be able to replace RINs in the case of a large surface
leak. Although we do not believe this is likely to occur, we seek
comment on alternative corrective actions renewable fuel producers
could take in order to remediate PIRs resulting from the surface leak.
We also seek comment on the proposed remediation process and whether
there is any additional information we should require of renewable fuel
producers to ensure that PIRs resulting from surface leaks are
appropriately addressed.

D. Lifecycle GHG Emissions Analysis of Renewable Fuel Produced in
Conjunction With CCS

    Through amendments to the CAA enacted as part of EISA, Congress
established specific lifecycle GHG emission thresholds for each of four
types of renewable fuels, requiring a percentage reduction compared to
lifecycle GHG emissions for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being
replaced by the renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation
fuel in 2005. For example, the CAA requires a 50 percent reduction in
order for a fuel to be classified as advanced biofuel.
    Determining whether a fuel's lifecycle GHG emissions meet a
threshold level of lifecycle GHG reduction requires a comprehensive
evaluation of the lifecycle GHG emissions of the renewable fuel as
compared to the lifecycle GHG emissions of the baseline gasoline or
diesel fuel that it replaces. As mandated by CAA section 211(o), the
lifecycle assessment must evaluate the aggregate quantity of GHG
emissions (including direct emissions and significant indirect
emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes) related
to the full fuel lifecycle, including all stages of fuel and feedstock
production, distribution, and use by the ultimate consumer.
    As discussed above, the EPA proposes that at the time of
registration, the renewable fuel producer must affirm that when using
an EPA-approved approach, lifecycle GHG emissions associated with
renewable fuel produced will be no greater than a specified threshold
lifecycle emissions value. The lifecycle GHG calculation would be based
in part on the amount of CO2 injected and would account for
any CO2 lost during injection and recycling as well as
energy used in the injection and recycling process. The renewable fuel
producer would need to keep appropriate records and report data on a
regular basis to demonstrate that the fuel produced achieved the
required lifecycle value and was accurate over time. The EPA discusses
calculating lifecycle GHG emissions for renewable fuel produced using
CCS in greater depth a memorandum to the docket and requests comment on
the approaches discussed and the example method provided.\254\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ See the memorandum, ``Example Method for Calculating
Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Renewable Fuel
Production including Carbon Capture and Sequestration,'' available
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Renewable Fuels Produced From Short-Rotation Trees

    The EPA is proposing to approve new fuel pathways for ethanol and
naphtha produced from short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow using a
production process that converts cellulosic biomass to fuel for the
generation of cellulosic biofuel (D-code 3) RINs. We are also proposing
to approve new fuel pathways for diesel, jet fuel, and heating oil
produced from short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow using a
production process that converts cellulosic biomass to fuel for the
generation of cellulosic biomass-based diesel (D-code 7) RINs. As
discussed in this section, the EPA's analysis shows that fuel produced
from short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow using a variety of
processing technologies meets the 60 percent GHG emissions reduction
threshold needed to qualify as cellulosic biofuel. This section
includes an overview of short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow growing
systems, and explains our analysis of the lifecycle GHG emissions
associated with these fuel pathways.

A. Background and Scope of Analysis

    As part of the RFS2 final rule, the EPA analyzed various biofuel
production pathways to determine whether fuels produced through those
pathways meet minimum lifecycle GHG reduction thresholds specified in
the CAA for different categories of biofuel (i.e., 60 percent reduction
for cellulosic biofuel, 50 percent reduction for biomass-based diesel
and advanced biofuel, and 20 percent reduction for other renewable
fuels). The RFS2 final rule focused on fuels that were anticipated to
contribute relatively large volumes of renewable fuel by 2022 and thus
did not cover all fuels that are contributing or could potentially
contribute to the national renewable fuel volumes prescribed in EISA.
In the preamble to the rule, the EPA indicated that it had not
completed the GHG emissions analyses for several specific biofuel
production pathways but that the EPA would complete these analyses
through supplemental actions.\255\ Since the RFS2 final rule, the EPA
has continued to examine additional renewable fuel pathways. In this
proposed rulemaking, we present our analysis of lifecycle GHG emissions
associated with producing biofuel from short-rotation hybrid poplar and
willow. The modeling approach the EPA used for this analysis is the
same general approach used in the RFS2 final rule for lifecycle
analyses of other biofuels, as described in more detail in section VI.C
of this preamble.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ See 75 FR 14680 (March 26, 2010).
    \256\ The RFS2 final rule preamble (75 FR 14670, March 26, 2010)
and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (EPA-420-R-10-006) provide
further discussion of our approach. These documents are available in
the docket for this action or online at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/renewable-fuel-standard-rfs2-final-rule-additional-resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA requests public comment on our analysis of the lifecycle
GHG emissions related to the production and use of biofuel from short-
rotation hybrid poplar and willow. The EPA specifically requests
comments on the modeling used to conduct our analysis, and the
definitions of short-rotation hybrid

poplar and willow that we are proposing.

B. Overview of Short-Rotation Tree Systems

    Short-rotation tree (SRT) systems, also known as short-rotation
coppice (SRC), are stands of woody trees producing multiple stems from
coppice growth, and harvested in relatively short rotations (generally
less than 10 years) for bioenergy use. Common genera grown in SRT
systems include Populus (cottonwoods, poplars, aspens), Salix
(willows), Pinus (southern pines), and Eucalyptus (eucalypts). Most
definitions of SRTs or SRCs classify these systems by maximum rotation
length or coppicing abilities.\257 258 259\ SRT systems can vary widely
by planting density, species composition, and rotation length.\260\ For
instance, systems purposed for high frequency harvesting of biomass are
often managed on shorter rotations (e.g., 2-4 years), with high density
planting. Others are harvested less frequently (e.g., 10 years), with
more spaced planting to allow each plant to grow to a larger size
(without being hindered by competition for sunlight, water, and soil
nutrients).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ Wright L.L. et al. ``Short Rotation Woody Crops: Using
Agroforestry technology for energy in the United States.'' Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. Dec 1993.
    \258\ Short Rotation Crops for Bioenergy Systems. IEA
Bioeenergy, Task 30. Technical Review No. 3. April 2009.
    \259\ Coppicing is the process by which new shoots and trees are
regenerated from a cut stump following harvest. Hinchee et al.
``Short-rotation woody crops for bioenergy and biofuels
applications.'' In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant. 2009 Dec; 45(6): 619-
629. Published online 2009 Aug 26. doi: 10.1007/s11627-009-9235-5.
    \260\ Wang et al., ``GREET Model Short Rotation Woody Crops
(SRWC) Parameter Development.'' Argonne National Laboratory.
December 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SRT systems can provide a number of environmental benefits over a
tilled agricultural system. They result in greater accumulation of
carbon through below-ground organic matter that goes undisturbed for
longer periods of time, as well as protection against nutrient runoff
and soil erosion due to larger root networks.\261\ A key feature of
most SRT systems is coppicing. Coppicing is a desirable characteristic
of short-rotation system because it requires relatively low maintenance
between harvests compared to an annual crop. Original site
establishment of SRT systems requires the planting of a seedling,
usually one to two years old, followed by successive harvest cycles
(e.g., 6 to 8 rounds of 3-4 year rotations) until the coppice reaches
the end of its productive lifespan (e.g., 20-30 years). Managed SRT
systems exist in many parts of the world, predominantly in Europe
(notably willow in Sweden and the UK, and poplar in Italy, among
others).\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \261\ Hansen. ``Soil carbon sequestration beneath hybrid poplar
plantations in the North Central United States.'' Biomass and
Bioenergy. Volume 5, Issue 5, 1993, pg. 431-436.
    \262\ Langeveld et al. ``Assessing Environmental Impacts of
Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) Expansion: Model Definition and
Preliminary Results.'' Bioenerg. Res. (2012) 5:621-635.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Short-Rotation Hybrid Poplar
    The EPA has analyzed a set of taxa being grown in short-rotation
systems known as the hybrid poplar. Hybrid poplars are plants created
by the cross pollination of multiple members of Populus species within
the Salicaceae family. Specifically, hybridization is most commonly
performed between two (of six) Populus sections, Aigeiros and
Tacamahaca (cottonwoods), with the most common parent poplars being
black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and eastern cottonwood (Populus
deltoides).\263\ Artificial hybridization is performed to take
advantage of an effect called heterosis (or ``hybrid vigor''), in which
the hybrid offspring exhibits enhanced traits compared to either of the
parents (be it greater yield growth, disease resistance, or other
biological characteristics). Hybridization of poplar species began in
1925 with initial interest in cultivation for conventional pulpwood,
and in various parts of the world poplar is currently grown for pulp
and other solid wood uses.\264 265 266\ Over time, the fast-growing
nature of hybrid poplar attracted research for short-rotation, smaller
diameter purposes. In the U.S., USDA has participated in hybrid poplar
development through the biomass crop assistance program (BCAP), with
most of the focus occurring in the Pacific Northwest. Hybrid poplar is
mostly being grown on demonstration scale plots; there is not currently
large scale commercial production in the U.S. USDA does not formally
track hybrid poplar production so there is no U.S. government estimate
of national acreage or production quantity. However, there are
approximately 100,000 acres of short-rotation hybrid poplar grown in
the Pacific Northwest (including Canada), approximately 25-30 thousand
acres grown in Minnesota, and small pockets of production in other
parts of the U.S. and Canada.\267 268\ Existing production from
demonstration sites goes to research associated with the production of
cellulosic biofuel, bioenergy, and pulp.\269 270\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \263\ ``Hybrid Poplar, an Intermediate Crop for the
Intermountain West.'' USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Boise, Idaho. January 2001.
    \264\ Stout, A. B., and E. J. Schreiner. 1933. ``Results of a
project in hybridizing poplars.'' Journal of Heredity 24:2 16-229.
    \265\ Stout, A. B., R. H. McKee, and E. J. Schreiner. 1927.
``The breeding of forest trees for pulp wood.'' Journal of New York
Botanical Gardens 28:49-63.
    \266\ Utilization Opportunities and Economics, Hybrid Poplar
Best Management Practices. University of Minnesota, Extension. Fall
2011. http://www.extension.umn.edu/environment/agroforestry/docs/hybrid-poplar-utilization-opportunities.pdf.
    \267\ Hybrid Poplar Research Program, Washington State
University. http://puyallup.wsu.edu/poplar/.
    \268\ Hybrid Poplar (Populus spp). Agroforestry. University of
Minnesota Extension. http://www.extension.umn.edu/environment/agroforestry/hybrid-poplar-populus-spp/hybrid-poplar-populus-spp.html.
    \269\ ``Biomass Energy Opportunities from Hybrid Poplars in
Minnesota.'' Dean Schmidt, WesMin Resource Conservation and
Development. Information presented at Woody Biomass Harvesting and
Utilization Workshop presentation in St. Cloud, MN on March 21,
2006. http://www.extension.umn.edu/environment/agroforestry/biomass/schmidt.pdf.
    \270\ Project Overview, Infosheet no. 1. March 2014. Advanced
Hardwood Biofuels Northwest. http://hardwoodbiofuels.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ProjectOverviewFinal.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Short-Rotation Willow
    The EPA also analyzed short-rotation willow, also known as shrub
willow, which is another short-rotation species. Shrub willow refers to
a number of Salix species also within the family Salicaceae (like
Populus). Multiple Salix species are being used in SRT systems. In the
U.S., common varieties include S. miyabeana, S. purpurea, S.
sachalinesis, and S. viminalis (and crosses between these and other
species).271 272 In addition to use as a bioenergy
feedstock, willow has gathered interest for other purposes. Willow
``living fences'' can be used as windbreaks, visual/noise screens, or
to trap blowing snow along roadways, which reduces the cost of snow
plowing and improves road safety. Additionally, willow is well-suited
to grow in wet soils and can be used to stabilize stream banks,
reducing the risk of flooding and providing a vegetated buffer to
prevent pollutants and sediments from entering surface and
groundwater.\273\ Research of shrub willow for bioenergy and
bioproducts began in the U.S. in 1986 through the State University of
New York College of Environmental Science

and Forestry (SUNY-ESF). Through the BCAP, USDA has partnered with
SUNY-ESF to develop willow in upstate New York where there are
approximately 1,200 acres of willow in production.\274\ There it is
harvested in 3-4 year cycles. Since the initial trials in upstate New
York in the mid-1980s, yield trials have been conducted, or are
underway, in 14 states \275\ and six provinces in Canada.\276\ USDA
does not formally track willow production so there is no U.S.
government estimate of national acreage or production quantity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \271\ Zalesny, Jr., R.S., et al. ``Woody Biomass from Short
Rotation Energy Crops.'' Chapter 2, American Chemical Society 2011.
    \272\ Whereas all of the Populus varieties we are considering
are hybrid crosses, only some of the qualifying willow cultivars are
crosses, while others are from single species. When we reference
``willow'' we mean both a single species and crosses between
multiple species.
    \273\ ``Introduction to Shrub Willow Fact Sheet.'' State
University of New York College of Environmental Science and
Forestry. http://www.esf.edu/willow/documents/1IntroToShrubWillow.pdf.
    \274\ ``Willow Bioenergy in New York State.'' State University
of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. http://www.esf.edu/willow/documents/2NewYorkWillow.pdf.
    \275\ Delaware, Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Virginia, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
    \276\ U.S. DOE. 2011. ``U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply
for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry.'' R.D. Perlack and B.J.
Stokes (Leads), ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, TN. 227p. (pg. 109).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Willow also has a history as a bioenergy feedstock in numerous
countries in Europe, including Sweden, the UK, and Poland, where it is
pelletized and co-fired with coal in electricity generation to help
meet renewable energy goals. By one estimate, there are over 40,000
acres of commercial plantings in Europe.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \277\ ``Developing Willow Biomass Crops as a Source of Home
Grown Energy.'' T.A. Volk, State University of New York College of
Environmental Science and Forestry. Renewable Energy Forum, Auburn,
NY, March 20, 2010. http://www.esf.edu/willow/documents/VolkWillowOverview111110.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Analysis of Lifecycle GHG Emissions

    The EPA's analysis shows that fuel produced from short-rotation
hybrid poplar and willow using a variety of processing technologies
meets the 60 percent GHG emissions reduction threshold necessary to
qualify as cellulosic biofuel. This section explains our analysis of
the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with fuel produced from these
feedstocks.
1. Methodology and Scenarios Evaluated
    The EPA's analysis of the domestic impacts of short-rotation hybrid
poplar and willow biofuel pathways use the same model of U.S.
agricultural and forestry sectors that was used for the RFS2 final
rule: The Forestry and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM)
developed by Texas A&M University.\278\ The model requires a number of
inputs and assumptions that are specific to the pathway being analyzed,
including projected yields of feedstock per acre planted, projected
fertilizer use, and energy use in feedstock processing and fuel
production.\279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \278\ For more information on the FASOM model, refer to the RFS2
final rule preamble (75 FR 14670, March 26, 2010) or the RFS2 final
rule RIA. These documents are available in the docket for this
action or online at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/renewable-fuel-standard-rfs2-final-rule-additional-resources.
    \279\ Detailed information on model inputs, assumptions,
calculations, and the results of this and other components of our
assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance for short-
rotation hybrid poplar and willow pathways can be found in the
memorandum, ``Short-Rotation Trees Technical Memorandum,'' available
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For international impacts, we applied results from the switchgrass
analysis performed for the RFS2 final rule. The switchgrass analysis
used the Food and Agricultural Policy and Research Institute
international model as maintained by the Center for Agricultural and
Rural Development at Iowa State University (the FAPRI-CARD model). This
approach is similar to the methodology we used to evaluate and approve
other dedicated bioenergy feedstocks, such as energy cane, giant reed,
and napier grass. As we discussed in the RFS2 final rule, 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. Switchgrass, short-rotation hybrid poplar, and
short-rotation willow are all dedicated bioenergy feedstocks, and are
expected to grow on the same types of land and cause the same types of
crop displacement. As the EPA assumed for the analysis of energy cane,
giant reed, and napier grass, we do not believe that these bioenergy
feedstocks will cause large land use change impacts, as they do not
generate the economic returns of row crops on productive lands, and are
therefore being targeted for development on less productive lands. For
analysis of short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow, we scaled the
switchgrass international emissions for yield differences in
switchgrass, short-rotation hybrid poplar, and short-rotation willow,
and applied these adjusted emissions to short-rotation hybrid poplar
and willow.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \280\ Additional details on the application of switchgrass
results to this analysis are available in the memorandum, ``Short-
Rotation Trees Technical Memorandum,'' available in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the impacts of an increase in renewable fuel volume from
a ``business-as-usual'' scenario likely to have occurred without the
short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow-based biofuels, we compared
impacts in a control case to the impacts in two new cases: ``short-
rotation hybrid poplar biofuel'' and ``short-rotation willow biofuel.''
\281\ The control case includes a projection of renewable fuel volumes
from feedstocks such as corn, soybeans, and switchgrass, among others.
The control case used for this analysis had zero gallons of short-
rotation hybrid poplar or willow biofuel production. For the ``short-
rotation hybrid poplar biofuel'' and ``short-rotation willow biofuel''
cases, our modeling assumed that 400 million gallons of short-rotation
hybrid poplar ethanol or short-rotation willow ethanol are produced in
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \281\ This approach is similar to the approach used in the RFS2
final rule. For more information, refer to the RFS2 final rule
preamble (75 FR 14670, March 26, 2010) or the RFS2 final rule RIA
(EPA-420-R-10-006). These documents are available in the docket or
online at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/renewable-fuel-standard-rfs2-final-rule-additional-resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The scenario volume of 400 million gallons of biofuel per year used
in the model is the target production level of hybrid poplar based
biofuel as of 2012 by Advanced Hardwood Biofuels Northwest (AHB), a
USDA-funded consortium of universities and industry partners. We
believe this is a reasonable volume to model for a number of reasons.
While there is little production of short-rotation hybrid poplar or
willow-based biofuel currently, the biotechnology company Zeachem Inc.,
with a loan guarantee from USDA, is planning a 25 million gallon/year
cellulosic biorefinery in Boardman, Oregon, sourcing hybrid poplar as
the primary feedstock. Zeachem Inc. currently operates a 250,000
gallon/year demonstration plant also in Boardman, Oregon. Although
these currently identified projects are much lower than the 400 million
gallons modeled, there is also data supporting larger volumes. For
example, the Department of Energy (DOE), in the 2011 ``U.S. Billion Ton
Study Update'' assessed the potential supplies of bioenergy feedstocks
at various economic conditions. At baseline conditions, they concluded
that in 2022, 67 million dry tons of ``woody crops'' (roughly 6 billion
gallons of biofuel) could be supplied at $50/dry ton.282 283
When weighing the potential for large-scale feedstock production with
the more modest volume of projects currently identified, we think

400 million gallon/year is a reasonable volume for our modeling
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \282\ In addition to poplar and willow, ``woody crops'' also
included eucalyptus and southern pines in this study, so this full
amount would not be expected to come from short-rotation hybrid
poplar and/or willow. However, these volumes are indicative of
supply potential in a future with favorable conditions for dedicated
bioenergy feedstocks. U.S. DOE. 2011. ``U.S. Billion-Ton Update:
Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry''. R.D.
Perlack and B.J. Stokes (Leads), ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 227p. (pg. 130).
    \283\ These biofuel volumes assume a conversion yield of 92.3
gallons of ethanol per dry ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Understanding the uncertainty in the ability for hybrid poplar and
willow biofuel to penetrate and grow in the market, we also analyzed
smaller volume scenarios as a sensitivity analysis that is included in
the memo to the docket. The purpose of doing so was to test the GHG
emissions impact of a lesser demand for these fuels on agricultural
markets and land use. These lower volume scenarios produced
agricultural market and land use impacts on a per-gallon basis that
were similar to the respective 400 million gallon/year scenarios, and
LCA GHG results were also consistent with the larger volume
scenarios.\284\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \284\ We analyzed a 200 million gallon/year hybrid poplar
scenario and a 200 million gallon/year willow scenario. These
results can be found in the memorandum, ``Short-Rotation Trees
Technical Memorandum,'' available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to our analysis of renewable fuel feedstocks in the RFS2
final rule, the EPA assessed what the lifecycle GHG emissions impacts
would be from the use of additional volumes of short-rotation hybrid
poplar or willow for biofuel production. The information provided below
discusses the outputs of the analysis using the FASOM model to
determine changes in the domestic agricultural and livestock markets.
We then discuss the results of our analysis of international impacts
from the switchgrass analysis in the RFS2 final rule. Finally, we
discuss other GHG emissions associated with the pathways, and conclude
with a summary of all GHG emissions associated with the production of
biofuel from short-rotation hybrid poplar or willow feedstock.
2. Domestic Impacts
    Using FASOM, we estimated the domestic impacts of producing 400
million gallons of biofuel from short-rotation hybrid poplar or willow.
FASOM estimates that 6.3 million tons of additional short-rotation
hybrid poplar production will be needed to produce 400 million gallons
of ethanol in 2022, and that these tons will come exclusively from
around 950,000 acres in the Pacific Northwest East region of FASOM. The
Pacific Northwest East region, which covers Oregon and Washington, east
of the Cascade mountain range, has the highest yield in the model. The
Pacific Northwest East region is also the location of actual current
production. The increased short-rotation hybrid poplar production in
the Pacific Northwest East causes cropland in this region to be shifted
away from wheat, barley, and hay. Although production of these crops
increases in other regions, overall the national production of these
crops decreases (see Table VI.C.2-1).
    The total active cropland in the U.S. increases by 260,000 acres in
2022 (see Table VI.C.2-2). These additional acres primarily come from
the conversion of idle cropland (131,000 acres), pastureland (72,000
acres), and forests (57,000 acres) to active cropland.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \285\ Additional details about national land cover changes are
available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the short-rotation willow scenario, approximately 6.5 million
tons of short-rotation willow will be needed to produce 400 million
gallons of ethanol in 2022. Like short-rotation hybrid poplar, short-
rotation willow currently has no commercial market in FASOM, and all of
the short-rotation willow for fuel comes from new production. In 2022,
all short-rotation willow production is projected to be in the
Northeast, and around 1.2 million acres will be required.\286\ In
FASOM, the Northeast has the highest short-rotation willow yield. This
is also the region where short-rotation willow is currently grown for
research purposes. Short-rotation willow production causes decreases in
the production of hay, corn, and soybeans in the Northeast. Although
production increases in other regions, overall the national production
of these crops decreases (see Table VI.C.2-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \286\ The Northeast region in FASOM covers the New England
states, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and
West Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this high-volume willow scenario, the total active cropland in
the U.S. increases by 363,000 acres (see Table VI.C.2-2). The cropland
comes primarily from the conversion of forest (212,000 acres),
pastureland (90,000 acres), and idle cropland (60,000 acres) to active
cropland.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \287\ According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, there were
389.7 million acres of cropland in 2012. This means that according
to FASOM, producing 400 million gallons of willow or hybrid poplar
biofuel would increase total cropland in the U.S. by less than 0.1
percent in 2022 relative to 2012 levels. See ``Farms and Farmland,
Numbers, Acreage, Ownership, and Use.'' September 2014. 2012 Census
of Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/Farms_and_Farmland/Highlights_Farms_and_Farmland.pdf.

 Table VI.C.2-1--Changes in U.S. Production in 2022 Relative to Control
                                  Case
                             [Million tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Short-rotation
                                           hybrid poplar  Short-rotation
                                               case         willow case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-Rotation Hybrid Poplar............            6.28               0
Short-Rotation Willow...................               0            6.49
Corn....................................           -0.01           -1.22
Wheat...................................           -0.52           -0.12
Soybeans................................           -0.03           -0.23
Barley..................................           -0.09            0.03
Hay.....................................           -0.77           -0.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table VI.C.2-2--Changes in Harvested Area by Crop in the U.S. in 2022
                        Relative to Control Case
                            [Thousand acres]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Short-rotation
                                           hybrid poplar  Short-rotation
                                               case         willow case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-Rotation Hybrid Poplar............             948               0
Short-Rotation Willow...................               0           1,187
Corn....................................              26            -299

Wheat...................................            -485              -2
Soybeans................................             -26            -178
Hay.....................................             -91            -320
Other...................................            -112             -25
                                         -------------------------------
    Total *.............................             260             363
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Total may differ from subtotals due to rounding.

3. International Impacts
    As explained above, the results of the FASOM model provide insights
into the domestic impacts of producing biofuel from short-rotation
hybrid poplar or willow. In this section we explain the international
impacts. The FASOM model shows that in the short-rotation hybrid poplar
and willow scenarios, the national production of crops such as wheat,
corn, and soybeans will decrease as a result of increased land
competition.\288\ The decrease of production creates upwards price
pressure on these crops. The primary response of these supply pressures
in FASOM is the decline of U.S. exports, especially wheat in the short-
rotation hybrid poplar case and corn in the short-rotation willow case.
This effect creates an incentive for international producers to
increase production of these crops, which likely requires some
conversion of new land into agriculture and produces land use change
emissions. In addition, increased international crop production can
cause an increase in the amount of fertilizers and energy used
internationally for crop production, which would increase GHG
emissions. Finally, international changes in crop production can cause
changes in livestock and rice methane emissions, which will also
influence GHG emissions. Given the limited historical and market data
associated with growing dedicated bioenergy feedstocks, we believe it
is reasonable to assume that short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow
will have similar international impacts as other dedicated energy
feedstocks such as switchgrass. Since there are not well established
global markets for SRT feedstocks, we don't expect a significant
interaction between an increase in the production of short-rotation
willow and hybrid poplar for biofuels in the U.S. and other hybrid
poplar and willow production around the world. Switchgrass, short-
rotation hybrid poplar, and short-rotation willow are expected to be
grown on similar types of land and have similar impacts on the
production of other crops. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to
apply the international emissions associated with increased biofuel
production from switchgrass to our analysis of impacts associated with
producing biofuels from short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow, an
approach that we have taken for other bioenergy feedstocks such as
miscanthus, energy cane, and napier grass.\289\ International GHG
emissions are discussed in section VI.C.6 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \288\ See section VI.C.2 of this preamble.
    \289\ We scaled the switchgrass emissions to account for the
lower yields of short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow, as
described in more detail in the memorandum, ``Short-Rotation Trees
Technical Memorandum,'' available in the docket for this action.

Table VI.C.3-1--Changes in U.S. Exports in 2022 (Thousand Tons) Relative
                           to the Control Case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Short-rotation
                                           hybrid poplar  Short-rotation
                                               case         willow case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn....................................              27            -931
Soybeans................................             -27            -226
Barley..................................              -4               0
Wheat...................................            -524             -93
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Feedstock Transport
    GHG emissions associated with distributing short-rotation hybrid
poplar and willow are expected to be similar to the EPA's estimate for
switchgrass because they are all dedicated bioenergy feedstocks
requiring similar transport, loading, unloading, and storage regimes
and have similar conversion yields as discussed in section VI.C.5 of
this preamble. Our analysis therefore assumes the same GHG impact for
feedstock distribution as we assumed for switchgrass.
5. Fuel Production, Distribution, and Use
    Short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow are suitable for the same
conversion processes as other cellulosic feedstocks, such as
switchgrass and corn stover. Currently available information on short-
rotation hybrid poplar and willow composition shows that their
hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin content are comparable to or
higher than other feedstocks that qualify under the RFS regulations for
the production of cellulosic biofuels. Conversion yield data provided
by a technical assessment of cellulosic feedstocks by National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) suggests that the yield will be
higher for short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow than for other
cellulosic feedstocks.\290\ However, as a conservative estimate, we
applied the same production process energy inputs and conversion yields

that were modeled for switchgrass in the RFS2 final rule (biochemical
ethanol, thermochemical ethanol, and Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) diesel
\291\) to short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow.\292\ The EPA also
assumes that the distribution and use of biofuel made from short-
rotation hybrid poplar and willow will not differ significantly from
similar biofuel produced from other cellulosic sources. As was done for
the switchgrass case, this analysis assumes that dedicated bioenergy
feedstocks are grown in the U.S. for production purposes. If feedstocks
were grown internationally 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 RFS2 final rule, this would
at most add 1-2 percent to the overall lifecycle GHG impacts of the
dedicated bioenergy feedstocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \290\ Tao, L. and A. Aden. November 2008. ``Technoeconomic
Modeling to Support the EPA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.'' NREL.
Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0844.
    \291\ As explained in the RFS2 final rule (75 FR 14782), the F-T
diesel process modeled applies to cellulosic diesel, jet fuel,
heating oil, and naphtha. More information about F-T production
technology can be found in: David, Ryan. August 2009. ``Techno-
economic analysis of current technology for Fischer-Tropsch fuels
production.'' NREL. Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-3035.
    \292\ Details about the energy input assumptions and GHG
emissions calculations can be found in the memorandum, ``Short-
Rotation Trees Technical Memorandum,'' available in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Results of Lifecycle GHG Analysis
    As described above, we analyzed the GHG emissions associated with
agriculture, land use change, fuel and feedstock transport, and
tailpipe emissions for renewable fuels produced from short-rotation
hybrid poplar and willow. Tables VI.C.6-1 and VI.C.6-2 break down by
stage the lifecycle GHG emissions of the 2005 gasoline and diesel
baselines and of short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow fuels produced
in 2022.\293\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \293\ More details on these values are available in the
memorandum, ``Short-Rotation Trees Technical Memorandum,'' available
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Net agricultural emissions include domestic and international
impacts related to changes in crop inputs such as fertilizer, energy
used in agriculture, livestock production, and other agricultural
changes in the scenarios modeled. Increased demand for short-rotation
hybrid poplar or short-rotation willow results in negative net
agricultural emissions, meaning the emissions decrease relative to the
control case. Short-rotation hybrid poplar and short-rotation willow
use fewer agricultural inputs than corn, soybeans, barley, and wheat.
Because land was converted from these crops to short-rotation hybrid
poplar or short-rotation willow production, there was a reduction in
the usage of agricultural inputs, and a corresponding reduction in the
emissions from farm inputs.\294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \294\ A breakdown of the emissions from domestic and
international farm inputs, livestock, and rice methane can be found
in the memorandum, ``Short-Rotation Trees Technical Memorandum,''
available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Domestic land use change emissions are negative for short-rotation
hybrid poplar and willow. One reason for this is that most of the land
used for short-rotation hybrid poplar or willow production comes from
existing cropland. Using this cropland for short-rotation hybrid poplar
or willow rather than annual crops like corn or wheat increases the
amount of carbon stored in the soil and below-ground biomass (roots)
due to the longer rotation and no-tillage characteristics of short-
rotation hybrid poplar and willow. Another reason for the decrease in
domestic land use change emissions in 2022 is due to more intensive
management of forest acres in response to expected pressure on forest
acres and forest product supply in the future.
    As a result of increased demand for short-rotation willow and
hybrid poplar, international land use change emissions increase. The
increase in international land use change emissions for short-rotation
hybrid poplar and short-rotation willow are larger than the decrease in
domestic land use change emissions, leading to a net increase in land
use change emissions.
    The fuel production stage includes emissions from ethanol or diesel
production plants, as described in section VI.C.5 of this preamble.
Fuel and feedstock transport includes emissions from transporting
short-rotation hybrid poplar or willow from the farm to a fuel
production facility. As we assume for cellulosic pathways approved
under the 2010 RFS2 final rule for the biochemical conversion process,
lignin from the feedstock is burned to produce electricity, which
offsets grid electricity, resulting in negative emissions. Even without
this credit, short-rotation willow and hybrid poplar would meet the 60
percent GHG reduction threshold.
    For short-rotation hybrid poplar, total emissions are 77-132
percent lower than the 2005 gasoline or diesel baseline. For short-
rotation willow, total emissions are 69-125 percent below the gasoline
or diesel baseline. These results, if finalized, would justify a
determination that short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow ethanol,
diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, and naphtha would meet the 60 percent
reduction threshold required to qualify as cellulosic biofuel.

                Table VI.C.6-1--Lifecycle GHG Emissions for Short-Rotation Hybrid Poplar Biofuel
                                                [g CO2-eq/mmBtu]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Biochemical   Thermochemical                   2005 Gasoline    2005 Diesel
            Fuel type                 ethanol         ethanol      F-T diesel **     baseline        baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Agriculture (w/o land use             -4,503          -4,714          -4,670
 change)........................
Domestic Land Use Change........          -2,481          -2,597          -2,573
International Land Use Change...          23,608          24,709          24,481
Fuel Production.................         -53,116             559             835          19,200          17,998
Fuel and Feedstock Transport....           4,565           4,778           3,981             (*)             (*)
Tailpipe Emissions..............             880             880             700          79,004          79,008
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions.............         -31,048          23,616          22,753          98,204          97,006
Lifecycle GHG Percent Reduction             132%             76%             77%
 Compared to Petroleum Baseline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions included in fuel production stage.
** The F-T diesel process modeled applies to cellulosic diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, and naphtha.

                    Table VI.C.6-2--Lifecycle GHG Emissions for Short-Rotation Willow Biofuel
                                                [g CO2-eq/mmBtu]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Biochemical   Thermochemical                   2005 Gasoline    2005 Diesel
            Fuel type                 ethanol         ethanol      F-T diesel **     baseline        baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Agriculture (w/o land use             -4,210          -4,407          -4,366
 change)........................
Domestic Land Use Change........          -2,596          -2,717          -2,692
International Land Use Change...          29,556          30,935          30,649
Fuel Production.................         -53,116             559             835          19,200          17,998
Fuel and Feedstock Transport....           4,679           4,897           4,099             (*)             (*)
Tailpipe Emissions..............             880             880             700          79,004          79,008
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions.............         -24,807          30,148          29,225          98,204          97,006
Lifecycle GHG Percent Reduction             125%             69%             70%
 Compared to Petroleum Baseline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions included in fuel production stage.
** The F-T diesel process modeled applies to cellulosic diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, and naphtha.

    Although this analysis assumes short-rotation hybrid poplar and
willow biofuels produced for sale and use in the U.S. will most likely
come from domestically produced feedstock, we also intend for the
proposed pathways to cover short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow from
other countries. We do not expect biofuels from short-rotation hybrid
poplar and willow feedstocks produced in other nations to have
significantly different lifecycle GHG emissions than we have calculated
for domestically-produced fuels. As explained above, we believe that
increased transport for fuel produced internationally would only
increase the total lifecycle GHG emissions by at most 1-2 percent.
Moreover, other countries most likely to be exporting short-rotation
hybrid poplar, short-rotation willow, or biofuels produced from these
feedstocks are likely to be major producers that typically use similar
cultivars and farming techniques. Therefore, GHG emissions from
producing biofuels with short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow grown
in other countries should be similar to the GHG emissions we estimated
for U.S. short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow, though they could be
slightly (and insignificantly) higher or lower.
7. Risk of Potential Invasiveness
    Poplars (i.e., Populus species) and willows (i.e., Salix species)
are potential bioenergy feedstocks when grown as SRTs. Potential
candidates for feedstocks include species that are both native and
exotic to the U.S., as well as a variety of hybrids and cultivars of
these species. While we are not necessarily concerned about the
invasive potential of the native species, some exotics are weedy or
potentially weedy, and hybrids can sometimes have weedy or invasive
characteristics that are not shared by the parent species. Because
poplar and willow species and hybrids are actively being developed for
bioenergy use on large landscape scales, there is uncertainty regarding
the potential invasiveness of these taxa. Therefore, we are seeking
comment on what regulatory requirements, if any, would be appropriate
for mitigating the risk of invasiveness of these taxa of poplars and
willows.

D. Proposed Regulations

1. Adding Pathways to Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426
    As discussed previously, the EPA's analysis shows that fuel
produced from short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow using a variety
of processing technologies meets the 60 percent GHG emissions reduction
threshold needed to qualify as a cellulosic biofuel. Therefore, we are
proposing to modify rows K, L, and N of Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 to
add these new pathways. Producers would then be able to submit
registration materials to produce renewable fuels through these
pathways, subject to compliance with all applicable regulations. We
invite comment on all aspects of this analysis.
2. Proposed Definitions for Short-Rotation Hybrid Poplar and Short-
Rotation Willow
    For purposes of the RFS program, we are proposing that short-
rotation hybrid poplar means a species or cross of species in the
Populus genus that is grown with harvest rotations of less than 10
years. The EPA is considering hybrid poplar to include the following
species, as well as crosses between them: Populus (P.) deltoides, P.
trichocarpa, P. nigra, and P. suaveolens subsp. maximowiczii. We are
also proposing that short-rotation willow means a species or a cross of
species in the Salix genus that is grown with harvest rotations of less
than 10 years. Qualifying species include Salix (S.) miyabeana, S.
purpurea, S. eriocephala, S. caprea hybrid, and S. x dasyclados as well
as crosses between S. koriyanagi and S. purpurea, S. viminalis and S.
miyabeana, and S. purpurea and S. miyabeana. The proposed pathways do
not affect the existing pathways for slash or pre-commercial thinnings.
We invite comment on the proposed definitions of short-rotation hybrid
poplar and short-rotation willow.
3. Registration, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
    To be used as feedstock for qualifying renewable fuel under the RFS
program, short-rotation hybrid poplar and short-rotation willow must be
grown on a tree plantation as defined in 80 CFR 1401, and producers of
fuel made from such feedstock must meet all of the registration,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements specified in the regulations
for producers of renewable fuel made from qualified planted trees or
tree residues. These requirements are designed to implement the
statutory requirement that qualifying renewable fuel be made from
``renewable biomass'' as defined in the CAA, including ``planted trees
and tree residue from actively managed tree plantations on non-federal
lands [. . .].'' Among other requirements, the current regulations
specify that a tree plantation must have been actively managed as a
tree plantation on December 19, 2007, and that producers using these
feedstocks maintain records serving as evidence that this is the case.
However, we believe that the central purpose of the renewable biomass
requirement is to prevent the conversion of land that was not cleared
and actively managed as agricultural land as of the date of EISA
enactment from being converted to production of renewable fuel
feedstocks. This purpose can be satisfied with respect to tree
plantations providing the land in question was cleared and

actively managed for any agricultural purpose on December 19, 2007. In
addition, we believe that modifying the definition of tree plantation
to allow their placement on land that was actively managed for any
agricultural purpose on December 19, 2007, will facilitate the
production of cellulosic biofuels, which is consistent with the purpose
of the statute to promote the rapid development and use of such fuels.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to revise the definition of tree
plantation and the associated recordkeeping requirements so as to allow
planted trees and tree residue to be sourced from lands that were
actively managed as agricultural land on December 19, 2007, in addition
to those that were actively managed as tree plantations on that date.
This revision would be applicable for all uses of renewable biomass
from tree plantations under the RFS program. We are also amending the
regulatory definition of tree plantation to include the statutory
requirement that they be located on non-federal lands.
    The EPA is proposing new registration and recordkeeping
requirements for renewable fuel producers generating cellulosic biofuel
(D-code 3) or cellulosic biomass-based diesel (D-code 7) RINs for
renewable fuel produced from short-rotation hybrid poplar or willow.
These requirements are to ensure that feedstocks used for these
pathways meet the definitions of short-rotation hybrid poplar or willow
and that the feedstocks were grown on tree plantations as defined in
80.1401. At registration, producers would be required to list all
species and hybrids that they intend to use as a short-rotation hybrid
poplar or willow. In addition, they would need to provide a written
justification of why each feedstock meets the definition of short-
rotation willow or short-rotation hybrid poplar, including the
specification that the harvest rotation is less than 10 years. Finally,
at registration the producer would have to submit records (including
contracts and affidavits from the tree plantation supplying the
feedstocks) demonstrating that the short-rotation hybrid poplar or
short-rotation willow feedstocks will be sourced from a tree
plantation, as defined in 40 CFR 80.1401.
    The EPA is proposing additional recordkeeping requirements for
renewable fuel producers using short-rotation hybrid poplar and short-
rotation willow. Producers would be required to keep records of the
specific short-rotation hybrid poplar or willow species or hybrids used
to produce renewable fuel for each batch of fuel produced, the total
quantity of each feedstock used for each batch, and the total amount of
fuel produced in each batch. In addition, producers would be required
to keep affidavits obtained on a quarterly basis and contracts from the
short-rotation hybrid poplar or short-rotation willow feedstock
providers confirming that the feedstocks provided are from a tree
plantation meeting the definition in 80.1401. We invite comment on the
proposed new registration and recordkeeping requirements for short-
rotation hybrid poplar and short-rotation willow.
    In addition to these new proposed requirements, renewable fuel
producers using short-rotation hybrid poplar and short-rotation willow
would need to comply with all existing applicable regulatory
requirements. Short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow are considered
planted trees as defined in 40 CFR 80.1401. Applicable requirements
include but are not limited to registration requirements at 40 CFR
80.1450(b)(1)(ii), which require producers to demonstrate that their
production process has the ability to convert cellulosic components of
their feedstock into fuel. Producers using short-rotation hybrid poplar
and willow as feedstocks would also have to comply with all applicable
reporting requirements and submit quarterly reports pursuant to 40 CFR
80.1451(d). Producers would also have to report the specific type and
quantity of each short-rotation hybrid poplar or willow species or
hybrids used as feedstocks to produce the renewable fuel in EMTS
consistent with existing requirements for all renewable fuels.\295\
Because hybrid poplar and willow are considered planted trees rather
than crops, they do not fall under the aggregate compliance approach,
and therefore existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements
applicable to planted trees are required. These include the
requirements listed at 40 CFR 80.1454(c) and 80.1454(d) specific to
producers of renewable fuel made from feedstocks that are planted
trees. Additionally, producers would also have to comply with any other
applicable recordkeeping requirements listed at 40 CFR 80.1454.
Producers would also have to ensure that their feedstock satisfies all
applicable definitions in the CAA and RFS regulations, including the
definitions at 40 CFR 80.1401 of planted trees, tree plantations, and
renewable biomass, which, among other provisions, prohibit direct
conversion of previously uncleared land for the production of planted
trees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \295\ See 40 CFR 80.1452(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Generating RINs for Renewable Electricity

A. Background

    The RFS regulations currently contain pathways for the generation
of cellulosic RINs when electricity, produced from biogas, is used as a
transportation fuel.\296\ There has been growing interest in RINs
generated for renewable electricity \297\ as the fleet of electric
vehicles (EVs) has expanded in recent years. Based on 2011-2014 sales
data, we estimate that the current EV fleet is comprised of ~120,000
battery electric vehicles and ~150,000 plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles. Were this fleet to be charged exclusively using renewable
electricity, there exists the potential for the generation of
approximately 30 million RINs annually. The EPA expects that the
potential annual generation of RINs generated for renewable electricity
could increase by roughly 10 million per annum over the next few years.
The EPA believes that these potential RINs represent an opportunity to
incentivize the growth of the EV market in the U.S. while
simultaneously advancing the goals of the CAA to reduce air pollution
and GHG emissions from mobile sources and the fuels that power them.
Revenue from the sale of RINs could be used to incentivize increased
generation of renewable electricity, greater availability of public
charging infrastructure, increased ownership of EVs, or any combination
thereof. As the EPA considers the requirements for generating RINs for
renewable electricity under the RFS program, we do so with the goal of
adopting a structure that best achieves the greater goals of the RFS
program: Increasing the production and use of low GHG fuels produced
from renewable biomass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \296\ See Pathways Q and T in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426. These
pathways presumes that the electricity input into EVs carries the
environmental attributes borne by electricity that is generated from
biogas. The mechanics of this presumption were specified in the
Pathways II rule (79 FR 42128, July 18, 2014).
    \297\ We use the term ``renewable electricity'' in this preamble
to refer to electricity produced from biogas and used as
transportation fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has received a number of registration requests for approval
under the existing provisions for generating RINs for renewable
electricity generated from biogas.\298\ These requests vary
considerably in their approach, from parties interested in generating
RINs for the electricity used by a fleet of EVs, several charging
stations, or groups of interested EV owners, to those interested in
generating RINs for the electricity used by all of the EVs produced by
an EV manufacturer. Many

elements of these RIN generation structures conflict with one another.
This has created an untenable environment for the approval of any
single registration request by the EPA to date. Many of the
registration requests submitted envision generating RINs using
different types of information to verify the use of electricity as
transportation fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \298\ See 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(10) and (11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the diversity of the registration requests submitted for the
generation of RINs for renewable electricity to date, and the necessity
of avoiding the double-counting of RINs for the same quantity of
electricity, the approval of any one of these proposed systems may
preclude the approval of others. The regulations prohibit double-
counting of RINs for the same quantity of renewable electricity. Thus,
for a given quantity of renewable electricity, at most one party--
whether it is the electricity producer, the utility distributing the
electricity, the EV owner, the charging station, or the manufacturer--
can generate the corresponding RINs. The EPA believes the question of
the appropriate party to generate RINs in these circumstances deserves
the opportunity for public comment. In determining the regulatory
requirement for parties seeking to generate RINs for renewable
electricity, our goal is to establish an open and comprehensive program
that will best incentivize growth in the use of renewable electricity
without sacrificing the integrity of the RIN market. We seek comment on
the following discussion and potential RIN generation structures for
renewable electricity in order to help resolve the many issues
associated with choosing an appropriate structure and its design, as
well as which of these structures would best further the goals of the
RFS program. Feedback received in response to this request for comment
will be essential to ensuring that an equitable, open, and
comprehensive program structure is adopted and implemented.

B. Data Requirements for Generating RINs for Renewable Electricity

    A key requirement of the RFS program is the type of data required
to demonstrate that RINs were generated validly and identification of
who is responsible for providing the necessary data for RIN generation.
Vehicle charging data demonstrate the use of electricity as
transportation fuel, one of the two main requirements for RIN
generation (production from renewable biomass being the other).
However, there are several sources of charging data that could be
provided to verify the use of electricity as transportation fuel:

 Charging data from charging stations and/or fleet owners
 Charging data from electric utilities
 Charging data from vehicle manufacturers
 Information from EV owners (from separate meters, telemetric
devices, or onboard diagnostic tools)

    Any of these sources of data could conceivably be used as the basis
for generating RINs for renewable electricity.
    Although multiple types of data can be used to demonstrate the use
of electricity as transportation fuel, allowing them to be used
simultaneously would almost certainly result in the generation of RINs
by multiple parties for the same charging event (i.e., double
counting). For example, if an EV owner charged their vehicle at a
public charging station, it is possible that the vehicle owner,
charging station owner, and vehicle manufacturer would all have record
of the amount of renewable electricity used in this single charging
event.\299\ To protect the integrity of the RIN system, as well as to
further the GHG reduction goals of the CAA, we therefore seek comment
on the entity or entities that the EPA should register for the
generation of RINs for renewable electricity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \299\ At the time of writing, there has been little resolution
regarding whether any of the parties actually has exclusive, legal