Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Renewable Fuel Standard Program, 55552-55651 [06-7887]
Download as PDF
55552
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[EPA–OAR–2005–0161; FRL–8218–8]
RIN 2060–AN76
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel
Additives: Renewable Fuel Standard
Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, as
amended by Section 1501 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, the Environmental
Protection Agency is required to
promulgate regulations implementing a
renewable fuel program. The statute
specifies the total volume of renewable
fuel that needs to be used in each year,
with the total volume increasing over
time. In this context, it is expected to
simultaneously reduce dependence on
foreign sources of petroleum, increase
domestic sources of energy, and help us
make progress in moving beyond a
petroleum-based economy. The
increased use of renewable fuels such as
ethanol and biodiesel is also expected to
have the added benefit of providing an
expanded market for agricultural
products such as corn and soybeans,
expanding economic benefits for our
nation’s agricultural sector. Based on
our analysis, there is also reason to
believe that the expanded use of
renewable fuels will provide reductions
in carbon dioxide emissions and some
air toxics emissions, such as benzene,
from the transportation sector, while
other emissions may increase.
This action proposes regulations
designed to ensure that refiners,
blenders, and importers of gasoline will
use enough renewable fuel each year so
that this total volume requirement is
met. Our proposal describes the
standard that will apply to these parties
and the renewable fuels that qualify for
compliance. The regulations would also
establish a trading program that would
be a critical aspect of the overall
program, allowing renewable fuels to be
used where they are most economical
while providing a flexible means for
obligated parties to comply with the
standard.
Comments: Comments must be
received on or before November 12,
2006. Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, comments on the information
collection provisions must be received
by OMB on or before October 30, 2006.
Hearing: A public hearing will be
held at 10 a.m. (Central) on October 13,
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
DATES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
2006 at the Sheraton Gateway Suites
Chicago O’Hare in Rosemont, IL. To
request to speak at a public hearing,
send a request to the contact in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by
October 4, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA–OAR–2005–0161, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: ASDinfo@epa.gov.
• Mail: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA West (Air
Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Room B108, Mail Code 6102T,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. OAR–2005–0161. Please
include a total of 2 copies. In addition,
please mail a copy of your comments on
the information collection provisions to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC
20503.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington
DC. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–OAR–2005–0161.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is (202) 566–1742.
The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744.
Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered
damage due to flooding during the last week
of June 2006. The Docket Center is
continuing to operate. However, during the
cleanup, there will be temporary changes to
Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses,
and hours of operation for people who wish
to make hand deliveries or visit the Public
Reading Room to view documents. Consult
EPA’s Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147
(July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
for current information on docket operations,
locations and telephone numbers. The
Docket Center’s mailing address for U.S. mail
and the procedure for submitting comments
to www.regulations.gov are not affected by
the flooding and will remain the same.
Hearing: The hearing will be held at
10 a.m. (Central) on October 13, 2006 at
the Sheraton Gateway Suites Chicago
O’Hare, 6501 North Mannheim Road,
Rosemont, Illinois 60018. To request to
speak at a public hearing, send a request
to the contact in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia
MacAllister, U.S. EPA, National Vehicle
and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2000
Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105;
Telephone (734) 214–4131, FAX (734)
214–4816, E-mail
macallister.julia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Entities potentially affected by this
proposed action include those involved
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
with the production, distribution and
sale of gasoline motor fuel or renewable
fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
1 North
Regulated categories and entities could
include:
NAICS1
codes
Category
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
55553
324110
325193
325199
424690
424710
424720
454319
SIC 2
codes
2911
2869
2869
5169
5171
5172
5989
Examples of potentially regulated entities
Petroleum Refineries.
Ethyl alcohol manufacturing.
Other basic organic chemical manufacturing.
Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers.
Petroleum bulk stations and terminals.
Petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers.
Other fuel dealers.
American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.
2 Standard
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but provides a guide for
readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be affected by
this proposed action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also
be affected. To decide whether your
organization might be affected if this
proposed action is finalized, you should
carefully examine today’s notice and the
existing regulations in 40 CFR part 80.
If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the persons
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
my Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
• Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
3. Docket Copying Costs. A reasonable
fee may be charged by EPA for copying
docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR
part 2.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. The Role of Renewable Fuels in the
Transportation Sector
B. Requirements in the Energy Policy Act
C. Default Standard Applicable to 2006
D. Development of the Proposal
II. Overview of the Proposal
A. Impacts of Increased Reliance on
Renewable Fuels
1. Renewable Fuel Volumes Scenarios
Analyzed
2. Emissions
3. Economic Impacts
4. Greenhouse Gases and Fossil Fuel
Consumption
5. Potential Water Quality Impacts
B. Program Structure
1. What is the RFS Program Standard?
2. Who Must Meet the Standard?
3. What Qualifies as a Renewable Fuel?
4. Equivalence Values of Different
Renewable Fuels
5. How Will Compliance Be Determined?
6. How Would the Trading Program Work?
7. How Would the Program Be Enforced?
C. Voluntary Labeling Program
III. Complying With the Renewable Fuel
Standard
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
A. What Is the Standard That Must Be Met?
1. How Is the Percentage Standard
Calculated?
2. What are the Applicable Standards?
3. Compliance in 2007
4. Renewable Volume Obligations
B. What Counts as a Renewable Fuel in the
RFS Program?
1. What Is a Renewable Fuel That Can Be
Used for Compliance?
a. Ethanol Made From a Cellulosic
Feedstock
b. Ethanol Made From Any Feedstock in
Facilities Run Mostly With BiomassBased Fuel
c. Ethanol That Is Made From the NonCellulosic Portions of Animal, Other
Waste, and Municipal Waste
2. What Is Biodiesel?
a. Biodiesel (Mono-Alkyl Esters)
b. Non-Ester Renewable Diesel
3. Is Motor Fuel That is Made From a
Renewable Feedstock a Renewable Fuel?
4. What Are ‘‘Equivalence Values’’ for
Renewable Fuel?
a. Authority Under the Act To Establish
Equivalence Values
b. Energy Content and Renewable Content
as the Basis for Equivalence Values
c. Lifecycle Analyses as the Basis for
Equivalence Values
C. What Gasoline Is Used To Calculate the
Renewable Fuel Obligation and Who Is
Required To Meet the Obligation?
1. What Gasoline Is Used To Calculate the
Volume of Renewable Fuel Required To
Meet a Party’s Obligation?
2. Who Is Required to Meet the Renewable
Fuels Obligation?
3. What Exemptions Are Available Under
the RFS Program?
a. Small Refinery and Small Refiner
Exemption
b. General Hardship Exemption
c. Temporary Exemption Based on
Unforeseen Circumstances
4. What Are the Opt-in and State Waiver
Provisions Under the RFS Program?
a. Opt-in Provisions for Noncontiguous
States and Territories
b. State Waiver Provisions
D. How Do Obligated Parties Comply With
the Standard?
1. Why Use Renewable Identification
Numbers?
a. RINs Serve the Purpose of a Credit
Trading Program
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
55554
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
b. Alternative Approach to Tracking
Batches
2. Generating RINs and Assigning Them to
Batches
a. Form of Renewable Identification
Numbers
b. Generating Extra-Value RINs
c. Cases in Which RINs Are Not Generated
3. Calculating and Reporting Compliance
a. Using RINs To Meet the Standard
b. Valid Life of RINs
c. Cap on RIN Use To Address Rollover
d. Deficit Carryovers
4. Provisions for Exporters of Renewable
Fuel
5. How Would the Agency Verify
Compliance?
E. How Are RINs Distributed and Traded?
1. Distribution of RINs With Batches of
Renewable Fuel
a. Responsibilities of Renewable Fuel
Producers and Importers
b. Responsibilities of Parties That Buy,
Sell, or Handle Renewable Fuels
i. Batch Splits
ii. Batch Mergers
2. Separation of RINs From Batches
3. Distribution of Separated RINs
4. Alternative Approaches to RIN
Distribution
a. Producer With Direct Transfer of RINs
b. Producer With Open RIN Market
c. First Purchaser
d. Owner at Time of Blending
e. Blender at Time of Blending
IV. Registration, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements
A. Introduction
B. Requirements for Obligated Parties and
Exporters of Renewable Fuels
1. Registration
2. Reporting
3. Recordkeeping
C. Requirements for Producers and
Importers of Renewable Fuel
1. Registration
2. Reporting
3. Recordkeeping
D. Requirements for Other Parties Who
Own RINs
1. Registration
2. Reporting
3. Recordkeeping
V. What Acts Are Prohibited and Who Is
Liable for Violations?
VI. Current and Projected Renewable Fuel
Production and Use
A. Overview of U.S. Ethanol Industry and
Future Production/Consumption
1. Current Ethanol Production
2. Expected Growth in Ethanol Production
3. Current Ethanol and MTBE
Consumption
4. Expected Growth in Ethanol
Consumption
B. Overview of Biodiesel Industry and
Future Production/Consumption
1. Characterization of U.S. Biodiesel
Production/Consumption
2. Expected Growth in U.S. Biodiesel
Production/Consumption
C. Feasibility of the RFS Program Volume
Obligations
1. Production Capacity of Ethanol and
Biodiesel
2. Production Capacity of Cellulosic
Ethanol
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
3. Renewable Fuel Distribution System
Capability
VII. Impacts on Cost of Renewable Fuels and
Gasoline
A. Renewable Fuel Production and
Blending Costs
1. Ethanol Production Costs
a. Corn Ethanol
b. Cellulosic Ethanol
c. Ethanol’s Blending Cost
2. Biodiesel Production Costs
3. Diesel Fuel Costs
B. Distribution Costs
1. Ethanol Distribution Costs
a. Capital Costs To Upgrade Distribution
System for Increased Ethanol Volume
b. Ethanol Freight Costs
2. Biodiesel Distribution Costs
C. Estimated Costs to Gasoline
1. RVP Cost for Blending Ethanol Into
Summertime RFG
2. Cost Savings for Phasing Out Methyl
Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)
3. Production of Alkylate From MTBE
Feedstocks
4. Changes in Refinery Produced Gasoline
Volume and Its Costs
5. Overall Impact on Fuel Cost
a. Cost Without Ethanol Subsidies
b. Gasoline Costs Including Ethanol
Consumption Tax Subsidies
c. Cost Sensitivity Case Assuming $70 per
Barrel Crude Oil
VIII. What Are the Impacts of Increased
Ethanol Use on Emissions and Air
Quality?
A. Effect of Renewable Fuel Use on
Emissions
1. Emissions From Gasoline Fueled Motor
Vehicles and Equipment
a. Gasoline Fuel Quality
b. Emissions From Motor Vehicles
c. Nonroad Equipment
2. Diesel Fuel Quality: Biodiesel
3. Renewable Fuel Production and
Distribution
B. Impact on Emission Inventories
1. Primary Analysis
2. Sensitivity Analysis
3. Local and Regional VOC and NOX
Emission Impacts in July
C. Impact on Air Quality
1. Impact of 7.2 Billion Gallon Ethanol Use
on Ozone
2. Particulate Matter
IX. Impacts on Fossil Fuel Consumption and
Related Implications
A. Lifecycle Modeling
1. Modifications to GREET Assumptions
a. Wet-Mill Versus Dry Mill Ethanol Plants
b. Coal Versus Natural Gas in Ethanol
Plants
c. Ethanol Production Yield
2. Controversy Concerning the Ethanol
Energy Balance
B. Overview of Methodology
1. Amount of Conventional Fuel Replaced
By Renewable Fuel (R)
2. Lifecycle Impacts of Conventional Fuel
Use (LC)
3. Displacement Indexes (DI)
C. Impacts of Increased Renewable Fuel
Use
1. Fossil Fuels and Petroleum
2. Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Dioxide
D. Implications of Reduced Imports of
Petroleum Products
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
X. Agricultural Sector Economic Impacts
XI. Public Participation
XII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Overview
2. Background—Small Refiners Versus
Small Refineries
3. Summary of Potentially Affected Small
Entities
4. Impact of the Regulations on Small
Entities
5. Small Refiner Outreach
6. Conclusions
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
XIII. Statutory Authority
I. Background
This section describes the required
elements of the renewable fuel program,
also known as the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS) program, as stipulated
in Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) as amended by the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (the Energy Act or the Act).
A. The Role of Renewable Fuels in the
Transportation Sector
Renewable fuels have been an
important part of our nation’s
transportation fuel supply for many
years. Following the CAA amendments
of 1990, the use of renewables fuels,
particularly ethanol, increased
dramatically. Several key clean fuel
programs required by the CAA
established new market opportunities
for ethanol. A very successful mobile
source control strategy, the reformulated
gasoline (RFG) program, was
implemented in 1995. This program set
stringent new controls on the emissions
performance of gasoline, which were
designed to significantly reduce
summertime ozone precursors and year
round air toxics emissions. The RFG
program also required that RFG meet an
oxygen content standard. Several areas
of the country began blending ethanol
into gasoline to help meet this new
standard, such as Chicago and St. Louis.
Another successful clean fuel strategy
required certain areas exceeding the
national ambient air quality standard for
carbon monoxide to also meet an
oxygen content standard during the
winter time to reduce harmful carbon
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
monoxide emissions. Many of these
areas also blended ethanol during the
winter months to help meet this new
standard, such as Denver and Phoenix.
As a result of these programs, and other
factors, currently all areas requiring RFG
or winter oxygenated fuels are blending
ethanol at some level to support meeting
the clean fuel requirements.
Today, the role and importance of
renewable fuels in the transportation
sector continues to expand. In the past
several years as crude oil prices have
soared above the lower levels of the
1990’s, the relative economics of
renewable fuel use has improved
dramatically. In addition, since the vast
majority of crude oil produced in or
imported into the U.S. is consumed as
gasoline or diesel fuel in the U.S.,
concerns about our dependence on
foreign sources of crude oil has renewed
interest in renewable transportation
fuels. The passage of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 demonstrated a strong
commitment on the part of U.S.
policymakers to consider additional
means of supporting renewable fuels as
a supplement to petroleum-based fuels
in the transportation sector. The RFS
program is such a program.
The RFS program was debated by the
U.S. Congress over several years before
finally being enacted through passage of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The RFS
program is first and foremost designed
to increase the use of renewable fuels in
motor vehicle fuels consumed in the
U.S. In this context, it is expected to
simultaneously reduce dependence on
foreign sources of petroleum, increase
domestic sources of energy, and
diversify our energy portfolio to help in
moving beyond a petroleum-based
economy.
The increased use of renewable fuels
such as ethanol and biodiesel is also
expected to have the added benefit of
providing an expanded market for
agricultural products such as corn and
soybeans. Based on our analysis, there
is also an expectation that the expanded
use of renewable fuels will provide
reductions in carbon dioxide emissions
and air toxics emissions such as
benzene from the transportation sector,
while other emissions such as
hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen
may increase.
The level of the renewable fuels
standard set forth by Congress works in
conjunction with other provisions that
were enacted as part of the Energy Act.
In particular, the level of the renewable
fuel standard more than offset the
possible loss in demand for renewable
fuels occasioned by the Act’s repeal of
the oxygen content mandate in the
reformulated gasoline program while
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
allowing greater flexibility in how
renewable fuels were blended into the
nation’s fuel supply. The renewable fuel
standard additionally created a specific
annual level for minimum renewable
fuel use which increases over time,
ensuring overall growth in the demand
and opportunity for renewable fuels.
Because renewable fuels such as
ethanol and biodiesel are not new to the
U.S. transportation sector, the
expansion of their use is expected to
follow distribution and blending
practices already in place. For instance,
the market already has the necessary
production and distribution
mechanisms in place in many areas, and
the ability to expand these mechanisms
into new markets. Recent spikes in
ethanol use resulting first from the state
MTBE bans, and now the virtual
elimination of MTBE from the
marketplace, have tested the limits of
the ethanol distribution system.
However, future growth is expected to
move in a more orderly fashion since
the use of renewable fuels will not be
geographically constrained and, given
EIA volume projections, investment
decisions can follow market forces
rather than regulatory mandates. In
addition, the increased production
volumes of ethanol and the expanded
penetration of ethanol in new markets
may create new opportunities for
blending of E85, a blend of 85 percent
ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, in the
long run. The increased availability of
E85 will mean that more flexible fueled
vehicles (FFV) can use this fuel. Of the
approximately 5 million FFVs currently
in use in the U.S, most are currently
fueled with conventional gasoline rather
than E85, in part due to the limited
availability of E85.
Given the ever-increasing demand for
petroleum-based products in the
transportation sector, the RFS program
is an important first step in U.S. efforts
to move toward energy independence.
The RFS standard provides the certainty
that at least a minimum amount of
renewable fuel will be used in the U.S.,
which in turn provides investment
certainty for the growth in production
capacity of renewable fuels. However,
the RFS program is not the only thing
impacting demand for ethanol and other
renewable fuels. As Congress was
developing the RFS program in the
Energy Act, several large states were
adopting and implementing bans on the
use of MTBE in gasoline. As a result,
refiners were forced to switch to ethanol
to satisfy the oxygen content mandate
for their reformulated gasoline in the
U.S., causing a large, quick increase in
demand for ethanol. Even more
importantly, with the removal of the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55555
oxygen content mandate for RFG,
refiners elected to remove essentially all
MTBE from the gasoline supply in the
U.S. during the spring of 2006. In order
to accomplish this transition quickly,
while still maintaining gasoline volume,
octane, and gasoline air toxics
performance standards, refiners elected
to blend ethanol into virtually all
reformulated gasoline nationwide. This
caused a second dramatic increase in
demand for ethanol, which in the near
term has been met by temporarily
shifting large volumes of ethanol out of
conventional gasoline and into the RFG
areas. Perhaps the largest impact on
renewable fuel demand, however, has
been the dramatic increase in the cost of
crude oil. In the last few years, both
crude oil prices and crude oil price
forecasts have increased dramatically.
This has resulted in a large economic
incentive for the use of ethanol and
biodiesel. The Energy Information
Administration (EIA) and others are
currently projecting renewable fuel
demand to exceed the minimum
volumes required under the RFS
program by a substantial margin. In this
context, the statutory goal of the RFS
program is to provide an important
foundation for ongoing investment in
renewable fuel production. However,
market demand for renewable fuels is
expected to exceed the statutory
minimums. We believe we are
proposing a program structure that
could continue to operate effectively
regardless of the level of renewable fuel
use or market conditions in the energy
sector.
B. Requirements in the Energy Policy
Act
Section 1501 of the Energy Policy Act
provides the statutory basis for the RFS
program. This provision was added to
the CAA as Section 211(o). It requires
EPA to establish a program to ensure
that the pool of gasoline sold in the
contiguous 48 states contains specific
volumes of renewable fuel for each
calendar year starting with 2006. The
required overall volumes for 2006
through 2012 are shown in Table I.B–1
below.
TABLE I.B–1.—APPLICABLE VOLUMES
OF RENEWABLE FUEL UNDER THE
RFS PROGRAM
Calendar year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
22SEP2
Billion gallons
4.0
4.7
5.4
6.1
6.8
7.4
55556
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I.B–1.—APPLICABLE VOLUMES addition, other states can request a
OF RENEWABLE FUEL UNDER THE waiver of the RFS program under
certain conditions, which would affect
RFS PROGRAM—Continued
the national quantity of renewable fuel
required under the program.
The Act requires the Agency to
2012 ......................................
7.5 promulgate a credit trading program for
the RFS program whereby an obligated
In order to ensure the use of the total
party may generate credits for over
renewable fuel volume specified for
complying with their annual obligation.
each year, the Agency must set a
The obligated party can then use these
standard for each year representing the
credits or trade them for use by another
amount of renewable fuel that a refiner,
obligated party. Thus the credit trading
blender, or importer must use,
program allows obligated parties to
expressed as a percentage of gasoline
comply in the most cost-effective
sold or introduced into commerce. This manner by permitting them to generate,
yearly percentage standard is to be set
transfer, and use credits. The trading
at a level that will ensure that the total
program also permits renewable fuels
renewable fuel volumes shown in Table that are not blended into gasoline, such
I.B–1 will be used based on gasoline
as biodiesel, to participate in the RFS
volume projections provided by the
program.
Energy Information Administration
The Agency must also determine who
(EIA). The standard for each year must
can generate credits and under what
be published in the Federal Register by
conditions, how credits may be
November 30 of the previous year.
transferred from one party to another,
Starting with 2013, EPA is required to
and in certain cases the appropriate
establish the applicable national
value of credits for different types of
volume, based on the criteria contained
renewable fuel. If a party is not able to
in the statute, which must require at
generate or purchase sufficient credits to
least the same overall percentage of
meet their annual obligation, they are
renewable fuel use as was required in
allowed to carry over the deficit to the
2012.
next annual compliance period, but
Renewable fuels are defined in the
must achieve full compliance in that
Act primarily on the basis of the
following year.
feedstock. In general, renewable fuels
C. Default Standard Applicable to 2006
must be a motor vehicle fuel that is
produced from plant or animal products
The Energy Act was enacted in
or wastes, as opposed to fossil fuel
August of 2005 and included provisions
sources. The Act specifically identifies
for a renewable fuel program that was to
several types of motor vehicle fuels as
begin in January of 2006. We recognized
renewable fuels, including cellulosic
that a rulemaking implementing the full
biomass ethanol, waste-derived ethanol, RFS program, including both program
biogas, biodiesel, and blending
design and the various analyses
components derived from renewable
necessary, would require a substantial
fuel.
effort involving many stakeholders. This
The standard set annually by EPA is
process was expected to take longer
to be a single percentage applicable to
than one year, and as a result we knew
refiners, blenders, and importers, as
it would not be completed in time to be
appropriate. The percentage standard is implemented by January of 2006.
used by obligated parties to determine a
The Energy Act anticipated this
volume of renewable fuel that they are
possibility and specified a default
responsible for ensuring is introduced
standard applicable for just 2006. The
into the domestic gasoline pool for the
default standard specified that the
given year. The percentage standard
percentage of renewable fuel in gasoline
must be adjusted such that it does not
sold or dispensed to consumers in the
apply to multiple parties for the same
U.S. in calendar year 2006 must be 2.78
volume of gasoline. The standard must
volume percent.1 The default standard
also take into account the fact that small would be applicable if the Agency did
refineries are exempted from the
not promulgate regulations to
program until 2011, but must take into
implement the full RFS program for
account the use of renewable fuel by
2006. Since the full program could not
those small refineries.
be promulgated during 2006, the default
Under the Act, the required volumes
standard of 2.78 percent applies to
in Table I.B–1 apply to the contiguous
calendar year 2006.
48 states. However, Alaska and Hawaii
However, the provision for the default
can opt into the program, in which case standard in the Act does not provide
the pool of gasoline used to calculate
the standard, and the number of
1 The default standard of 2.78 percent represented
regulated parties, would change. In
approximately 4.0 billion gallons of renewable fuel.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Calendar year
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Billion gallons
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
adequate specificity on how to
implement the default standard. For
instance, the Act’s default standard
provision does not specify the liable
parties and the specific nature of their
obligation. It also does not discuss
compliance mechanisms, reporting
requirements, or credit generation and
use. The resulting uncertainty
associated with the default standard
would have created confusion and
risked a problematic initial
implementation of the RFS program.
As a result, the Agency published a
rule on December 30, 2005 that
interpreted and implemented the
default provision, to provide certainty to
parties involved in the production and
distribution of gasoline and renewable
fuels.2 In that action, the Agency
clarified the default standard for 2006
with regulations identifying the liable
parties as refiners, importers, and
blenders. The default standard was
interpreted as establishing a collective
obligation, rather than an individual
obligation. Under this interpretation,
refiners, blenders, and importers are
responsible as a group for meeting the
default 2.78 percent standard, and
compliance with this standard is
calculated over the pool of all gasoline
sold to consumers. An individual
refiner, blender, or importer is not
responsible for meeting the 2.78 percent
standard for the specific gasoline it
produces. The regulations implementing
the default standard for 2006 did not
include any provisions for credit
generation or trading, given the
collective nature of the obligation.
However, any shortfall in renewable
fuel production in 2006 would be added
as a deficit carryover to the standard for
2007. Based on information available to
date, this does not appear to be
necessary. Total ethanol production in
the U.S. exceeded 4.0 billion gallons in
2005 by a small margin, and several
hundred million gallons of additional
ethanol production capacity has come
online in 2006. Thus it is anticipated
that the total ethanol production volume
and ultimate use in 2006 will be more
than sufficient to meet the default
standard of 2.78 percent.
Today’s proposal outlines the full RFS
program, covering all of the provisions
required in the Act. It applies in
calendar year 2007 and beyond, since
the direct final rule described above
addresses RFS compliance for 2006
only.
D. Development of the Proposal
The RFS program was prescribed in
section 1501 of the Act, including the
2 70
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
FR 77325 (December 30, 2005).
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
required total volumes, the timing of the
obligation, the parties who are obligated
to comply, the definition of renewable
fuel, and the general framework for a
credit program. As with many
legislative actions, various aspects of the
program require additional development
by the Agency beyond the specifications
in the Act. The credit trading program
and related compliance mechanisms are
a central aspect of the program, and the
Agency is responsible for developing
regulations to ensure the successful
implementation of the RFS program,
based on the framework spelled out in
the statute.
Under the RFS program the credit
trading provisions will comprise a
critical element of compliance. Many
obligated parties do not have easy
access to renewable fuels or the ability
to blend them, and so will rely on the
use of credits to comply. The RFS credit
program is also unique in that the
parties liable for meeting the standard
(refiners, importers, and blenders of
gasoline) are not generally the parties
who make the renewable fuels or blend
them into gasoline. This creates the
need for trading mechanisms that
ensure that the means to demonstrate
compliance will be readily available for
use by obligated parties.
Given these considerations, the first
step we took in developing the proposed
program was to seek input and
recommendations from the affected
stakeholders. There were initially a
wide range of thoughts and views on
how to design the program. However,
there was broad consensus that in the
end the program should satisfy a
number of guiding principles, including
for example that the compliance and
trading program should provide
certainty to the marketplace and
minimize cost to the consumers; that the
program should preserve existing
business practices for the production,
distribution, and use of both
conventional and renewable fuels; that
the program should be designed to
accommodate all qualifying renewable
fuels; that all renewable volumes
produced are made available to
obligated parties for compliance; and
finally that the Agency should have the
ability to easily verify compliance to
ensure that the volume obligations are
in fact met. Over the course of several
months, these guiding principles helped
to move us toward today’s proposal.
II. Overview of the Proposal
Today’s action describes our proposed
requirements for the RFS program, as
well as a preliminary assessment of the
environmental and economic impacts of
the nation’s transition to greater use of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
renewable fuels. This section provides
an overview of our proposal and
renewable fuel impacts assessment.
Sections III through V provide the
details of the proposed structure of the
program, while Sections VI through X
describe our preliminary assessment of
the impacts on emissions, air quality,
fossil fuel use, and cost resulting from
expanded renewable fuel use.
A. Impacts of Increased Reliance on
Renewable Fuels
In a typical major rulemaking, EPA
would conduct a full assessment of the
economic and environmental impacts of
the program. However, as discussed in
Section I.A., the replacement of MTBE
with ethanol and the extremely
favorable economics for renewable fuels
brought on by the rise in crude oil
prices are causing renewable fuel use to
far exceed the RFS requirements. This
makes an assessment of the program of
limited if any utility, given that it is not
currently driving real world impacts
and future projections by the Energy
Information Administration indicate
that this favorable condition will
continue. Consequently, it is of greater
relevance and interest to assess the
impacts of this larger increase in
renewable use and the related changes
occurring to gasoline. For this reason we
have carried out an assessment of the
economic and environmental impacts of
the broader changes in fuel quality
resulting from our nation’s transition to
greater utilization of renewable fuels, as
opposed to an assessment of the RFS
program itself.
In summary, depending on the
volume of renewable fuel assumed to be
used in 2012 (7.5 to 9.9 billion gallons),
we estimate that this transition to
renewable fuels will reduce petroleum
consumption by 2.3 to 3.9 billion
gallons or approximately 1.0 to 1.6
percent of the petroleum that would
otherwise be used by the transportation
sector. Carbon monoxide emissions
from gasoline powered vehicles and
equipment will be reduced by 1.3 to 3.6
percent while emissions of benzene (a
mobile source air toxic) will be reduced
by 1.7 to 6.2 percent. At the same time,
other emissions may increase.
Nationwide, we estimate between a
28,000 and 97,000 ton increase in VOC
+ NOX emissions. However, the effects
will vary significantly by region with
some major areas like New York City,
Chicago and Los Angeles experiencing
no increase while other areas may see
an increase in VOC emissions from 3 to
5 percent and an increase in NOX
emissions from 4 to 6 percent from
gasoline powered vehicles and
equipment. Furthermore, the use of
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55557
renewable fuel will reduce CO2
equivalent greenhouse gas emissions by
9 to 14 million tons, about 0.4 to 0.6
percent of the anticipated greenhouse
gas emissions from the transportation
sector in the United States in 2012. On
average, we estimate the cost of this
increase in renewable fuel to range from
0.3 cents per gallon to 1 cent per gallon
of gasoline for the nation as a whole. We
anticipate additional impacts that we
intend to evaluate as part of the final
rulemaking, including changes in
renewable fuel feedstock market prices,
decreased imports of petroleum, and
effects on energy security.
To carry out our analyses, we elected
to use 2004 as the baseline from which
to compare the impacts of expanded
renewable use. We chose 2004 as a
baseline primarily due to the fact that
all the necessary refinery production
data, renewable production data, and
fuel quality data was already in hand at
the time we needed to begin the
analysis. We did not use 2005 as a
baseline year because 2005 may not be
an appropriate year for comparison due
to the extraordinary impacts of
hurricanes Katrina and Rita on gasoline
production and use. To assess the
impacts of anticipated increases in
renewable fuels, we elected to look at
what they would be in 2012, the year
the statutorily-mandated renewable fuel
volumes will be fully phased in. By
conducting the analysis in this manner,
the impacts include not just the impact
of expanded renewable fuel use by
itself, but also the corresponding
decrease in the use of MTBE, and the
potential for oxygenates to be removed
from RFG due to the absence of the RFG
oxygenate mandate. Since these three
changes are all inextricably linked and
are occurring simultaneously in the
marketplace, evaluating the impacts in
this manner is appropriate.
We evaluated the impacts of
expanded renewable use and the
corresponding changes to the fuel
supply on fuel costs, consumption of
fossil fuels, and some of the economic
impacts on the agricultural sector. We
also evaluated the impacts on
emissions, including greenhouse gas
emissions, and the corresponding
impacts on nationwide and regional air
quality. Our preliminary analyses are
summarized in this section. There are a
number of uncertainties associated with
this preliminary assessment. The
analyses described here will be updated
for the final rule including additional
investigation into these uncertainties.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55558
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
1. Renewable Fuel Volumes Scenarios
Analyzed
As shown in Table I.B–1, the Act
stipulates that the nationwide volumes
of renewable fuel required under the
RFS program must be at least 4.0 billion
gallons in 2006 and increase to 7.5
billion gallons in 2012. However, we
expect that the volume of renewable
fuel will actually exceed the required
volumes by a significant margin. Based
on economic modeling, EIA projects
renewable demand in 2012 of 9.6 billion
gallons for ethanol, and 300 million
gallons for biodiesel using crude oil
prices forecast at $47 per barrel.
Therefore, in assessing the impacts of
expanded use of renewable fuels, we
evaluated two comparative scenarios,
one representing the statutorily required
minimum, and one reflecting the higher
levels projected by EIA. Although the
actual renewable fuel volumes produced
in 2012 may differ from both the
required and projected volumes, we
believe that these two volume scenarios
together represent a reasonable range for
analysis purposes.
The Act also stipulates that at least
250 million gallons out of the total
volume required in 2013 and beyond
must be cellulosic biomass ethanol.
Because we anticipate a ramp-up in
production of cellulosic biomass
ethanol products in the coming years,
we have assumed that 250 million
gallons of ethanol in 2012 will come
from a cellulosic biomass source. Also,
EIA has projected in their economic
modeling a biodiesel demand in 2012 of
300 million gallons. Thus for both the
required and projected volume
scenarios that we evaluated for 2012, we
assumed these same production
volumes for cellulosic biomass ethanol
and biodiesel.
As discussed above, we chose 2004 as
our baseline. However, a direct
comparison of the fuel quality impacts
on emissions and air quality required
that changes in overall fuel volume,
fleet characterization, and other factors
be constant. Therefore, we developed a
reference case which represents the fuel
volume, fleet characterization, and other
factors expected in 2012. Fuel quality
was maintained by simply growing
ethanol use in equal proportion to
growth in gasoline demand through
2012.
A summary of the assumed renewable
fuel volumes for the scenarios we
compared is shown in Table II.A.1–1.
TABLE II.A.1.–1—RENEWABLE FUEL VOLUME SCENARIOS
[billion gallons]
2012
2004 Base
case
Reference
case
RFS
required
volume
Projected volume
Corn-ethanol ............................................................................................................
Cellulosic ethanol .....................................................................................................
Biodiesel ..................................................................................................................
3.5
0
0.025
3.9
0
0.028
6.95
0.25
0.3
9.35
0.25
0.3
Total volume .....................................................................................................
3.025
3.928
7.5
9.9
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
2. Emissions
We evaluated the impacts of increased
use of ethanol and biodiesel on
emissions and air quality in the U.S.
relative to the 2012 reference case. For
the nation as a whole, we estimated that
summertime VOC and NOX emissions
from gasoline and diesel vehicles and
equipment would each increase by
about 0.5 percent for the 7.5 billion
gallon scenario, and by about 1.0
percent for the 9.9 billion gallon
scenario. This would be equivalent to
between 28,000 and 97,000 tons of VOC
+ NOX nationwide. However, the effects
will vary by region. For instance, for
areas in which 10 percent ethanol
blends already predominated in 2004,
such as New York City, Chicago, and
Los Angeles, if they continue to use
ethanol at the same levels there will be
no impact. However, for conventional
gasoline areas in which no ethanol was
used in 2004 but which are projected to
transition to full use of ethanol in 2012,
we estimated that VOC and NOX
emissions from gasoline vehicles and
equipment would increase by 3–5
percent and 4–6 percent, respectively.
Unlike VOC and NOX, emissions of
CO and benzene from gasoline and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
22:30 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
diesel vehicles and equipment were
estimated to decrease when the use of
renewable fuels increased. Reductions
in emissions of CO varied from as low
as 1.3 percent to as high as 3.6 percent
for the nation as a whole, depending on
both the renewable fuel volume scenario
and assumptions regarding the amount
of ethanol used in reformulated versus
conventional gasoline. Benzene
emissions from gasoline vehicles and
equipment were estimated to be reduced
from 1.7 to 6.2 percent.
We do not have sufficient data to
predict the effect of ethanol use on
levels of either directly emitted
particulate matter (PM) or secondarily
formed PM, but do expect a net
reduction in ambient PM levels to result
due to the secondary PM impacts as
discussed in section VIII.C. However,
data on direct PM emission impacts is
available for biodiesel. We estimate that
reductions in emissions of direct PM
from the projected increase in the use of
biodiesel to be about 100 tons
nationwide, equivalent to less than 0.5
percent of the diesel PM inventory.
The emission impact estimates
described above are based on the best
available data and models. However, it
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
must be highlighted that most of the fuel
effect estimates are based on very
limited or old data which may no longer
be reliable in estimating the emission
impacts on vehicles in the 2012 fleet
with advanced emission controls. 3 As
such, these emission estimates should
be viewed as preliminary. EPA hopes to
conduct significant new testing in order
to better estimate the impact of fuel
changes on emissions from both
highway vehicles and nonroad
equipment, including those fuel changes
brought about by the use of renewable
fuels. We hope to be able to incorporate
the data from such additional testing
into the analyses for other studies
required by the Energy Act in 2008 and
2009, and into a subsequent rule to set
the RFS program standard for 2013 and
later.
We used the Ozone Response Surface
Model (RSM) to estimate the impacts of
increased use of ethanol on ozone levels
for the 7.5 billion gallon use scenario
representing the required volumes
3 Advanced emission controls include closecoupled, high density catalysts and their associated
electronic control systems for light-duty vehicles,
and NOX adsorbers and PM traps for heavy-duty
engines.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
under the RFS program. We did not
evaluate other renewable fuel volumes
scenarios due to the limited amount of
time available for completing this
NPRM. The ozone RSM approximates
the effect of VOC and NOX emissions in
a 37-state eastern area of the U.S. Using
this model, we projected that the
changes in VOC and NOX emissions
could produce a very small increase in
ambient ozone levels. On average, ozone
levels increased by 0.06 ppb, which
represents less than 0.1 percent of the
standard. Even for areas expected to
experience a significant increase in
ethanol use, ozone levels increased by
only 0.1–0.2 ppb, less than 0.2 percent
of the standard. These ozone impacts do
not consider the reductions in CO
emissions mentioned above, or the
change in the types of compounds
comprising VOC emissions.
Directionally, both of these effects may
mitigate these already small ozone
increases. The ozone impacts also do
not consider the impact of increased
emissions from ethanol and biodiesel
production facilities or any
corresponding decrease in emissions
from refineries.
We investigated several other issues
related to emissions and air quality that
could affect our estimates of the impacts
of increased use of renewable fuels.
These are discussed in section VIII and
in greater detail in the draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis (DRIA). For instance,
our current models assume that recent
model year vehicles are insensitive to
many fuel changes. However, a limited
amount of new test data suggests that
newer vehicles may be just as sensitive
as older model year vehicles. Our
sensitivity analysis suggests that if this
is the case VOC emissions could
decrease slightly while NOX would still
increase. We also evaluated the
emissions from the production of both
ethanol and biodiesel fuel and
determined that they will also increase
with increased use of these fuels.
Nationwide, emissions related to the
production and distribution of ethanol
and biodiesel fuel are expected to be of
the same order of magnitude as the
emission impacts related to the use of
these fuels in vehicles. Finally, a lack of
emission data and atmospheric
modeling tools prevented us from
making specific projections of the
impact of renewable fuels on ambient
PM levels. However, ethanol use may
have an affect on ambient PM levels.
Emerging science indicates that
aromatic VOC emissions react in the
atmosphere to form PM. Increased
ethanol use is expected to cause a
corresponding reduction in the aromatic
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
content of gasoline, which should
reduce aromatic VOC emissions and
therefore potentially also impact
atmospheric PM levels. All of these
issues will be the subject of further
study and analysis in the future.
3. Economic Impacts
As discussed in more detail in Section
X, for the final rule we also plan to
assess a range of economic impacts that
could result from the expanded use of
renewable fuels. Due to the time
required to complete these analyses, we
only have preliminary data for some of
these impacts available for this
proposal.
In Section VII of this preamble, we
estimate the cost of producing the extra
volumes of renewable fuel anticipated
through 2012. For corn ethanol, we
estimate the per gallon cost of ethanol
to range from $1.20 per gallon in 2012
(2004 dollars) in the case of the 7.2
billion gallons per year case and $1.26
per gallon in the case of the 9.6 billion
gallon case. These costs take into
account the cost of the feedstock (corn),
plant equipment and operation and the
value of any co-products (distiller’s
dried grain and solubles, for example).
For biodiesel, we estimate the per gallon
cost to be between $1.89 and $2.11 per
gallon if produced using soy bean oil,
and less if using yellow grease or other
relatively low cost or no-cost feedstocks.
All of these fuel production costs are
without accounting for tax subsidies for
these renewable fuels.4 We also note
that these costs represent the production
cost of the fuel and not the market price.
In recent years, the prices of ethanol and
biodiesel have tended to track the prices
of gasoline and diesel, in some cases
even exceeding those prices.
These renewable feedstocks are then
used as blend fuels in gasoline and
diesel. While biodiesel is typically just
blended with petroleum diesel,
additional efforts are sometimes
necessary and/or economically
advantageous at the refiner level when
adding ethanol to gasoline. For example,
ethanol’s high octane reduces the need
for other octane enhancements by the
refiner, whereas offsetting the volatility
increase caused by ethanol may require
removal of other highly volatile
components. Section VII examines these
fuel cost impacts and concludes that the
net cost to society in 2012 in
comparison to the reference case of the
increased use of renewable fuels and
their replacement of MTBE, will range
4 Tax subsidies were subtracted out of the cost
estimates, but consumer behavior in the absence of
these tax subsidies was not modeled.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55559
from an estimate of 0.3 cent to 1 cent
per gallon of gasoline.
This fuel cost impact does not
consider other societal benefits. For
example, the petroleum-based fuel
displaced by renewable fuel, largely
produced in the United States, should
reduce our use of imported oil and fuel.
We estimate that 95 percent of the
lifecycle petroleum reductions resulting
from the use of renewable fuel will be
met through reductions in net
petroleum imports. In Section IX of this
preamble we estimate the value of the
decrease in imported petroleum at about
$3.5 billion in 2012 for the 7.5 billion
gallon case and $5.8 billion for the 9.6
billion gallon case, in comparison to our
2012 reference case. Total petroleum
import expenditures in 2012 are
projected to be about $698 billion.
The above numbers only assess those
impacts of increased production and use
of renewable fuel that we can quantify
at this time. The RFS program attempts
to spur the increased use of renewable
transportation fuels made principally
from agricultural crops produced in the
U.S. As a result, it is important to
analyze the consequences of the
transition to greater renewable fuel use
in the U.S. agricultural sector. To
analyze the impacts on the U.S.
agricultural sector, EPA has selected the
Forest and Agricultural Sector
Optimization Model (FASOM)
developed by Professor Bruce McCarl,
Texas A&M University and others over
the past thirty years. FASOM is a
dynamic, nonlinear programming model
of the agriculture and forestry sectors of
the U.S. (For this analysis, we will be
focusing upon the agriculture portion of
the model.) The strength of this model
is its consideration of the full direct and
indirect impacts of a shift in production
of an agricultural commodity. For
example, increased ethanol use will
increase the demand for corn. The
model assesses not only the impacts of
increased demand for corn on acres
devoted to corn production but also
where the incremental corn will be
produced, what other crops will be
displaced and how corn is allocated
among competing uses. Shifts in corn
production will likely impact the price
of corn and other crop prices. The
model can also estimate the impacts of
increased renewable fuel use on animal
feed costs, animal production, costs to
consumers and U.S. agricultural
exports. Similarly, FASOM can estimate
effects on U.S. farm employment and
income (broken down by region, and
farm sector such as corn farmers versus
soybean producers versus the livestock
industry, for example).
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55560
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
One of the effects of increased use of
renewable fuel is that it diversifies the
energy sources used in making
transportation fuel. To the extent that
diverse sources of fuel energy reduce
the dependence on any one source, the
risks, both financial as well as strategic,
of potential disruption in supply or
spike in cost of a particular energy
source is reduced. As part of the RFS
rulemaking, EPA is estimating the
energy security effects of reduced oil
use due to the expanded use of
renewable fuel. However, these analyses
will not be available until the final rule.
4. Greenhouse Gases and Fossil Fuel
Consumption
There has been considerable interest
in the impacts of fuel programs on
greenhouse gases and fossil fuel
consumption. Therefore, in this
proposed rulemaking we have
undertaken an analysis of the
greenhouse gas and fossil fuel
consumption impacts of a transition to
greater renewable fuel use. This is the
first analysis of its kind in a major rule,
and as such it may guide future work in
this area.
As a result of the transition to greater
renewable fuel use, some petroleumbased gasoline and diesel will be
directly replaced by renewable fuels.
Therefore, consumption of petroleumbased fuels will be lower than it would
be if no renewable fuels were used in
transportation vehicles. However, a true
measure of the impact of greater use of
renewable fuels on petroleum use, and
indeed on the use of all fossil fuels,
accounts not only for the direct use and
combustion of the finished fuel in a
vehicle or engine, but also includes the
petroleum use associated with
production and transportation of that
fuel. For instance, fossil fuels are used
in producing and transporting
renewable feedstocks such as plants or
animal byproducts, in converting the
renewable feedstocks into renewable
fuel, and in transporting and blending
the renewable fuels for consumption as
motor vehicle fuel. Likewise, fossil fuels
are used in the production and
transportation of petroleum and its
finished products. In order to estimate
the true impacts of increases in
renewable fuel use on fossil fuel use, we
must take these steps into account. Such
analyses are termed lifecycle analyses.
We compared the lifecycle impacts of
renewable fuels to the petroleum-based
gasoline and diesel fuels that they
replace. This analysis allowed us to
estimate not only the overall impacts of
renewable fuel use on petroleum use,
but also on emissions of greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide from all
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
fossil fuels. Based on a comparison to
the 2004 base fuel, we estimated that the
increased use of renewable fuels will
reduce petroleum consumption by about
1.0 to 1.6 percent in the transportation
sector in 2012. This is equivalent to 2.3–
3.9 billion gallons of petroleum in 2012.
We also estimated that greenhouse gases
from the transportation sector will be
reduced by about 0.4–0.6 percent,
equivalent to about 9–14 million tons.
These reductions are projected to
continue to increase in the future as
crude oil prices are expected to
continue to provide the stimulus for
greater use of renewable fuels beyond
2012. These greenhouse gas emission
reductions are also dominated by the
forecast that the majority of the future
ethanol use will be produced from corn.
If advances in cellulosic technology
allow its use to exceed the levels
assumed in our analysis, then even
greater greenhouse gas reductions
would result.5
5. Potential Water Quality Impacts
Expansion in the use of renewable
fuels will also have other important
impacts which should be the focus of
further study and evaluation. In
particular, renewable fuels such as
ethanol and biodiesel produced from
agricultural feedstocks raise important
issues with respect to the water quality
impacts resulting from the increased
production of corn and soybeans. Due to
competing demand, which includes
livestock producers, sweetener
manufacturers, and foreign buyers
among others, it is extremely unlikely
that the current corn crop would be
devoted to ethanol production. USDA’s
Economic Research Service predicts that
current demand for feed and exports are
expected to stay constant or perhaps
rise.6 Additional corn-based ethanol
production would have to come from
increased corn yields, increased acreage,
and switching acreage to corn
production from other crops like
soybeans and cotton.7
Changes in agriculture as a result of
increased use of renewable fuels can
have significant adverse effects upon
water quality, either locally or on a
more broad basis. This has the potential
to lead to increased runoff and delivery
to water bodies of nutrients, pesticides
and sediments, as well as increased
5 Cellulosic ethanol is estimated to provide a
comparable petroleum displacement as corn
derived ethanol on a per gallon basis, though the
impacts on total energy and greenhouse gas
emissions differ.
6 ‘‘USDA Agricultural Baseline Projections To
2015,’’ February 2006, Economic Research Service.
7 For more discussion of agricultural sector
effects, see Section IX.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
salinity of farmland resulting from
increased irrigation. The increased
runoff of nutrients in turn can cause
eutrophication of small water bodies as
a result of localized runoff or large water
bodies as a result of increased regional
runoff such as currently occurs in the
creation of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf
of Mexico, or eutrophication in the
Chesapeake Bay. Some lands have been
retired (e.g., under the Farm Bill’s
Conservation Reserve Program, or
simply at the land-owner’s initiative)
because those lands are highly erosive,
steep, or adjacent to water bodies.
Therefore, farming these lands without
appropriate mitigation measures would
pose a particularly great risk to water
quality and threaten to erase some of the
gains of the last 20 years of Farm Bill
and Clean Water Act implementation.
Note that there may be similar
environmental implications in other
countries depending on the extent that
either imports of renewable fuels or
exports of agricultural commodities
such as corn are affected.
We have not conducted an analysis
for this proposal of the impacts on water
quality that might result from the
increased use of renewable fuels.
However, this impact could present
important public policy issues as
renewable use expands, with
examination required of both the
possible benefits and detriments.
B. Program Structure
The RFS program proposed today
requires refiners, importers, and
blenders (other than oxygenate
blenders) to show that a required
volume of renewable fuel is used. The
required volume is determined by
multiplying their annual gasoline
production by a percentage standard
specified by EPA. Compliance is
demonstrated through the acquisition of
unique Renewable Identification
Numbers (RINs) assigned by the
producer to every batch of renewable
fuel produced. The RIN shows that a
certain volume of renewable fuel was
produced. Each year, the refiners,
blenders and importers obligated to
meet the renewable volume requirement
(referred to as ‘‘obligated parties’’) must
acquire sufficient RINs to demonstrate
compliance with their volume
obligation. RINs can be traded in the
same manner as the credits envisioned
in the Act. A system of recordkeeping
and electronic reporting for all parties
that have RINs ensures the integrity of
the RIN pool. This RIN-based system
would both meet the requirements of
the Act and provide several other
important advantages:
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
• Renewable fuel production volumes
can be easily verified.
• RIN trading can occur in real time
as soon as the renewable fuel is
produced rather than waiting to the end
of the year when an obligated party
would determine if it had exceeded the
standard.
• Renewable fuel can continue to be
produced, distributed, and blended in
those markets where it is most
economical to do so.
• Instances of double-counting of
renewable fuel claimed for compliance
purposes can be identified based on
electronically reported data.
Our proposed RIN-based trading
program will be an essential component
of the RFS program, ensuring that every
obligated party can comply with the
standard while providing the flexibility
for each obligated party to use
renewable fuel in the most economical
ways possible.
1. What Is the RFS Program Standard?
EPA is required to convert the
aggregate national volumes of renewable
fuel specified in the Act into
corresponding renewable fuel standards
expressed as a percent of gasoline
production. The renewable volume
obligation that would apply to an
obligated party would then be
determined based on this percentage
and the total gasoline production or
import volume in a calendar year,
January 1 through December 31. EPA
will publish the percentage standard in
the Federal Register each November for
the following year based on the most
recent EIA gasoline demand projections.
However, since this rulemaking will not
be finalized prior to November, 2006,
we are proposing in this notice that the
standard for 2007 be 3.71 percent.
Section III.A describes the calculation of
the standard.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
2. Who Must Meet the Standard?
Under our proposal, any party that
produces gasoline for consumption in
the U.S., including refiners, importers,
and blenders (other than oxygenate
blenders), would be subject to a
renewable volume obligation that is
based on the renewable fuel standard.
These obligated parties would
determine the level of their obligation
by multiplying the percentage standard
by their annual gasoline production
volume. The result would be the
renewable fuel volume which each
party must ensure is blended into
gasoline consumed in the U.S., with
credit for certain other renewable fuels
that are not blended into gasoline. EPA
will publish the percentage standard for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
a year by November of the preceding
year.
For 2007, we are proposing that the
renewable fuel volume obligation be
etermined by multiplying the
percentage standard by the volume of
gasoline produced or imported
prospectively from the effective date of
the final rule until December 31, 2007.
As discussed in Section III.A.3, we
considered and are seeking comment on
several other approaches for compliance
in 2007, but believe this approach is
most appropriate given the
circumstances. We are also confident
that the total volume of renewable fuel
used in 2007 will still exceed the
volume specified in the Act.
In determining their annual gasoline
production volume, obligated parties
would include all of the finished
gasoline which they produced or
imported for use in the contiguous 48
states, and would also include
renewable blendstock for oxygenate
blending (RBOB), and conventional
blendstock for oxygenate blending
(CBOB). Blenders would count as their
gasoline production only the volumes of
blendstocks added to finished or
unfinished gasoline. Renewable fuels
blended into gasoline by any party
would not be counted as gasoline for the
purposes of calculating the annual
gasoline production volume.
Small refiners and small refineries
would be exempt from meeting the
renewable fuel requirements through
2010. All gasoline producers located in
Alaska, Hawaii, and noncontiguous U.S.
territories would be exempt indefinitely.
However, if Alaska, Hawaii or a
noncontiguous territory opted into the
RFS program, all of the refiners (except
for small refiners and refineries),
importers, and blenders located in the
state would be subject to the renewable
fuel standard.
Section III.A provides more details on
the standard that must be met, while
Section III.C describes the parties that
are obligated to meet the standard.
3. What Qualifies as a Renewable Fuel?
We have designed the proposal
flexibly to cover the range of renewable
fuels produced today as well as any that
might be produced in the future, so long
as they meet the Act’s definition of
renewable fuel and have been registered
and approved for use in motor vehicles.
In this manner, we believe that the
proposed program will provide the
greatest possible encouragement for the
development, production, and use of
renewable fuels to reduce our
dependence on petroleum. In general,
renewable fuels must be produced from
plant or animal products or wastes, as
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55561
opposed to fossil fuel sources. Valid
renewable fuels would include ethanol
made from starch seeds, sugar, or
cellulosic materials, biodiesel (monoalkyl esters), non-ester renewable diesel,
and a variety of other products. Both
renewable fuels blended into
conventional gasoline or diesel and
those used in their neat (unblended)
form as motor vehicle fuel would
qualify. Section III.B provides more
details on the renewable fuels that
would be allowed to be used for
compliance with the standard under our
proposal.
4. Equivalence Values of Different
Renewable Fuels
One question that EPA faced in
developing the program was what value
to place on different renewable fuels
and on what basis should that value be
determined. The Act specifies that each
gallon of cellulosic ethanol be treated as
if it were 2.5 gallons of renewable fuel,
but does not specify the values for other
renewable fuels. As discussed in
Section III.B.4., we considered and are
seeking comment on a range of options
including straight volume, energy
content, and life cycle energy or
greenhouse gas emissions. However, we
are proposing that the ‘‘Equivalence
Values’’ for the different renewable fuels
be based on their energy content in
comparison to the energy content of
ethanol, and adjusted as necessary for
their renewable content. The result is an
Equivalence Value for corn ethanol of
1.0, for biobutanol of 1.3, for biodiesel
(mono alkyl ester) of 1.5, for non-ester
renewable diesel of 1.7, and for
cellulosic ethanol of 2.5. The proposed
methodology can be used to determine
the appropriate Equivalence Value for
any other potential renewable fuel as
well.
5. How Will Compliance Be
Determined?
Under our proposed program, every
gallon of renewable fuel produced or
imported into the U.S. would be
assigned a unique renewable
identification number (RIN). A block of
RINs could be assigned to any batch of
renewable fuel that is valid for
compliance purposes under the RFS
program. These RINs would be placed
on product transfer documents (PTD) as
a batch of renewable fuel is transferred
through the distribution system. Once
the renewable fuel is obtained by an
obligated party or actually blended into
a motor vehicle fuel, the RIN could be
separated from the batch of renewable
fuel to which it had been assigned, and
then either used for compliance
purposes or traded. For excess RINs
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
55562
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
resulting from the production of
renewable fuels with Equivalence
Values greater than 1.0, the producer of
the renewable fuel could retain them for
marketing separately (they need not be
assigned to a batch of renewable fuel
and placed on PTDs).
RINs would represent proof of
production which is then taken as proof
of consumption as well, since all
renewable fuel produced or imported
will be either consumed as fuel or
exported. For instance, ethanol
produced for use as motor vehicle fuel
is denatured specifically so that it can
only be used as fuel. Similarly, biodiesel
is produced only for use as fuel and has
no other potential uses. An obligated
party would demonstrate compliance
with the renewable fuel standard by
accumulating sufficient RINs to cover
their individual renewable fuel volume
obligation. It would not matter whether
the obligated party used the renewable
fuel themselves. A party’s obligation
would be to ensure that a certain
amount of renewable fuel was used,
whether by themselves or by someone
else, and the RIN would be evidence
that this occurred for a certain volume
of renewable fuel. Exporters of
renewable fuel would also be required
to retire RINs in sufficient quantities to
cover the volume of renewable fuel
exported. RINs claimed for compliance
purposes would thus represent
renewable fuel actually consumed as
motor vehicle fuel in the U.S.
RINs would be valid for compliance
purposes for the calendar year in which
they were generated, or the following
calendar year. This approach to RIN life
would be consistent with the Act’s
prescription that credits be valid for
compliance purposes for 12 months as
of the date of generation. An obligated
party could either use RINs to
demonstrate compliance, or could
transfer RINs to any other party. If an
obligated party was not able to
accumulate sufficient RINs for
compliance in a given year, it could
carry a deficit over to the next year so
long as the full deficit and obligation
were covered in the next year.
In order to ensure that previous year
RINs are not used preferentially for
compliance purposes in a manner that
would effectively circumvent the
limitation that RINs be valid for only 12
months after the year generated, we are
proposing to place a cap on the use of
RINs generated the previous year when
demonstrating compliance with the
renewable volume obligation for the
current year. The cap would mean that
no more than 20% of the current year
obligation could be satisfied using RINs
from the previous year. In this manner
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
there is no ability for excess renewable
fuel use in successive years to cause an
accumulation of RINs from excess
compliance in prior years to
significantly depress renewable fuel
demand in any future year. In keeping
with the Act, excess RINs not used
would expire.
Section III.D provides more details on
how obligated parties would use RINs
for compliance purposes.
6. How Would the Trading Program
Work?
Renewable fuel producers and
importers would be required to generate
RINs when they produce or import a
batch of renewable fuel. They would
then be required to transfer those RINs
along with the renewable fuel batches
that they represent whenever they
transfer the batch to another person.
Likewise any other party that takes
ownership or custody of the batch
would be required to transfer the RIN
with the batch. The RIN could be
separated from the batch only by
obligated parties (at the point when they
take ownership of the batch) or a party
that converts the renewable fuel into
motor vehicle fuel (such as through
blending with conventional gasoline or
diesel).
Once a RIN is separated from the
batch of renewable fuel that it
represents, it can be used for
compliance purposes, banked, or traded
to another party. Separated RINs could
be transferred to any party any number
of times. Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements would apply to any party
that holds RINs, whether through the
ownership or custody of a batch of
renewable fuel or through the transfer of
separated RINs.
Thus obligated parties could acquire
RINs directly through the purchase of
renewable fuel with assigned RINs, or
through the open market for RINs that
would be allowed under this proposal.
Section III.E provides more details on
how our proposed RIN trading program
would work.
7. How Would the Program be Enforced?
As in all EPA fuel regulations, there
would be a system of registration,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for obligated parties,
renewable producers (RIN generators),
as well as any parties that procure or
trade RINs either as part of their
renewable purchases or separately. In
most cases, the recordkeeping
requirements are not expected to be
significantly different from what these
parties might be doing already as a part
of normal business practices. The lynch
pin to the compliance program,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
however, is the unique RIN number
itself coupled with an electronic
reporting system where RIN generation,
RIN use, and RIN transactions would be
reported and verified. Thus, EPA, as
well as industry could have confidence
that invalid RINs are not generated and
that there is no double counting.
C. Voluntary Labeling Program
EPA is considering whether voluntary
program options to encourage adoption
and use of practices that minimize
environmental concerns which may
arise with the production of renewable
fuels are appropriate. Renewable fuels
present a number of environmental
advantages as explained elsewhere in
the rulemaking package. However, to
assure maximum advantage we also
need to acknowledge the potential
adverse environmental impacts that
could arise from the production of
renewable fuel and invite consideration
of ways of offsetting these potential
adverse impacts.
While in other areas of this document
we focus on general impacts on air
emissions, we also recognize that
individual farming and fuel production
operations can contribute to air and
water pollution if appropriate practices
and/or controls are not adopted.
Increased production of renewable fuel
may result in more intensive use of crop
lands and perhaps the addition of crop
land acres to meet the expanding need
for renewable feed stocks. Such trends
could have an adverse impact on, for
example, local water quality. Similarly
in the case of fuel production facilities,
a range of design and operation options
could result in varying levels of energy
use and air and water pollution.
EPA is considering what voluntary
program(s) can be put into place that
would encourage farming and fuel
production practices to minimize
concerns that expanded production of
renewable fuel in the United States is
likely to result in adverse environmental
impacts such as those identified above.
One option could be a voluntary
labeling program which would make
use of the RIN program proposed in this
rulemaking. Under this concept, fuel
producers which use best practices
would have the option of adding a ‘‘G’’
(for ‘‘green’’) to the end of the RIN of a
fuel to indicate that a gallon of
renewable fuel was produced with the
combination of best farming practices,
and environmentally friendly
production methods and facilities. The
details of such a concept, including the
points noted below, would need to be
developed before it could be fully
considered for adoption.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
At this time, we are requesting
comments on voluntary programs that
would recognize the efforts of farmers
and renewable fuel producers that
undertake the most environmentally
sound practices and encourage others to
adopt similar practices. In particular we
are interested in comments on options
for designs of potential voluntary
programs including what criteria should
be used to establish environmentally
sound practices, how to verify that these
environmental practices are indeed used
in the production of renewable fuel,
how this information could be used to
promote expanded use of good
practices, how the program could be
most efficiently and effectively
administered whether by EPA, some
other Federal agencies, or perhaps a
third-party, and finally how to assess
effectiveness of such a voluntary
program.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
III. Complying With the Renewable
Fuel Standard
According to the Energy Act, the RFS
program places obligations on
individual parties such that the
renewable fuel volumes shown in Table
I.B–1 are actually used as motor vehicle
fuel in the U.S. each year. To
accomplish this, the Agency must
calculate and publish a standard by
November 30 of each year which is
applicable to every obligated party. On
the basis of this standard each obligated
party determines the volume of
renewable fuel that it must ensure is
consumed as motor vehicle fuel. In
addition to setting the standard, we
must clarify who the obligated parties
are and what volumes of gasoline are
subject to the standard. Obligated
parties must also know which
renewable fuels are valid for RFS
compliance purposes, and how much
credit each type of renewable fuel will
receive. This section discusses how the
annual standard is determined and
which parties and volumes of gasoline
would be subject to the proposed
requirements.
Because renewable fuels are not
produced or distributed evenly around
the country, some obligated parties will
have easier access to renewable fuels
than others. As a result, compliance
with the RFS program requirements will
depend heavily on a credit trading
program. This section also describes all
the elements of our proposed credit
trading program.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
A. What Is the Standard That Must Be
Met?
1. How Is the Percentage Standard
Calculated?
Table I.B–1 shows the required total
volume of renewable fuel specified in
the Act for 2007 through 2012. The
renewable fuel standard is based
primarily on (1) the 48-state gasoline
consumption volumes projected by EIA
as the Act exempts Hawaii and Alaska,
subject to their right to opt-in, as
discussed in Section III.C.4, and (2) the
volume of renewable fuels required by
the Act for the coming year. The
renewable fuel standard will be
expressed as a volume percentage of
gasoline sold or introduced into
commerce in the U.S., and would be
used by each refiner, blender or
importer to determine their renewable
volume obligation. The applicable
percentage is set so that if each
regulated party meets the renewable
volume obligation based on this
percentage then the total amount of
renewable fuel used is expected to meet
the total renewable fuel volume
specified in Table I.B–1.
In determining the applicable
percentage for a calendar year, the Act
requires EPA to adjust the standard to
prevent the imposition of redundant
obligations on any person and to
account for the use of renewable fuel
during the previous calendar year by
exempt small refineries, defined as
refineries that process less than 75,000
bpd of crude oil. As a result, in order
to be assured that the percentage
standard will in fact result in the
volumes shown in Table I.B–1, several
adjustments to what is otherwise a
simple calculation must be made.
As stated, the renewable fuel standard
for a given year is basically the ratio of
the amount of renewable fuel specified
in the Act for that year to the projected
48-state non-renewable gasoline volume
for that year. While the required amount
of total renewable fuel for a given year
is provided by the Act, EPA is required
to use an EIA estimate of the amount of
gasoline that will be sold or introduced
into commerce for that year. The level
of the percentage standard would be
further reduced if Alaska, Hawaii, or a
U.S. territory chose to participate in the
RFS program, as gasoline produced in or
imported into those states or territories
would then be subject to the standard.
Should any of these states or territories
choose to opt into the RFS program, the
projected gasoline volume would
increase above that consumed in the 48
contiguous states. EIA has indicated that
the best estimation of the coming year’s
gasoline consumption is found in Table
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55563
5a (U.S. Petroleum Supply and Demand:
Base Case) of the October issue of the
monthly EIA publication Short-Term
Energy Outlook which publishes
quarterly energy projections. Since the
October 2006 document is not currently
available for the purpose of proposing
the 2007 standard and projecting the
2008 and later standards, we have used
the gasoline volume projections in EIA’s
2006 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO),
Table A2 ‘‘Energy Consumption by
Sector and Source.’’ We intend to use
the October 2006 Short-Term Energy
Outlook values for the final rule.
However, these gasoline volumes
include renewable fuel use, which in
the coming years is expected to be
mostly ethanol. As discussed below in
Section III.C.1, the renewable fuel
obligation will not apply to renewable
blenders. Thus, the gasoline volume
used to determine the standard must be
the non-renewable portion of the
gasoline pool, in order to achieve the
volumes of renewables specified in the
Act. In order to get a total nonrenewable gasoline volume, the
renewable fuel volume must be
subtracted from the total gasoline
volume. EIA has indicated that the best
estimation of the coming year’s
renewable fuel consumption is found in
Table 11 (U.S. Renewable Energy Use by
Sector: Base Case) of the October issue
of the monthly EIA publication ShortTerm Energy Outlook. For the purpose
of proposing the 2007 standard and
projecting the 2008 and later standards,
we have used the renewable (ethanol)
volume projections in EIA’s 2006
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), Table 17
‘‘Renewable Energy Consumption by
Sector and Source.’’ As for the gasoline
projections discussed above, we intend
to use the October 2006 renewable fuel
values for the final rule.
The Act exempts small refineries 8
from the RFS requirements until the
2011 compliance period. As discussed
in Section III.C.3.a, EPA is proposing to
also exempt small refiners 9 from the
RFS requirements until 2011, and to
treat small refiner gasoline volumes the
same as small refinery gasoline
volumes. Since small refineries and
small refiners would be exempt from the
program until 2011, EPA is proposing
that their gasoline volumes be excluded
from the overall non-renewable gasoline
8 Under the Act, small refineries are those with
75,000 bbls/day or less average aggregate daily
crude oil throughput.
9 Small refiners are those entities who produced
gasoline from crude oil in 2004, and who meet the
crude processing capability (no more than 155,000
barrels per calendar day, bpcd) and employee (no
more than 1500 people) criteria as specified in
previus EPA fuel regulations.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
volume used to determine the
applicable percentage. EPA believes this
is appropriate because the percentage
standard should be based only on the
gasoline subject to the renewable
volume obligation. This would only
occur though the 2010 compliance
period when the exemption ends.
Calculation of the standard for calendar
year 2011 and beyond would include
small refinery and small refiner
volumes.
As discussed above, calculation of the
standard requires projections of gasoline
use for the upcoming compliance
period. EIA does not project small
refinery or small refiner gasoline
volumes, so other methods of estimating
these values are necessary. EPA receives
gasoline production data as a part of its
fuel programs’ reporting requirements
that could be used for this purpose.
However, since we do not receive the
data until late February, the most recent
complete annual data set available
would be from two years earlier. Given
this, the fact that this adjustment is only
needed for 4 years, and because the total
small refinery and small refiner gasoline
production volume is expected to be
fairly constant compared to total U.S.
gasoline production during this period,
we are proposing to estimate small
refinery and small refiner gasoline
volumes using a constant percentage of
national consumption. This percentage
would be based on the most recent
small refinery and small refiner gasoline
data available in time for the final rule.
Using information from gasoline batch
reports submitted to EPA, EIA data and
input from the California Air Resources
Board regarding California small
refiners, we have estimated this
percentage to be 13.5%.10 EPA requests
comments on this method of estimating
small refinery and small refiner gasoline
volumes.
The Act requires that the small
refinery adjustment also account for
renewable fuels used during the prior
year by small refineries that are exempt
and do not participate in the RFS
program. Accounting for this volume of
renewable fuel would reduce the total
volume of renewable fuel use required,
and thus directionally would reduce the
percentage standard. However, there
would be no available data on which to
base such an adjustment. Furthermore,
EPA believes that the amount of
renewable fuel that would qualify (i.e.,
that was used by exempt small
refineries and small refiners but not
used as part of the RFS program) would
be very small. In light of the total
volume of renewable fuel required and
the precision in which the statute
specifies this total volume, the very
small volume at issue here would not
change the resulting percentage. Under
the proposal, small refineries and small
refiners are merely treated as any other
renewable blender until 2011.
Consequently, whatever renewables
they blend will be reflected as RINs
available in the market, and thus should
not be accounted for in the equation
used to determine the standard.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to assume
this value to be zero.
We are proposing that the amount of
renewable fuel used in Alaska, Hawaii,
or U.S. territories would not affect the
amount of renewable fuel required
nationwide. We believe this approach is
appropriate because the Act requires
that the renewable fuel be consumed in
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
RFStd i = 100 ×
the contiguous 48 states unless Alaska,
Hawaii, or a U.S. territory opt-in.
Additionally, renewable fuel produced
in Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. territories is
unlikely to be transported to the
contiguous 48 states, and vice versa.
Thus, including their renewable fuel
volumes in the calculation of the
standard would not serve the purpose
intended by the Act of ensuring that the
statutorily required renewable fuel
volumes are consumed in the 48
contiguous States.
A final issue that could affect the
calculated value of the standard is any
deficit carryover from 2006. Any deficit
carryover from 2006 would increase the
standard only for 2007. Since renewable
fuel use in 2006 is expected to exceed
the 2.78 percent default standard, we
are proposing that no deficit be carried
over to 2007. Beginning with the 2007
compliance period, when annual
individual party compliance replaces
collective compliance, any deficit is
calculated for an individual party and is
included in the party’s Renewable
Volume Obligation (RVO)
determination, as discussed in Section
III.A.4.
In summary, in order to get the total
projected non-renewable gasoline
volumes from which to calculate the
standard, EPA is proposing to use EIA
projections of nationwide and state
gasoline consumption, and small
refinery and small refiner volumes
estimated as a constant percentage of
national gasoline volumes.
Based on the discussion above, the
formula which we are proposing to be
used for calculating the percentage
standard is shown below:
RFVi − Celli
( G i − R i ) + ( GSi − RSi ) − GEi
Where:
RFStdi = Renewable Fuel standard in year i,
in percent
RFVi = Nationwide annual volume of
renewable fuels required by section
211(o)(2)(B) of the Act for year i, in
gallons
Gi = Amount of gasoline projected to be used
in the 48 contiguous states, in year i, in
gallons
Ri = Amount of renewable fuel blended into
gasoline that is projected to be consumed
in the 48 contiguous states, in year i, in
gallons
GSi = Amount of gasoline projected to be
used in Alaska, Hawaii, or a U.S.
territory in year i if the state or territory
opts-in, in gallons
RSi = Amount of renewable fuel blended into
gasoline that is projected to be consumed
in Alaska, Hawaii, or a U.S. territory in
year i if the state or territory opts-in, in
gallons
GEi = Amount of gasoline projected to be
produced by exempt small refineries and
small refiners in year i, in gallons
(through 2010 only)
Celli = Beginning in 2013, the amount of
renewable fuel that is required to come
from cellulosic sources, in year i, in
gallons (250,000,000 gallons minimum)
10 ‘‘Calculation of the Small Refiner/Small
Refinery Fraction for the Renewable Fuel Program,’’
memo to the docket from Christine Brunner, ASD,
OTAQ, EPA, September 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
As described in III.B.4.b, we are not
proposing regulations that would
specify the criteria under which a state
could petition the EPA for a waiver of
the RFS requirements, nor the
ramifications of Agency approval of
such a waiver in terms of the level or
applicability of the standard. As a
result, the proposed formula for the
standard shown above does not include
any components to account for Agency
approval of a state petition for a waiver
of the RFS requirements.
EPA is proposing the following
formula for calculating the cellulosic
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
EP22SE06.000
55564
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
standard in the Federal Register by
November 30 of the preceding year. We
are proposing the standard for 2007 and
estimating the standard for later years
based on current information using the
formulas discussed above. The
standards would be used to determine
the renewable volume obligation based
on an obligated party’s total gasoline
production or import volume in a
calendar year, January 1 through
December 31. The percentage standards
do not apply on a per gallon basis. An
obligated party will calculate its
Renewable Volume Obligation
(discussed in Section III.A.4) using the
annual standard.
For illustrative purposes, we have
estimated the standards for 2007 and
later based on current information using
the formulas discussed above.11 These
values are listed below in Table III.A.2–
standard that is required beginning in
2013:
RFCelli = 100 ×
Celli
G i − R i ) + ( GSi − RSi )
(
Where, except for RFCelli, the variable
descriptions are as discussed above. The
definition of RFCelli is proposed as:
RFCelli = Renewable Fuel Cellulosic
Standard in year i, in percent
EPA requests comments on the
components of both of the proposed
formulas, and on how the values for the
components should be obtained.
2. What Are the Applicable Standards?
EPA will set the percentage standard
for each upcoming year based on the
most recent EIA projections, and using
the other sources of information as
noted above. EPA will publish the
55565
1. The values of the variable RFV are the
required renewable fuel volumes
specified in the Act (and shown in
Table I.B–1). The projected gasoline and
renewable fuels volumes were
determined from EIA’s energy
projections. Variables related to state or
territory opt-ins were set to zero since
we do not have any information related
to their participation at this time. Small
refinery and small refiner gasoline
volumes were calculated based on our
proposed method of assuming a
constant percentage relative to projected
nationwide gasoline. As mentioned
earlier, we estimate the small refinery
and small refiner fraction to be 13.5%.
The exemption for small refineries and
small refiners ends at the end of the
2010 compliance period. The deficit for
2006 (applicable to the 2007 standard)
was assumed to be zero.
TABLE III.A.2–1.—PROJECTED STANDARDS
Standard
Cellulosic standard
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
2007 ...................................................................
2008 ...................................................................
2009 ...................................................................
2010 ...................................................................
2011 ...................................................................
2012 ...................................................................
2013+ .................................................................
3.71%
4.22%
4.72%
5.21%
4.82%
4.85%
4.70%
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
min. (non-cellulosic) ..............................
For calendar year 2013 and thereafter,
the applicable volumes are to be
determined in accordance with separate
statutory provisions that include EPA
coordination with the Departments of
Agriculture and Energy, and a review of
the program during calendar years 2006
through 2012. The Act specifies that this
review consider the impact of the use of
renewable fuels on the environment, air
quality, energy security, job creation,
and rural economic development, and
the expected annual rate of future
production of renewable fuels,
including cellulosic ethanol. We intend
to conduct another rulemaking as we
approach the 2013 timeframe that
would include our review of these
factors. This rulemaking would present
our conclusions regarding the
appropriate applicable volume of
renewable fuel for use in calculating the
renewable fuel standard for 2013 and
beyond. However, at a minimum we
expect that the sum of the cellulosic and
non-cellulosic standards for 2013 will
be no lower than the 2012 standard.
Until such time as we conduct that
rulemaking, the program proposed by
this rule would continue to apply after
2012.
Prior to 2013, the Act specifies that
cellulosic biomass ethanol or waste
derived ethanol will be considered
equivalent to 2.5 gallons of renewable
fuel when determining compliance with
the renewable volume obligation. As
discussed in Section III.D below, a
batch’s RIN would indicate whether it
was cellulosic or non-cellulosic ethanol.
Beginning in 2013, the 2.5 to 1 ratio no
longer applies for cellulosic biomass
ethanol. In its place, the Act requires
that the applicable volume of required
renewable fuel specified in Table I.B–1
include a minimum of 250 million
gallons that are derived from cellulosic
biomass. As shown in Table III.A.2–1
above, we have estimated this value
(250 million gallons) as a percent of an
obligated party’s production for 2013.
Thus, an obligated party would be
subject to two standards in 2013 and
beyond, a non-cellulosic standard and a
cellulosic standard.
3. Compliance in 2007
The Energy Act requires that EPA
promulgate regulations to implement
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
0.16% min.
the RFS program, and if EPA did not
issue such regulations then a default
standard for renewable fuel use would
apply in 2006. As described in Section
I.C, we promulgated a direct final rule
to interpret and implement the
application of the statutory default
standard of 2.78 percent in calendar
year 2006. However, the Act provides
no default standard for any other year.
Instead, the regulations we promulgate
are required to address renewable fuel
usage, including calendar year 2007.
The program we are proposing today
will therefore apply in 2007. While we
plan to promulgate the final rule as soon
after today’s proposal as possible, it will
likely not be effective by January 1,
2007. Therefore, our proposal must
address how, and for what time periods,
the applicable standard and other
program requirements will apply to
regulated parties for gasoline produced
during 2007.
We have identified several options for
2007 compliance. One option would be
to extend the collective compliance
approach used for 2006 to 2007.
Although the Act contains no default
11 ‘‘Calculation of the Renewable Fuel Standard,’’
memo to the docket from Christine Brunner, ASD,
OTAQ, EPA, September 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
EP22SE06.001
Year
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
55566
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
standard applicable to 2007, under this
approach we would apply the
renewable fuel standard that we
calculate for 2007 to obligated parties on
a collective basis rather than on an
individual basis. Under this approach,
no individual facility or company
would be liable for meeting the
applicable standard. At the end of 2007
we would determine if the industry as
a whole had met the standard on
average, and any deficit would be
carried over into 2008. This approach
would be essentially equivalent to
deferring the start of the program to
2008, but with the addition of an
industry-wide deficit carryover
provision. Current projections from the
Energy Information Administration
(EIA) on the volume of renewable fuel
expected to be produced in 2007
indicate that an industry-wide deficit
carryover would most likely be
unnecessary under this collective
compliance approach.
However, given the requirements of
the Act, we do not believe that a
collective compliance approach is
appropriate for 2007. The Energy Act
requires us to promulgate regulations
that provide for the generation of credits
by any person who overcomplies with
their obligation. It also stipulates that a
person who generates credits must be
permitted to use them for compliance
purposes, or to transfer them to another
party. These credit provisions have
meaning only in the context of an
individual obligation to meet the
applicable standard. Delaying a credit
program until 2008 would mean the
credit provisions have no meaning at all
for 2007.
A variation of the collective
compliance approach would add a
credit carryover provision in which any
excess renewable fuel produced on an
industry-wide basis in 2007 would be
subtracted from the required volume in
the calculation of the applicable 2008
standard. However, under a collective
compliance approach, such a credit
carryover provision would not meet the
statutory requirement since no
individual companies could generate,
bank, or trade credits. Therefore we do
not believe that a collective compliance
approach is appropriate.
Another option for 2007 compliance
would be for obligated parties to
calculate their renewable fuel obligation
based on all gasoline volumes produced
at any time during the calendar year,
regardless of when in 2007 the final rule
is published or becomes effective (i.e.,
the calculation of the renewable volume
obligation looks back retroactively to the
beginning of the year for gasoline
production). Compliance would be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
determined based on a whole calendar
year’s production of gasoline, and the
compliance determination would not be
required until calendar year 2007 was
over, after the final rule was published.
Obligated parties would know the
proposed standard based on today’s
action, and all regulated parties would
likewise know the proposed provisions
for recordkeeping, RIN generation and
assignment, etc. On this basis they
could begin the process of generating
RINs and tracking batches of renewable
fuel prior to the publication of the final
rule. However, it might not be
appropriate to apply the standard to all
gasoline produced in 2007 unless the
regulatory provisions in today’s
proposal are very similar to those in the
final rule. Otherwise, obligated parties
and renewable fuel producers would not
have adequate lead-time.
For this approach to be effective,
renewable producers would have to
begin placing RINs on their PTDs at the
start of the year 2007 even though the
regulations are not yet final. If they do
not, then there could be a shortage of
RINs available for obligated parties to
use for compliance by the end of the
year. Since there is no guarantee that
renewable fuel producers would
generate RINs appropriate prior to
adoption of the regulations, another
option would be for the Agency to
finalize just those RIN-related
provisions prior to the end of 2006 that
are critical to measuring and tracking
batches of renewable fuel and the
assignment of RINs to those batches.
However, in practice this approach
would be little different than finalizing
the full rulemaking. As a result we do
not believe that this would be a viable
option given the time available.
Finally, given the challenges and
shortcomings inherent in the other
options, we could simply apply the
renewable fuel standard to only those
volumes of gasoline produced after the
effective date of the final rule.
Essentially the renewable volume
obligation for 2007 would be based on
only those volumes of gasoline
produced or imported by an obligated
party prospectively from the effective
date of the rulemaking forward, and
renewable producers would not have to
begin generating RINs and maintaining
the necessary records until this same
date. As a result, such an approach
would be relatively straightforward to
implement, provide the industry with
the certainty they need to comply, and
give them time to put in place their
compliance plans and actions. It also
would be unlikely to have any negative
impacts on renewable fuel use given the
expectations that total volumes in 2007
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
will exceed the national volume
required for 2007. This is the approach
we are proposing today.
This ‘‘prospective’’ approach would
not formally apply the standard to all of
the gasoline produced in the 2007
calendar year. As a result, it would not
formally ensure that the total volume of
renewable fuel required to be used in
2007 would actually be used. However,
given the present circumstances, we
believe this is an appropriate way to
implement the Act’s provisions. We are
confident that the combined effect of the
proposed regulatory requirements for
2007 and the expected market demand
for renewable fuels will lead to greater
renewable fuel use in 2007 than is
called for under the Act. Furthermore,
refiners and importers are not required
to meet any requirements under the Act
until EPA adopts the regulations, and
EPA is authorized to consider
appropriate lead time in establishing the
regulatory requirements.12 Under this
option we believe there would be
reasonable lead-time for regulated
parties to meet their 2007 compliance
obligations.
While we are proposing to apply the
renewable fuel standard for 2007
prospectively only from the effective
date of the final rule, we nevertheless
request comment on all these options
for addressing compliance in calendar
year 2007.
4. Renewable Volume Obligations
In order for an obligated party to
demonstrate compliance, the percentage
standards described in Section III.A.2
which are applicable to all obligated
parties must be converted into the
volume of renewable fuel each obligated
party is required to satisfy. This volume
of renewable fuel is the volume for
which the obligated party is responsible
under the RFS program, and is referred
to here as its Renewable Volume
Obligation (RVO).
The calculation of the RVO requires
that the standard shown in Table
III.A.2–1 for a particular compliance
year be multiplied by the gasoline
volume produced by an obligated party
in that year. To the degree that an
obligated party did not demonstrate full
compliance with its RVO for the
previous year, the shortfall is included
as a deficit carryover in the calculation.
The equation used to calculate the RVO
for a particular year is shown below:
RVOi = Stdi x GVi + Di¥1
12 The statutory default standard for 2006 is the
one exception to this, since it directly establishes
a renewable fuel obligation applicable to refiners
and importers in the event that EPA does
promulgate regulations.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Where
RVOi = The Renewable Volume Obligation
for the obligated party for year i, in
gallons.
Stdi = The RFS program standard for year i,
in percent.
GVi = The non-renewable gasoline volume
produced by an obligated party in year
i, in gallons.
Di–1 = Renewable fuel deficit carryover from
the previous year, in gallons.
The Energy Act only permits a deficit
carryover from one year to the next if
the obligated party achieves full
compliance with its RVO including the
deficit carryover in the second year.
Thus deficit carryovers could not occur
two years in succession. They could,
however, occur as frequently as every
other year for a given obligated party.
The calculation of an obligated party’s
RVO is necessarily retrospective, since
the total gasoline volume that it
produces in a calendar year will not be
known until the year has ended.
However, the obligated party will have
an incentive to project gasoline
volumes, and thus the RVO, throughout
the year so that it can spread its efforts
to comply across the entire year. Most
refiners and importers will be able to
project their annual gasoline production
volumes with a minimum of uncertainty
based on their historical operations,
capacity, plans for facility downtimes,
knowledge of gasoline markets, etc.
Even if unforeseen circumstances (e.g.,
hurricane, unit failure, etc) significantly
reduced the production volumes in
comparison to their projections, their
RVO would likewise be reduced
proportionally and their ability to
comply with the RFS requirements
would be only minimally affected. Each
obligated party’s projected RVO for a
given year becomes more accurate as
that year progresses, but the obligated
party should nevertheless have a
sufficiently accurate estimate of its RVO
at the beginning of the year to allow it
to begin its efforts to comply.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
B. What Counts as a Renewable Fuel in
the RFS Program?
Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act
defines ‘‘renewable fuel’’ and specifies
many of the details of the renewable
fuel program. The following section
provides EPA’s views and
interpretations on issues related to what
fuels may be counted towards
compliance with the RVO, and how
they are counted.
1. What Is a Renewable Fuel That Can
Be Used for Compliance?
The statutory definition of renewable
fuel includes cellulosic ethanol and
waste derived ethanol. It includes
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
biodiesel, as defined in the Energy
Act.13 It also includes all motor vehicle
fuels that are produced from biomass
material such as grain, starch, oilseeds,
animal, or fish materials including fats,
greases and oils, sugarcane, sugar beets,
tobacco, potatoes or other biomass. In
addition, it includes motor vehicle fuels
made using a feedstock of natural gas if
produced from a biogas source such as
a landfill, sewage waste treatment plant,
feedlot, or other place where decaying
organic material is found.
According to the Act, the motor
vehicle fuels must be used ‘‘to replace
or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel
present in a fuel mixture used to operate
a motor vehicle.’’ Some motor vehicle
fuels can be used in both motor vehicles
or nonroad engines or equipment. For
example, highway gasoline and diesel
fuel are often used in both highway and
off-highway applications. Compressed
natural gas can likewise be used in
either highway or nonroad applications.
For purposes of the renewable fuel
program, EPA intends to consider a fuel
to be a ‘‘motor vehicle fuel’’ and to be
a ‘‘fuel mixture used to operate a motor
vehicle,’’ based on its potential for use
in highway vehicles, without regard to
whether it in fact is used in a highway
or nonroad vehicle. If it is a fuel that
could be used in highway vehicles, it
will satisfy these parts of the definition
of renewable fuel, whether it is later
used in highway or nonroad
applications. This will allow a motor
vehicle fuel that otherwise meets the
definition to be counted towards an
RVO without the need to track it to
determine its actual application in a
highway vehicle. This is also consistent
with the requirement that EPA base the
renewable fuel obligation on estimates
of the entire volume of gasoline
consumed, without regard to whether it
is used in highway or nonroad
applications. Fuels that otherwise meet
this definition but are designated by the
producer for use in boilers, or heaters,
or any use other than highway or
nonroad use, would not meet the
definition of renewable fuel.
Renewable fuel, as defined, may be
made from a number of different types
of feedstocks. For example, the FisherTropsch process can use methane gas
from landfills as a feedstock, to produce
diesel or gasoline. Vegetable oil made
from oilseeds such as rapeseed or
soybeans can be used to make biodiesel
13 As discussed below, for purposes of this
rulemaking, the regulations separate ‘‘biodiesel’’ as
defined in the Energy Act, into biodiesel (diesels
that meet the Energy Act’s definition and are a
mono aklyl ester) and renewable diesel (other
diesels that meet the Energy Act’s definition but are
not mono akly esters.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55567
or renewable diesel. Methane, made
from landfill gas (biogas) can be used to
make methanol. Also, some vegetable
oils or animal fats can be processed in
distillation columns in refineries to
make gasoline; as such, the renewable
feedstock serves as a ‘‘biocrude,’’ and
the resulting gasoline or diesel product
would be a renewable fuel. This last
example is discussed in further detail in
Section III.B.3 below.
As this discussion shows, the
definition of renewable fuel in the Act
is broad in scope, and covers a wide
range of fuels. While ethanol is used
primarily in combination with gasoline,
other fuels that meet the definition of
renewable fuel include biodiesel and
various alternative fuels that can be
used in their neat form, such as ethanol,
methanol or natural gas, without
blending into gasoline and without
being used to produce a gasoline
blending component (such as ETBE).
The definition of renewable fuel in the
Act is not limited to fuels that can be
blended with gasoline. At the same
time, the RFS regulatory program is to
‘‘ensure that gasoline sold or introduced
into commerce * * * contains the
applicable volume of renewable fuel.’’
This applicable volume is specified as a
total volume of renewable fuel, in the
billions of gallons on an aggregate basis.
Congress also clearly specified that one
renewable fuel, biodiesel, could be
counted towards compliance even
though it is not a gasoline component,
and does not directly displace or replace
gasoline. The Act is unclear on whether
other fuels that meet the definition of
renewable fuel, but are not used in
gasoline, could also be used to
demonstrate compliance towards the
aggregate national use of renewable
fuels.
EPA interprets the Act as allowing
regulated parties to demonstrate
compliance based on any fuel that meets
the statutory definition for renewable
fuel, whether it is directly blended with
gasoline or not. This would include neat
alternative fuels such as ethanol,
methanol, and natural gas that meet the
definition of renewable fuel. This is
appropriate for several reasons. First, it
promotes the use of all renewable fuels,
which will further the achievement of
the purposes behind this provision.
Congress did not intend to limit the
program to only gasoline components,
as evidenced by the provision for biodiesel, and the broad definition of
renewable fuel evidences an intention to
address more renewable fuels than those
used with gasoline. Second, in practice
EPA expects that the overwhelming
volume of renewable fuel used to
demonstrate compliance with the
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
55568
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
renewable fuel obligation would still be
ethanol blended with gasoline. Whether
one counts or does not count these
additional renewable fuels would not in
practice change whether the total
national goal for renewable fuel use was
met, given the size of the goal specified
in the Act and the form in which the
total is expressed. Finally, as discussed
later, EPA’s compliance program is
based on assigning volumes at the point
of production, and not at the point of
blending into motor vehicle fuel. This
interpretation would avoid the need to
track renewable fuels downstream to
ensure they are blended with gasoline
and not used in their neat form; the
gasoline that is used in motor vehicles
is reduced by the presence of renewable
fuels in the gasoline pool whether they
are blended with gasoline or not EPA
believes its proposal is consistent with
the intent of Congress and is a
reasonable interpretation of the Act.
We are therefore proposing that in
addition to any renewable fuels that are
actually blended into gasoline and are
designated for use in a highway vehicle,
we would also count any renewable
fuels falling into the following
categories as being valid for RFS
compliance purposes:
1. Any renewable fuels used in
nonroad applications;
2. Any renewable fuels used in their
neat (unblended) form in onroad and
nonroad applications; and
3. Any renewable fuel used in a motor
vehicle that does not normally run on
gasoline. For instance, biogas used in a
CNG vehicle, or biogenic methanol used
in a dedicated methanol vehicle.
The Agency solicits comment on this
approach.
Under the Act, renewable fuel
includes ‘‘cellulosic biomass ethanol’’
and ‘‘waste derived ethanol’’, each of
which is defined separately. Ethanol can
be cellulosic biomass ethanol in one of
two ways, as described below.
a. Ethanol Made From a Cellulosic
Feedstock. The simplest process of
producing ethanol is by fermenting
sugar in sugar cane, but can also be
produced from carbohydrates in corn
and other feedstocks. This process is
accomplished by first converting the
carbohydrates to sugar. Ethanol can also
be produced from complex
carbohydrates, such as the cellulosic
portion of plants or plant products. The
cellulose is first converted to sugars (by
hydrolysis); then the same fermentation
process is used as for carbohydrates to
make ethanol. Cellulosic feedstocks
(composed of cellulose and
hemicellulose) are currently more
difficult and costly to convert to sugar
than are carbohydrates because of this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
intermediate conversion step. While the
cost and difficulty are a disadvantage,
the cellulosic process offers the
advantage that more feedstocks can be
used and more volume of ethanol can be
produced.
The Act provides the definition of
cellulosic biomass ethanol, which
states:
‘‘The term ‘cellulosic biomass
ethanol’ means ethanol derived from
any lignocellulosic or hemicellulosic
matter that is available on a renewable
or recurring basis, including:
(i) Dedicated energy crops and trees;
(ii) Wood and wood residues;
(iii) Plants;
(iv) Grasses;
(v) Agricultural residues;
(vi) Animal wastes and other waste
materials, and
(viii) Municipal solid waste’’
Examples of cellulosic biomass source
material include rice straw, switch
grass, and wood chips. Ethanol made
from these materials would qualify
under the definition as cellulosic
ethanol. In addition to the above sources
of feedstocks for cellulosic biomass
ethanol, the Act’s definition also
includes animal waste, municipal solid
wastes, and other waste materials While
these materials may or may not contain
cellulosic material, their inclusion in
the definition requires that ethanol
made from such sources be treated as
cellulosic biomass ethanol under the
regulations. ‘‘Other waste materials’’
generally includes waste material such
as sewage sludge, waste candy, and
waste starches from food production,
but for purposes of the definition of
cellulosic ethanol discussed in III.B.1.b
below, it can also mean waste heat
obtained from an off-site combustion
process.
Although the definitions of
‘‘cellulosic biomass ethanol’’ and
‘‘waste derived ethanol’’ both include
animal wastes and municipal solid
waste in their respective lists of covered
feedstocks, there remains a distinction
between these types of ethanol. If the
animal wastes or municipal solid wastes
contain cellulose or hemicellulose, the
resulting ethanol can be termed
‘‘cellulosic biomass ethanol.’’ If the
animal wastes or municipal solid wastes
do not contain cellulose or
hemicellulose, then the resulting
ethanol is labeled ‘‘waste derived
ethanol.’’
b. Ethanol Made From Any Feedstock
in Facilities Run Mostly With BiomassBased Fuel. The definition of cellulosic
biomass ethanol in the Act also provides
that ethanol made at any facility—
regardless of whether cellulosic
feedstock is used or not—may be
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
defined as cellulosic if at such facility
‘‘animal wastes or other waste materials
are digested or otherwise used to
displace 90 percent or more of the fossil
fuel normally used in the production of
ethanol.’’ The statutory language
suggests that there are two methods
through which ‘‘animal and other waste
materials’’ may be considered for
displacing fossil fuel. The first method
is the digestion of animal wastes or
other waste materials. EPA proposes to
interpret the term ‘‘digestion’’ to mean
the conversion of animal or other wastes
into methane, which can then be
combusted as fuel. We base our
interpretation on the practice in
industry of using anaerobic digesters to
break down waste products such as
manure into methane. Anaerobic
digestion refers to the breakdown of
organic matter by bacteria in the
absence of oxygen, and is used to treat
waste to produce renewable fuels. We
note also that the digestion of animal
wastes or other waste materials to
produce the fuel used at the ethanol
plant does not have to occur at the plant
itself. Methane made from animal or
other wastes offsite and then purchased
and used at the ethanol plant would
also qualify.
The second method is suggested by
the term ‘‘otherwise used’’ which we
propose to interpret as meaning (1) the
direct combustion of the waste materials
as fuel at an ethanol plant, or (2) the use
of thermal energy that itself is a waste
product; e.g., waste heat that is obtained
from an off-site combustion process
such as a neighboring plant that has a
furnace or boiler from which the waste
heat is captured. With respect to the
first meaning, waste materials from tree
farms (tops, branches, limbs, etc), or
waste materials from saw mills
(sawdust, shavings and bark) as well as
other vegetative waste materials such as
corn stover, or sugar cane bagasse, could
be used as fuel for gasifier/boiler units
at ethanol plants, since they are waste
materials and would not be used as a
feedstock to carbohydrate-based ethanol
plants. Although such waste materials
conceivably could be feedstocks to a
cellulosic ethanol plant, its use as a fuel
at a carbohydrate based ethanol plant
does not subvert the intent of the
definition.14
14 On the other hand, wood from plants or trees
that are grown as an energy crop may not qualify
as a waste-derived fuel in an ethanol facility
because such wood would not qualify as waste
materials under this portion of the definition.
Under the definition of renewable fuels and
cellulosic biomass ethanol, however, such wood
material could serve as a feedstock in a cellulosic
ethanol plant, since these definitions do not restrict
such feedstock to waste materials only.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Today’s regulations will require
owners of ethanol plants to keep records
of fuel use to ensure compliance with
and enforcement of this provision of the
definition of cellulosic ethanol. Due to
potential enforcement-related problems
associated with application of this
component of the definition of
cellulosic ethanol to foreign facilities,
we intend for the final rule to develop
compliance and enforcement related
safeguards similar to those set forth in
proposed 80.1165(f), (g), (h) and (j), and
with additional inspection, audit,
recordkeeping and reporting safeguards
to verify compliance with the
requirements on fuel use at foreign
facilities. We seek comment on the most
effective means of doing this. Because of
the difficulty of implementing these
safeguards, however, we also solicit
comment on a provision that would
limit the application of this definition of
cellulosic ethanol only to ethanol plants
in the U.S.
Regarding the use of waste heat as a
source of thermal energy, we note that
there may be situations in which an offsite furnace, boiler or heater creates
excess or waste heat that is not used in
the process for which the thermal
energy is employed. For example, a
glass furnace generates a significant
amount of waste heat that often goes
unused. We are proposing to include
waste heat in the definition of ‘‘other
waste materials’’, and also that waste
heat captured and used as a source of
thermal energy in an ethanol plant
would satisfy the requirement of other
waste materials being ‘‘otherwise used’’
to make ethanol. Although the source of
the waste heat is ultimately a fossil fuel
in most cases, we recognize that without
the capture of the heat and subsequent
use in the ethanol plant, that energy
would be unused, and the ethanol plant
would consume the equivalent amount
of fossil fuel. Thus, for the same amount
of fossil fuel consumption at the off-site
plant, heat energy capture would result
in displacement of fossil fuel use at the
ethanol plant. Because of potential
confusion identifying thermal energy
that is waste heat from fossil fuel
combustion sources on site (i.e., at the
ethanol plant itself), we are limiting this
proposal to waste heat captured at offsite plants. The Agency solicits
comment on our proposal to consider
waste heat in the definition of ‘‘other
waste materials’’.
We propose to interpret the term
‘‘fossil fuel normally used in the
production of ethanol’’ to mean fossil
fuel used at the facility in the ethanol
production process itself, rather than
other phases such as trucks transporting
product, and fossil fuel used to grow
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
and harvest the feedstock. Therefore the
diesel fuel that trucks consume in
hauling wood waste from sawmills to
the ethanol facility would not be
counted in determining whether the
90% displacement criteria has been met.
We are interpreting it in this way
because we believe the accounting of
fuel use associated with transportation
and other life cycle activities would be
extremely difficult and in many cases
impossible.15 The Agency solicits
comments on this aspect of our
approach in accounting for fossil fuel
displacement.
Based on the operation of ethanol
plants, we are viewing this definition to
apply to waste materials used to
produce thermal energy rather than
electrical energy. Electrical usage at
ethanol plants is used for lights and
equipment not related to the production
of ethanol. Also, the calculation of fossil
fuel used to generate such electrical
usage would be difficult because it is
not always possible to track the source
of electricity that is purchased off-site.
We are therefore proposing that the
displacement of 90 percent of fossil
fuels at the ethanol plant means those
fuels consumed on-site and that are
used to generate thermal energy used to
produce ethanol. The term ‘‘fossil fuel
normally used in the production of
ethanol’’ in today’s proposal means
fossil fuel that is combusted at the
facility itself to produce thermal energy.
Owners are required to keep records of
fuel (waste-derived and fossil fuel) used
for thermal energy for verification of
their claims. They will also be required
to track the fossil fuel equivalent of the
waste heat captured and used in the
ethanol process. Since such waste heat
would typically be purchased through
agreement with the off-site owner, we
do not feel it burdensome for owners to
track such information. Owners would
therefore calculate the amount of energy
in Btu’s associated with waste-derived
fuels (including the fossil fuel
equivalent waste heat), and divided by
the total energy in Btus used to produce
ethanol in a given year. Holders of RINs
associated with the sale or trade of such
cellulosic ethanol would get the benefit
of the 2.5 credit (through 2012 when
such credit is valid).
In the event that the requirements of
90 percent displacement of fossil fuel
are not met, the owner of a facility
producing such ethanol would be
15 In Section IX of today’s preamble we discuss
our analysis of the lifecycle fuel impacts of the RFS
rule, with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. While we do account for fuel used in
hauling materials to ethanol plant in our analysis,
we are using average nationwide values, rather than
data collected for individual plants.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55569
required to obtain additional RINs to
make up whatever deficit exists for
those RINs sold or traded with a value
of 2.5. Assuming this is made up, then
holders of the RINs associated with the
ethanol the plant produced in the
previous year would not be affected. We
solicit comment on this proposed
approach.
c. Ethanol that is made from the noncellulosic portions of animal, other
waste, and municipal waste. ‘‘Waste
derived ethanol’’ is defined in the Act
as ethanol derived from ‘‘animal wastes,
including poultry fats and poultry
wastes, and other waste materials;
* * * or municipal solid waste.’’ Both
animal wastes and municipal solid
waste are also listed as allowable
feedstocks for the production of
‘‘cellulosic biomass ethanol.’’ The
determination of the appropriate
category of ethanol is based on whether
the feedstocks on question contain
cellulose or hemicellulose that is used
to make the ethanol. Thus, if the ethanol
is made from the non-cellulosic portions
of animal, other waste, or municipal
waste, it is labeled ‘‘waste derived
ethanol.’’
2. What Is Biodiesel?
The definition of renewable fuel in
the Act includes corn-based and
cellulosic biomass ethanol, waste
derived ethanol, and the renewable fuel
portion of blending components derived
from renewable fuel. Biodiesel is also
specifically named as being included in
the Act’s definition of renewable fuel.
The Act states that ‘‘The term
‘renewable fuel’ includes * * *
biodiesel (as defined in section 312(f) of
the Energy Policy Act of 1992.’’ This
definition, as modified by Section 1515
of the Energy Act states:
The term ‘‘biodiesel’’ means a diesel
fuel substitute produced from
nonpetroleum renewable resources that
meets the registration requirements for
fuels and fuel additives established by
the Environmental Protection Agency
under section 7545 of this title, and
includes biodiesel derived from animal
wastes, including poultry fats and
poultry wastes, and other waste
materials, or municipal solid waste and
sludges and oils derived from
wastewater and the treatment of
wastewater.
This definition of biodiesel would
include both mono-alkyl esters which
meet ASTM specification D–6751 16 (the
most common meaning of the term
16 In the event that the ASTM specification D–
6751 is succeeded with a different number in the
future, EPA may revise the regulations accordingly
at such time.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
55570
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
‘‘biodiesel’’) that have been registered
with EPA, and any non-esters that are
intended for use in engines that are
designed to run on conventional,
petroleum-derived diesel fuel, have
been registered with the EPA, and are
made from any of the feedstocks listed
above.
To implement the above definition of
biodiesel in the context of the RFS
rulemaking while still recognizing the
unique history and role of mono-alkyl
esters meeting ASTM D–6751, we
propose to divide the Act’s definition of
biodiesel into two separate parts:
biodiesel (mono-alkyl esters) and nonester renewable diesel. The combination
of ‘‘biodiesel (mono-alkyl esters)’’ and
‘‘non-ester renewable diesel’’ in the
regulations would fulfill the Act’s
definition of biodiesel. The Agency
solicits comment on this approach and
specifically asks whether the ‘‘non-ester
renewable diesel’’ definition be
referenced explicitly to ASTM D–975.
a. Biodiesel (Mono-Alkyl Esters).
Under this part, the term ‘‘biodiesel
(mono-alkyl esters)’’ means a motor
vehicle fuel which: (1) Meets the
registration requirements for fuels and
fuel additives established by the
Environmental Protection Agency under
section 7545 of this title (Clean Air Act
Section 211); (2) is a mono-alkyl ester;
(3) meets ASTM specification D–6751–
02a; (4) is intended for use in engines
that are designed to run on
conventional, petroleum-derived diesel
fuel, and (5) is derived from
nonpetroleum renewable resources
including, but not limited to, animal
wastes, including poultry fats and
poultry wastes, and other waste
materials, or municipal solid waste and
sludges and oils derived from
wastewater and the treatment of
wastewater.
b. Non-Ester Renewable Diesel. The
term ‘‘non-ester renewable diesel’’
means a motor vehicle fuel which: (1)
Meets the registration requirements for
fuels and fuel additives established by
the Environmental Protection Agency
under section 7545 of this title (Clean
Air Act Section 211); (2) is not a monoalkyl ester; (3) is intended for use in
engines that are designed to run on
conventional, petroleum-derived diesel
fuel, and (4) is derived from
nonpetroleum renewable resources
including, but not limited to, animal
wastes, including poultry fats and
poultry wastes, and other waste
materials, or municipal solid waste and
sludges and oils derived from
wastewater and the treatment of
wastewater. Current examples of a nonester renewable diesel include:
‘‘renewable diesel’’ produced by the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
Neste process, or diesel fuel produced
by processing fats and oils through a
refinery hydrotreating process.
3. Is Motor Fuel That Is Made From a
Renewable Feedstock a Renewable
Fuel?
We interpret the statutory definition
of renewable fuels to include all
gasoline or diesel that is made from a
class of feedstocks called ‘‘biocrudes’’,
which are defined as biologically
derived feedstocks (such as fats and
greases). We are providing a definition
of ‘‘biocrude-based renewable fuels’’ to
mean gasoline or diesel products
resulting from the processing of
biocrudes in production units within
refineries that process crude oil and
other petroleum based feedstocks and
which make gasoline and diesel fuel.17
A particular batch of biocrude used as
feedstock to a production unit would
replace crude oil or other petroleum
based feedstocks which ordinarily
would be the feedstock in that process
unit. The non-ester renewable diesel
defined in Section III.B.2.b above could
be one such type.
We are assuming that all of the
biocrude used as a feedstock in a
refinery unit will end up as a biocrudebased renewable fuel. Rather than
requiring the refiner to document what
portion of the biocrude-based renewable
fuel is other than diesel or gasoline (e.g.,
jet fuel), we are proposing to have the
volume of the biocrude itself count as
the volume of renewable fuel produced
for the purposes of determining the
volume block codes that are in the RIN
(discussed in further detail in Section
III.D). While this approach may result in
some products such as jet fuel being
counted as renewable fuel, we believe
the majority of the products produced
will be motor vehicle fuel because we
assume refiners who elect to use
biocrudes would do so to help meet the
requirements of this rule. Furthermore,
both diesel and gasoline presently make
up about 85 percent of the product slate
of refineries on average. This amount
that has been steadily increasing for
over time, and we expect that the
percentage will continue to increase as
demand for gasoline and diesel
increases.
We are also proposing that the
Equivalence Value assigned to biocrudebased renewable fuels be designated as
1.0, despite the fact that they might
warrant a higher value based on their
energy content as described in the next
17 Biocrude-based renewable fuels will need to be
registered under the provisions contained in 40 CFR
79 Part 4 before they can be sold commercially.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
section.18 This approach should balance
out the likelihood that some of the
biocrude-based renewable fuel is not a
motor vehicle fuel.
4. What Are ‘‘Equivalence Values’’ for
Renewable Fuel?
One question that EPA must address
is how to count volumes of renewable
fuel in determining compliance with the
renewable volume obligation. For
instance, the Act stipulates that every
gallon of cellulosic ethanol should
count as if it were 2.5 gallons for RFS
compliance purposes. The Act does not
stipulate similar values for other
renewable fuels, but as described below
we believe it is appropriate to do so.
We are proposing that the
‘‘Equivalence Values’’ for different
renewable fuels be based on their energy
content in comparison to the energy
content of ethanol, and adjusted as
necessary for their renewable content.
The result is an Equivalence Value for
corn ethanol of 1.0, for biobutanol of
1.3, for biodiesel (mono alkyl ester) of
1.5, and for cellulosic ethanol of 2.5.
However, the methodology can be used
to determine the appropriate
equivalence value for any other
potential renewable fuel as well.
This section describes why we believe
that the use of relative energy content is
appropriate under the Act, and our
investigation of the alternative use of
lifecycle analyses as the basis of
Equivalence Values.
a. Authority Under The Act To
Establish Equivalence Values. We are
proposing that Equivalence Values be
assigned to every renewable fuel to
provide an indication of the number of
gallons that can be claimed for
compliance purposes for every physical
gallon of renewable fuel. An
Equivalence Value of 1.0 would mean
that every physical gallon of renewable
fuel would count as one gallon for RFS
compliance purposes. An Equivalence
Value greater than 1.0 would mean that
every physical gallon of renewable fuel
would count as more than one gallon for
RFS compliance purposes, while a value
less than 1.0 would count as less than
one gallon.
We are interpreting the Act as
allowing EPA to develop Equivalence
Values according to the methodology
discussed below. We believe that the
use of Equivalence Values is consistent
with the intent of Congress to treat
different renewable fuels differently in
different circumstances, and to provide
18 With respect to biodiesel, however, since such
fuel is typically not made in a traditional
petroleum-based refinery, it would not be a
biocrude-based renewable fuel and would thus not
be limited to the 1.0 Equivalence Value.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
incentives for use of renewable fuels in
certain circumstances, as evidenced by
those specific circumstances addressed
by Congress. The Act has several
provisions that provide for mechanisms
other than straight volume measurement
to determine the value of a renewable
fuel in terms of RFS compliance. For
example, 1 gallon of cellulosic biomass
or waste derived ethanol is to be treated
as 2.5 gallons of renewable fuel. EPA is
also required to establish an
‘‘appropriate amount of credits’’ for
biodiesel, and to provide for ‘‘an
appropriate amount of credit’’ for using
more renewable fuels than are required
to meet your obligation. EPA is also to
determine the ‘‘renewable fuel portion’’
of a blending component derived from
a renewable fuel. All of these statutory
provisions provide evidence that
Congress did not limit this program
solely to a straight volume measurement
of gallons in the context of the RFS
program for certain specified
circumstances.
The Act is unclear as to whether a
straight gallon measurement is required
in circumstances other than those
specified by Congress. We believe the
Act can and should be interpreted to
allow the use of Equivalence Values in
those circumstances. First, this is
consistent with the way Congress
treated the various specific
circumstances noted above, and thus is
basically a continuation of that process.
Second, EPA does not believe that
providing such an Equivalence Value
for this small volume of renewable fuel
will interfere in any way with meeting
the total national volume goals for usage
of renewable fuel. We are proposing to
use an Equivalence Value of 1.0 for
ethanol other than cellulosic biomass or
waste derived ethanol, and we expect
that there will only be very limited
additional situations where an
Equivalence Value other than 1.0 is
used. As a result, this approach is a
reasonable way for the RFS program to
ensure that the total volume of
renewable fuels will be used as required
under the Act.
b. Energy Content and Renewable
Content as the Basis for Equivalence
Values. We believe it is appropriate to
base the Equivalence Value assigned to
a particular renewable fuel on the
degree to which the renewable fuel
supplants the petroleum content of fuel
used in a motor vehicle. This is
consistent with the Act’s definition of
renewable fuel, which refers to the
degree to which it is directly used to
replace or reduce the quantity of fossil
fuel present in a fuel mixture used to
operate a motor vehicle. The degree to
which the fossil fuel is replaced is best
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
represented by its relative energy
content. To appropriately account for
the different energy contents of different
renewable fuels as well as the fact that
some renewable fuels actually contain
some non-renewable content, we
propose to calculate Equivalence Values
using both the renewable content of a
renewable fuel and its energy content.
This section describes our proposal for
calculating the Equivalence Values.
In order to take the energy content of
a renewable fuel into account when
calculating the Equivalence Values, we
must identify an appropriate point of
reference. Ethanol would be a
reasonable point of reference as it is
currently the most prominent renewable
fuel in the transportation sector, and it
is likely that the authors of the Act saw
ethanol as the primary means through
which the required volumes would be
met in at least the first years of the RFS
program. By comparing every renewable
fuel to ethanol on an equivalent energy
content basis, each renewable fuel could
be assigned an Equivalence Value that
precisely accounts for the amount of
petroleum in motor vehicle fuel that is
reduced or replaced by that renewable
fuel in comparison to ethanol. To the
degree that corn-based ethanol
continues to dominate the pool of
renewable fuel, this approach would
allow actual volumes of renewable fuel
to be consistent with the volumes
required by the Act while still allowing
some renewable fuels to be attributed a
higher value in terms of RFS
compliance to the extent that they have
a higher energy content than ethanol.
Equivalence Values should also
account for the renewable content of
renewable fuels, since the presence of
any non-renewable content impairs the
ability of the renewable fuel to replace
or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel
present in a fuel mixture used to operate
a motor vehicle. The Act specifically
states that only the renewable fuel
portion of a blending component should
be considered part of the applicable
volume under the RFS program. We
have interpreted this to mean that every
renewable fuel should be evaluated at
the molecular level to distinguish
between those components that were
derived from a renewable feedstock,
versus those components that were
derived from a fossil fuel feedstock.
Along with energy content in
comparison to ethanol, the relative
amount of renewable versus nonrenewable content can then be used
directly as the basis for the Equivalence
Value.
We propose that the calculation of
Equivalence Values should
simultaneously take into account both
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55571
the renewable content of a renewable
fuel and its energy content in
comparison to ethanol. To accomplish
this, we propose the following formula:
EV = (RRF / REth) × (ECRF / ECEth)
Where:
EV = Equivalence Value for the renewable
fuel.
RRF = Renewable content of the renewable
fuel, in percent.
REth = Renewable content of ethanol, in
percent.
ECRF = Energy content of the renewable fuel,
in Btu per gallon (LHV).
ECEth = Energy content of ethanol, in Btu per
gallon (LHV).
R is a measure of that portion of a
single renewable fuel molecule which
can be considered to have come from a
renewable source. Since R is being
combined with relative energy content
in the formula above, the value of R
cannot be based on the weight fraction
of the renewable atoms in the molecule,
but rather must be based on the energy
content of those atoms. As a result the
calculation of R for any particular
renewable fuel requires an analysis of
the chemical process through which it
was produced. A detailed explanation of
calculations for R and several examples
are given in a technical memorandum in
the docket 19.
In the case of ethanol, denaturants are
added to preclude its use as food.
Denaturants are generally a fossil-fuel
based, gasoline-like hydrocarbon in
concentrations of 2–5 volume percent,
with 5 percent being the most common
historical level. In general this would
mean that the Equivalence Value of
ethanol would be 0.95. However, we
believe that the Equivalence Value for
ethanol should be specified as 1.0
despite the presence of a denaturant.
First, as stated above, ethanol is
expected to dominate the renewable fuel
pool for at least the next several years,
and it is likely that the authors of the
Act recognized this fact. Thus it seems
likely that it was the intent of the
authors of the Act that each physical
gallon of denatured ethanol be counted
as one gallon for RFS compliance
purposes. Second, the accounting of
ethanol has historically ignored the
presence of the denaturant. For
instance, under Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) regulations the denaturant
can be counted as ethanol by parties
filing claims to the IRS for the Federal
excise tax credit. Also, EIA reporting
requirements for ethanol producers
19 ‘‘Calculation of equivalence values for
renewable fuels under the RFS program’’, memo
from David Korotney to EPA Air Docket OAR–
2005–0161.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55572
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
allow them to include the denaturant in
their reported volumes.
Since we are proposing that
denatured ethanol be assigned an
Equivalence Value of 1.0, this must be
reflected in the values of REth and ECEth.
We have calculated these values to be
93.1 percent and 77,550 Btu/gal,
respectively. Details of these
calculations can be found in the
aforementioned technical memorandum
to the docket.
The calculation of the Equivalence
Value for a particular renewable fuel
can lead to values that deviate only
slightly from 1.0, and/or can have
varying degrees of precision depending
on the uncertainty in the value of R or
ECRF. We are therefore proposing three
simplifications to streamline the
application of Equivalence Values in the
context of the RFS program. First,
consistent with our approach to the R
value for ethanol, we are proposing that
all Equivalence Values calculated to be
in the range of 0.9–1.2 be treated as if
they were exactly 1.0. This approach
would eliminate many of the
complexities described in Section III.D.2
that are associated with using renewable
fuels for RFS compliance purposes that
have an Equivalence Value other than
1.0. Second, we propose that several
bins be created for renewable fuels with
Equivalence Values above 1.0. These
bins would replace the calculated
Equivalence Values with standardized
ones to account for uncertainty in the
calculations as well as to simplify their
application. We propose that the bins be
1.0, 1.3, 1.5, and 1.7. Each renewable
fuel would be assigned to the bin that
is closest to its calculated Equivalence
Value. Finally, we propose that all
Equivalence Values, if any, which are
calculated to be less than 0.9 be
rounded to the first decimal place.
Using the methodology described
above, we calculated the Equivalence
Values for a number of different
renewable fuels expected to be in use
over the next few years, and modified
them according to our proposed
rounding protocols. These are shown in
the table below.
TABLE III.B.4–1.—PROPOSED EQUIVA- may have merit, but it would also raise
LENCE VALUES FOR SOME RENEW- a number of challenges. Consequently,
we are inviting comment here not only
ABLE FUELS—Continued
on the merit and basis for setting
equivalence values on a lifecycle basis,
but also the appropriate means of doing
so.
ETBE from corn ethanol .......
0.4
Lifecycle analyses involve an
examination of fossil fuel used, and
Since there are a wide variety of
emissions generated, at all stages of a
possible renewable fuels that could
renewable fuel’s life. A typical lifecycle
qualify under the RFS program, there
analysis examines production of the
may be cases in which a party produces
feedstock, its transport to a conversion
a renewable fuel not shown in Table
facility, the conversion of the feedstock
III.B.4–1. In such cases we propose to
into renewable motor vehicle fuel, and
allow the producer to submit a petition
the transport of the renewable fuel to
to the Agency describing the renewable
the consumer. At each stage, every
fuel, its feedstock and production
activity that consumes fossil fuels or
process, and the calculation of its
results in emissions is quantified, and
Equivalence Value. The Agency would
these energy consumption and emission
review the petition and assign an
estimates are then summed over all
appropriate Equivalence Value to the
stages. By accounting for every activity
renewable fuel based on the proposed
associated with renewable fuels over
rounding protocols described above.
their entire life, we can assess
Regarding publication of the newly
renewable fuels in terms of not just their
assigned Equivalence Value, we could
impact within the transportation sector,
publish it in the Federal Register at the
but across all sectors, and thus for the
same time as the annual standard is
nation as a whole. In this way they
published each November. We request
provide a more complete picture of the
comment on whether publishing new
potential impacts of different fuels or
Equivalence Values in this manner is
different fuel sources.
appropriate.
Advocates for using lifecycle analyses
Regarding biodiesel (mono alkyl
esters), we also considered an additional for setting the Equivalence Values for
different renewable fuels indicate that
approach in setting the Equivalence
Value. Since ethanol derived from waste there could be several advantages to this
approach. First, doing so could create an
products such as animal wastes and
incentive for obligated parties to choose
municipal solid waste will be assigned
renewable fuels having a greater ability
an Equivalence Value of 2.5 based on a
to reduce fossil fuel use or resulting
requirement in the Act, it might be
emissions, since such renewable fuels
appropriate to create a parallel
would have higher Equivalence Values
provision for biodiesel made from
and thus greater value in terms of
wastes. Under this approach, biodiesel
compliance with the RFS requirements.
made from waste products would be
The preferential demand for renewable
assigned an Equivalence Value of 2.5
through 2012. Currently, waste products fuels having higher Equivalence Values
could in turn spur additional growth in
(for example, poultry fats and poultry
production of these renewable fuels.
wastes, municipal solid waste, or
Second, using lifecycle analyses as the
wastewater sludge) make up less than
basis for Equivalence Values could
10 percent of biodiesel feedstocks. This
orient the RFS program more explicitly
approach would have the effect of
towards reducing fossil fuel use or
incentivizing the use of waste products
and recycled biomass to make biodiesel. emissions.
At the same time, the use of lifecycle
Beyond the RFS program, it could also
set a precedent to promote recycling and analyses to establish the Equivalence
Values for different renewable fuels also
waste conservation. While we are not
raises a number of issues. For instance,
TABLE III.B.4–1.—PROPOSED EQUIVA- proposing to set the Equivalence Value
lifecycle analyses can be conducted
LENCE VALUES FOR SOME RENEW- for waste-derived biodiesel at 2.5 in
using several different metrics,
today’s action, we nevertheless believe
ABLE FUELS
that this approach has merit and request including total fossil fuel consumed,
petroleum energy consumed, criteria
comment on it.
Equivalence
Value (EV)
c. Lifecycle Analyses as The Basis for
pollutant emissions (e.g., VOC, NOX,
Equivalence Values. Although we are
PM) carbon dioxide emissions, or
Cellulosic biomass ethanol or
proposing that Equivalence Values be
greenhouse gas emissions. Each metric
waste-derived ethanol .......
2.5
based on energy content relative to
would result in a different Equivalence
Ethanol from corn, starches,
ethanol and renewable content, some
Value for the same renewable fuel. At
or sugar .............................
1.0
the present time there is no consensus
Biodiesel (mono alkyl ester)
1.5 stakeholders have suggested that
on which metric would be most
Non-ester renewable diesel ..
1.7 Equivalence Values should be based on
Butanol ..................................
1.3 lifecycle analyses. Such an approach
appropriate for this purpose.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Equivalence
Value (EV)
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
There is also no consensus on the
approach to lifecycle analyses
themselves. Although we have chosen
to base our lifecycle analyses on
Argonne National Laboratory’s GREET
model for the reasons described in
Section IX, there are a variety of other
lifecycle models and analyses available.
The choice of model inputs and
assumptions all have a bearing on the
results of lifecycle analyses, and many
of these assumptions remain the subject
of debate among researchers. Lifecycle
analyses must also contend with the fact
that the inputs and assumptions
generally represent industry-wide
averages even though energy consumed
and emissions generated can vary
widely from one facility or process to
another. There currently exists no single
body, governmental or otherwise, that
has organized a comprehensive dialogue
among stakeholders about the
appropriate tools and assumptions
behind any lifecycle analyses with the
goal of coming to agreement.
Another issue to using lifecycle
analyses as the basis for Equivalence
Values pertains to the ultimate impact
that the RFS program would have on
petroleum use, fossil fuel use, criteria
pollutant emissions, and/or emissions of
GHGs. With a fixed volume of
renewable fuel required under the RFS
program, any renewable fuel with an
Equivalence Value greater than 1.0
would necessarily mean that fewer
actual gallons would be needed to meet
the RFS standard. Thus, the advantage
per gallon may be offset with fewer
overall gallons, resulting in no overall
additional benefit unless the RFS
standard was simultaneously adjusted.
Finally, lifecycle analyses of different
renewable fuels are likely to change
over time as farming practices and
process technologies evolve. Significant
changes would necessitate
corresponding changes in the RFS
program to adjust the Equivalence
Values on an ongoing basis which
would add uncertainty into the longterm RIN market.
We request comment on all issues
associated with the use of lifecycle
analyses in establishing the Equivalence
Values for different renewable fuels for
the RFS program.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
C. What Gasoline Is Used To Calculate
the Renewable Fuel Obligation and Who
Is Required To Meet the Obligation?
1. What Gasoline Is Used to Calculate
the Volume of Renewable Fuel Required
To Meet a Party’s Obligation?
The Act requires EPA to promulgate
regulations designed to ensure that
‘‘gasoline sold or introduced into
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
commerce in the United States (except
in noncontiguous states or territories)’’
contains on an annual average basis, the
applicable aggregate volumes of
renewable fuels as prescribed in the
Act.20 To implement this provision, we
are proposing that the volume of
gasoline used to determined the
renewable fuel obligation include all
finished gasoline, RFG and
conventional, produced or imported for
use in the contiguous United States
during the annual averaging period. We
are also proposing to include in the
volume of gasoline used to determine
the renewable fuel obligation all
unfinished gasoline that becomes
finished gasoline upon the addition of
oxygenate blended downstream from
the refinery or importer. This would
include both unfinished reformulated
gasoline, called ‘‘reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending,’’ or
‘‘RBOB,’’ and unfinished conventional
gasoline (e.g. sub-octane conventional
gasoline), called ‘‘CBOB.’’
Under the proposed rule, the volume
of any other unfinished gasoline or
blendstock, such as butane, would not
be included in the volume used to
determine the renewable fuel obligation,
except where the blendstock is
combined with other blendstock or
finished gasoline to produce finished
gasoline. Where a blendstock is blended
with other blendstock to produce
finished gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB, the
total volume of the gasoline blend
would be included in the volume used
to determine the renewable fuels
obligation for the blender. Where a
blendstock is added to finished
gasoline, only the volume of the
blendstock would be included, since the
finished gasoline would have been
included in the compliance
determinations of the refiner or importer
of the gasoline.21 Gasoline produced or
imported for use in a noncontiguous
state or U.S. territory 22 would not be
included in the volume used to
determine the renewable fuels
obligation (unless the noncontiguous
state or territory has opted-in to the RFS
20 CAA Section 211(o)(2)(A)(i), as added by
Section 1501(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
21 ‘‘Gasoline treated as blendstock,’’ or ‘‘GTAB,’’
would be treated as any other blendstock with
regard to the RFS rule; i.e., where the GTAB is
blended with other blendstock to produce gasoline,
the total volume of the gasoline blend, including
the GTAB, would be included in the volume
gasoline used to determine the renewable fuel
obligation for the blender. Where the GTAB is
blended with finished gasoline, only the GTAB
volume would be included.
22 The noncontiguous states are Alaska and
Hawaii. The territories are the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55573
program), nor would gasoline, RBOB or
CBOB exported for use outside the
United States.
For purposes of this preamble, the
various gasoline products (as described
above) that we are proposing to include
in the volume of gasoline used to
determine the renewable fuel obligation
are collectively called ‘‘gasoline.’’
Generally, ethanol and other
renewable fuels would typically be used
in gasoline, increasing the volume of the
entire gasoline blend. We are proposing
to exclude the volume of renewable
fuels contained in gasoline from the
volume of gasoline used to determine
the renewable fuels obligation. In
implementing the Act’s renewable fuels
requirement, our primary goal is to
design a program that is simple, flexible
and enforceable. If the program were to
include renewable fuels in the volume
of gasoline used to determine the
renewable fuel obligation, then every
blender that blends ethanol downstream
from the refinery or importer would be
subject to the renewable fuel obligation
for the volume of ethanol that they
blend. There are currently
approximately 1,200 such ethanol
blenders. Of these blenders, only those
who blend ethanol into RBOB are
regulated parties under current fuels
regulations. Designating all of these
ethanol blenders as obligated parties
under the RFS program would greatly
expand the number of regulated parties
and increase the complexity of the RFS
program beyond that which is necessary
to carry out the renewable fuels
mandate under the Act.
The Act provides that the renewable
fuel obligation shall be ‘‘applicable to
refiners, blenders, and importers, as
appropriate.’’ 23 For the reasons
discussed above, we believe it is
appropriate to exclude downstream
renewable fuel blenders from the group
of parties subject to the renewable fuel
obligation, and to exclude renewable
fuels from the volume of gasoline used
to determine the renewable fuel
obligation. This exclusion would apply
to any renewable fuels that are blended
into gasoline at a refinery, contained in
imported gasoline, or added at a
downstream blending facility. Thus, for
example, any ethanol added to RBOB or
CBOB downstream from the refinery or
importer would be excluded from the
volume of gasoline used to determine
the obligation. Any non-renewable fuel
added downstream, however, would be
included in the volume of gasoline used
to determine the obligation. This
approach has no impact on the total
23 CAA Section 211(o)(3)(B), as added by Section
1501(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55574
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
volume of renewable fuels required,
merely on the number of obligated
parties. We invite comment on the
proposal to exclude renewable fuels in
the volume of gasoline subject to the
renewable fuels obligation. As discussed
earlier, in a similar manner this volume
of renewable fuel would also be
excluded from the calculation
performed each year by EPA to
determine the applicable percentage.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
2. Who Is Required To Meet the
Renewable Fuels Obligation?
Under the proposed rule, persons who
meet the definition of refiner, which
includes blenders who produce gasoline
by combining blendstocks or blending
blendstocks into finished gasoline, and
persons who meet the definition of
importer under the fuels regulations
would be subject to the renewable fuel
obligation. As noted above, blenders
who only blend renewable fuels
downstream from the refinery or
importer would not be subject to the
renewable fuel obligation. Any person
that is required to meet the renewable
fuels obligation is called an ‘‘obligated
party.’’ We generally refer to all of the
obligated parties as refiners and
importers, as the covered blenders are
all refiners under the regulations.
A refiner or importer located in a
noncontiguous state or U.S. territory
would not be subject to the renewable
fuel obligation and thus would not be an
obligated party (unless the
noncontiguous state or territory opts-in
to the RFS program). A party located
within the contiguous 48 states that
‘‘imports’’ into the 48 states gasoline
produced or imported by a refiner or
importer located in a noncontiguous
state or territory would be an obligated
party and must meet the renewable fuel
obligation for such gasoline.
3. What Exemptions Are Available
Under The RFS Program?
a. Small Refinery and Small Refiner
Exemption. The Act provides an
exemption from the RFS standard for
small refineries during the first five
years of the program. The Act defines
small refinery as ‘‘a refinery for which
the average aggregate daily crude oil
throughput for a calendar year (as
determined by dividing the aggregate
throughput for the calendar year by the
number of days in the calendar year)
does not exceed 75,000 barrels.’’ 24
Under the proposed rule, any gasoline
produced at a refinery that qualifies as
a small refinery under this definition is
not counted in determining the
24 CAA Section 211(o)(a)(9), as added by Section
1501(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
renewable fuel obligation of a refiner
until January 1, 2011. Where a refiner
complies with the renewable fuel
obligation on an aggregate basis for
multiple refineries, the refiner may
exclude from its compliance
calculations gasoline produced at any
refinery that qualifies as a small refinery
under the RFS program. Beginning in
2011, small refineries would be required
to meet the same renewable fuel
obligation as all other refineries. This
exemption would apply to any refinery
that meets the definition of small
refinery stated above regardless of the
size of the refining company that owns
the refinery. Based on information
currently available to us we expect 42
small refineries to qualify for this
exemption.
In addition to small refineries as
defined in the Act, we are proposing to
extend this relief to refiners who meet
the proposed criteria for small refiner
status. Under the proposal, a small
refiner is defined as any refiner who,
during 2004: (1) Produces gasoline at a
refinery by processing crude oil through
refinery processing units; (2) employs
an average of no more than 1,500
people, including all employees of the
small refiner, any parent company and
its subsidiary companies; and (3) has a
total crude oil processing capability for
all of the small refiner’s refineries of
155,000 barrels per calendar year
(bpcd). These size requirements were
established in prior rulemakings and
were the result of our analysis of small
refiner impacts. We do not believe that
there are more than three gasoline
refineries owned by small refiners that
meet these criteria and that currently
exceed the 75,000 bpcd crude oil
processing capability defined by the
Act. We request comment on whether a
refiner who has a refinery which
exceeds the 75,000 bpcd criteria should
be eligible to apply for a small refiner
exemption under the RFS program. EPA
believes it has this discretion in
determining an appropriate lead-time
for the start-up of this program, as well
as discretion to determine the regulated
refiners, blenders and importers, ‘‘as
appropriate.’’
We are also proposing to allow foreign
refiners to apply for a small refinery or
small refiner exemption under the RFS
program. This would apply to foreign
refiners that apply for refineries under
the 75,000 bpcd criteria or foreign
refiners that apply for small refiner
status. Under the anti-dumping, MSAT
and gasoline sulfur rules, foreign
refiners are allowed to comply with
certain regulations separately from any
importer. Additional requirements
applicable to such foreign refiners are
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
included in these rules to ensure that
enforcement of the regulations at the
foreign refinery would not be
compromised. We are proposing similar
enforcement-related requirements that
would apply to foreign refiners that
apply for a small refinery or small
refiner exemption. Under the existing
fuels regulations, few foreign refiners
have chosen to undertake these
additional requirements, and almost all
gasoline produced at foreign refineries
is included in the importers’
compliance determinations. We invite
comment on the value of extending the
small refinery and small refiner
exemptions to foreign refiners under the
RFS program.
Under the proposed rule, applications
for a small refinery exemption must be
received by EPA by September 1, 2007
for the exemption to be effective in 2007
and subsequent calendar years. The
application must include
documentation that the small refinery’s
average aggregate daily crude oil
throughput for calendar year 2004 did
not exceed 75,000 barrels. As long as the
refinery met the criteria in 2004, it
would have the exemption through 2010
regardless of changes in crude
throughput or ownership. A small
refinery exemption would be effective
60 days after receipt of the application
by EPA unless EPA notifies the
applicant that the application was not
approved or that additional
documentation is required. We are
proposing to base eligibility on 2004
data rather than on 2005 data, since it
was the first full year prior to passage
of the Energy Act. In addition, some
refineries’ production may have been
affected by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
We request comment on whether
multiple-year average should be the
basis for eligibility.
As discussed above, refiners that do
not qualify for a small refinery
exemption under the 75,000 bpcd
criteria, but nevertheless meet the
criteria of a small refiner may apply for
small refiner status under the RFS rule.
The application must be received by
EPA by September 1, 2007 for the
exemption to be effective in 2007 and
subsequent calendar years. Like the
exemption for small refineries, small
refiner status would be determined
based on documentation submitted in
the application which demonstrates that
the refiner met the criteria for small
refiner status during the calendar year
2004. EPA will notify the refiner of
approval or disapproval of small refiner
status by letter. Unlike the case for small
refineries, refiners that receive approved
small refiner status and subsequently do
not meet all of the criteria for small
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
refiner status (i.e., cease producing
gasoline from processing crude oil,
employ more than 1,500 people or
exceed the 155,000 bpcd crude oil
capacity limit) as a result of a merger
with or acquisition of or by another
entity, are disqualified as small refiners,
except in the case of a merger between
two previously approved small refiners.
As in other EPA programs, where such
disqualification occurs, the refiner must
notify EPA in writing no later than 20
days following the disqualifying event.
The Act provides that the Secretary of
Energy must conduct a study for EPA to
determine whether compliance with the
renewable fuels requirement would
impose a disproportionate economic
hardship on small refineries. If the
study finds that compliance with the
renewable fuels requirements would
impose a disproportionate economic
hardship on a particular small refinery,
EPA is required to extend the small
refinery’s exemption for a period of not
less than two additional years. The Act
also provides that a refiner with a small
refinery may at any time petition EPA
for an extension of the exemption for
the reason of disproportionate economic
hardship. In accordance with these
provisions of the Act, the proposed rule
includes a process by which refiners
with small refineries may petition EPA
for an extension of the small refinery
exemption. As provided in the Act, the
proposed rule would require EPA to act
on the petition not later than 90 days
after the date of receipt of the petition.
During the initial exemption period
and any extended exemption periods,
the gasoline produced by small
refineries and refineries owned by
approved small refiners would be
subject to the renewable fuel standard.
Under the proposed rule, the
automatic five year exemption for small
refineries, and any extended
exemptions, may be waived upon
notification to EPA. In waiving its
exemption, gasoline produced at a small
refinery would be included in the RFS
program and would be included in the
gasoline used to determine a refiner’s
renewable fuel obligation. If a refiner
waives the exemption for their small
refinery or their exemption as a small
refiner, the refiner would be able to
separate and transfer RINs like any other
obligated party. If a refiner does not
waive the exemption, the refiner could
still separate and transfer RINs, but only
for the renewable fuel that the refiner
itself blends into gasoline (i.e. the
refiner operates as an oxygenate
blender).
b. General Hardship Exemption. In
recent rulemakings, we have included a
general hardship exemption for parties
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
that could demonstrate severe economic
hardship in complying with the
standard. We are proposing not to
include in the RFS program provisions
for a general hardship exemption.
Unlike most other fuels programs, the
RFS program includes inherent
flexibility since compliance with the
renewable fuels standard is based on a
nationwide trading program, without
any per gallon requirements, and
without any requirement that the refiner
or importer produce the renewable fuel.
By purchasing RINs, obligated parties
would be able to fulfill their renewable
fuel obligation without having to make
capital investments that may otherwise
be necessary in order to blend
renewable fuels into gasoline. We
believe that sufficient RINs would be
available and at reasonable prices, given
that EIA projects that far greater
renewable fuels will be used than
required. Given the flexibility provided
in the RIN trading program, including
the provisions for deficit carry-over, and
the fact that the standard is proportional
to the volume of gasoline actually
produced, we believe that there likely
would be no need for a general hardship
exemption. We request comment on
whether there is a need to include a
general hardship exemption in the RFS
program.
c. Temporary Exemption Based On
Unforeseen Circumstances. In recent
rulemakings, we have also included a
temporary exemption based on
unforeseen circumstances. We are
proposing not to include such an
exemption in the RFS program. The
need for such an exemption would
primarily be based on the inability to
comply with the renewable fuels
standard due to a natural disaster, such
as a hurricane. However, in the event of
a natural disaster, we believe that the
volume of gasoline produced by an
obligated party would also drop, which
would result in a reduction in the
renewable fuel requirement. We believe,
therefore, that unforeseen
circumstances, such as a hurricane or
other natural disaster, would not result
in a party’s inability to obtain sufficient
RINs to comply with the applicable
renewable fuels standard. We request
comment on whether there would be a
need to include a temporary exemption
based on unforeseen circumstances,
and, in particular, circumstances that
may affect ethanol producers.
4. What Are the Opt-In and State Waiver
Provisions Under the RFS Program?
a. Opt-in Provisions for
Noncontiguous States and Territories.
The Act provides that, upon the petition
of a noncontiguous state or U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55575
territory, EPA may apply the renewable
fuels requirements to gasoline produced
in or imported into that noncontiguous
state or U.S. territory at the same time
as, or any time after the effective date of
the RFS program.25 In granting such a
petition, EPA may issue or revise the
RFS regulations, establish applicable
volume percentages, provide for
generation of credits, and take other
actions as necessary to allow for the
application of the RFS program in a
noncontiguous state or territory.
Today’s proposed rule would
implement this provision of the Act by
providing a process wherein the
governor of a noncontiguous state or
territory may petition EPA to have the
state or territory included in the RFS
program. However, we believe that
approval of the petition would not
require a showing other than a request
to be included in the program. The
petition must be received by EPA on or
before October 31 for the noncontiguous
state or territory to be included in the
RFS program in the next calendar year.
A noncontiguous state or territory for
which a petition is received after
October 31 would not be included in the
RFS program in the next calendar year,
but would be included in the RFS
program in the following year. For
example, if EPA receives a petition on
September 1, 2007, the noncontiguous
state or territory would be included in
the RFS program beginning on January
1, 2008. If EPA receives a petition on
December 1, 2007, the noncontiguous
state or territory would be included in
the RFS program beginning January 1,
2009. We believe that requiring
petitions to be received by October 31
would be necessary to allow EPA time
to make any adjustments in applicable
standard. The method for recalculating
the renewable fuels standard to reflect
the addition of a state or territory that
has opted into the RFS program is
discussed in Section III.A.
Where a noncontiguous state or
territory opts-in to the RFS program,
producers and importers of gasoline for
that state or territory would be obligated
parties subject to the renewable fuel
requirements. All refiners, blenders and
importers who produce or import
gasoline for use in a state or territory
that has opted-in to the RFS program
would be required to count this volume
of gasoline in determining their
renewable fuel obligation, and would be
able to separate RINs from batches of
renewable fuels used in gasoline that is
sold or introduced into commerce in the
25 CAA Section 211(o)(2)(A)(ii), as added by
Section 1501(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
55576
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
state or territory that has opted-in to the
RFS program.
Once a petition to opt-in to the RFS
program is approved by EPA, the state
or territory would remain in the RFS
program and be treated as any of the 48
contiguous states. We request comment
on the opt-in provisions.
b. State Waiver Provisions. The
Energy Act provides that EPA, in
consultation with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) and the
Department of Energy (DOE), may waive
the renewable fuels requirements in
whole or in part upon a petition by one
or more states by reducing the national
quantity of renewable fuel required
under the Act.26 The Act also outlines
the basic requirements for such a
waiver, such as a demonstration that
implementation of the renewable fuels
requirements would severely harm the
economy or environment of a state, a
region, or the United States, or that
there is an inadequate domestic supply
of renewable fuel.
If EPA approves a state’s petition for
a waiver of the RFS program, the Act
stipulates that the national quantity of
renewable fuel required (Table I.B–1)
may be reduced in whole or in part.
This reduction could reduce the
standard applicable to all obligated
parties. However, there is no provision
in the Act that would permit EPA to
reduce or eliminate any obligations
under the RFS program specifically for
parties located within the state that
petitioned for the waiver. Thus all
refiners, importers, and blenders located
in the state would still be obligated
parties if they produce gasoline. In
addition, an approval of a state’s
petition for a waiver may not have any
impact on renewable fuel use in that
state, since it would not be a prohibition
on the sale or consumption of renewable
fuels in that state. In fact the Act
prohibits the regulations from restricting
the geographic areas in which
renewable fuels may be used.
Renewable fuel use in the state in
question would thus continue to be
driven by natural market forces.
Given that state petitions for a waiver
of the RFS program are unlikely to affect
renewable fuel use in that state, we are
not proposing regulations providing
more specificity regarding the criteria
for a waiver, or the ramifications of
Agency approval of such a waiver in
terms of the level or applicability of the
standard. However, states can still
submit petitions to the Agency for a
waiver of the RFS requirements under
26 CAA
Section 211(o)(7), as added by Section
1501 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
the provision in the Energy Act. We
request comment on this approach.
D. How Do Obligated Parties Comply
With the Standard?
Under the Act, EPA is to establish a
renewable fuel standard annually,
expressed as a percentage of gasoline
sold or introduced into commerce, that
will ensure that overall a specified total
national volume of renewable fuels will
be used in gasoline in the U.S. The Act
does not require each obligated party to
necessarily do the blending themselves
in order to comply with this obligation.
The Act envisions a regulatory program
that would ensure the national volume
is met as long as a refiner or importer
ensured that someone used a certain
volume of renewable fuel, whether it
was themselves or another party. Under
the credit trading program required by
the Act, each obligated party is allowed
to satisfy its obligations either through
its own actions or through the transfer
of credits from others who have more
than satisfied their individual
requirements.
This section describes our proposed
compliance program. It is based on the
use of unique renewable identification
numbers (RINs) assigned to batches of
renewable fuel by renewable fuel
producers. These numbers could then
be sold or traded, and ultimately used
by any obligated party to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable
standard. Excess RINs would be
identical to the credits envisioned by
the Act. As described below, we believe
that our approach is consistent with the
language and intent of the Act and
preserves the natural market forces and
blending practices that keep renewable
fuel costs to a minimum.
1. Why Use Renewable Identification
Numbers?
Once renewable fuels are produced or
imported, there is very high confidence
they will in fact be blended into
gasoline or otherwise used as motor
vehicle fuels, except for exports.
Renewable fuels are not used for food,
chemicals, or as feedstocks to other
production processes. In fact the
denaturant that must be added to
ethanol is designed specifically to
ensure that the ethanol can be used only
as motor vehicle fuel. In discussions
with stakeholders, it has become clear
that other renewable fuels, including
biodiesel and renewable fuels used in
their neat (unblended) form, likewise
are not used for anything other than
fuel. Therefore if a refiner ensures that
a certain volume of renewable fuel has
been produced, in effect they have also
ensured that this volume will be
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
blended into gasoline or otherwise used
as a motor vehicle fuel. It is therefore
appropriate for EPA to establish the
obligation for refiners and importers as
an obligation to ensure that a certain
volume of renewable fuel has been
produced. This will ensure that the total
required volume of renewable fuels will
be used in the U.S., and as discussed
below has many benefits as far as
streamlining the program and
minimizing disruptions to the current
marketplace for production,
distribution, and use of renewable fuels.
Implementing a program that is based
on ensuring production of a certain
volume of renewable fuels requires a
system of volume accounting and
tracking of renewable fuels. We propose
that this system be based on the
assignment of unique numbers to each
batch of renewable fuel. These numbers
would be called Renewable
Identification Numbers or RINs, and
would be assigned to each batch by the
renewable fuel producer or importer.
The use of RINs would allow the
Agency to measure and track renewable
fuel volumes starting at the point of
their production rather than at the point
when they are blended into
conventional fuels. Although an
alternative approach would be to
measure renewable fuel volumes as they
are blended into conventional gasoline
or diesel, measuring renewable fuel
volumes at the point of production
provides more accurate measurements
that can be easily verified as described
in Section III.D.1.b below. For instance,
ethanol producers are already required
to report their production volumes to
EIA through Monthly Oxygenate
Reports. This data would provide an
independent source for verifying
volumes. The total number of batches
and parties involved is also minimized
in this approach. The total number of
batches is smallest at the point of
production, since batches are commonly
split into smaller ones as they proceed
through the distribution system to the
place where they are blended into
conventional fuel. The number of
renewable fuel producers is also far
smaller than the number of blenders.
Currently there are approximately 100
ethanol plants and 40 biodiesel plants
in the U.S., compared with
approximately 1200 blenders.27
The assignment of RINs to batches of
renewable fuel at the point of their
production also allows those batches to
be identified according to various
categories important for compliance
27 Those blenders who add ethanol to RBOB are
already regulated under our reformulated gasoline
regulations.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
purposes. For instance, the RIN will
contain a component that specifies
whether a batch of ethanol was made
from cellulosic feedstocks. This RIN
component will be of particular
importance for 2013 and beyond when
the Act specifies a national volume
requirement for cellulosic biomass
ethanol. The RIN can also identify the
Equivalence Value of the renewable fuel
which will often only be known at the
point of its production. Finally, the RIN
can identify the year in which the batch
was produced, a critical element of
determining the applicable time period
within which RINs are valid for
compliance purposes.
Production volumes of renewable
fuels intended for blending into gasoline
are an accurate surrogate for volumes
actually blended into gasoline. In
addition, production volumes of
renewable fuels capture those renewable
fuels used as motor vehicle fuel in their
neat (unblended) form. Thus we believe
that this approach would allow us to
account for all renewable fuels
consumed in the U.S. because
renewable fuels always end up being
used as fuel in the U.S. or exported.
There are also changes that can occur
at various times throughout the year in
the volumes of renewable fuel that are
in storage. These stock changes involve
the temporary storage of renewable fuel
during times of excess. However, these
stock changes always have a net change
of zero over the long term since there is
no economic benefit to stockpiling
renewable fuels.
Exports of renewable fuel represent
the only distribution pathway that could
impair the use of production as a
surrogate for renewable fuel blending
into gasoline or other use as a motor
vehicle fuel. However, we believe that
our proposed approach can account for
exports through an explicit requirement
placed upon exporters (discussed in
Section III.D.4 below). As a result, we
are confident that our proposed
approach satisfies the statutory
obligation that our regulations impose
obligations on refiners and importers
that will ensure that gasoline sold or
introduced into commerce in the U.S.
each year will contain the volumes of
renewable fuel specified in the Act. By
tracking the amount of renewable fuel
produced or imported, and subtracting
the amount exported, we will have an
accurate accounting of the renewable
fuel actually consumed as motor vehicle
fuel in the U.S. Exports of renewable
fuel are discussed in more detail in
Section III.D.4.
a. RINs Serve the Purpose of a Credit
Trading Program. According to the Act,
we must promulgate regulations that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
include provisions for a credit trading
program. A credit trading program
would allow a refiner that overcomplied
with its annual RVO to generate credits
representing the excess renewable fuel.
The Act stipulates that those credits
could then be used within the ensuing
12 month period, or transferred to
another refiner that had not blended
sufficient renewable fuel into its
gasoline to satisfy its RVO. In this way
the credit trading program would permit
current blending practices to continue
wherein some refiners purchase a
significant amount of renewable fuel for
blending into their gasoline while others
do little or none, thus providing a
means for all refiners to comply with
the standard.
Our proposed RIN-based program
would fulfill all the functions of a credit
trading program, and thus would meet
the Act’s requirements. If at the end of
a compliance period, a party had more
RINs than it needed to show compliance
with its renewable volume obligation,
these excess RINs would serve the
function of credits, and could be used,
banked, or traded in the next
compliance period. RINs could be
transferred to another party in an
identical fashion to a credit. However,
our proposed program provides
additional flexibility in that it would
permit all RINs to be transferred
between parties before they were
deemed to be in excess of a party’s
annual RVO at the end of the year. This
is because a RIN serves two functions:
it is direct evidence of compliance, and
after a compliance year is over excess
RINs serve the function of credits for
overcompliance. Thus the RIN approach
has the advantage of allowing real-time
trading without having to wait until the
end of the year to determine excess.
As in other motor vehicle fuels credit
programs, we are also proposing that
any renewable producer that generates
RINs must use an independent auditor
to conduct annual reviews of the party’s
renewable production, RIN generation,
and RIN transactions. These reviews are
called ‘‘attest engagements,’’ because the
auditor is asked to attest to the validity
of the regulated party’s credit
transactions. For example, the
reformulated gasoline program requires
attest engagements for refiners and
importers, and downstream oxygenate
blenders to verify the underlying
documentation forming the basis of the
required reports (40 CFR part 80,
subpart F). In the case of RIN
generation, the auditor would be
required to verify that the number of
RINs generated matched the volume
renewables produced, that any extra
value RINs were appropriately
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55577
generated, and that RINs numbers were
properly assigned and documented on
the renewable fuel PTDs as required by
the regulations.
b. Alternative Approach To Tracking
Batches. If we did not implement a RINbased system for uniquely identifying,
measuring, and tracking batches of
renewable fuel, the RFS program would
necessarily require that we measure
renewable fuel volumes at the point in
the distribution system where they are
actually blended into conventional
gasoline or diesel or used in their neat
form as motor vehicle fuel. However,
this alternative approach would create a
number of significant problems.
First, the parties obligated to meet the
standard (refiners, importers, and
blenders of gasoline) are often not the
parties who produce renewable fuel or
blend renewable fuels such as ethanol
into gasoline. This separation would
require a mechanism for obligated
parties to obtain credit for renewable
fuels blended by non-obligated parties.
Generally, this would be done through
contract management. Unfortunately,
there might be an incentive to
exaggerate the volumes of renewable
fuel blended and thus exaggerate the
number of credits generated. This
alternative approach might also create
opportunities for double-counting
batches of renewable fuel, either
intentionally or unintentionally.
Second, as described in Section I, one
of our guiding principles in designing
the RFS compliance and trading
program was to ensure that existing
business practices could continue to the
degree possible. With the alternative
approach described above, some refiners
might have to significantly change their
business or production practices to take
greater control of ethanol blending and,
therefore, the mechanism for
compliance with the RFS program. For
instance, a refiner could establish a
contract with an oxygenate blender,
securing the rights to the credits that
oxygenate blender creates. A refiner
might also decide to take on more
blending responsibilities itself.
However, these approaches would run
counter to the normal business practices
that keep fuel costs to a minimum, and
would thus have a tendency to increase
fuel costs.
Third, tracking renewable fuel
volumes to identify the date, place, and
volume of blending into gasoline would
maximize the number of parties
involved, overly complicating the
compliance system. There are
approximately 1200 blenders in the U.S.
who blend ethanol into gasoline, in
addition to those that blend biodiesel
into conventional diesel fuel. Many of
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
55578
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
these parties are small businesses that
have not been regulated in an EPA fuel
program before. Enforcement efforts
would necessarily be placed on them,
imposing upon them the primary
burden of accurately documenting the
volumes of renewable fuel that are
blended into gasoline even though they
are not obligated for meeting the
standard. In contrast, under our
proposed program blenders would only
need to keep records of RINs acquired
with batches. It is our expectation that
in most cases obligated parties will
separate the RINs from batches before
those batches are transferred to
blenders. Therefore, blenders will only
have to keep records of RINs for a
fraction of the renewable fuel produced.
Fourth, a focus on the point of
blending would not address renewable
fuels that need not be blended into
gasoline or diesel. For example,
although biodiesel 28 is generally
blended into conventional diesel before
being used as fuel, it can be used in its
neat form (B100). If volumes of
renewable fuel were counted only when
blending into conventional fuel
occurred, then B100 could never be
claimed by an obligated party for RFS
compliance purposes. The same would
be true of other renewable fuels which,
although not produced in significant
quantities today, could play a more
substantial role in the renewable fuels
market in the future. Examples of these
other unblended renewable fuels could
include renewable diesel made by
hydrotreating plant oils instead of
transesterifying them, or a renewable
gasoline made from a Fischer-Tropsch
process applied to biogas.
Finally, a focus on the point of
blending would not permit cellulose
biomass ethanol to be distinguished
from other forms of ethanol. Since the
Act requires that 250 million gallons of
cellulosic biomass ethanol be produced
starting in 2013, this alternative
approach would require tracking of
batches of renewable fuel at the
producer level.
In a blender-based approach, then,
special exceptions would need to be
developed in order for these neat fuels
to be available for RFS program
compliance purposes. For instance, a
system of measuring and tracking neat
renewable fuel volumes at the point of
production would likely be necessary.
This would be no different from a RINbased program for such fuels.
Our proposed RIN-based program
would address all these concerns
28 Mono-alkyl esters made from plant or animal
oils or fats, and which have been registered with the
EPA for use in highway motor vehicles.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
automatically by shifting the focus of
accounting to the point of production
rather than blending. As a result we
believe that a blender-based alternative
approach described above is inferior to
our proposed program. We request
comment on a RIN-based system for
uniquely identifying, measuring, and
tracking batches of renewable fuel for
compliance purposes.
2. Generating RINs and Assigning Them
to Batches
a. Form of Renewable Identification
Numbers. Each RIN would be generated
by the producer or importer of the
renewable fuel and would uniquely
identify not only a specific batch, but
also every gallon in that batch. The RIN
would consist of a 34-character code
having the following form:
RIN: YYYYCCCCFFFFFBBBBB
RRDKSSSSSSEEEEEE
Where:
YYYY = Calendar year of production or
import
CCCC = Company ID
FFFFF = Facility ID
BBBBB = Serial batch number
RR = Code identifying the Equivalence Value
D = Code identifying cellulosic biomass
ethanol or waste-derived ethanol
K = Code identifying extra-value RINs
SSSSSS = Start of volume block.
EEEEEE = End of volume block.
Some examples of RINs are given in
Section III.E.1.b.
The company and facility IDs would
be assigned by the EPA as part of the
registration process as described in
Section IV.B. The serial batch number
would be chosen by the producer and
would generally be a sequential value
starting with 000001 at the beginning of
each year. We have chosen five digits
for the serial batch number to allow for
facilities that produce up to a hundred
thousand batches per year. However, we
request comment on whether four digits
would be sufficient.
The RR, D, and K codes would
together describe the nature of the
renewable fuel and the RINs that were
generated to represent it. The RR code
would simply represent the Equivalence
Value for the renewable fuel, multiplied
by 10 to eliminate the decimal place
inherent in Equivalence Values.
Equivalence Values form the basis for
the total number of RINs that can be
generated for a given volume of
renewable fuel, and are described in
Section III.B.4.
The D code would identify cellulosic
biomass ethanol batches as such. Since
the Act requires that a minimum of 250
million gallons of cellulosic biomass
ethanol be consumed starting in 2013,
obligated parties will need to be able to
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
distinguish RINs representing cellulosic
biomass ethanol from RINs representing
other types of renewable fuel. This
requirement is discussed in more detail
in Section III.A.
The K code would be used to specify
whether the RIN represents actual
gallons of renewable fuel, or instead
represents extra-value RINs. Extra-value
RINs arise only in cases where the
Equivalence Value is greater than 1.0.
Extra-value RINs are discussed in more
detail in Section III.D.2.b below.
The RIN also contains two values that
together identify the total number of
gallons in a batch as well as uniquely
identifying each gallon in that batch.29
When RINs are first assigned to a batch
of renewable fuel by its producer or
importer, the volume start block for that
batch will in general be 1 (i.e. SSSSSS
will have a value of 000001). The
volume block end is the total volume
number of gallons in the batch (i.e. for
a 10,000 gallon batch, EEEEEE would
have a value of 010000). Thus the single
RIN assigned to the batch is in effect
shorthand for all the unique RINs
assigned to every individual gallon in
the batch. We propose that the number
of gallons in a batch be standardized to
60 °F to avoid RIN assignment problems
associated with volume swell due to
temperature changes. We have assigned
six digits to the volume block codes to
allow batches up to a million gallons in
size. We request comment on whether a
fewer number of digits for the SSSSSS
and EEEEEE codes would be sufficient.
Since ‘‘RIN’’ can refer to either the
number assigned to the batch or the
number representing each gallon in that
batch, we propose distinguishing
between a batch-RIN and a gallon-RIN.
A batch-RIN would be the multicharacter code written on a product
transfer document associated with a
batch of renewable fuel. The batch-RIN
would include SSSSSS and EEEEEE
values identifying every (volumestandardized) gallon in the batch, each
of which would be assigned its own
gallon-RIN. A gallon-RIN would have
identical SSSSSS and EEEEEE values
identifying one gallon in a batch.
Our approach to RINs permits the
batch to be divided into smaller batches
at any point in the distribution system
while maintaining the assignment of
unique RINs. For instance, if a 1000
gallon batch of renewable fuel is
divided into two 500 gallon batches, the
volume block start and block end values
29 RINs represent actual gallons in a batch when
the RIN is a standard-value RIN. Extra-value RINs
represent additional gallons in cases where the
Equivalence Value is greater than Equivalence
Value is greater than 1.0. See further discussion in
Section III.D.2.b.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
in the original batch-RIN would change
to reflect the batch split. The batch-RIN
for the first 500 gallon batch would have
an SSSSSS value of 000001 and an
EEEEEE value of 000500, while the
second 500 gallon batch would have an
SSSSSS value of 000501 and an EEEEEE
value of 001000. Additional batch splits
would be handled similarly. More
discussion of batch splits is provided in
Section III.E.1.b.i.
b. Generating Extra-Value RINs. In
general, there is a one-to-one
correspondence between gallon-RINs
and physical gallons of renewable fuel
in a batch. For instance, a 10,000 gallon
batch of renewable fuel would be
assigned 10,000 gallon-RINs, and the
batch-RIN would contain volume block
start and volume block end values
summarizing the 10,000 gallon-RINs.
However, under certain circumstances
RINs may be generated in addition to
those that represent the volume of
renewable fuel actually produced. This
would occur in cases where the
Equivalence Value of the renewable fuel
in question is greater than 1.0.
Renewable fuel Equivalence Values are
discussed in Section III.B.4.
If a renewable fuel has an Equivalence
Value greater than 1.0, the incremental
value above 1.0 can be used to generate
‘‘extra-value’’ RINs. For instance, the
Equivalence Value for biodiesel shown
in Table III.B.4–1 is 1.5. If a biodiesel
producer made a 1000 gallon batch of
biodiesel, 1000 standard-value gallonRINs would be assigned to the batch and
an additional 500 extra-value gallonRINs could also be generated.
All the RINs generated to represent a
batch of renewable fuel would contain
the same RR code representing the
Equivalence Value of the renewable
fuel. However, extra-value RINs would
be treated differently from standardvalue RINs in two ways. First, the extravalue RINs would include a K code that
identifies them as extra-value RINs,
distinguishing them from standardvalue RINs that represent actual gallons
of renewable fuel. Second, extra-value
RINs would not be required to be
transferred along with the batch of
renewable fuel as it moves through the
distribution system.30 Rather, an extravalue RINs could be transferred as an
independent commodity by the
producer. This approach would provide
an incentive for producers to make
renewable fuels that have a
comparatively greater value in terms of
meeting the volume requirements of the
30 As described in Section III.E below, we are
proposing that standard-value RINs would be
assigned to the batch of renewable fuel they
represent and would be required to be transferred
with the batch.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
RFS program. Also, by not requiring
extra-value RINs to be assigned to the
batches of renewable fuel that they
represent, batches of renewable fuel can
continue to have a one-to-one
correspondence between gallon-RINs
assigned to the batch and the number of
physical gallons in that batch. This
approach can greatly simplify the
transfer of RINs with batches
particularly when batch splits occur.
c. Cases in Which RINs Are Not
Generated. Although in general every
(temperature-standardized) gallon of
renewable fuel produced or imported
would be assigned a gallon-RIN, there
are several cases in which a RIN may
not be assigned. For instance, if a
renewable fuel producer also operated
as an exporter, any renewable fuel that
it produced and exported would not
need to be assigned a RIN. Since the
gasoline that is blended with renewable
fuels under the RFS program must be
‘‘sold or introduced into commerce’’
within the U.S., renewable fuels that are
exported cannot be claimed by an
obligated party for compliance
purposes, and therefore would not need
to be assigned a RIN. Exports of
renewable fuel are discussed further in
Section III.D.4.
Another case in which a RIN may not
be assigned to a batch of renewable fuel
would be if the renewable fuel was
consumed within the confines of the
production facility where it was made.
RINs under today’s proposal would be
assigned to renewable fuel when it
leaves the production facility. So long as
renewable fuel remained at the
production facility, it would not need to
be assigned a RIN.
A third case in which some renewable
fuel would not be assigned a RIN would
occur for small volume producers. We
are proposing that renewable fuel
producers who produce less than 10,000
gallons in a year would not be required
to generate RINs or assign them to
batches. If they chose to register as a
renewable fuel producer under the RFS
program, however, they would be
subject to all the regulatory provisions
that apply to all producers, including
the requirement to assign RINs to
batches. We request comment on the
10,000 gallon threshold.
A fourth case in which some
renewable fuel would not be assigned a
RIN could occur when a gasoline or
diesel blending component is only
partially derived from a renewable
source. In such cases the Equivalence
Value associated with the renewable
fuel would be less than 1.0, indicating
that it is produced by combining a
renewable fuel with a non-renewable
fossil fuel. For instance, ethyl tertiary
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55579
butyl ether (ETBE) is made from
combining ethanol with isobutylene.
The ethanol is generally from corn, and
the isobutylene is generally from
petroleum. Equivalence Values are
discussed in Section III.B.4. In this
situation only a fraction of the gallons
of renewable fuel produced would be
assigned a RIN in proportion to its
Equivalence Value, with the remaining
gallons not being assigned a RIN.
Finally, a renewable fuel whose
energy content is less than that of
ethanol might also be assigned an
Equivalence Value less than 1.0, and as
a result fewer gallon-RINs would be
assigned to a batch than physical
gallons in that batch. For example,
methanol made from biogenic methane
(biogas) for use in a methanol vehicle
would have an energy content less than
that for ethanol. Although methanol is
currently used as a fuel in only very
small quantities, if it was produced from
renewable feedstocks it would have an
Equivalence Value less than 1.0.
If a renewable fuel has a Equivalence
Value less than 1.0, then gallon-RINs
could only be assigned to a portion of
the batch. The number of gallons within
a batch that could be assigned a RIN
would be calculated from the following
formula:
Va = EV × Vs
Where:
Va = Volume of the batch that is assigned a
RIN, in gallons (rounded to the nearest
whole gallon).
EV = Equivalence Value for the renewable
fuel in question (<1.0).
Vs = Total volume of the batch standardized
to 60 °F, in gallons.
In such cases, the volume block start
and volume block end values in the
batch-RIN (i.e. SSSSSS and EEEEEE
codes described in Section III.D.2.b)
would not exactly correspond to the
volume of the batch. Instead, they
would cover the first portion of the
batch. The remaining portion of the
batch would not be assigned a RIN. For
clarity in regards to batch splits, a party
could assign the gallon-RINs to the firstout gallons of the batch. Thus if a batch
split occurred, every gallon drawn out
of the original batch to form a new,
smaller batch would be assigned a
gallon-RIN, up to the point when all the
available gallon-RINs were assigned to
the new batch. Any additional gallons
drawn out of the original batch, or left
with the original batch, would have no
associated RINs. However, we are not
requiring this approach but only offer it
as one possibility. We propose that
parties that have ownership or custody
of batches of renewable fuel have the
discretion to split batches and their
associated RINs in any way, subject to
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55580
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
certain restrictions. Batch splits are
discussed in more detail in Section
III.E.1.b.i.
3. Calculating and Reporting
Compliance
Under our proposed program, RINs
would form the basis of the volume
accounting and tracking system that
would allow each obligated party to
demonstrate that they had discharged
their renewable fuel obligation. This
section describes how the compliance
process using RINs would work. Our
proposed approach to the distribution
and trading of RINs is covered
separately in Section III.E below.
a. Using RINs to Meet the Standard.
Under our proposed program, each
obligated party would determine its
Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO)
based on the applicable percentage
standard and its annual gasoline volume
as described in Section III.A.4. The RVO
represents the volume of renewable fuel
that the obligated party must ensure is
produced for use in the U.S. in a given
calendar year. Since the nationwide
renewable fuel volumes shown in Table
I.B–1 are required by the Act to be
consumed in whole calendar years, the
RVO for each obligated party is likewise
an obligation that is calculated on an
annual basis.
Since our proposed program uses
RINs as a measure of the amount of
renewable fuel used as motor vehicle
fuel that is sold or introduced into
commerce within the U.S., obligated
parties would meet their RVO through
the accumulation of RINs. In so doing,
they would effectively be causing the
renewable fuel represented by the RINs
to be consumed as motor vehicle fuel.
Obligated parties would not be required
to physically blend the renewable fuel
into gasoline or diesel fuel themselves.
The accumulation of RINs would be the
means through which each obligated
party would show compliance with its
RVO, and thus with the renewable fuel
standard.
For each calendar year, each obligated
party would be required to submit a
report to the Agency documenting the
RINs it acquired, and showing that the
sum of all gallon-RINs acquired were
equal to or greater than its RVO. This
reporting is discussed in more detail in
Section IV. In the context of
demonstrating compliance, all gallonRINs would have the same compliance
value, i.e. there would be no distinction
between standard-value RINs and extravalue RINs for compliance purposes.
The Agency could then verify that the
RINs used for compliance purposes
were valid by simply comparing RINs
reported by producers to RINs claimed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
by obligated parties. We could also
verify simply that any given gallon-RIN
was not double-counted, i.e., used by
more than one obligated party for
compliance purposes. In order to be able
to identify the cause of any doublecounting, however, additional
information would be needed on RIN
transactions as discussed in Section IV.
If an obligated party has acquired
more RINs than it needs to meet its
RVO, then in general it could retain the
excess RINs for use in complying with
its RVO in the following year, or transfer
the excess RINs to another party. The
conditions under which this would be
allowed are determined by the valid life
of a RIN, described in more detail in
Sections III.D.3.b below. If alternatively
an obligated party has not acquired
sufficient RINs to meet its RVO, then
under certain conditions it could
carryover a deficit into the next year.
Deficit carryovers are discussed in more
detail in Section III.D.3.d.
The regulations would prohibit any
party from creating or transferring
invalid RINs. Invalid RIN could not be
used in demonstrating compliance
regardless of the good faith belief of a
party that the RINs were valid. These
enforcement provisions are necessary to
ensure the RFS program goals are not
compromised by illegal conduct in the
creation and transfer of RINs.
As in other motor vehicle fuel credit
programs, the regulations would address
the consequences if an obligated party
was found to have used invalid RINs to
demonstrate compliance with its RVO.
In this situation, the refiner or importer
that used the invalid RINs would be
required to deduct any invalid RINs
from its compliance calculations. The
refiner or importer would be liable for
violating the standard if the remaining
number of valid RINs was insufficient to
meet its RVO, and the obligated party
might be subject to monetary penalties
if it used invalid RINs in its compliance
demonstration. In determining what
penalty was appropriate, if any, we
would consider a number of factors,
including whether the obligated party
did in fact procure sufficient valid RINs
to cover the deficit created by the
invalid RINs, and whether the purchaser
was indeed a good faith purchaser based
on an investigation of the RIN transfer.
A penalty might include both the
economic benefit of using invalid RINs
and/or a punitive component.
Although an obligated party would be
liable under our proposed program for
a violation if it used invalid RINs for
compliance purposes, we would
normally look first to the generator/
seller of the invalid RINs both for
payment of penalty and to procure
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sufficient valid RINs to offset the invalid
RINs. However, if that party was found
to be out of business, then attention
would turn to the obligated party who
would have to obtain sufficient valid
RINs to offset the invalid RINs.
As for RIN generators, we are
proposing that obligated parties be
required to conduct attest engagements
for the volume of gasoline they produce
and the number of RINs procured to
ensure compliance with their RVO. In
most cases, this should amount to little
more than is already required under
existing EPA gasoline regulations. In the
case of renewable fuel exporters, the
attest engagement would verify the
volume of renewable fuel exported and
therefore the magnitude of their RVO.
Attest engagement reports would be
submitted to the party that
commissioned the engagement, and to
EPA.
b. Valid Life of RINs. The Act requires
that renewable fuel credits be valid to
show compliance for 12 months as of
the date of generation. This section
describes our proposed interpretation of
this provision in the context of a RINbased program. We also discuss some
possible alternative interpretations that
we have considered.
As described in Section III.D.1.a,
credits represent renewable fuel
volumes in excess of what an obligated
party needs to meet their annual
compliance obligation. Given that the
renewable fuel standard is an annual
standard, compliance would be
determined shortly after the end of the
year, and credits would be identified at
that time. Compliance is typically
demonstrated by submitting a
compliance demonstration to EPA.
Given the 12-month life of a credit as
stated in the Act, we interpret this
provision as meaning that credits would
only be valid for compliance purposes
for the following compliance year.
Hence if a refiner or importer
overcomplied with their 2007 obligation
they would generate credits that could
be used to show compliance with the
2008 compliance obligation, but the
credits could not be used to show
compliance for later years.
The Act’s limit on credit life helps
balance the risks between the needs of
renewable fuel producers and obligated
parties. Producers are currently making
investments in expanded production
capacity on the expectation of a
statutorily guaranteed minimum market.
Under the market conditions we are
experiencing today that make ethanol
use more economically attractive, the
annual volume requirements in the RFS
program will not drive consumption of
renewable fuels. However, if the price of
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
crude oil dropped significantly and the
use of ethanol in gasoline became less
economically attractive, obligated
parties could use stockpiled credits to
comply with the program requirements.
As a result, demand for renewable fuel
could fall well below the RFS program
requirements, and many producers
could find themselves with a stranded
investment. The 12 month valid life
limit for credits minimizes the potential
for this type of result.
For obligated parties, the 12 month
valid life for credits provides a window
within which parties who do not meet
their renewable fuel obligation through
their own physical use of renewable fuel
can obtain credits from other parties
who have excess. This critical aspect of
the credit trading system allows the
renewable fuels market to continue
operating according to natural market
forces, avoiding the possibility that
every single refiner would need to
purchase renewable fuel for blending
into its own gasoline. But the 12 month
life also provides a window within
which banking and trading can be used
to offset the negative effects of
fluctuations in either supply of or
demand for renewable fuels. For
instance, if crude oil prices were to drop
significantly and thus natural market
demand for ethanol likewise fell, the
RFS program would normally bring
demand back up to the minimum
required volumes shown in Table I.B–1.
But in this circumstance, the use of
ethanol in gasoline would be less
economically attractive, since demand
for ethanol would not be following price
but rather the statutorily required
minimum volumes. As a result, the
price of RINs, and thus ethanol blends,
could spike above the levels that would
exist if no minimum required volumes
existed. The 12 month valid life creates
some flexibility in the market to help
mitigate these potential price spikes.
The renewable fuels market could also
experience a significant drop in supply
if, for instance, a drought were to limit
the production of the feedstocks needed
to produce renewable fuel. Obligated
parties could use banked credits to
comply rather than carry a deficit into
the next year.
In the context of our proposed RINbased program, we are able to
accomplish the same objective as the
Act’s 12 month life of credits by
allowing RINs to be used to show
compliance for the year in which the
renewable fuel was produced and its
associated RIN first generated, or the
following year. RINs not used for
compliance purposes in the year in
which they were generated would by
definition be in excess of the RINs an
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
obligated party needed in that year,
making excess RINs equivalent to
credits. Excess RINs would be valid for
compliance purposes in the year
following the one in which they initially
came into existence.31 RINs not used
within their valid life would expire.
This would satisfy the Act’s 12 month
duration for credits.
Thus we propose that every RIN be
valid for the calendar-year compliance
period in which it was generated, or the
following year. If a RIN was created in
one year but was not used by an
obligated party to meet its RVO for that
year, the RIN could be used for
compliance purposes in the next year
(subject to certain provisions to address
RIN rollover as discussed below). If,
however, a RIN was created in one year
and was not used for compliance
purposes in that year or in the next year,
it would expire.
There are alternative approaches that
could be taken to establishing the valid
life of a RIN. For instance, excess RINs
could be deemed to be generated not at
the end of an annual compliance period,
but rather on the date that an obligated
party must submit its annual report to
the Agency (February 28 as described in
Section IV.A.2). In this case the 12month valid life could extend into the
following calendar year. As described
above, the fact that compliance is
determined on an annual basis means
that RINs that are valid for any portion
of a calendar year should be available
for demonstrating compliance with that
year’s compliance obligation. Under this
alternative approach, RINs would be
valid for three full compliance periods:
the calendar year in which the original
RIN came into existence, the following
year during which it was deemed to be
in excess of an obligated party’s RVO,
and a third year within which the 12
month valid life expired. We do not
believe that this interpretation is most
consistent with the Act’s purposes. This
could allow a given year’s exceptional
overcompliance to effectively reduce
required renewable fuel volumes for two
years in the future. We do not believe
that this would promote the best
balance between allowing flexibility for
obligated parties while also increasing
the use of renewable fuels annually.
Another possible approach to RIN life
would be to interpret the Energy Act’s
12-month credit life provision as
applying retrospectively, not
prospectively. Under this approach, the
31 The use of previous-year RINs for current year
compliance purposes would also be limited by the
20 percent RIN rollover cap under today’s proposal.
However, as discussed in the next section, we
believe that this proposed cap will still provide a
significant amount of flexibility to obligated parties.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55581
12-month timeframe in the Act would
be interpreted to refer to the calendar
year within which a credit was
generated. If excess RINs were deemed
to be such on December 31, then under
this alternative approach no RINs could
be used for compliance purposes
beyond the year in which they
originally came into existence.
However, the Act explicitly indicates
that obligated parties may either use the
credits they have generated or transfer
them. For a party to be able to use
credits generated, such credit use must
necessarily occur in a compliance year
other than the one in which the credit
was generated. Thus we believe that it
is appropriate for all RINs to be valid for
the year in which they were generated
and the following calendar year. In
comparison to a single-year valid life for
RINs, our proposed approach provides
some additional compliance flexibility
to obligated parties as they make efforts
to acquire sufficient RINs to meet their
RVOs each year. This flexibility will
have the effect of keeping fuel costs to
a minimum.
We recognize that the language of the
Act regarding credit valid life is not
unequivocal. However, we believe that
an interpretation leading to a valid life
of one year after the year in which the
RIN was generated is most consistent
with the program as a whole. The record
of the development of this legislation
does not provide a clear indication to
the contrary. In fact, while some
stakeholders have argued that the
Energy Act could have been written to
explicitly allow a valid life of multiple
years if that had been Congress’ intent,
we believe it could likewise have been
written to explicitly limit the valid life
to the year in which the renewable fuel
was produced if that had been its clear
intent. Therefore, the interpretation of
the valid life language in the Act must
be established in the context of the
statutory requirements for the full RFS
program and the practical implications
of its implementation.
One possible objection to our
proposed approach is that the use of
RINs generated in one compliance
period to satisfy obligations in a
subsequent compliance period could
result in less renewable fuel used in a
given year than is set forth in the
statute. However, the language in the
Act shows that Congress clearly
intended a credit program that provided
a degree of implementation flexibility.
For instance, the deficit carryover
provision allows any obligated party to
fail to meet its RVO in one year if it
meets the deficit and its RVO in the next
year. If many obligated parties took
advantage of this provision, it could
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55582
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
result in the nationwide total volume
obligation for a particular calendar year
not being met. In a similar fashion, the
statutory requirement that every gallon
of cellulosic biomass ethanol be treated
as 2.5 gallons for the purposes of
compliance means that the annually
required volumes of renewable fuel
could be met in part by virtual, rather
than actual, volumes. Finally, the
calculation of the renewable fuel
standard is based on projected
nationwide gasoline volumes provided
by EIA (see Section III.A). If the
projected gasoline volume falls short of
the actual gasoline volume in a given
year, the standard will fail to create the
demand for the full renewable fuel
volume required by the Act for that
year. The Act contains no provision for
intended to address both the risk taken
by producers expecting a guaranteed
demand to cover their expanded
production capacity investments and
the risk taken by obligated parties who
need a guaranteed supply in order to
meet their regulatory obligations under
this program.
However, the use of previous year
RINs to meet current year compliance
obligations does create an opportunity
for effectively circumventing the valid
life limit for RINs. This can occur in
situations wherein the total number of
RINs generated each year for a number
of years in a row exceeds the number of
RINs required under the RFS program
for those years. The example below
illustrates the issue.
correcting for underestimated gasoline
volumes.
We request comment on the valid life
of RINs, including our proposed
approach in which RINs would be valid
for the year generated or the following
year, and the alternative approaches in
which RINs would be valid for more or
less time than under our proposal.
c. Cap on RIN Use to Address
Rollover. As described in Section
III.D.3.b above, we are proposing that
RINs be valid for compliance purposes
for the calendar year in which they were
generated or the following year. We
believe that this approach is most
consistent with the Act’s prescription
that credits be valid for compliance
purposes for 12 months as of the date of
generation. Our proposed approach is
TABLE III.D.3.c–1.—Example of RIN Rollover Issue
[Billion RINs]
Available RINs
Required
under RFS a
2007 .................................................................................
2008 .................................................................................
2009 .................................................................................
RINs generated b
4.7
5.4
6.1
Compliance Determination
Previous
year RINs
Excess
5.2
6.0
6.9
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.5
1.1
Additional
RINs needed
New excess
RINs generated
4.7
4.9
5.0
0.5
1.1
1.9
a Equivalent
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
b One
to the required volumes shown in Table I.B–1.
possible production volume scenario based on EIA projections in their Annual Energy Outlook 2006.
In this example, there are 0.5 billion
more RINs available for compliance year
2007 than are needed to comply with
the RFS program requirements. Since
these RINs are not used in the year in
which they are generated (2007), they
can be used for compliance purposes in
the following year (2008). If they are not
used in 2008, they will expire.
In 2008, 0.6 billion more RINs come
into existence than are needed to meet
the 2008 requirements. This should
mean that there are 0.6 billion more
RINs available than are needed to
comply with the RFS program
requirements for 2008, and thus 0.6
billion RINs should be carried into
2009. However, since there are also 0.5
billion RINs available from the previous
year which can be used for compliance
purposes in 2008, this permits the
generation of 0.5 new excess RINs in
2008 if all the 2007 RINs are used to
demonstrate compliance in 2008. Thus
there are in fact 1.1 billion excess RINs
generated in 2008 rather than only 0.6
billion, and they can all be used for
compliance purposes in 2009. In
summary, the excess RINs from 2007
were used to generate new excess RINs
in 2008, and in effect (though not by
record) the excess RINs from 2007 can
be used for compliance purposes in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
2009, a year after they should have
expired. Thus excess RINs have ‘‘rolled
over’’ multiple years.
The rollover issue essentially could
make the applicable valid life for RINs
virtually meaningless in practice. Even
though individual RINs technically
could only be used for compliance
purposes for the year generated and the
following year, in practice obligated
parties could use previous-year RINs to
generate new excess current-year RINs
which could then be carried into the
following year. This could continue for
every year in which the volume of
renewable fuel produced in a given year
exceeds the RFS requirements for that
year, up to limit of 100 percent of the
standard for that year. The net result is
that the RFS program could operate as
if there was virtually no valid life limit
for RINs at all.
RIN rollover also undermines the
ability of a limit on credit life to
guarantee a market for renewable fuels.
As described in Section III.D.3.b, if the
natural market demand for ethanol was
higher than the volumes required under
the RFS program for several years in a
row, as may occur in practice, obligated
parties could amass RINs that, in the
extreme, could be used entirely in lieu
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of actually demanding ethanol in some
subsequent year.
Some stakeholders do not perceive a
problem with the RIN rollover issue.
They point to the need for maximum
flexibility in responding to fluctuations
in the market, and they are primarily
concerned about potential supply
problems. For instance, if a drought
were to reduce the availability of corn
for ethanol production, there may
simply not be sufficient RINs available
for compliance purposes. A drought
situation actually occurred in 1996, and
as a result 1996 ethanol production was
21% less than it had been in 1995. In
1997, production had not even returned
to the 1995 levels. Although the Agency
has the authority to waive the required
renewable fuel volumes in whole or in
part in the event of inadequate domestic
supply, this can occur only on petition
by one or more states, and then only
after consultation with both the
Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Energy. Obligated parties
have expressed concern that such a
waiver would not occur in a timely
fashion. The availability of excess
previous-year RINs would thus provide
compliance certainty in the event that
the supply of current-year RINs falls
below the RFS program requirements
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55583
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
and the Agency does not waive any
portion of the program requirements.
We believe that the rollover issue can
and should be addressed. The Act’s
provision regarding the valid life of
credits is clearly intended to obtain the
benefits associated with a limited credit
life. Any program structure in which
some RINs have a de facto infinite life,
regardless of the technical life of
individual RINs, does not appropriately
achieve the benefits expected from the
Act’s provision regarding the 12-month
life of credits. The authority to establish
a credit program and to implement a
limited life for credits includes the
authority to limit actions that have the
practical effect of circumventing this
limited credit life.
To be consistent with the Act, we
believe that the rollover issue should be
addressed in our regulations. However,
we also believe that the limits to
preclude such unhindered rollovers
should not preclude all previous-year
RINs from being used for current-year
compliance. To accomplish this, we
must restrict the number of previousyear RINs that can be used for current
year compliance. We considered a
number of possible approaches for
accomplishing this, some of which are
discussed below. After consultation
with stakeholders, we decided that the
best approach would be to place a
percentage cap on the amount of an
obligated party’s Renewable Volume
Obligation (RVO) that can be met using
previous-year RINs. We are proposing
that this cap be set at 20 percent. Thus
each obligated party would be required
to use current-year RINs to meet at least
80 percent of its RVO, with a maximum
of 20 percent being derived from
previous-year RINs. The cap would not
be effective until compliance year 2009,
since no rollover is possible in years
2007 or 2008.
Any previous-year RINs that an
obligated party may have that are in
excess of the 20 percent cap could be
traded to other obligated parties that
need them. If the previous-year RINs in
excess of the 20 percent cap were not
used by any obligated party for
compliance, they would expire. The net
result would be that, for the market as
a whole, no more than 20 percent of a
given year’s renewable fuel standard
could be met with RINs from the
previous year.
Furthermore, we believe that the 20
percent cap provides the appropriate
balance between, on the one hand,
allowing legitimate RIN carryovers and
protecting against potential supply
shortfalls that could limit the
availability of RINs, and on the other
hand ensuring an annual demand for
renewable fuels as envisioned by the
Act. We believe this approach also
provides the certainty all parties desire
in implementing the program. The same
cap would apply equally to all obligated
parties, and the cap would be the same
for all years, providing certainty on
exactly how obligated parties must
comply with their RVO going out into
the future. A 20 percent cap would be
readily enforceable with minimal
additional program complexity, as each
obligated party’s annual report would
simply provide separate listings of
previous-year and current-year RINs to
establish that the cap had not been
exceeded. A 20 percent cap would have
no impact on who would own RINs,
their valid life, or any other regulatory
provision regarding compliance.
Rather than employing a fixed 20
percent cap, we also considered an
approach whereby we would set the cap
annually based on the actual excess
renewable fuel production. Table
III.D.3.c–2 provides an example of how
the caps would be calculated if the EIA
projections for ethanol production prove
accurate.
TABLE III.D.3.C–2.—REQUIRED AND PROJECTED RENEWABLE FUEL VOLUMES
[Billion gallons]
Required
under RFS a
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Ethanol produced b
5.4
6.1
6.8
7.4
7.5
c 7.6
c 7.8
c 7.9
6.0
6.9
7.9
8.8
9.6
10.1
10.3
10.5
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
Excess d
0.6
0.8
1.1
1.4
2.1
2.5
2.5
2.6
Previous
Year excess
ethanol as a
fraction of
current year
compliance
(percent)
....................
9.8
11.8
14.9
18.7
27.6
32.1
31.6
a Equivalent
to the required volumes shown in Table I.B–1
ethanol production volumes from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2006.
c Example of possible increases in the required volumes. The Energy Act requires at minimum a constant percentage of renewable fuel in gasoline after 2012.
d Does not include other renewable fuels such as biodiesel which would increase the excess even further.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
b Projected
In 2009, for instance, the cap would
be 9.8 percent, and by 2012 it would be
18.7 percent. Under such an approach,
the value of the cap might more
precisely reflect the actual excess RINs
and preclude their rollover. However,
the annual calculation of the cap would
require that the total renewable fuel
volumes from the previous year be
known. For compliance year 2009,
information on 2008 renewable fuels
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
production would not generally be
known until spring of 2009. Therefore,
obligated parties would not know until
mid-year at the earliest what the exact
cap would be for that year. The Agency
could publish an estimate of the cap by
the end of the previous year, but it
would not provide obligated parties
with the certainty they may need for
establishing contracts and business
relationships for RIN trading. In
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
addition, such a variable cap may not
ensure a smoothly functioning RIN
market under all possible market
conditions. Market flexibility is needed
most when the RIN market is the
tightest (i.e. when renewable fuel
production volumes are closest to the
volumes required under the RFS
program). Yet under this alternative
approach, the cap would be the smallest
when supply was closest to demand for
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
55584
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
RINs. The cap would approach zero as
supply approached the volumes
required under the RFS program, and
thus an obligated party that had even a
small number of excess RINs from the
prior year could not use them, but rather
would be forced to trade them to
someone else. Conversely, when supply
significantly exceeds demand and
market flexibility is needed least, the
cap would be the highest. Fixing the cap
at 20 percent both provides certainty to
the RIN market, and ensures that some
minimum level of flexibility exists for
individual obligated parties even in a
market without excess RINs.
The level of 20 percent is also
consistent with both past ethanol
market fluctuations and future
projections of excess ethanol. As
described above, the largest single-year
drop in ethanol supply occurred in 1996
and resulted in 21% less ethanol being
produced than in 1995. While future
supply shortfalls may be larger or
smaller, the circumstances of 1996
provide one example of their potential
magnitude. Furthermore, as illustrated
in Table III.D.3.c–2, EIA projections
indicate that previous year volumes will
exceed current-year requirements by
roughly 10 to 30 percent between 2009
and 2015. Our proposed 20 percent cap
lies in the midrange of these values.
As a result, we believe that a cap of
20 percent appears to be a reasonable
way to limit RIN rollover and provide
some assurances to renewable fuel
producers regarding demand for
renewable fuel. A cap of 20 percent
would also ensure that many previousyear RINs can still be used for current
year compliance, providing some
flexibility in the event of market
disruptions.
Despite the flexibility it would
provide, a cap of 20 percent would not
be guaranteed to be sufficient to address
every potential future supply shortfall
or fluctuation in the renewable fuels
market. Thus we request comment on
whether a higher cap, such as 30
percent, would be more appropriate. On
the other hand, since EIA is projecting
that a cap of 20 percent will be more
than what is necessary in the first few
years of the program to address rollover,
we also request comment on whether a
smaller cap, such as 10 percent, would
be appropriate.
We also request comment on whether
the Agency should adopt a provision
allowing the cap to be raised in the
event that supply shortfalls
overwhelmed the 20 percent cap. Under
this conditional provision, the Agency
would monitor standard indicators of
agricultural production and renewable
fuel supply to determine if sufficient
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
volumes of renewable can be produced
to meet the RFS program requirements
in a given year. Prior to the end of a
compliance period, if the Agency
determined that a supply shortfall was
imminent, it could raise the cap to
permit a greater number of previousyear RINs to be used for current-year
compliance. Although this approach
would not change the required volumes,
it could create some additional
temporary flexibility.
In addition to our proposed 20
percent cap, we also evaluated an
alternative approach for addressing the
RIN rollover issue. Under this
alternative, we would not employ a
uniform cap at all, but rather would
require current-year RINs to be applied
towards an obligated party’s RVO before
any previous-year RINs were
considered. This ‘‘last-in, first-out’’
(LIFO) approach would eliminate the
possibility that previous-year RINs
could be used to generate new excess
current-year RINs, forcing them to
expire. Although it would focus the RIN
rollover correction on obligated parties
and would tailor it to the specific
circumstances of each party, this
alternative approach would also create
the need for an additional regulatory
prohibition. Under this approach, RINs
held by non-obligated parties would not
automatically expire. As a result, nonobligated parties could in essence serve
as a bank of previous-year RINs, thus
permitting the rollover to continue
despite the imposition of a LIFO
protocol. To prevent this, the LIFO
approach would have to include a
requirement that non-obligated parties
be prohibited from owning previousyear RINs. If a non-obligated party were
to own a current-year RIN on December
31 and hold it until January 1, that RIN
would automatically expire. In order to
enforce this provision, the Agency
would also need to keep track of and
receive reports on all RIN transactions
for non-obligated parties by their
transaction date.
Given the additional uncertainty and
complexity caused by this alternative
approach, we believe that our proposed
20 percent cap provides the greatest
degree of simplicity and flexibility
while still addressing the RIN rollover
issue. However, we request comment on
any alternative approaches to
addressing the RIN rollover issue.
d. Deficit Carryovers. The Energy Act
also contains a provision allowing an
obligated party to carry a deficit forward
from one year into the next if it cannot
generate or purchase sufficient credits to
meet its RVO. However, deficits cannot
be carried over two years in a row.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Deficit carryovers are measured in
gallons of renewable fuel, just as for
RINs and RVOs. If an obligated party
has not acquired sufficient RINs to meet
its RVO in a given year, the deficit is
calculated by subtracting the total
number of RINs an obligated party has
acquired from its RVO. There are no
volume penalties, discounts, or other
factors included when calculating a
deficit carryover. As described in
Section III.D.1, the deficit is then added
to the RVO for the next year. The
calculation of the RVO as described in
Section III.A.4 shows how a deficit
would be carried over into the next year:
RVOi = Stdi × GVi + Di¥1
Where:
RVOi = The Renewable Volume Obligation
for the obligated party for year i, in
gallons
Stdi = The RFS program standard for year i,
in percent
GVi = The non-renewable gasoline volume
produced by an obligated party in year
i, in gallons
Di¥1 = Renewable fuel deficit carryover from
the previous year, in gallons.
If an obligated party does acquire
sufficient RINs to meet its RVO in year
i-1, the obligated party must procure
sufficient RINs to cover the full RVO for
year i including the deficit. There are no
provisions allowing for another year of
carryover. If the obligated party does not
acquire sufficient RINs to meet its RVO
for that year plus the deficit carryover
from the previous year, it would be in
noncompliance.
The Act indicates that deficit
carryovers are to occur due to
‘‘inability’’ to generate or purchase
sufficient credits. We believe that
obligated parties will make a
determined effort to satisfy their RVO
on an annual basis, and that a deficit
will demonstrate that they were unable
to do so. Thus, we are not proposing
that any particular demonstration of
‘‘inability’’ be a prerequisite to the
ability of obligated parties to carry
deficits forward. However, we request
comment on this issue.
4. Provisions for Exporters of Renewable
Fuel
As described in Section III.D.2.a, we
believe that U.S. consumption of
renewable fuel as motor vehicle fuel can
be measured with considerable accuracy
through the tracking of renewable fuel
production and importing records. This
is the basis for our proposed RIN-based
system of compliance. However, exports
of renewable fuel must be accounted for
under this approach. For instance, if a
gallon of ethanol is produced in the U.S.
but consumed outside of the U.S., the
RIN associated with that gallon should
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
not be valid for RFS compliance
purposes since the RFS program is
intended to require a specific volume of
renewable fuel to be consumed in the
U.S. Exports of renewable fuel currently
represent about 5 percent of U.S.
production.
To ensure that renewable fuels
exported from the U.S. cannot be used
by an obligated party for RFS
compliance purposes, the RINs
associated with that exported renewable
fuel must be removed from circulation.
Ideally the producer of the exported
renewable fuel would simply not create
RINs for those batches. However, in the
fungible distribution system it is
common for exportation of fuel to occur
without the knowledge of the producer.
As a result, we cannot rely on the
producers to know which batches will
be exported and to not generate RINs for
those batches. Another approach would
be to increase the obligation placed on
refiners, importers, and blenders of
gasoline based on the volume of
renewable fuel exported. Obligated
parties would thus acquire RINs to meet
the standard described in Section III.A,
and would also be required to acquire
RINs to cover the volume of renewable
fuel exported. However, this approach
would not only require an estimate of
the volume of renewable fuel exported
in the next year, but would also mean
that every obligated party would share
in accumulating RINs to cover the
exports.
Given these drawbacks, we believe
that these two approaches would be
unworkable. As a result, we believe that
it should be the exporter’s responsibility
to account for exported renewable fuel.
The most straightforward mechanism to
accomplish this would be to assign an
RVO to each exporter that is equal to the
annual volume of renewable fuel it
exported. Just as for obligated parties,
then, the exporter would be required to
acquire sufficient gallon-RINs to meet
its RVO. If the exporter purchased
renewable fuel directly from a producer,
that renewable fuel would come with
associated gallon-RINs which could
then be applied to its RVO under our
proposed program. In this circumstance,
the exporter would not need to acquire
RINs from any other source. If, however,
the exporter received renewable fuel
without the associated RINs, it would
need to acquire RINs from some other
source in order to meet its RVO.
As discussed in Section III.D.2.c, it
may be possible to eliminate the need
for RINs altogether in specific
circumstances involving exports of
renewable fuels. For instance, if the
exporter was wholly owned by a
renewable fuel producer, there would be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
no need to generate RINs for the
exported product. Likewise if a
renewable fuel producer specifically
and explicitly earmarked a batch of
renewable fuel for export, there would
be no need for a RIN to be generated.
However, in both of these cases the
producer would need to report the
volumes that were not assigned a RIN to
the EPA in its annual RFS report, along
with the connection to exports, in order
to demonstrate that RINs were
legitimately not assigned to these
batches. We request comment on these
special-case approaches to exported
renewable fuels.
As described in Section III.D.2, there
are cases in which there is not a one-toone correspondence between gallons in
a batch of renewable fuel and the RINs
generated for that batch. For instance,
extra-value RINs can be generated in
cases where the Equivalence Value is
greater than 1.0. If the RVO assigned to
the exporter were based strictly on the
actual volume of the exported product,
it would not capture the extra-value
RINs which generally are not assigned
to batches. Thus we propose that the
RVO assigned to an exporter be based
not on the actual volume of renewable
fuel exported, but rather on a volume
adjusted by the Equivalence Value
assigned to each batch. The Equivalence
Value is represented by the RR code
within the RIN as described in Section
III.D.2.a. Thus the exporter would
multiply the actual volume of a batch by
that batch’s Equivalence Value to obtain
the volume used to calculate the RVO.
In cases wherein an exporter obtains
a batch of renewable fuel whose RIN has
already been separated by an obligated
party or blender, the exporter may not
know the Equivalence Value. We
propose that for such cases the exporter
simply use the actual volume of the
batch to calculate its RVO. This will
introduce some small error into the
calculation of the RVO for cases in
which the renewable fuel had in fact
been assigned an Equivalence Value
greater than 1.0. However, we believe
that the potential impact of this error
would be exceedingly small. We request
comment on our proposed approach to
exporters of renewable fuel and any
alternative approaches that could ensure
that production volumes of renewable
fuel can be used as an accurate surrogate
for consumed volumes.
5. How Would the Agency Verify
Compliance?
The primary means through which
the Agency would verify an obligated
party’s compliance with its RVO would
be the annual reports. These reports
would include a variety of information
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55585
required for compliance and
enforcement, including the
demonstration of compliance with the
previous calendar year’s RVO, a list all
transactions involving RINs, and the
tabulation of the total number of RINs
owned, used for compliance,
transferred, retired and expired.
Reporting requirements for obligated
and non-obligated parties are covered in
detail in Section IV.
In its annual reports, an obligated
party would be required to include a list
of all RINs held as of the reporting date,
divided into a number of categories. For
instance, a distinction would be made
between current-year RINs and
previous-year RINs as follows:
Current-year RINs: RINs that came
into existence during the calendar year
for which the report is demonstrating
compliance.
Previous-year RINs: RINs that came
into existence in the calendar year
preceding the year for which the report
is demonstrating compliance.
The report would also indicate which
RINs were used for compliance with the
RVO including any potential deficit,
which current-year RINs were not used
for compliance and would therefore be
valid for compliance the next year, and
which previous-year RINs were not used
for compliance and therefore expired.
The report would also include a
demonstration that the 20 percent cap to
address RIN rollover had been met, as
described in Section III.D.3.c.
In order to verify compliance for each
obligated party, the primary Agency
activity would involve the validation of
RINs. There are four basic elements of
RIN validation:
(1) RINs used by an obligated party to
comply with its RVO would be checked
to ensure that they are within their twoyear valid life. The RIN itself will
contain the year of generation, so this
check involves only an examination of
the listed RINs.
(2) All RINs owned by an obligated
party would be cross-checked with
annual reports from renewable fuel
producers to verify that each RIN had in
fact been generated.
(3) All RINs used by an obligated
party for compliance purposes would be
cross-checked with annual reports from
other obligated parties to ensure that no
two parties used the same RIN to
comply.
(4) Previous-year RINs used for
compliance purposes would be checked
to ensure that they do not exceed 20
percent of the obligated party’s RVO.
In cases where a RIN was highlighted
under suspicion of being invalid, the
Agency would then need to take
additional steps to resolve the issue. In
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55586
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
general this would involve a review of
RIN transfer records submitted to the
Agency by all parties in the distribution
system that held the RINs. RIN transfers
would be recorded through EPA’s
Central Data Exchange as described in
Section IV. These RIN transfer records
would permit the Agency to identify all
transaction(s) involving the RINs in
question. Liable parties could then be
contacted and appropriate steps taken to
formally invalidate a RIN improperly
claimed by a particular party.
Additional details of the liabilities and
prohibitions attributed to parties in the
distribution system are discussed in
Section V.
E. How Are RINs Distributed and
Traded?
Under our proposed program
structure, a Renewable Identification
Number (RIN) would be generated for
every gallon of renewable fuel produced
or imported into the U.S., and would be
acquired by obligated parties for use in
demonstrating compliance with the RFS
requirements. However, there are a
variety of ways in which RINs could be
transferred from the point of generation
by renewable fuel producers to the
obligated parties that need them.
EPA’s proposal was developed in
light of the somewhat unique aspects of
the RFS program. As discussed earlier,
under this program the refiners and
importers are the parties obligated to
comply with the renewable fuel
requirements. At the same time, refiners
and importers do not generally produce
or blend renewable fuels at their
facilities, and so are dependent on the
actions of others for compliance. Unlike
EPA’s other fuel programs, the actions
needed for compliance largely center on
the production, distribution, and use of
a product by parties other than refiners
and importers. In this context, EPA
believes the RIN transfer mechanism
should focus first on facilitating
compliance by refiners and importers,
and doing that in a way that imposes
minimum burden on other parties and
minimum disruption of current
mechanisms for distribution of
renewable fuels.
Our proposal does this by relying on
the current market structure for ethanol
distribution and use, and avoiding the
need for creation of new mechanisms
for RIN distribution that are separate
and apart from this current structure.
EPA’s proposal would basically have
the RIN follow with the ethanol until
the point the ethanol is purchased by
the obligated party, or is blended into
gasoline by a blender. This approach
would allow the RIN to be incorporated
into the current market structure for sale
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
and distribution of ethanol, and would
avoid requiring refiners to develop and
use wholly new market mechanisms.
While the development of new market
mechanisms to distribute RINs is not
precluded under our proposed program,
it is also not required.
The Agency has also evaluated several
other options for distributing RINs. We
are not proposing these alternatives
because they tend to require the
development of new market
mechanisms, as compared to relying on
the current market structure for
distribution of ethanol, and they are less
focused on facilitating compliance for
the obligated parties. At the same time,
we recognize that all of the alternatives
described below, as well as our
proposal, have differing positive and
negative aspects, and we invite
comment on them, especially comments
comparing and contrasting them with
our proposed program. Our proposal is
described in subsections 1 through 3
below, and alternative approaches in
subsection 4.
1. Distribution of RINs With Batches of
Renewable Fuel
We are proposing that standard-value
RINs be transferred with actual batches
of renewable fuel as they move through
the distribution system, until ownership
of the batch is assumed by an obligated
party or by a party that converts the
renewable fuel into motor vehicle fuel.
After such time, the RINs could be
separated from the batch and freely
traded. This approach would place
certain requirements on anyone who
takes ownership of renewable fuels,
including renewable fuel producers,
importers, marketers, distributors,
blenders, and terminal operators.
a. Responsibilities of Renewable Fuel
Producers and Importers. The initial
generation of RINs and their assignment
to specific batches of renewable fuel
would be the sole responsibility of
renewable fuel producers and renewable
fuel importers. As described in Section
III.D.1, volumes of renewable fuel can
be measured most accurately and be
more readily verified at these
originating locations. They would
construct each batch-RIN based on the
particular circumstances associated
with each batch, including the creation
of a unique serial number for the batch
and specifying its Equivalence Value.
The batch-RIN would also identify the
specific number of gallons in the batch,
thereby summarizing the gallon-RINs
assigned to every gallon in the batch.
See Section III.D.2.a for details on our
proposed format for RINs.
Only standard-value RINs would have
to be assigned to batches. Extra-value
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
RINs could be generated by the
renewable fuel producer in cases where
the renewable fuel in question has an
Equivalence Value greater than 1.0 (see
Section III.D.2.c for further discussion).
However, the extra-value RINs would
not need to be assigned to the batch.
Instead, they could be transferred to
another party independent of the batch.
This requirement would in general
result in a one-to-one correspondence
between gallons in a batch and the
volume block numbers in the batch-RIN
assigned to that batch. As a result, the
process of dividing and combining RINs
during batch splits and mergers would
be simplified, and the fungibility of
RINs in the distribution system would
be maintained. For example, a marketer
who took custody of ethanol batches
from several different producers,
including a producer of cellulosic
biomass ethanol, and combined them all
in a single tank could then withdraw
batches of any size from the tank, and
assign a number of gallon-RINs to each
batch that is equivalent to the number
of actual gallons in that batch. This
approach would also provide an
incentive for producers to produce
renewable fuels with higher
Equivalence Values, since they could
transfer the extra-value RINs to any
party.
However, we are also proposing that
producers have the option of assigning
even extra-value RINs to batches if they
chose to do so. Under these
circumstances, the extra-value RINs
would be treated just like standardvalue RINs, and thus would be subject
to the same limitations on who can
separate the RIN from the batch. The
assignment of extra-value RINs to
batches would also mean that the
number of gallon-RINs assigned to the
batch would be greater than the number
of gallons in the batch. As a result, care
would have to be taken during batch
splits and batch mergers to
appropriately pass RINs assigned to a
parent batch on to the daughter batches.
We request comment on allowing extravalue RINs to be assigned to batches.
There are two other cases in which
the gallon-RINs assigned to a batch
would not exactly correspond to the
number of gallons in that batch. First, if
a renewable fuel has an Equivalence
Value less than 1.0, then RINs could
only be assigned to a portion of the
batch. Such potential circumstances are
described in Section III.D.2.d. RINs may
also not correspond exactly to gallons if
the density of the batch changes due to
changes in temperature. For instance,
under extreme changes in temperature,
the volume of a batch of ethanol can
change by 5 percent or more. For this
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
reason we are proposing that all batch
volumes be corrected to represent a
standard condition of 60 °F prior to the
assignment of a RIN. For ethanol,32 we
propose that the correction be done as
follows:33
Vs,e = Va,e × (¥0.0006301 × T +
1.0378)
Where:
Vs,e = Standard volume of ethanol at 60 °F,
in gallons.
Va,e = Actual volume of ethanol, in gallons.
T = Actual temperature of the batch, in °F.
Since batches of ethanol are generally
sold using standard volumes rather than
actual volumes, this approach to
assigning RINs to batches would be
consistent with current practices and
would maintain the one-to-one
correspondence between the volume
block in the batch-RIN and the
standardized volume of the batch. We
propose a similar approach to biodiesel,
where the volume correction can be
calculated using the following
equation:34
Vs,b = Va,b × (¥0.0008008 × T +
1.0480)
Where:
Vs,b = Standard volume of biodiesel at 60 °F,
in gallons.
Va,b = Actual volume of biodiesel, in gallons.
T = Actual temperature of the batch, in °F.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
The RIN would have to be assigned to
a batch no later than the point in time
when the batch physically leaves the
production or importing facility.
Although ownership of the batch may
be retained by the producer or importer,
the RIN would nevertheless be required
to be transferred along with the batch as
it leaves the originating facility. This
requirement would ensure that RINs
could be verified against production or
importing facility records and against
mandated reports to the Energy
Information Administration (EIA). It
would also centralize the process of
assigning RINs to batches.
The means through which RINs
would be transferred with batches
would in some respects be left to the
discretion of the renewable fuel
producer or importer. The primary
requirement would be that the RIN be
included on a product transfer
document (PTD). The PTD can be
included in any form of standard
documentation that is already
32 An appropriate temperature correction for
other renewable fuels should likewise be used.
33 Derived from ‘‘Fuel Ethanol Technical
Information,’’ Archer Daniels Midland Company,
v1.2, 2003.
34 Derived from R.E. Tate et al, ‘‘The densities of
three biodiesel fuels at temperatures up to 300 °C’’,
Fuel 85 (2006) 1004–1009, Table 1 for soy methyl
ester.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
associated with or used to identify title
to the batch. The batch documentation
must be of the sort that uniquely
identifies the batch and is generally
transferred from one party to another, in
electronic or paper form, when
ownership of the batch is transferred. In
many cases a bill-of-lading could serve
this purpose. The RIN must be
displayed prominently on the document
when the batch leaves the originating
facility, so that parties taking ownership
of the batch could make a record of this
fact with specific reference to the RIN.
The RIN must be included on a PTD
whenever ownership or custody of the
batch is transferred, until such time as
the RIN may be separated from the batch
as described in Section III.E.2. As in
other fuels programs, we believe the
PTD requirement can be met by
including the required information
generated and transferred in the normal
course of business.
RINs would be transferable in the
context of the RFS program, and except
as discussed above, must be transferred
along with ownership or custody of the
batch. The approach that a producer or
importer takes to the transfer or sale of
RINs and batches would be at their
discretion, under the condition that the
two be transferred or sold
simultaneously and to the same party.
b. Responsibilities of Parties That
Buy, Sell, or Handle Renewable Fuels.
Batches of renewable fuel can be
transferred between many different
types of parties as they make their way
from the production or import facilities
where they originated to the places
where they are blended into
conventional gasoline or diesel. Some of
these parties take custody but not
ownership of these batches, storing and
transmitting them on behalf of those
who retain ownership. Other parties
take ownership but not custody, such as
a refiner who purchases ethanol and has
it delivered directly to a blending
facility. Thus prior to blending, each
batch of renewable fuel can be owned or
held by any number of parties including
marketers, distributors, terminal
operators, and refiners. Under our
proposed program, when any party
takes ownership of a batch of renewable
fuel prior to ownership of the batch of
fuel by an obligated party or blender,
the RINs associated with that batch
must be transferred as well. The RINs
would be included on PTDs that the
party procures when taking ownership
of a batch.
We propose that in general all parties
that assume ownership of any batch of
renewable fuel be required to transfer all
RINs assigned to that batch to another
party to whom ownership of the batch
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55587
is being transferred. Batch splits and
batch mergers represent special cases of
RIN transfers, and are described in more
detail below. As described in Section
III.E.2, the only exception to the
requirement that RINs be transferred
with batches would be parties who are
obligated to meet the renewable fuel
standard, and parties who convert the
renewable fuel into motor vehicle fuel.
Since our proposed program is designed
to allow RIN transfer and
documentation to occur as part of
normal business practices in the context
of renewable fuel distribution, the
incremental costs of transferring RINs
with batches should be minimal.
Marketers and distributors would
simply be adding the batch-RIN to
transfer documents such as bills-oflading, and recording the batch-RINs in
their records of batch purchases and
sales.
Under most other credit trading
programs, parties obligated to meet a
standard are also the parties that
generate credits for trade. Under these
systems, non-obligated parties can
participate only to the degree that
obligated parties explicitly include
them. In the case of the RFS program,
however, the production of renewable
fuels and their conversion into motor
vehicle fuel through blending is largely
done by persons other than obligated
parties. To the degree that our proposed
program allowed the disparity between
RFS obligations and the means of
compliance to continue, stakeholders
have expressed concerns about a variety
of problems that could arise, such as
market power by RIN sellers in the
market where RINs are exchanged.
Market power on the part of nonobligated parties could result in higher
prices for RINs than prices that would
arise in a competitive, well-functioning
market setting. For instance, if a
renewable fuel producer or marketer
could separate the batch-RIN from the
batch, he could in theory withhold the
RIN from the marketplace temporarily.
By the end of an annual compliance
period, a scarcity of RINs could increase
their price, at which point the
renewable fuel producers or marketers
could begin to sell the RINs at an
inflated price. In the extreme such
parties could potentially withhold a
large number of RINs from the market,
creating a scarcity of RINs that could
compel obligated parties to purchase
additional volumes of renewable fuel
with associated RINs. These scenarios
are of particular concern given that we
expect there will be a relatively small
number of renewable fuel producers and
marketers selling RINs in the
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55588
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
marketplace. For instance, although
there currently exist about 100 ethanol
production facilities in the U.S., nearly
half of the production volumes come
from only seven companies. Likewise,
only five companies manage the
majority of ethanol marketing.
We believe that the general
prohibition against the separation of
RINs from batches in the distribution
system will place only a small
additional burden on marketers and
distributors of renewable fuel.
According to several stakeholders, a
large amount of ethanol is already
purchased from renewable fuel
producers directly by refiners. In these
cases, the RIN would be transferred
directly from the renewable fuel
producer to an obligated party. For the
remaining batches of ethanol that do
experience multiple transfers before
being blended into gasoline, the RIN
itself would represent a small
incremental item of information that
must be recorded and transferred along
with batches and could be included in
normal business records.
In addition to the recordkeeping
responsibilities described in more detail
in Section IV, parties that would be
required to transfer RINs with batches
under our proposed program would also
have the primary responsibility of
maintaining the integrity of RIN-batch
pairing when batches are split or
merged. Our proposed approach to these
situations is described below.
i. Batch splits
As described in Section III.D.2, batchRINs assigned to batches of renewable
fuel would be formatted such that the
volume block codes (SSSSSS and
EEEEEE) would identify every gallon in
a batch, and thus every gallon-RIN.
Thus in most cases there will be a oneto-one correspondence between gallons
in a batch and the volume block codes
for the batch-RIN assigned to that batch.
If a batch of renewable fuel is split into
two or more new batches, the gallonRINs assigned to the original batch can
be split coincidentally with batch
volumes. The following example shows
how this would be done (volume blocks
separated for clarity):
Parent batch:
1000 gallons,
batch-RIN: 2007123412345000011021–
000001–001000.
Daughter batch #1:
600 gallons,
batch-RIN: 2007123412345000011021–
000001–000600.
Daughter batch #2:
100 gallons,
batch-RIN: 2007123412345000011021–
000601–000700.
Daughter batch #3:
300 gallons,
batch-RIN: 2007123412345000011021–
000701–001000.
In this example, the gallon-RINs
remain both unique and paired on a
one-to-one basis with actual gallons
even after the parent batch is divided
into smaller daughter batches.
However, there will be some cases in
which there is not a one-to-one
correspondence between a RIN assigned
to a batch and the actual gallons in that
batch, and such cases could complicate
the process of splitting batches. For
instance, changes in temperature could
cause batch volumes to swell or shrink.
Renewable fuels with Equivalence
Values less than 1.0, although currently
unlikely to arise in appreciable
volumes, will have more actual gallons
in the original batch than RINs assigned
to that batch. And some producers may
choose to assign extra-value RINs to
batches in cases wherein the
Equivalence Value is greater than 1.0.
To address such cases, we propose to
allow parties in the distribution system
the discretion to split batches and their
assigned RINs following any protocol
they choose, as long as that protocol
preserves the requirement that gallonRINs that have been assigned to a batch
by the producer are subsequently
assigned to a batch after splitting has
occurred. Thus regardless of the
splitting protocol used, no gallon-RINs
assigned to a batch could be retained by
a party after every gallon in that batch
has been transferred to another party.
There are a variety of batch splitting
protocols that a party could choose from
for situations where there is not a oneto-one correspondence between the
number of gallon-RINs assigned to a
batch and the number of standardized
gallons in that batch. However, we have
identified two acceptable protocols that
we expect most parties to use. These are
described in Table III.E.1.b.i–1 below.
Examples of batch splits using both
types of splitting protocols are given in
Tables III.E.1.b.i–2 and III.E.1.b.i–3. We
propose that the Proportional Protocol
be required for cases in which the
Equivalence Value of a renewable fuel is
less than 1.0. For cases in which the
Equivalence Value is equal to or greater
than 1.0, we propose to allow parties the
flexibility to follow a batch splitting
protocol of their own choosing so long
as there is at least one gallon-RIN for
every physical gallon in each of the
daughter batches. We request comment
on these batch splitting protocols, any
alternative protocols, and the need to
codify a protocol in the regulations for
specific situations.
TABLE III.E.1.B.I–1.—TWO BATCH SPLITTING PROTOCOLS
Proportional
One-to-one alignment
Description ..........................................................
The gallon-RINs assigned to a parent batch
are split proportionally with the volumes in
the daughter batches.
Impacts for EV a < 1.0 ........................................
Ratio of actual
parent batch
batches.
Ratio of actual
parent batch
batches.
The gallon-RINs assigned to a parent batch
are split to ensure that some daughter
batches have a one-to-one correspondence
between physical gallons and gallon-RINs.
Remaining gallon-RINs are assigned to remaining gallons.
Some daughter batches may have no assigned RIN.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Impacts for EV > 1.0 ..........................................
a Equivalence
VerDate Aug<31>2005
gallons to gallon-RINs in the
is preserved in all daughter
gallons to gallon-RINs in the
is preserved in all daughter
Ratio of actual gallons to gallon-RINs in some
daughter batches will be different than the
ratio for the parent batch.
Value.
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55589
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.E.1.B.I–2.—EXAMPLE OF PROPORTIONAL BATCH SPLITTING
EV < 1.0
Parent batch:
Actual volume (gal) ...........................................................................................................................................................
Batch-RIN SSSSSS code .................................................................................................................................................
Batch-RIN EEEEEE code .................................................................................................................................................
Number of gallon-RINs .....................................................................................................................................................
Daughter batch #1:
Actual volume (gal) ...........................................................................................................................................................
Batch-RIN SSSSSS code .................................................................................................................................................
Batch-RIN EEEEEE code .................................................................................................................................................
Number of gallon-RINs .....................................................................................................................................................
Daughter batch #2:
Actual volume (gal) ...........................................................................................................................................................
RIN volume block start (SSSSSS) ...................................................................................................................................
RIN volume block end (EEEEEE) ....................................................................................................................................
Number of gallon-RINs .....................................................................................................................................................
EV > 1.0
1 1000
000001
000800
800
1 1000
000001
002500
2500
1 600
000001
000480
480
1 600
000001
001500
1500
1 400
000481
000800
320
1 400
001501
002500
1000
1gal.
TABLE III.E.1.B.I–3—EXAMPLE OF BATCH SPLITTING WITH ONE-TO-ONE ALIGNMENT
EV < 1.0
Parent batch:
Actual volume (gal) ...........................................................................................................................................................
Batch-RIN SSSSSS code .................................................................................................................................................
Batch-RIN EEEEEE code .................................................................................................................................................
Number of gallon-RINs .....................................................................................................................................................
Daughter batch #1:
Actual volume (gal) ...........................................................................................................................................................
Batch-RIN SSSSSS code .................................................................................................................................................
Batch-RIN EEEEEE code .................................................................................................................................................
Number of gallon-RINs .....................................................................................................................................................
Daughter batch #2:
Actual volume (gal) ...........................................................................................................................................................
Batch-RIN SSSSSS code .................................................................................................................................................
Batch-RIN EEEEEE code .................................................................................................................................................
Number of gallon-RINs .....................................................................................................................................................
EV > 1.0
1 1000
000001
000800
800
1 1000
000001
002500
2500
1 600
000001
000600
600
1 600
000001
000600
600
1 400
000601
000800
200
1 400
000601
002500
1900
1gal.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
ii. Batch mergers.
In general batch mergers will begin
with at least two parent batches having
different RINs. After the merger of the
two parent batches, the RINs from the
two parents would simply need to be
listed separately on any product transfer
documents such as bills-of-lading, since
they differ not just in the volume block
codes but also in other aspects of the
RIN. We are not proposing any
mechanism for simplifying the RIN in
the case of a batch merger, such as
combining two different RINs into a
single RIN or replacing a collection of
different RINs with a new single RIN.
We believe that such approaches would
be likely to create significant difficulties
in tracking RINs and verifying their
validity.
Parties that have two or more batches
of renewable fuel that have been merged
into a single batch will be free to
determine how the RINs will be
subsequently split and assigned to new
daughter batches during a batch split.
We are not proposing a specific protocol
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
for such cases, beyond the general
requirement that RINs that have been
assigned to parent batches remain
assigned to a daughter batch after
splitting has occurred. However, it may
be helpful for RINs to be ordered on
PTDs in the order in which the batches
were combined, and then assigned to
daughter batches on a first-in, first-out
basis. Thus as individual parent batches
are added to, for instance, a tank already
containing renewable fuel, the RINs
associated with the newly added batch
could be added below the existing RINs
on the documentation. As product was
drawn back out of the tank, the RINs
assigned to the removed product would
be those at the top of the list of RINs on
the tank documentation. This FIFO
approach would ensure that RINs
assigned to parent batches continue to
move through the distribution system,
and batch splits could occur
straightforwardly even in cases that
begin with merged batches. We request
comment on whether this FIFO
approach should remain guidance or
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
whether instead it should be a
regulatory requirement.
2. Separation of RINs From Batches
Separation of a RIN from a batch
means that the RIN would no longer be
included on the PTD, and could be
traded independently from the batch to
which it had originally been assigned.
We believe that the regulatory
program should be structured around
facilitating compliance by obligated
parties with their renewable fuel
obligation. This means that obligated
parties should have the right to market
the renewable fuel separately from the
RIN originally assigned to it. We are
therefore proposing that a refiner or
importer would have the right to
separate the RIN from the batch as soon
as he assumes ownership of that batch.
In the case of ethanol blended into
gasoline at low concentrations (≤ 10
volume percent), stakeholders have
informed us that a large volume of the
ethanol is purchased by refiners directly
from ethanol producers, and is then
passed to blenders who carry out the
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
55590
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
blending with gasoline. Therefore, in
many cases RINs assigned to batches
will pass directly from the producers
who generated them to the obligated
parties who need them.
However, significant volumes of
ethanol are also blended into gasoline
without first being purchased by a
refiner. In some cases, the blender itself
purchases the ethanol. In other cases, a
downstream customer purchases the
ethanol and contracts with the blender
to carry out the blending. Regardless,
the ethanol may never be held or owned
by an obligated party before it is
blended into gasoline. Thus we believe
that a blender should also have the right
to separate the RIN from the batch if he
actually blends the ethanol into
gasoline. This would only apply to
batches where the RIN had not already
been separated by an obligated party.
Since blenders would in general not be
obligated parties under our proposed
program, blenders who separate RINs
from batches would have no need to
hold onto those RINs and thus could
transfer them to an obligated party for
compliance purposes, or to any other
party.
There may be occasions in which a
downstream customer actually owns the
batch of ethanol when it is blended into
gasoline. In such cases the blender will
have custody but not ownership of the
batch. We propose that the RIN can be
separated from the batch of ethanol
when the batch is blended into gasoline,
but the RIN could only be separated by
the party that owns that batch of
renewable fuel at the time of blending.
Once a RIN is separated from a batch
of renewable fuel, the PTDs associated
with that batch could no longer list the
RIN. Parties who subsequently take
ownership of the batch may not know
if the RIN had been separated, or if a
RIN had never been assigned to the
batch in the first place, contrary to
regulatory requirements. To avoid
concerns about whether RINs assigned
to batches have not been appropriately
transferred with the batch, we request
comment on whether PTDs should
include some notation indicating that
the assigned RIN has been removed.
As described in Section III.B, many
different types of renewable fuel can be
used to meet the RFS volume
obligations placed upon refineries and
importers. Currently, ethanol is the most
prominent renewable fuel, and is most
commonly used as a low level blend in
gasoline at concentrations of 10 volume
percent or less. However, some
renewable fuels can be used in neat
form (i.e. not blended with conventional
gasoline or diesel). The two RIN
separation situations described above
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
would capture any renewable fuel for
which ownership is assumed by an
obligated party or a party that blends the
renewable fuel into gasoline or diesel.
However, renewable fuels which are
used in their neat (unblended) form as
motor vehicle fuel may not be captured.
This would include such renewable
fuels as neat biodiesel (B100), methanol
for use in a dedicated methanol vehicle,
biogas for use in a CNG vehicle, or
renewable diesel used in its neat form.
As for ethanol and biodiesel, neat
renewable fuels would be assigned a
RIN by the producer. However, in cases
where the neat renewable fuel is never
owned by an obligated party or blended
into gasoline or diesel before being used
as a motor vehicle fuel, no party would
have the right to separate the RIN from
the batch. The RIN would therefore
never become available to an obligated
party for RFS compliance purposes.
Although the current use of these neat
renewable fuels is minor in comparison
to the volumes of ethanol and lower
blend levels of biodiesel, we
nevertheless believe that they should be
allowed to help meet the volume
requirements of the RFS program.
To address this issue, we propose to
more broadly define the right to separate
a RIN from a batch. In addition to
obligated parties and blenders, we
believe that any party holding a batch of
renewable fuel for which the RIN has
not been separated could separate the
RIN from the batch if the party
designates it for use only as a motor
vehicle fuel in its neat form and it is in
fact only used as such. Given the lack
of any significant use of ethanol in its
neat (but denatured) form as a motor
vehicle fuel, RINs for neat ethanol could
only be separated by an obligated party
or a party that blends it with gasoline.
This would include a party that blended
ethanol with a small amount of gasoline
to form E85, since there are millions of
vehicles in the fleet that can operate on
E85. In this case, E85 would be treated
like any other ethanol/gasoline blend.
Under our proposed approach,
therefore, any party that holds a batch
of renewable fuel that is typically used
in its neat form and was designated by
the producer for use in its neat form as
a motor vehicle fuel would be given the
right to separate the RIN from the batch.
This approach would recognize that the
neat form of the renewable fuel is valid
for compliance purposes under the RFS
program, as described in Section III.B.
Biodiesel (mono alkyl esters) is one
type of renewable fuel that can under
certain conditions be used in its neat
form. However, in the vast majority of
cases it is blended with conventional
diesel fuel before use, typically in
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
concentrations of 20 volume percent or
less. This approach is taken for a variety
of reasons, including the following:
• To reduce impacts on fuel
economy.
• To mitigate cold temperature
operability issues.
• To market biodiesel as an additive
rather than an alternative fuel.
• To address concerns of some engine
owners or manufacturers regarding the
impacts of biodiesel on engine
durability or drivability.
• To reduce the cost of the resulting
fuel.
Biodiesel is also used in low
concentrations as a lubricity additive
and as a means for complying with the
ultra-low sulfur requirements for
highway diesel fuel. Biodiesel is
occasionally used in its neat form.
However, this approach is the exception
rather than the rule. Consequently, we
propose that the RIN assigned to a batch
of biodiesel could only be separated
from that batch if and when the
biodiesel is blended with conventional
diesel. To avoid claims that very high
concentrations of biodiesel count as a
blended product, we also propose that
biodiesel must be blended into
conventional diesel at a concentration of
80 volume percent or less before the RIN
can be separated from the batch.
Our proposed approach to biodiesel
would mean that biodiesel used in its
neat form would not be valid for
compliance purposes under the RFS
program. To address this issue, we
request comment on additionally
allowing a biodiesel producer to
separate the RIN from the batch if it
could establish that it produced the
batch of biodiesel specifically for use as
motor vehicle fuel in its neat form, and
that the biodiesel was in fact used in its
neat form.
3. Distribution of Separated RINs
Once a RIN is separated from a batch
of renewable fuel, it would become
freely transferable. Each RIN could be
held by any party, and transferred
between parties any number of times.
This approach would apply to extravalue RINs (RINs generated based on
Equivalence Values greater than 1.0) as
well as standard-value RINs.
We are not proposing to limit the
number of times that a RIN could be
transferred, nor the types of parties that
could receive or transfer RINs. However,
this approach would be unique among
EPA’s fuel regulations. For all previous
motor vehicle fuel credit trading
programs we have allowed only refiners
and importers to transfer credits, and
have limited the number of times credits
could be transferred to one or two
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
transfers. This includes, for example,
the credit trading programs for
reformulated gasoline and gasoline
sulfur. These limitations were included
to make the credit trading programs
enforceable by making the transfer of
credits, from the credit generator to the
credit user, shorter, and populated only
by the refiners and importers who were
obligated to meet those standards. These
approaches also helped to ensure the
validity of credits by limiting the
sources of credits to companies that the
obligated parties know to be reliable
business partners. A recent report
provided to the Agency by the American
Petroleum institute also provides
support for limiting RIN trading to
obligated parties.35 Therefore, we are
seeking comment on limiting the
number of trades and limiting the trades
to only occur between obligated parties
even though we are not proposing to do
so here.
For the RFS program, we believe that
there is a need to provide for this more
open trading, and that it can occur
without unduly sacrificing the
enforceability of the program or
increasing its oversight burden. As
described earlier, the RFS program is
unique in that obligated parties are
typically not the ones producing the
renewable fuels and generating the
RINs, so there is a need for trades to
occur between obligated parties and
non-obligated parties. By prohibiting
anyone except obligated parties from
holding RINs after they have been
separated from a batch, we might be
making it more difficult for those RINs
to eventually be transferred to the
obligated parties that need them. This is
especially important in the case of the
RFS program, because the program must
work efficiently not only for a limited
number of obligated parties, but a
number of non-obligated parties as well.
A potentially large number of oxygenate
blenders, many of which will be small
businesses, will be looking for ways to
market their RINs. Furthermore, in some
cases renewable fuel producers will also
have RINs (in particular, extra-value
RINs) that can be marketed. Allowing
other parties, including brokers, to
receive and transfer RINs may create a
more fluid and free market that would
increase the venues for RINs to be
acquired by the obligated parties that
need them.
We believe we can ensure the
enforceability of the program despite
opening up trading to non-obligated
35 Montgomery, David W., ‘‘Recommendations for
a Trading Program Which Will Comply with the
Renewable Fuel Standard,’’ CRA International, Inc.
May 25, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
parties and allowing multiple trades.
The RIN number, along with the
associated electronic reporting
mechanism, should allow us the ability
to verify the validity of RINs and the
source of any invalid RINs. Since all
RINs generated, traded, and used for
compliance would be recorded
electronically in an Agency database,
these types of investigations would be
straightforward. The number of RIN
trades, and the parties between whom
the RINs are being traded, would only
have the effect of increasing the size of
the database.
As with other credit-trading programs,
the business details of RIN transactions,
such as the conditions of a sale or any
other transfer, RIN price, role of
mediators, etc. would be at the
discretion of the parties involved. The
Agency would be concerned only with
information such as who holds a given
RIN at any given moment, when
transfers of RINs occur, who the party
to the transfers are, and ultimately
which obligated party relies on a given
RIN for compliance purposes. This type
of information would therefore be the
subject of various recordkeeping and
reporting requirements as described in
Section IV, and these requirements
would generally apply regardless of
whether RIN has been separated from a
batch.
The means through which RIN trades
would occur would also be at the
discretion of the parties involved. For
instance, parties with RINs could create
open auctions, contract directly with
those obligated parties who seek RINs,
use brokers to identify potential
transferees and negotiate terms, or just
transfer the RINs to any other willing
party. Brokers involved in RIN transfer
could either operate in the role of
arbitrator without holding the RINs, or
alternatively could receive the RINs
from one party and transfer them to
another. If they are the transferee of any
RINs, they would also be subject to the
registration, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements. We do not
believe that it would be appropriate or
useful for the EPA to become directly
involved in RIN transfers, other than in
the role of providing a database within
which transfers can be recorded. Thus
EPA would not plan on establishing a
clearinghouse or centralized brokerage
for the management of RIN transfers, nor
contract with a private firm through
whom all RIN buyers and sellers would
arrange transfers. Our experience with
other credit trading programs suggests
that, left to themselves, natural freemarket mechanisms will arise to handle
RIN transfers, and that these
mechanisms will maximize the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55591
efficiency of the market while
minimizing the transaction costs for
transfers of RINs.
4. Alternative Approaches to RIN
Distribution
During the development of our
proposed RFS trading and compliance
program, stakeholders offered a variety
of alternative program design
approaches. Most of these alternatives
recognize the value of a RIN-based
system of compliance, but they differ in
terms of which parties would be
allowed to separate a RIN from a batch
and the means through which the RINs
should be transferred to obligated
parties. We invite comment on all of
these options.
Our primary concern with the
alternative approaches is that we believe
they would be less effective than our
proposed program at ensuring that RINs
would get to the obligated parties who
need them in a timely fashion. As
described above, stakeholders have
expressed serious concerns about any
program structure that could allow nonobligated parties to exercise market
power in the RIN market, and the
program we are proposing today is
designed to minimize these concerns.
The alternative approaches described
below, in contrast, could potentially
allow some non-obligated parties who
acquire RINs to either refuse to transfer
them, make them difficult for obligated
parties to obtain, or drive their price up
by exercising market power. We believe
that these stakeholder concerns about
alternative program options are
legitimate, given that nearly half of the
production volumes of ethanol come
from only seven companies and only
five companies manage the majority of
ethanol marketing. Our proposal also
best addresses other related issues, such
as limiting the number of obligated
parties, providing for the most open RIN
market, and providing an effective
means at ensuring RIN certainty.
a. Producer With Direct Transfer of
RINs. One alternative to our proposed
program would allow producers and
importers of renewable fuels to transfer
RINs separately from the renewable fuel
that they represent. The producer or
importer would still generate the RIN,
but would not necessarily need to assign
it to a specific batch of renewable fuel.
The producer or importer would be
required to transfer the RIN, but only to
an obligated party.
Under this approach non-obligated
parties other than producers and
importers would have no RIN
ownership opportunities and would
therefore not bear any burden associated
with transferring RINs with batches.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
55592
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
This would eliminate most of the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements applicable to them under
our proposed program. There would
also be no need for any regulatory
requirements to ensure proper
accounting of RINs as they move
through the distribution system, such as
requirements necessary to address
volume changes due to temperature,
batch splits and mergers, use of
renewable fuels in their neat form, and
the recordkeeping and reporting
associated with these requirements.
The challenges associated with this
approach, however, pertain to the
disconnect between RINs and batches of
renewable fuel. For instance, the
disconnect would produce the
possibility for the creation of market
power with the renewable fuel producer
that generates the RINs. As discussed
above, there is the possibility that
renewable producers might not place all
RINs on the market for procurement by
the obligated parties, thereby driving up
their price and/or increasing further the
demand for renewables. It is very
unlikely that they would withhold
renewable fuel itself from the market in
order to drive up the price for it. Not
only is storage capacity limited, but
there is no evidence that ethanol
producers or marketers have ever
exercised this type of market control.
This is also true under our proposed
program.
In addition, although a refiner could
purchase renewable fuel directly from a
producer and acquire RINs at the same
time, there would be many other cases
in which a refiner would purchase
renewable fuel without RINs (such as
from a marketer). Although the market
would likely develop in such a way that
renewable fuel without RINs would be
priced differently than renewable fuels
with RINs, the purchase of the
renewable fuel would still have no
bearing on the refiner’s RFS compliance
demonstration, contrary to the intent of
the Act. The refiner would have to
procure RINs separately. If the refiner
purchased more renewable fuel than it
needed for compliance purposes in this
way, it would not have any excess RINs
to transfer to another party. The Act
stipulates that allowances must be made
for credits to be generated for excess
renewable fuel.
To address the concern regarding
producers withholding RINs from the
market, under this alternative the
renewable producer would be required
to make the RINs available for transfer
to an obligated party. As under the
proposed option, this RIN transfer could
be done in one of several ways, such as
through direct contract or a restricted
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
clearinghouse. Any RINs not provided
directly to an obligated party would
then need to be made available through
a regularly scheduled public auction to
the highest bidder. This could be
through an existing internet auction
Web site, or through another auction
mechanism implemented by a generator
so long as the mechanism is equally
open and available to all obligated
parties. Only obligated parties would be
permitted to bid on the RINs in such an
auction.
To ensure the effectiveness of such an
approach, however, there are a number
of additional aspects of the program that
would need to be specified. Since a
renewable producer could essentially
withhold RINs from the market by
setting the selling price too high, such
an approach would hinge upon any
such auctions occurring without any
minimum price for the RINs. Producers
would be required to transfer RINs to
the highest bidder regardless of the bid
price, even if there was only a single
bidder. The renewable producer would
be required to send the successful
bidder a written confirmation of the RIN
transfer, including the RIN
identification numbers. If there were no
bids, the renewable producer would be
required to roll them over to subsequent
auction cycles until such time as the
RINs were no longer valid for
compliance purposes and they would
simply be retired. Finally, in order to
ensure that RINs were actually being
made available, such sales, trades, or
auctions would be required to occur at
least quarterly, but we seek comment on
whether a shorter cycle would be more
appropriate.
Various other aspects of the RIN
auctions or transactions would also
have to be specified. For example, the
location, time, and other details of any
auction would have to be made widely
known to obligated parties in sufficient
time for them to participate. To this end,
the rule could specify that there must be
advance public notice of the intent to
conduct an auction and the auction
procedures, and that this notice must be
advertised through nationwide media or
a public Internet posting. The minimum
amount of advance notice could be, for
example, one week or four weeks. The
regulations could require that the RINs
be transferred in large enough blocks,
such as 5,000 RINs, in order to prevent
undue transaction costs. The regulations
could also specify the time period
during which any public auction must
remain open; seven days could be
specified, for example. Other criteria for
how the auction is conducted could be
included in order to ensure its
legitimacy. Interested commenters
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
should include details for RIN auctions
or transactions that they believe should
be addressed in implementing
regulations.
Our proposed program is designed to
ensure that the existing market
mechanisms for the distribution of
renewable fuel can be used for the
distribution of RINs as well. The need
for independent RIN markets is
minimized, and likewise the regulatory
oversight of such markets is minimized.
Under the direct transfer alternative
described above, however, not only does
an independent RIN market become a
central feature of the RFS program, but
the regulations might need to specify
the many various aspects of RIN
transfers as described above, and doing
so would represent an intervention into
the market that the Agency has not
exercised before. It may be necessary to
design the regulatory provisions in this
way in order to have an enforceable
program under this alternative, but we
would have to be convinced that such
an approach could be properly
structured and that it was superior to
other alternatives.
Under this option, non-obligated
parties such as marketers or brokers
would not be allowed to own RINs. It
could be possible to add in this
flexibility, but in effect this option
would then operate similarly to our
proposed approach, but with additional
complications and transaction costs due
to the fact RINs would not follow
batches through the distribution system.
Therefore, we do not believe it is
appropriate to provide this flexibility as
part of the direct-transfer option.
b. Producer With Open RIN Market.
Another approach would allow
producers and importers of renewable
fuels to transfer RINs separately from
the renewable fuel to any party. If a
renewable fuel producer did choose to
transfer the RIN with the batch, any
downstream party would have the right
to separate that RIN from the batch.
Although we believe that the
recordkeeping burden placed upon
marketers and distributors under our
proposed program would be minimal,
this alternative approach would
essentially eliminate that burden
altogether. Marketers and distributors
would not have to ensure that RINs
were transferred with batches and keep
a record of those transfers, and would
not be responsible for ensuring that
RINs remain assigned to batches during
batch splits and mergers. Any marketer
or distributor that did receive a batch
with an assigned RIN could separate the
RIN from the batch and transfer it,
maximizing the choices available to
them.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
However, this alternative approach
would increase the burdens for
obligated parties to comply with their
renewable fuel obligation since all RINs
would be controlled by producers and
marketers at the point of generation. The
concerns described above regarding the
exercising of market power in the RIN
market by a small number of nonobligated parties would apply to this
alternative. Although these concerns
may be less significant under EIA’s
current projections that renewable fuel
production volumes will exceed the
RFS program requirements, we believe
that we should design the RFS program
to function smoothly under any future
market scenario. Since it is possible that
the market conditions leading to EIA’s
projections could change, we believe
that the concern about producers and
marketers exercising market power in
the RIN market is important. As a result,
we do not believe that this alternative
approach is most appropriate.
c. First Purchaser. As under our
proposed approach, in this alternative
the renewable fuel producer would be
required to assign a RIN to every batch
of renewable fuel and to transfer that
RIN with the batch. However, the first
party in the distribution system to take
ownership of the batch would have the
right to separate the RIN from the batch.
This means that any non-obligated party
that purchased the renewable fuel from
its producer would be able to separate
the RIN and to transfer it independently
from the batch.
The advantage of this alternative
approach, as compared to our proposal,
is that it would remove control of the
sale of RINs from the producers.
However, the concern raised by refiners
about the exercise of market power in
the RIN market remains because only
five companies today manage the
majority of ethanol marketing in the
U.S. With such a small number of
companies, any one could exert a
controlling influence on the RIN market.
In addition, many large producers
operate as marketers for other smaller
producers, allowing some producers to
be the first purchaser. As discussed for
the previous alternative, we believe that
we should design the RFS program to
function smoothly under any future
market scenario, including ones
different from those forming the basis of
the current EIA projections. Thus we
believe that the concern about marketers
exercising market power in the RIN
market is still important, and as a result
we do not believe that the first
purchaser approach offers significant
advantages over our proposed program.
d. Owner at Time of Blending. An
alternative approach to our proposed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
option of allowing obligated parties to
separate RINs as soon as they gain
ownership would prohibit all parties
from separating a RIN from a batch of
renewable fuel until the batch had
actually been blended into gasoline or
diesel. The obligated party could retain
the RIN as soon as it gained ownership
of the batch, but could not transfer the
RIN or use it for compliance purposes
until the renewable fuel that it
represented was actually blended into
gasoline or diesel. Thus, a RIN could be
separated from the batch of renewable
fuel to which it has been assigned only
at the time of blending, and whomever
owns the batch at the time of blending
would also have the right to separate the
RIN and use or transfer it.
Although we based our proposed
program design on the expectation that
all renewable fuels will eventually be
consumed as fuel, primarily through
blending with conventional gasoline or
diesel, this alternative approach would
provide direct verification of blending.
However, we do not believe that this is
necessary in order to provide an
enforceable program, and in fact it
would create an additional and
unnecessary burden for blenders.
As discussed in Section III.D, it is not
necessary to track renewable fuels all
the way to the point of blending because
we can confidently treat production
volumes as an accurate surrogate for
consumption. This fact provides the
basis for our proposed program, and
could also be used in support of the
alternatives described previously. If
verification of blending were required
before a RIN could be separated from a
batch, both obligated parties and
blenders would be subject to additional
recordkeeping and paperwork burdens.
The Agency would be compelled to
enforce activities at the blender level,
adding about 1200 parties to the list of
those subject to enforcement under our
proposed program.
By requiring refiners to wait until
renewable fuel is blended before they
can separate the RIN, this alternative
approach could limit the potential for
one refiner to purchase large volumes of
renewable fuel with the intent of
separating the RINs and exercising
market power in the RIN market.
However, we do not believe that this
represents an advantage to this
alternative since it could not occur
under our proposed program either.
There are no geographic limitations to
RIN transfers within the 48 contiguous
states, so obligated parties that need
RINs can purchase them from any
refiner who has an excess. In addition,
RINs that have been separated from
their assigned batches by oxygenate
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55593
blenders represent an additional safety
valve in the RIN market, providing
additional assurances that no one
refiner could exercise market power in
the RIN market, thereby demanding an
unreasonably high price for them.
For these reasons, we do not believe
that requiring renewable fuel to be
blended into gasoline or diesel before a
RIN could be separated from the batch
would provide any significant
advantages over our proposed program.
However, we request comment on this
alternative approach.
e. Blender at Time of Blending.
Although we have concluded that
production volumes are an accurate
surrogate for consumption, thus
eliminating the need to measure
renewable fuel volumes at the point of
blending into gasoline or diesel, an
alternative approach would do just that.
In this alternative program approach,
RINs would not be generated by the
producer of the renewable fuel and
assigned to batches. Instead, blenders
would keep detailed records of the
volumes of renewable fuel that they
blended into gasoline or diesel, and
would generate credits for those
volumes. Blenders would be considered
obligated parties, but their obligation
would be considered as zero percent to
avoid redundant obligations (i.e., to
avoid the blender being responsible for
blending renewable fuel into gasoline
for which a refiner or importer also has
an RFS program responsibility). Thus
they would generate credits which
could then be sold to a refiner or
importer who needs it for compliance
purposes.
The blender approach would differ
from our proposed program and all the
other alternative approaches in that it
would be based on actual blending
activity, as compared to ownership of
the renewable fuel. Under this
alternative approach, the blender would
not use records of batch ownership to
establish generation of credits, but
rather would be required to demonstrate
that it had actually blended the
renewable fuel into gasoline or diesel.
Since the blender was responsible for
blending, the blender would generate
the credits from that blending and
would have the right to transfer them to
another party.
Although blenders could use IRS fuel
credit forms to verify the volumes of
ethanol blended into gasoline under this
alternative, the IRS forms would not
provide useful information related to
biodiesel or other renewable fuels that
are blended into conventional gasoline
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55594
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
or diesel.36 Alternative approaches to
verifying that these other renewable
fuels were actually blended would
therefore need to be designed under this
alternative, and these verifications
would necessarily involve additional
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
This approach would also tend to
increase the burdens on refiners to gain
access to credits and thus demonstrate
compliance. A refiner who took
ownership of a batch of renewable fuel
could not use that batch to meet its RVO
unless he blended it into gasoline or
diesel himself. Such circumstances
would create additional complexity for
the obligated parties that are avoided by
the more streamlined approach we are
proposing.
A blender approach would also be
difficult to implement. To begin with,
many blenders are small businesses, and
none have been substantially regulated
in an EPA fuel program before. We
would be imposing upon these parties
the primary enforcement burden
associated with the RFS program even
though they are not obligated for
meeting the renewable fuel standard.
Also, this approach would not be able
to distinguish between cellulosic
biomass ethanol and ethanol made from
other feedstocks, which creates
significant difficulties in meeting
program requirements.
Under a blender approach, even
accurate records of blending would be
difficult to verify. There are more than
1200 blenders in the U.S. who blend
ethanol into gasoline, in addition to
those that blend biodiesel into
conventional diesel fuel. Thus the
blender approach would maximize the
number of parties involved, overly
complicating the compliance system.
The enforcement burden on the Agency
would be significant, and ultimately it
would be likely that many claims of
blending would go unchecked.
Some of the concerns raised above
could be addressed by re-introducing
the RIN concept into a blender
approach. For instance, the existence of
RINs could help identify cellulosic
biomass ethanol as such. However, if a
RIN-based system were implemented,
this alternative approach would become
very similar to our proposed program,
but with additional enforcement
36 There is some evidence that biodiesel
producers are operating as blenders in order to
claim the right to the Federal excise tax credit for
biodiesel. However, in these cases they often blend
only very small amounts of conventional diesel into
biodiesel, such as 0.1 volume percent. The mixture,
identified as B99.9, is then transported to another
blender who often adds significant additional
quantities of conventional diesel to make blends
such as B2 or B20.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
burdens placed upon blenders. As a
result the advantages of this alternative
approach over our proposed program
would disappear.
Due to the additional and unnecessary
recordkeeping and reporting burdens
that would be placed upon blenders
under this alternative, the dissociation
of credits from renewable fuels acquired
by obligated partiers, and the likelihood
that many blending events may go
unchecked, we do not believe that the
alternative blender approach should be
adopted.
IV. Registration, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements
A. Introduction
Registration, recordkeeping and
reporting are necessary to track
compliance with the renewable fuels
standard and transactions involving
RINs. We are proposing to utilize the
same basic forms for registration that we
use under the reformulated gasoline
(RFG) and anti-dumping program.37
These forms are well known in the
regulated community and are simple to
fill out. Information requested includes
company and facility names and
addresses and the identification of a
contact person with phone number and
e-mail address. Registrations do not
expire and upon receipt of a completed
registration form, EPA will issue unique
company and facility identification
numbers that will appear in compliance
reports and, in the case of renewable
fuels producers, will be incorporated in
the unique RINs they generate for each
batch of renewable fuel. We intend to
use the same simplified registration
method we use for existing fuels
programs under 40 CFR part 80, and
parties who have already registered with
EPA under an existing fuels program
will not be required to re-register and
will be able to use their existing EPAissued company and facility registration
numbers.
We plan to use a simplified method
of reporting via the Agency’s Central
Data Exchange (CDX). CDX will permit
us to accept reports that are
electronically signed and certified by
the submitter in a secure and robustly
encrypted fashion. Guidance for
reporting will be issued prior to
implementation and will contain
specific instructions and formats
consistent with provisions in the final
rule. We intend to accept electronic
37 Please refer to https://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/
fuels/rfgforms.htm. The relevant registration forms
for our existing fuels programs are 3520–20A, 3520–
20B, and 3520–20B1. Interested parties may wish to
view these forms, as they may be useful in
preparing comments on this proposed rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reports generated in virtually all
commercially available spreadsheet
programs and to permit parties to
submit reports in comma delimited text,
which can be generated with a variety
of basic software packages. In order to
permit maximum flexibility in meeting
the RFS program requirements, we must
track activities involving the creation
and use of RINs, as well as any
transactions such as purchase or sale of
RINs. Reports will be included in a
compliance database managed by EPA’s
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
and will be reviewed for completeness
and for potential violations. Potential
violations will be referred to
enforcement personnel.
Records related to RIN transactions
may be kept in any format and the
period of record retention by reporting
parties is five (5) years, which is the
time frame for retention under similar
40 CFR part 80 fuels compliance
reporting programs. Records retained
would include copies of all compliance
reports submitted to EPA and copies of
product transfer documents (PTDs).
Records would have to be provided to
the Administrator or the Administrator’s
representative upon request and they
may have to be converted to a readable,
usable format.
B. Requirements for Obligated Parties
and Exporters of Renewable Fuels
1. Registration
We are proposing that ‘‘obligated
parties’’ including refiners, importers,
and blenders of gasoline, as well as
exporters of renewable fuel, must
register with EPA by [90 DAYS AFTER
FINAL PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE]. Most refiners and importers are
already registered with us under various
regulations related to reformulated
(RFG) and conventional gasoline or
diesel fuel. We propose that these
existing registrations be applicable
under the renewable fuel standard as
well. Exporters of renewable fuels may
not have registered with EPA and we
anticipate perhaps 25 new registrations
and 25 updated registrations because of
this program. If a party becomes subject
to this proposed regulation after the
effective date, then we propose that they
must register with us and receive their
EPA-issued company and facility
registration numbers prior to engaging
in any transaction involving RINs.
Any party who is not currently
registered with us would have to submit
a simple registration form. We will issue
a 4-digit company identification number
and, for each facility registered, a 5-digit
facility identification number. Currently
registered parties will only be
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
responsible for updating company and
facility records as the need to update
routine information arises, for example,
if corporate points of contact or
addresses change. Currently registered
refiners and importers would continue
to use their existing 4-digit company
and 5-digit facility identification
numbers.
2. Reporting
There are three types of reports that
would be required of obligated parties
and exporters of renewable fuel. Reports
would be required to be submitted on an
annual basis by the February 28
following a given January through
December annual compliance period.
The first type of report would provide
the compliance demonstration. It would
require obligated parties to provide
information about their annual volume
of gasoline produced or imported, and
would require exporters to provide
information about their annual volume
of renewable fuel exported. The report
would also describe the calculation of
their corresponding renewable volume
obligation (RVO), a listing of the RINs
applied towards the RVO, any deficit
carried over from the previous year, and
any deficit carried into the next year.
The second type of report would
provide detailed transactional
information regarding RINs. It would be
akin to credit trading reports submitted
by refiners and importers under other
fuels programs in 40 CFR part 80, such
as the gasoline sulfur program. The
purpose of this report would be to
document the ownership, transfer and
use of RINs and to track expired RINs.
As such, and noted below, these reports
would be required of any party that
owns RINs during the compliance
period covered by the report. The
transactional report is necessary because
compliance with the RVO is primarily
demonstrated through self-reporting of
RIN trades and therefore it is necessary
for Agency personnel to be able to link
transactions involving each unique RIN
in order to verify compliance. We will
be able to import reports into our
compliance database and match RINs to
transactions across their entire journey
from generation to use. As with our
other 40 CFR part 80 compliance-onaverage and credit trading programs,
many potential violations are expected
to be self-reported. Because the use of
RINs permits great flexibility in meeting
the RVO, we believe that obligated
parties and others who create and
handle RINs (including brokers) will
benefit from self-reporting.
The third type of report will
summarize RIN activities for the
previous year and will include the total
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
number of RINs owned, used for
compliance, transferred and expired.
This report would not include details of
every RIN owned or used, since this
information would be included in the
compliance and transactional reports.
Instead, this third report would simply
summarize the total number of RINs
falling into different categories.
All reports submitted to us would
have to be signed and certified as true
and correct by a responsible corporate
officer. This can be done electronically.
As discussed above, we plan to utilize
a highly simplified electronic method of
reporting via the Agency’s Central Data
Exchange that is secure, provides
encryption and reliable electronic
signatures, and that permits us to accept
reports in the submitter’s choice of
simple comma delimited text or
commercially available spreadsheet
packages.
We are proposing annual reporting
only. However, we encourage comments
related to the frequency of reporting. We
are particularly interested in comments
related to the frequency of transactional
reports related to RINs and whether
these reports should be submitted
quarterly rather than annually. We also
request comment on our proposed
requirement that three distinct types of
reports be submitted for each calendar
year, specifically whether these reports
could be simplified or whether a smaller
number of reports could provide the
same information.
3. Recordkeeping
The proposed recordkeeping
requirements for obligated parties and
exporters of renewable fuel support the
enforcement of the use of RINs for
compliance purposes. Product transfer
documents (PTDs) are central to
tracking individual RINs through the
fungible distribution system when those
RINs are assigned to batches of
renewable fuel. PTDs are customarily
issued in the course of business (i.e.,
issuing them is a ‘‘customary business
practice’’) and are familiar to parties
who transfer or receive fuel. As with
other fuels programs, PTDs may take
many forms, including bills of lading, as
long as they travel with the volume of
renewable fuel being transferred.
Specifically, we propose that on each
occasion any person transfers
ownership of renewable fuels subject to
this proposed regulation that they
provide the transferee documents
identifying the renewable fuel and
containing identifying information
including the name and address of the
transferor and transferee, the EPAissued company and facility IDs of the
transferor and transferee, the volume of
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55595
renewable fuel that is being transferred,
the location of the renewable fuel at the
time of transfer, and the unique RIN
associated with the volume of fuel being
transferred, if any. PTDs are used by all
parties in the distribution chain down to
the retail outlet or wholesale purchaserconsumer facility that dispenses it into
motor vehicles.
Except for transfers to truck carriers,
retailers or wholesale purchaserconsumers, product codes describing
various attributes of the fuel may be
used to convey the information required
for PTDs, as long as the codes are clearly
understood by each transferee.
Therefore, refiners and importers and
exporters of renewable fuel may use
codes. The RIN would always have to
appear on each PTD in its entirety
before it is separated from a batch, since
it is a unique identification number and
cannot be summarized by a shorter
code.
Obligated parties and exporters of
renewable fuel would have to keep
copies of PTDs and of all compliance
reports submitted to EPA for a period of
not less than five (5) years. The five year
period is common to all our 40 CFR part
80 programs and is a reasonable period
to retain records in the event a potential
violation is reported and must be
investigated and pursued by
enforcement personnel. They would
also have to keep information related to
the sale, purchase, brokering and
trading of RINs that support the
information they report to EPA. Refiners
and importers would be responsible for
providing records to the Administrator
or the Administrator’s authorized
representative in a usable format upon
request.
C. Requirements for Producers and
Importers of Renewable Fuel
1. Registration
We propose that any producer or
importer of renewable fuel must register
by [90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF
FINAL PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE]. The registration requirements
are the same as those for refiners and
importers of gasoline, as described
above. Renewable fuel producers were
not previously required to register with
EPA and we anticipate around 280 new
registrants as a result of this proposed
registration requirement. Although
renewable fuels producers are not
‘‘obligated parties,’’ they are the parties
who generate RINs. As mentioned above
in IV.B.1, the EPA-issued registration
numbers will be part of the unique RIN
generated by the producer or importer of
renewable fuel. In order to support
effective recordkeeping and reporting
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55596
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
for compliance purposes, we believe it
is necessary for them and any party who
generates or owns RINs to register with
the Agency.
Registration is a simple process and
there is no expiration date associated
with a registration. However,
registration information may be updated
by the registrant as needed, for example,
if a mailing address changes. The
information collected includes company
name and address; facility name(s) and
address(es); and a contact person’s
name, phone number and e-mail
address. Any party who is not currently
registered with us would have to submit
registration forms. We will issue a 4digit company identification number
and, for each facility registered, a 5-digit
facility identification number. If a party
becomes subject to this proposed
regulation after the effective date, then
we propose that they must register with
us and receive their EPA-issued
company and facility identification
numbers prior to generating or holding
any RINs.
We also propose that small volume
domestic producers of renewable fuels,
those who produce less than 10,000
gallons per year, be allowed to remain
unregistered. This proposed provision
would free them from recordkeeping
and reporting requirements, but it
would also preclude them from
generating RINs.
2. Reporting
Renewable fuel producers and
importers would be required to submit
three different annual reports by
February 28, reflecting activity during
the previous calendar year. The first
report would be an annual report that
reflects the generation of RINs. This
report would identify each batch of
renewable fuel produced or imported
during the previous year and the RINs
generated for each batch. This annual
report would provide information about
the production date, renewable fuel type
and volume of renewable fuel produced
or imported. For specific information
about how RINs are actually generated,
please refer to the discussion in Section
III.D.2 of this preamble.
Like any of the parties who can own
RINs, a renewable fuel producer would
also have to submit a second type of
report detailing transactional
information regarding RINs. This report
would list the RINs which they own at
the end of the reporting period as well
as any RINs they have acquired from
other parties or have transferred to other
parties, identifying which parties took
part in the transfer. This report would
be similar to the transaction report
described below required of RIN owners
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
who are not obligated parties, exporters,
or producers of renewable fuels.
Finally, each producer or importer of
renewable fuel would be required to
submit a third annual report
summarizing RIN activities for the
previous year. This report would
include the total number of RINs
generated, owned, transferred, and
expired.
All reports would have to be signed
and certified as true and correct by a
responsible corporate officer. This can
be done electronically. As discussed
above, we plan to utilize a highly
simplified electronic method of
reporting via the Agency’s Central Data
Exchange that is secure, provides
encryption and reliable electronic
signatures, and that permits generation
of reports in the submitter’s choice of
simple comma delimited text or
commercially available spreadsheet
packages.
We request comment on our proposed
requirement that three distinct types of
reports be submitted for each calendar
year, specifically whether these reports
could be simplified or whether a smaller
number of reports could provide the
same information.
3. Recordkeeping
The proposed recordkeeping
requirements for renewable fuels
producers support the enforcement of
the use of RINs for compliance
purposes. Product transfer documents
(PTDs) are central to tracking individual
RINs through the fungible distribution
system when those RINs are assigned to
batches of renewable fuel. PTDs are
customarily generated and issued in the
course of business (i.e. issuing them is
a ‘‘customary business practice’’) and
are familiar to parties who transfer or
receive fuel. As with other fuels
programs, PTDs may take many forms,
including bills of lading, as long as they
travel with the volume of renewable fuel
being transferred. Specifically, we
propose that on each occasion any
person transfers ownership of renewable
fuels subject to this proposed regulation
that they provide the transferee
documents identifying the renewable
fuel and containing identifying
information including the name and
address of the transferor and transferee,
the EPA-issued company and facility
IDs of the transferor and transferee, the
volume of renewable fuel that is being
transferred, the location of the
renewable fuel at the time of transfer,
and the unique RIN associated with the
volume of fuel being transferred, if any.
PTDs are used by all parties in the
distribution chain down to the retail
outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
facility that dispenses it into motor
vehicles.
Except for transfers to truck carriers,
retailers or wholesale purchaserconsumers, product codes may be used
to convey the information required for
PTDs, as long as the codes are clearly
understood by each transferee.
Therefore, renewable fuels producers
may use codes. The RIN would always
have to appear on each PTD in its
entirety before it was separated from the
batch, since it is a unique identification
number and cannot be summarized by
a shorter code.
Renewable fuels producers would
have to keep copies of PTDs and of all
compliance reports submitted to EPA
for a period of not less than five (5)
years. They would also have to keep
information related to the sale,
purchase, brokering and trading of RINs.
Upon request, renewable fuels
producers or importers would be
responsible for providing
documentation of PTDs to the
Administrator or the Administrator’s
authorized representative in a usable
format.
D. Requirements for Other Parties Who
Own RINs
1. Registration
We propose that other parties who
intend to own RINs, and who are not
obligated parties, exporters of renewable
fuels, or renewable fuels producers or
importers, must also register before
ownership of any RINs is assumed. The
registration requirements are the same
as those for other parties discussed
previously in Sections IV.B.1 and IV.C.1
above, and require the registrant to
provide very basic information about
the company, its facility or facilities,
and a contact person. The registration is
on very simple forms provided by EPA.
A variety of parties may own RINs
including (but certainly not limited to)
marketers, blenders, terminal operators,
and jobbers. (As is mentioned in the
previous two sections, obligated parties
and renewable producers may also own
RINs but have other reporting
responsibilities, as well.)
It is possible to own RINs separately
from batches of renewable fuel. For
example, a broker might be expected to
own RINs in this fashion. Any party
who is not currently registered with us
and who intends to own RINs would
have to submit a simple registration
form, as described above. We anticipate
about 1,500 new registrants as a result
of this proposed registration
requirement, although an exact
estimation of the number of parties that
will constitute this group is difficult to
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
make. As with the other parties
described in this Section, we will issue
a 4-digit company identification number
and, for each facility registered, a 5-digit
facility identification number. If a party
becomes subject to this proposed
regulation after the effective date, then
we propose that they must register with
us and receive their EPA-issued
company and facility identification
numbers prior to owning any RINs.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
2. Reporting
Parties who own RINs would be
required to submit two types of annual
reports by February 28, representing
activity in the previous calendar year.
The first report would document RIN
transactions. This report is akin to the
credit trading reports submitted by
refiners and importers under other fuels
programs in 40 CFR part 80 and is the
same as the second report described for
obligated parties in some detail in
Section IV.B.2 above.
The second type of report would
summarize RIN activities for the
previous year, including the total
number of RINs owned, transferred, and
expired. This report would not include
details of every RIN owned or used,
since this information would be
included in the transactional report.
Instead, this report would simply
summarize the total number of RINs
falling into different categories.
All reports would have to be signed
and certified as true and correct by a
responsible corporate officer. This can
be done electronically. As discussed
above, we plan to utilize a highly
simplified electronic method of
reporting via the Agency’s Central Data.
As discussed above, we are seeking
comments on the frequency of reporting,
especially with regard to RIN
transactions. We are proposing annual
reporting, but are seeking comments on
whether reporting should be quarterly.
We also request comment on our
proposed requirement that two distinct
types of reports be submitted for each
calendar year, specifically whether
these reports could be simplified or
whether a smaller number of reports
could provide the same information.
3. Recordkeeping
The proposed recordkeeping
requirements for parties who own RINs
support the enforcement of the use of
RINs for compliance purposes. Product
transfer documents (PTDs) are central to
tracking individual RINs through the
fungible distribution system when those
RINs are assigned to batches of
renewable fuel. PTDs are customarily
generated and issued in the course of
business (i.e., issuing them is a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
‘‘customary business practice’’) and are
familiar to parties who transfer or
receive fuel. As with other fuels
programs, PTDs may take many forms,
including bills of lading, as long as they
travel with the volume of renewable fuel
being transferred. Specifically, we
propose that on each occasion any
person transfers ownership of RINs
(whether assigned to batches of
renewable fuel or not) that they provide
the transferee documents identifying the
RIN and containing identifying
information including the name and
address of the transferor and transferee,
the EPA-issued company and facility
IDs of the transferor and transferee, and
the unique RINs that are being
transferred. Typically, parties who own
RINs connected with batches of fuel
would handle PTDs; however, parties
who own RINs separate from batches
may not. A party who owns RINs in
connection with fuel and who received
a PTD would be responsible for meeting
requirements related to PTDs.
Parties who own RINs but who are not
obligated parties, exporters of renewable
fuel, or renewable fuel producers or
importers would have to keep copies of
PTDs associated with RIN transfers and
of all compliance reports submitted to
EPA for a period of not less than five (5)
years. They would also have to keep
information related to the sale,
purchase, brokering and trading of RINs.
Upon request, owners of RINs would be
responsible for providing records to the
Administrator or the Administrator’s
authorized representative in a usable
format.
V. What Acts Are Prohibited and Who
Is Liable for Violations?
The prohibition and liability
provisions applicable to this proposed
RFS program would be similar to those
of other gasoline programs. The
proposed rule identifies certain
prohibited acts, such as a failure to
acquire sufficient RINs to meet a party’s
renewable fuel obligation (RVO),
producing or importing a renewable fuel
that is not assigned a proper RIN,
creating or transferring invalid RINs, or
transferring RINs that are not identified
by proper RIN numbers. Any person
subject to a prohibition would be held
liable for violating that prohibition.
Thus, for example, an obligated party
would be liable if the party failed to
acquire sufficient RINs to meet its RVO.
A party who produces or imports
renewable fuels would be liable for a
failure to assign proper RINs to batches
of renewable fuel produced or imported.
Any party, including an obligated party,
would be liable for transferring a RIN
that was not properly identified.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55597
In addition, any person who is subject
to an affirmative requirement under the
RFS program would be liable for a
failure to comply with the requirement.
For example, an obligated party would
be liable for a failure to comply with the
annual compliance reporting
requirements. A renewable fuel
producer or importer would be liable for
a failure to comply with the applicable
batch reporting requirements. Any party
subject to recordkeeping or product
transfer document requirements would
be liable for a failure to comply with
these requirements. Like other EPA
fuels programs, the proposed rule
provides that a party who causes
another party to violate a prohibition or
fail to comply with a requirement may
be found liable for the violation.
The Energy Act amended the penalty
and injunction provisions in section
211(d) of the Clean Air Act to apply to
violations of the renewable fuels
requirements in section 211(o).38
Accordingly, under the proposed rule,
any person who violates any prohibition
or requirement of the RFS program may
be subject to civil penalties for every
day of each such violation and the
amount of economic benefit or savings
resulting from the violation. Under the
proposed rule, a failure to acquire
sufficient RINs to meet a party’s
renewable fuels obligation would
constitute a separate day of violation for
each day the violation occurred during
the annual averaging period.
As discussed above and in Section
III.D, the regulations would prohibit any
party from creating or transferring
invalid RINs. These invalid RIN
provisions would apply regardless of
the good faith belief of a party that the
RINs were valid. These enforcement
provisions are necessary to ensure the
RFS program goals are not compromised
by illegal conduct in the creation and
transfer of RINs.
As in other motor vehicle fuel credit
programs, the regulations would address
the consequences if an obligated party
was found to have used invalid RINs to
demonstrate compliance with its RVO.
In this situation, the refiner or importer
that used the invalid RINs would be
required to deduct any invalid RINs
from its compliance calculations. The
refiner or importer would be liable for
violating the standard if the remaining
number of valid RINs was insufficient to
meet its RVO, and the obligated party
might be subject to monetary penalties
if it used invalid RINs in its compliance
demonstration. In determining what
penalty is appropriate, if any, we would
consider a number of factors, including
38 Sec.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
1501(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
22SEP2
55598
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
whether the obligated party did in fact
procure sufficient valid RINs to cover
the deficit created by the invalid RINs,
and whether the purchaser was indeed
a good faith purchaser based on an
investigation of the RIN transfer. A
penalty might include both the
economic benefit of using invalid RINs
and/or a gravity component.
Although an obligated party would be
liable under our proposed program for
a violation if it used invalid RINs for
compliance purposes, we would
normally look first to the generator or
seller of the invalid RINs both for
payment of penalty and to procure
sufficient valid RINs to offset the invalid
RINs. However, if, for example, that
party was out of business, then attention
would turn to the obligated party who
would have to obtain sufficient valid
RINs to offset the invalid RINs.
Because there are no standards under
the RFS rule that may be measured
downstream, we believe that a
presumptive liability scheme, i.e., a
biodiesel industries today and how they
are projected to grow into the future.
scheme in which parties upstream from
the facility where the violation is found
are presumed liable for the violation,
would not be applicable under the RFS
program. We request comment on
whether a presumptive liability scheme
may have application under the RFS
rule. We also request comment on the
need for additional prohibition and
liability provisions specific to the
proposed RFS program.
A. Overview of U.S. Ethanol Industry
and Future Production/Consumption
1. Current Ethanol Production
VI. Current and Projected Renewable
Fuel Production and Use
While the definition of renewable fuel
does not limit compliance with the
standard to any one particular type of
renewable fuel, ethanol is currently the
most prevalent renewable fuel blended
into gasoline today. Biodiesel represents
another renewable fuel, which while not
as widespread as ethanol use (in terms
of volume), has been increasing in
production capacity and use over the
last several years. This section provides
a brief overview of the ethanol and
As of June 2006, there were 102
ethanol production facilities operating
in the United States with a combined
production capacity of approximately
4.9 billion gallons per year.39 All of the
ethanol currently produced comes from
grain or starch-based feedstocks that can
easily be broken down into ethanol via
traditional fermentation processes. The
majority of ethanol (almost 93 percent
by volume) is produced exclusively
from corn. Another 7 percent comes
from a blend of corn and/or similarly
processed grains (milo, wheat, or barley)
and less than 1 percent is produced
from waste beverages, cheese whey, and
sugars/starches combined. A summary
of ethanol production by feedstock is
presented in Table VI.A.1–1.
TABLE VI.A.1–1.—2006 U.S. ETHANOL PRODUCTION BY FEEDSTOCK
Capacity
MMGal/yr
Plant feedstock
Percent of
capacity
Number of
plants
Percent of
plants
Corn a ...............................................................................................................................
Corn/Milo ..........................................................................................................................
Corn/Wheat ......................................................................................................................
Corn/Barley ......................................................................................................................
Milo/Wheat .......................................................................................................................
Waste Beverage b ............................................................................................................
Cheese Whey ..................................................................................................................
Sugars & Starches ...........................................................................................................
4,516
162
90
40
40
16
8
2
92.7
3.3
1.8
0.8
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.0
85
5
2
1
1
5
2
1
83.3
4.9
2.0
1.0
1.0
4.9
2.0
1.0
Total ..........................................................................................................................
4,872
100.0
102
100.0
a Includes
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
b Includes
seed corn.
brewery waste.
There are a total of 94 plants
processing corn and/or other similarly
processed grains. Of these facilities, 84
utilize dry milling technologies and the
remaining 10 plants rely on wet-milling
processes. Dry mill ethanol plants grind
the entire kernel and produce only one
primary co-product: distillers’ grains
with solubles (DGS). The co-product is
sold wet (WDGS) or dried (DDGS) to the
agricultural market as animal feed.
Carbon dioxide is also produced in the
process and may be recovered as a
saleable product. In contrast to dry mill
plants, wet mill facilities separate the
kernel prior to processing and in turn
produce other co-products (usually
gluten feed, gluten meal, and oil) in
addition to DGS. Wet mill plants are
generally more costly to build but are
larger in size on average. As such,
approximately 23 percent of the current
ethanol production comes from the 10
previously-mentioned wet mill
facilities.
The remaining 8 plants which process
waste beverages, cheese whey, or
sugars/starches, operate differently than
their grain-based counterparts. These
facilities do not require milling and
instead operate a more simplistic
enzymatic fermentation process.
In addition to grain and starch-toethanol production, another method
exists for producing ethanol from a
more diverse feedstock base. This
process involves converting cellulosic
feedstocks such as bagasse, wood, straw,
switchgrass, and other biomass into
ethanol. Cellulose consists of tightlylinked polymers of starch, and
production of ethanol from it requires
additional steps to convert these
polymers into fermentable sugars.
Scientists are actively pursuing acid and
enzyme hydrolysis to achieve this goal,
but the technologies are still not fully
developed for large-scale commercial
production. As of June 2006, there were
no U.S ethanol plants processing
cellulosic feedstocks. Currently, the
only known cellulose-to-ethanol plant
in North America is Iogen in Canada,
which produces approximately one
39 The June 2006 ethanol production baseline was
generated from a variety of data sources including
Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), Ethanol
Biorefinery Locations (Updated June 19, 2006);
Ethanol Producer Magazine (EPM), U.S. & Canada
Fuel Ethanol Plant Map (Spring 2006); and
International Fuel Quality Center (IFQC), Special
Biofuels Report #75 (April 11, 2006) as well as
ethanol producer websites. The production baseline
includes small-scale ethanol production facilities as
well as former food-grade ethanol plants that have
since transitioned into the fuel-grade ethanol
market. Where applicable, current ethanol plant
production levels were used to represent plant
capacity, as nameplate capacities are often
underestimated.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55599
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
million gallons of ethanol per year from
wood chips. For a more detailed
discussion on cellulosic ethanol
production/technologies, refer to
Section 7.1.2 of the Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis (DRIA).
The ethanol production process is
relatively resource-intensive and
requires the use of water, electricity and
steam. Steam needed to heat the process
is generally produced onsite or by other
dedicated boilers. Of today’s 102
ethanol production facilities, 98 burn
natural gas, 2 burn coal, 1 burns coal
and biomass, and 1 burns syrup from
the process to produce steam. A
summary of ethanol production by plant
energy source is found below in Table
VI.A.1–2.
TABLE VI.A.1–2.—2006 U.S. ETHANOL PRODUCTION BY ENERGY SOURCE
Capacity
MMGal/yr
Energy source
Percent of
capacity
Number of
plants
Percent of
plants
Natural Gas a ...................................................................................................................
Coal ..................................................................................................................................
Coal & Biomass ...............................................................................................................
Syrup ................................................................................................................................
4,671
102
50
49
95.9
2.1
1.0
1.0
98
2
1
1
96.1
2.0
1.0
1.0
Total ..........................................................................................................................
4,872
100.0
102
100.0
a Includes
a natural gas facility which is considering transitioning to coal.
Currently, 7 of the 102 ethanol plants
utilize co-generation or combined heat
and power (CHP) technology. CHP is a
mechanism for improving overall plant
efficiency. CHP facilities produce their
own electricity (or coordinate with the
local municipality) and use otherwise-
production facilities, 93 are located in
Midwest. The PADD 2 facilities account
for about 97 percent (or 4.7 billion
gallons per year) of the total domestic
ethanol production, as shown in Table
VI.A.1–3.
wasted exhaust gases to help heat their
process, reducing the overall demand
for boiler fuel.
The majority of ethanol is produced
in the Midwest within PADD 2—not
surprisingly, where most of the corn is
grown. Of the 102 U.S. ethanol
TABLE VI.A.1–3.—2006 U.S. ETHANOL PRODUCTION BY PADD
Capacity
MMgal/yr
PADD
PADD
PADD
PADD
PADD
PADD
1
2
3
4
5
Percent of
capacity
Number of
plants
Percent of
plants
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
0.4
4,710
30
98
34
0.0
96.7
0.6
2.0
0.7
1
93
1
4
3
1.0
91.2
1.0
3.0
2.9
Total ..........................................................................................................................
4,872
100.0
102
100.0
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Leading the Midwest in ethanol
production are Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska,
Minnesota, and South Dakota with a
combined capacity of 3.9 billion gallons
per year. Together, these five states’ 69
ethanol plants account for 80 percent of
the total domestic product. Although
the majority of ethanol production
comes from the Midwest, there is a
sprinkling of plants situated outside the
corn belt ranging from California to
Tennessee all the way down to Georgia.
The U.S. ethanol industry is currently
comprised of a mixture of corporations
and farmer-owned cooperatives (co-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
ops). More than half (55) of today’s
plants are owned by corporations and,
on average, these plants are larger in
size than farmer-owned co-ops.
Accordingly, company-owned plants
account for nearly 65 percent of the total
U.S. ethanol production capacity.
Additionally, 45 percent of the total
capacity comes from 22 plants owned
by just 8 different companies.
2. Expected Growth in Ethanol
Production
Over the past 25 years, domestic fuel
ethanol production has steadily
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
increased due to technological
advances, environmental regulation
(e.g., oxygenate requirements in ozone
and carbon monoxide non-attainment
areas), and the rising cost of crude oil.
More recently, ethanol production has
soared due to state MTBE bans, steep
increases in crude oil prices, and
producer tax incentives. As shown
below in Figure VI.A.2–1, over the past
three years, domestic ethanol
production has nearly doubled from 2.1
billion gallons in 2002 to 4.0 billion
gallons in 2005.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55600
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
EPA forecasts ethanol production to
continue to grow into the future. In
addition to the past impacts of Federal
and state tax incentives, as well as the
more recent impacts of state ethanol
mandates and the removal of MTBE
from all U.S. gasoline, record-high crude
oil prices are expected to continue to
drive up demand for ethanol. As a
result, the nation is on track to exceed
the renewable fuel volume requirements
contained in the Act. Today’s ethanol
production capacity (4.9 billion gallons)
is already exceeding the 2006 renewable
fuel requirement (4.0 billion gallons). In
addition, there is another 2.5 billion
gallons of ethanol production capacity
currently under construction.40 A
summary of the new construction and
expansion projects currently underway
(as of June 2006) is found in Table
VI.A.2–1.
TABLE VI.A.2–1.—UNDER CONSTRUCTION U.S. ETHANOL PLANT CAPACITY
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
MMGal/yr
PADD
PADD
PADD
PADD
PADD
1
2
3
4
5
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
40 Under construction plant locations, capacities,
feedstocks, and energy sources as well as planned/
proposed plant locations and capacities were
derived from a variety of data sources including
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
0.4
4,710
30
98
34
Plants
1
93
1
4
3
New construction
MMGal/yr
0
2,048
30
50
90
Plant expansions
Plants
0
35
1
1
2
Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), Ethanol
Biorefinery Locations (Updated June 19, 2006);
Ethanol Producer Magazine (EPM), U.S. & Canada
Fuel Ethanol Plant Map (Spring 2006); and
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
MMGal/yr
2006 baseline +
UC a
Plants
0
252
0
7
0
MMGal/yr
0
8
0
1
0
0.4
7,010
60
155
124
Plants
1
128
2
5
5
International Fuel Quality Center (IFQC), Special
Biofuels Report #75 (April 11, 2006) as well as
ethanol producer Web sites.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
EP22SE06.002
2006 ETOH baseline
55601
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI.A.2–1.—UNDER CONSTRUCTION U.S. ETHANOL PLANT CAPACITY—Continued
2006 ETOH baseline
MMGal/yr
Total ..........................................................
a Under
4,872
Plants
102
New construction
MMGal/yr
2,218
Plant expansions
Plants
MMGal/yr
39
2006 baseline +
UC a
Plants
259
MMGal/yr
9
7,349
Plants
141
Construction.
construction projects described in Table
VI.A.2–1. As such, the completion dates
of these projects are staggered over
approximately 18 months, resulting in
the gradual phase-in of ethanol
production shown in Figure VI.A.2–2.
As shown in Table VI.A.2–1 and
Figure VI.A.2–2, once all the
construction projects currently
underway are complete (estimated by
December 2007), the resulting U.S.
ethanol production capacity would be
over 7.3 billion gallons. Together with
estimated biodiesel production (300
million gallons by 2012), this would be
more than enough renewable fuel to
satisfy the 2012 renewable fuel
requirement (7.5 billion gallons)
contained in the Act. However, ethanol
production is not expected to stop here.
There are more and more ethanol
projects being announced each day.
Many of these potential projects are at
various stages of planning, such as
conducting feasibility studies, gaining
city/county approval, applying for
permits, applying for financing/
fundraising, or obtaining contractor
agreements. Other projects have been
proposed or announced, but have not
entered the formal planning process. If
all these plants were to come to fruition,
the combined domestic ethanol
production could exceed 20 billion
gallons as shown in Table VI.A.2–2.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
EP22SE06.003
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
A select group of builders, technology
providers, and construction contractors
are completing the majority of the
55602
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI.A.2–2.—POTENTIAL U.S. ETHANOL PRODUCTION PROJECTS
2006 baseline + UC a
MMGal/yr
PADD
PADD
PADD
PADD
PADD
1
2
3
4
5
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
Total ........................................................
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
a Under
Plants
Planned
MMGal/yr
Proposed
Plants
MMGal/yr
Total ETOH potential
Plants
MMGal/yr
Plants
0.4
7,010
60
155
124
1
128
2
5
5
250
1,940
108
0
128
3
15
1
0
2
1,005
7,508
599
815
676
21
90
9
14
18
1,255
16,458
767
970
928
25
233
12
19
25
7,349
141
2,426
21
10,603
152
20,378
314
Construction.
However, although there is clearly a
great potential for growth in ethanol
production, it is unlikely that all the
announced projects would actually
reach completion in a reasonable
amount of time. There is no precise way
to know exactly which plants would
come to fruition in the future; however,
we’ve chosen to focus our further
discussions on only those plants which
are under construction or in the final
planning stages (denoted as ‘‘planned’’
above in Table VI.A.2–2). The
distinction between ‘‘planned’’ versus
‘‘proposed’’ is that as of June 2006
planned projects had completed
permitting, fundraising/financing, and
had builders assigned with definitive
construction timelines whereas
proposed projects did not.
As shown in Table VI.A.2–2, once all
the under construction and planned
projects are complete (by 2012 or
sooner), the resulting U.S. ethanol
production capacity would be 9.8
billion gallons, exceeding the 2012 EIA
demand estimate (9.6 billion gallons).
This forecasted growth would double
today’s production capacity and greatly
exceed the 2012 renewable fuel
requirement (7.5 billion gallons). In
addition, domestic ethanol production
would be supplemented by imports,
which are also expected to increase in
the future (as discussed in DRIA Section
1.5).
Of the 60 forecasted new ethanol
plants (39 under construction and 21
planned), all would (at least initially)
rely on grain-based feedstocks. Of the
plants, 56 would rely exclusively on
corn as a feedstock. As for the remaining
plants: Two would rely on both corn
and milo, one would process molasses
and sweet sorghum, and the last would
start off processing corn and then
transition into processing bagasse, rice
hulls, and wood.
Under the Energy Act, the RFS
program requires that 250 million
gallons of the renewable fuel consumed
in 2013 and beyond meet the definition
of cellulosic biomass ethanol. As
discussed in Section III.B.1, the Act
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
defines cellulosic biomass ethanol as
ethanol derived from any lignocellulosic
or hemicellulosic matter that is
available on a renewable or recurring
basis including dedicated energy crops
and trees, wood and wood residues,
plants, grasses, agricultural residues,
fibers, animal wastes and other waste
materials, and municipal solid waste.
The term also includes any ethanol
produced in facilities where animal or
other waste materials are digested or
otherwise used to displace 90 percent of
more of the fossil fuel normally used in
the production of ethanol.
Of the 60 forecasted plants, only one
is expected to meet the definition of
‘‘cellulosic biomass ethanol’’ based on
feedstocks. The planned 108 MMgal/yr
facility would start off processing corn
and then transition into processing
bagasse, rice hulls, and wood (cellulosic
feedstocks). It is unclear as to whether
this facility would be processing
cellulosic material by 2013, however
there are several other facilities that
could potentially meet the Act’s
definition of cellulosic ethanol based on
plant energy sources. In total, there are
seven ethanol plants that burn or plan
to burn renewable feedstocks to generate
steam for their processes. As shown in
Table VI.A.1–2, two existing plants burn
renewable feedstocks. One plant burns a
combination of coal and biomass and
the other burns syrup from the
production process. Together these
existing plants have a combined ethanol
production capacity of 99 MMgal/yr.
Additionally, there are four under
construction ethanol plants which plan
to burn renewable fuels. One plant
plans to burn a combination of coal and
biomass, two plants plan to rely on
manure/syngas, and the other plans to
start up burning natural gas and then
transition to biomass. Together these
under construction facilities have a
combined ethanol production capacity
of 87 MMgal/yr. Finally, a planned 275
MMgal/yr ethanol production facility
plans to burn a combination of coal,
tires, and biomass. Depending on how
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
much fossil fuel is displaced by these
renewable feedstocks (on a plant-byplant basis), a portion or all of the
aforementioned ethanol production (up
to 461 MMgal/yr) could potentially
qualify as ‘‘cellulosic biomass ethanol’’
under the Act. Combined with the 108
MMgal/yr plant planning to process
renewable feedstocks, the total
cellulosic potential could be as high as
569 MMgal/yr in 2013. Even if only half
of this ethanol were to end up
qualifying as cellulosic biomass ethanol,
it would still be more than enough to
satisfy the Act’s cellulosic requirement
(250 million gallons).41
3. Current Ethanol and MTBE
Consumption
To understand the impact of the
increased ethanol production/use on
gasoline properties and in turn overall
air quality, we first need to gain a better
understanding of where ethanol is used
today and how the picture is going to
change in the future. As such, in
addition to the production analysis
presented above, we have completed a
parallel consumption analysis
comparing current ethanol consumption
to future predictions.
In the 2004 base case, 3.5 billion
gallons of ethanol 42 and 1.9 billion
gallons of MTBE 43 were blended into
gasoline to supply the transportation
sector with a total of 136 billion gallons
of gasoline.44 A breakdown of the 2004
gasoline and oxygenate consumption by
PADD is found below in Table VI. A.3–
1.
41 We anticipate a ramp-up in cellulosic ethanol
production in the years to come so that capacity
exists to satisfy the 2013 Act’s requirement (250
million gallons of cellulosic biomass ethanol).
Therefore, for subsequent analysis purposes, we
have assumed that 250 million gallons of ethanol
would come from cellulosic biomass sources by
2012.
42 EIA Monthly Energy Review, June 2006 (Table
10.1: Renewable Energy Consumption by Source,
Appendix A: Thermal Conversion Factors).
43 File containing historical RFG MTBE usage
obtained from EIA representative on March 9, 2006.
44 EIA 2004 Petroleum Marketing Annually (Table
48: Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55603
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI.A.3–1.—2004 U.S. GASOLINE & OXYGENATE CONSUMPTION BY PADD
MTBE a
Ethanol
Gasoline
MMgal
PADD
MMgal
Percent
MMgal
Percent
PADD 1 ....................................................................................................
PADD 2 ....................................................................................................
PADD 3 ....................................................................................................
PADD 4 ....................................................................................................
PADD 5 b ..................................................................................................
California ..................................................................................................
49,193
38,789
20,615
4,542
7,918
14,836
660
1,616
79
83
209
853
1.34
4.17
0.38
1.83
2.63
5.75
1,360
1
498
0
19
0
2.76
0.00
2.42
0.00
0.23
0.00
Total ..................................................................................................
135,893
3,500
2.58
1,878
1.38
a MTBE
b PADD
blended into RFG.
5 excluding California.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
As shown above, nearly half (or about
45 percent) of the ethanol was
consumed in PADD 2 gasoline, not
surprisingly, where the majority of
ethanol was produced. The next highest
region of use was the State of California
which accounted for about 25 percent of
domestic ethanol consumption. This is
reasonable because California alone
accounts for over 10 percent of the
nation’s total gasoline consumption and
all the fuel (both Federal RFG and
California Phase 3 RFG) has been
assumed to contain ethanol (following
their recent MTBE ban) at 5.7 volume
percent.45 The bulk of the remaining
ethanol was used in reformulated
gasoline (RFG) and winter oxy-fuel areas
requiring oxygenated gasoline. Overall,
62 percent of ethanol was used in RFG,
33 percent was used in CG, and 5
percent was used in winter oxy-fuel.46
As shown above in Table VI.A.3–1, 99
percent of MTBE use occurred in
PADDs 1 and 3. This reflects the high
concentration of RFG areas in the
northeast (PADD 1) and the local
production of MTBE in the gulf coast
(PADD 3). PADD 1 receives a large
portion of its gasoline from PADD 3
refineries who either produce the fossilfuel based oxygenate or are closely
affiliated with MTBE-producing
petrochemical facilities in the area.
Overall, 100 percent of MTBE in 2004
was assumed to be used in reformulated
gasoline.47
In 2004, total ethanol use exceeded
MTBE use. Ethanol’s lead oxygenate
role is relatively new, however the trend
has been a work in progress over the
Gasoline by Grade, Formulation, PAD District, and
State).
45 Based on conversation with Dean Simeroth at
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
46 For the purpose of this analysis, except where
noted, the term pertains to Federal RFG plus
California Phase 3 RFG (CaRFG3) and Arizona
Clean Burning Gasoline (CBG).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
22:30 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
past few years. From 2001 to 2004,
ethanol consumption more than
doubled (from 1.7 to 3.5 billion gallons),
while MTBE use (in RFG) was virtually
cut in half (from 3.7 to 1.9 billion
gallons). A plot of oxygenate use over
the past decade is provided below in
Figure VI.A.3–1.
The nation’s transition to ethanol is
linked to states’’ responses to recent
environmental concerns surrounding
MTBE groundwater contamination.
Resulting concerns over drinking water
quality have prompted several states to
significantly restrict or completely ban
MTBE use in gasoline. At the time of
this analysis, 19 states had adopted
MTBE bans. A list of the states with
MTBE bans is provided in DRIA Table
2.1–4.
47 2004 MTBE consumption was obtained from
EIA. The data received was limited to states with
RFG programs, thus MTBE use was assumed to be
limited to RFG areas for the purpose of this
analysis.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
4. Expected Growth in Ethanol
Consumption
As mentioned above, ethanol demand
is expected to increase well beyond the
levels contained in the renewable fuels
standard (RFS) under the Act. With the
removal of the oxygenate mandate for
reformulated gasoline (RFG),49 all U.S.
refiners are expected to eliminate the
use of MTBE in gasoline as soon as
possible. In order to accomplish this
transition quickly (by 2006 or 2007 at
the latest) while maintaining gasoline
volume, octane, and mobile source air
toxics emission performance standards,
refiners are electing to blend ethanol
into virtually all of their RFG.50 This has
caused a dramatic increase in demand
for ethanol which, in 2006 is being met
by temporarily shifting large volumes of
ethanol out of conventional gasoline
48 Total ethanol use based on EIA Monthly Energy
Review, June 2006 (Table 10.1: Renewable Energy
Consumption by Source, Appendix A: Thermal
Conversion Factors). MTBE use in RFG also
provided by EIA (file received from EIA
representative on March 9, 2006). Reported 2004
MTBE use has been adjusted from 2.0 to 1.9 Bgal
based on assumption of timely implementation of
CA, CT, and NY MTBE bans on 1/1/04 (EIA
reported a slight delay and thus showed small
amounts of MTBE use in these states in 2004).
49 Energy Act Section 1504, promulgated on May
8, 2006 at 71 FR 26691.
50 Based on discussions with the refining
industry.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
and into RFG areas. By 2012, however,
ethanol production will have grown to
accommodate the removal of MTBE
without the need for such a shift from
conventional gasoline. More important
than the removal of MTBE over the long
term, however, is the impact that the
dramatic rise in the price of crude oil is
having on demand for renewable fuels,
both ethanol and biodiesel. This has
dramatically improved the economics
for renewable fuel use, leading to a
surge in demand that is expected to
continue. In the Annual Energy Outlook
(AEO) 2006, EIA forecasted that by
2012, total ethanol use (corn, cellulosic,
and imports) would be about 9.6 billion
gallons 51 and biodiesel use would be
about 0.3 billion gallons at a crude oil
price forecast of $47 per barrel. This
ethanol projection was not based on
what amount the market would demand
(which could be higher), but rather on
the amount that could be produced by
2012. Others are making similar
predictions, and as discussed above in
VI.A.2, production capacity would be
sufficient. Therefore, in assessing the
51 AEO 2006 Table 17 Renewable Energy
Consumption by Sector and Source shows 0.80
quadrillion BTUs of energy coming from ethanol in
2012. A parallel spreadsheet provided to EPA
shows 2012 total ethanol use as 628.7 thousand
bbls/day (which works out to be 9.64 billion
gallons/yr).
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
impacts of expanded use of renewable
fuels, we have chosen to evaluate two
different future ethanol consumption
levels, one reflecting the statutory
required minimum, and one reflecting
the higher levels projected by EIA. For
the statutory consumption scenario we
assumed 7.2 billion gallons of ethanol
(0.25 of which was assumed to be
cellulosic) and 0.3 billion gallons of
biodiesel. For the higher projected
renewable fuel consumption scenario,
we assumed 9.6 billion gallons of
ethanol (0.25 of which is once again
assumed to be cellulosic) and 0.3 billion
gallons of biodiesel. Although the actual
renewable fuel volumes consumed in
2012 may differ from both the required
and projected volumes, we believe that
these two scenarios provide a
reasonable range for analysis
purposes.52
In addition to modeling two different
future 2012 ethanol consumption levels,
two scenarios were considered based on
how refineries could potentially
respond to the recent removal of the
RFG oxygenate mandate. In both cases,
the impacted RFG areas did not change
52 As a comparison point for cost and emissions
analyses, a 2012 reference case of 3.9 billion gallons
of ethanol was also considered. The reference case
is described in Section II.A.1 (above) and a
complete derivation is contained in DRIA Section
2.1.3.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
EP22SE06.004
55604
55605
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
from the 2004 base case.53 In the
maximum scenario (‘‘max-RFG’’),
refineries would continue to add
oxygenate (ethanol) into all batches of
reformulated gasoline. In this case,
refineries currently blending MTBE (at
11 volume percent) would be expected
to replace it with ethanol (at 10 volume
percent). In the minimum scenario
(‘‘min-RFG’’), we predict some refineries
would respond by using less (or even
zero) ethanol in RFG based on the
minimum amount needed to meet
volume, octane, and/or total toxics
performance requirements. Applying
the max-RFG and min-RFG criteria
resulted in a total of four different 2012
ethanol consumption control cases:
1. 7.2 billion gallons of ethanol,
maximum amount used in RFG areas;
2. 7.2 billion gallons of ethanol,
minimum amount used in RFG areas;
3. 9.6 billion gallons of ethanol,
maximum amount used in RFG areas;
and
4. 9.6 billion gallons of ethanol,
minimum amount used in RFG areas.
The seasonal RFG assumptions
applied in 2012 (in terms of percent
ethanol marketshare) are summarized
below in Table VI.A.4–1. The rationale
behind these selected values are
explained in DRIA Section 2.1.4.2.
TABLE VI.A.4–1.—2012 RFG AREA ASSUMPTIONS
ETOH-blended gasoline (% market share) a
Max-RFG scenario
RFG areas
Min-RFG
scenario
PADD 1 ............................................................................................................................................
PADD 2 ............................................................................................................................................
PADD 3 ............................................................................................................................................
California b ........................................................................................................................................
Arizona c ...........................................................................................................................................
a Percent
b Pertains
c Pertains
Summer
(percent)
Winter
(percent)
Summer
(percent)
100
100
25
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
50
0
25
0
marketshare of E10, with the exception of California (E5.7 year-round) and Arizona (E5.7 summer only).
to both Federal RFG and California Phase 3. RFG.
to Arizona Clean Burning Gasoline (CBG).
Once we determined how much
ethanol was likely to be used in RFG
areas (by PADD), we systematically
allocated the remaining ethanol into
conventional gasoline. First it was
apportioned to winter oxy-fuel areas. In
the 2004 base case, there were 14 stateimplemented winter oxy-fuel programs
in 11 states. Of these programs, 9 were
required in response to non-attainment
with the CO National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 4 were
implemented to maintain CO attainment
status.54 By 2012, 4 areas are expected
to be redesignated to CO attainment
status and discontinue oxy-fuel use and
2 areas are predicted to discontinue
using oxy-fuel as a maintenance
strategy. Accordingly, a reduced amount
of ethanol was allocated to oxy-fuel
areas in 2012. The remaining ethanol
was distributed to conventional gasoline
(CG) in different states based on a
computed ethanol margin (rack gasoline
price minus ethanol delivered price
adjusted by miscellaneous subsidies/
penalties). The methodology is
described in DRIA Section 2.1.4.3.
The main difference in the four
resulting ethanol consumption scenarios
was how far the ethanol penetrated the
conventional gasoline pool. A summary
of the forecasted 2012 ethanol
consumption (by control case, fuel type
and season) is found in Table VI.A.4–2.
TABLE VI.A.4–2.—2012 FORECASTED U.S. ETHANOL CONSUMPTION BY SEASON
Ethanol consumption (MMgal)
2012 Control case
Summer
7.2
7.2
9.6
9.6
Bgal/Max-RFG ...............................................................
Bgal/Min-RFG ................................................................
Bgal/Max-RFG ...............................................................
Bgal/Min-RFG ................................................................
a Winter
OXY a
CG
Winter
1,269
2,144
2,356
3,223
Winter
1,537
2,571
2,830
3,881
72
72
73
73
RFG b
Summer
Total
Winter
1,932
244
1,941
246
2,389
2,168
2,400
2,178
Summer
3,201
2,388
4,297
3,468
Winter
3,999
4,812
5,303
6,132
oxy-fuel programs.
RFG plus Ca Phase 3 RFG and Arizona CBG.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
b Federal
As expected, the least amount of
ethanol was consumed in conventional
gasoline in the 7.2 billion gallon control
case when a maximum amount was
allocated to RFG. Similarly, the most
ethanol was consumed in CG in the 9.6
billion gallon control case when a
minimum amount was allocated to RFG.
For more information on the four
53 For a list of the Federal RFG areas, refer to
DRIA Table 2.2–1.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
resulting 2012 control cases, refer to
DRIA Section 2.1.4.6.
B. Overview of Biodiesel Industry and
Future Production/Consumption
1. Characterization of U.S. Biodiesel
Production/Consumption
Historically, the cost to make
biodiesel was an inhibiting factor to
54 Refer
PO 00000
production in the U.S. The cost to
produce biodiesel was high compared to
the price of petroleum derived diesel
fuel, even with consideration of the
benefits of subsidies and credits
provided by Federal and state programs.
Much of the demand occurred as a
result of mandates from states and local
municipalities, which required the use
to DRIA Table 2.1–2.
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55606
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
of biodiesel. However, over the past
couple years biodiesel production has
been increasing rapidly. The
combination of higher crude oil prices
and greater Federal tax subsidies has
created a favorable economic situation.
The Biodiesel Blenders Tax Credit
programs and the Commodity Credit
Commission Bio-energy Program, both
subsidize producers and offset
production costs. The Energy Policy Act
extended the Biodiesel Blenders Tax
Credit program to 2008. This credit
provides about one dollar per gallon in
the form of a Federal excise tax credit
to biodiesel blenders from virgin
vegetable oil feedstocks and 50 cents per
gallon to biodiesel produced from
recycled grease and animal fats. The
program was started in 2004 under the
American Jobs Act, spurring the
expansion of biodiesel production and
demand. Historical estimates and future
forecasts of biodiesel production in the
U.S. are presented in Table VI.B.1–1
below.
corresponding rapid expansion in
biodiesel production capacity.
Presently, there are 65 biodiesel plants
Million
in operation with an annual production
gallons
capacity of 395 million gallons per
per year
year.55 The majority of the current
5 production capacity was built in 2005,
15 and was first available to produce fuel
20 in the last quarter of 2005. Though
25 capacity has grown, historically the
91 biodiesel production capacity has far
150
414 exceeded actual production with only
303 10–30 percent of this being utilized to
make biodiesel, see Table VI.B.1–2.56
TABLE VI.B.1–1.—ESTIMATED
BIODIESEL PRODUCTION
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2012
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
Source: Historical data from 2001–2004 obtained from estimates from John Baize ‘‘ The
Outlook and Impact of Biodiesel on the Oilseeds Sector’’ USDA Outlook Conference 06.
Year 2005 data from USDA Bioenergy Program https://www.fsa.usda.gov/daco/bioenergy/
2005/FY2005ProductPayments, Year 2006
data from verbal quote based on projection by
NBB in June of 2006. Production data for
years 2007 and higher are from EIA’s AEO
2006.
With the increase in biodiesel
production, there has also been a
TABLE VI.B.1–2.—U.S. PRODUCTION CAPACITY HISTORYa
2001
Plants ...................................................................................................................................
Capacity (million gal/yr) .......................................................................................................
2002
9
50
2003
11
54
16
85
2004
22
157
2005
2006
45
290
53
354
a Capacity Data based on surveys conducted around the month of September for most years, though the 2006 information is based on survey
conducted in January 2006.
2. Expected Growth in U.S. Biodiesel
Production/Consumption
In addition to the 53 biodiesel plants
already in production, as of early 2006,
there were an additional 50 plants and
8 plant expansions in the construction
equity, permitting, conceptual design,
buying equipment) with a capacity of
755 million gallons/year. As shown in
Table VI.B.2–1, if all of this capacity
came to fruition, U.S. biodiesel capacity
would exceed 1.8 billion gallons.
phase, which when completed would
increase total biodiesel production
capacity to over one billion gallons per
year. Most of these plants should be
completed by early 2007. There were
also 36 more plants in various stages of
the preconstruction phase (i.e. raising
TABLE VI.B.2–1.—PROJECTED BIODIESEL PRODUCTION CAPACITY
Existing plants
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Number of plants .......................................................................................................................
Total Plant Capacity, MM Gallon/year .......................................................................................
For cost and emission analysis
purposes, three biodiesel usage cases
were considered: A 2004 base case, a
2012 reference case, and a 2012 control
case. The 2004 base case was formed
based on historical biodiesel usage (25
million gallons as summarized in Table
VI.B.1.1). The reference case was
computed by taking the 2004 base case
and growing it out to 2012 in a manner
consistent with the growth of gasoline.57
The resulting 2012 reference case
consisted of approximately 28 million
gallons of biodiesel. Finally, for the
2012 control case, forecasted biodiesel
use was assumed to be 300 million
gallons based on EIA’s AEO 2006 report
(rounded value from Table VI.B.1.1).
Unlike forecasted ethanol use, biodiesel
use was assumed to be constant at 300
million gallons under both the statutory
and higher projected renewable fuel
consumption scenarios described in
VI.A.4. EIA’s projection is based on the
55 NBB Survey April 28, 2006 ‘‘Commercial
Biodiesel Production Plants.’’
56 From Presentation ‘‘Biodiesel Production
Capacity,’’ by Leland Tong, National Biodiesel
Conference and Expo, February 7, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53
354
Construction
phase
Pre-construction
phase
58
714
36
754.7
assumption that the blender’s tax credit
is not renewed beyond 2008. If the tax
credit is renewed, the projection for
biodiesel demand would increase.
C. Feasibility of the RFS Program
Volume Obligations
This section examines whether there
are any feasibility issues associated with
the meeting the minimum renewable
fuel requirements of the Energy Act.
Issues are examined with respect to
57 EIA
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
Annual Energy Outlook 2006, Table 1.
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
renewable production capacity,
cellulosic ethanol production capacity,
and distribution system capability. Land
resource requirements are discussed in
Chapter 7 of the RIA.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
1. Production Capacity of Ethanol and
Biodiesel
As shown in sections VI.A. and VI.B.,
increases in renewable fuel production
capacity are already proceeding at a
pace significantly faster than required to
meet the 2012 mandate in the Act of 7.5
billion gallons. The combination of
ethanol and biodiesel plants in
existence and planned or under
construction is expected to provide a
total renewable fuel production capacity
of over 9.6 billion gallons by the end of
2012. Production capacity is expected to
continue to increase in response to
strong demand. We estimate that this
will require a maximum of 2,100
construction workers and 90 engineers
on a monthly basis through 2012.
2. Production Capacity of Cellulosic
Ethanol
Beginning in 2013, a minimum of 250
million gallons per year of cellulosic
ethanol must be used in gasoline. The
Act’s definition of cellulosic, however,
includes corn based ethanol as long as
greater than 90% of the process energy
was derived from animal wastes or other
waste materials. As discussed in section
VI.A. above, we believe that of the
ethanol plants currently in existence,
under construction, or in the final stages
of planning there is likely to be more
than 250 million gallons per year of
ethanol produced from plants which
meet these alternative definitions for
cellulosic ethanol.
However, this is not to say that
ethanol produced from cellulose will
not be part of the renewable supply by
2012. As far as we know there is
currently only one demonstration-level
cellulosic ethanol plant in operation in
North America; it produces 1 million
gallons of ethanol per year (Iogen a
privately held company, based in
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada). However, the
technology used to produce ethanol
from cellulosic feedstocks continues to
improve. With the grants made available
through the Energy Act, we expect
several cellulosic process plants will be
constructed and an ever increasing
effort will naturally be made to find
better, more efficient ways to produce
cellulosic ethanol.
To produce ethanol from cellulosic
feedstocks, pretreatment is necessary to
hydrolyze cellulosic and hemicellulosic
polymers and break down the lignin
sheath. In so doing, the structure of the
cellulosic feedstock is opened to allow
VerDate Aug<31>2005
22:30 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
efficient and effective enzyme
hydrolysis of the cellulose/
hemicellulose to glucose and xylose.
The central problem is that the a-linked
saccharide polymers in the cellulose/
hemicellulose structure prevent the
microbial fermentation reaction. By
comparison, when corn kernels are used
as feedstock, fermentation of the starch
produced from the corn kernels which
have a-linked saccharide polymers takes
place much more readily. An acid
hydrolysis process was developed to
pretreat cellulosic feedstocks (through
hydrolysis which breaks up the b-links),
but it continues to be prohibitively
expensive for producing ethanol.
Some technologies that are being
developed may solve some of the
problems associated with production of
ethanol from cellulosic sources.
Specifically, one problem with
cellulosic feedstocks is that the
hydrolysis reactions produce both
glucose, a six-carbon sugar, and xylose,
a five-carbon sugar (pentose sugar,
C5H10O5; sometimes called ‘‘wood
sugar’’). Early conversion technology
required different microbes to ferment
each sugar. Recent research has
developed better cellulose hydrolysis
enzymes and ethanol-fermenting
organisms. Now, glucose and xylose can
be co-fermented—hence, the presentday terminology: Weak-acid enzymatic
hydrolysis and co-fermentation. In
addition, several research groups, using
recently developed genome modifying
technology, have been able to produce
a variety of new or modified enzymes
and microbes that show promise for use
in a process known as weak-acid,
enzymatic-prehydrolysis.
Cellulosic biomass can come from a
variety of sources. Because the
conversion of cellulosic biomass to
ethanol has not yet been commercially
demonstrated, we cannot say at this
time which feedstocks are superior to
others. In particular, there is only one
cellulosic ethanol plant in North
America (Iogen, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada). To the best of our knowledge,
the technology that Iogen employs is not
yet fully developed or optimized.
Generally, the industry seems to be
moving toward a process that uses
dilute acid enzymatic prehydrolysis
with simultaneous saccharification
(enzymatic) and co-fermentation.
3. Renewable Fuel Distribution System
Capability
Ethanol and biodiesel blended fuels
are not shipped by petroleum product
pipeline due to operational issues and
additional cost factors. Hence, a
separate distribution system is needed
for ethanol and biodiesel up to the point
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55607
where they are blended into petroleumbased fuel as it is loaded into tank
trucks for delivery to retail and fleet
operators. In cases where ethanol and
biodiesel are produced within 200 miles
of a terminal, trucking is often the
preferred means of distribution. For
longer shipping distances, the preferred
method of bringing renewable fuels to
terminals is by rail and barge.
Modifications to the rail, barge, tank
truck, and terminal distribution systems
will be needed to support the transport
of the anticipated increased volumes of
renewable fuels. These modifications
include the addition of terminal
blending systems for ethanol and
biodiesel, additional storage tanks at
terminals, additional rail delivery
systems at terminals for ethanol and
biodiesel, and additional rail cars,
barges, and tank trucks to distribute
ethanol and biodiesel to terminals.
Terminal storage tanks for 100 percent
biodiesel will also need to be heated
during cold months to prevent gelling.
In the past the refining industry has
raised concerns regarding whether the
distribution infrastructure can expand
rapidly enough to accommodate the
increased demand for ethanol. The most
comprehensive study of the
infrastructure requirements for an
expanded fuel ethanol industry was
conducted for the Department of Energy
(DOE) in 2002.58 The conclusions
reached in that study indicate that the
changes needed to handle the
anticipated increased volume of ethanol
by 2012 will not represent a major
obstacle to industry. While some
changes have taken place since this
report was issued, including an
increased reliance on rail over marine
transport, we continue to believe that
the rail and marine transportation
industries can manage the increased
growth in demand in an orderly fashion.
This belief is supported by the
demonstrated ability for the industry to
handle the rapid increases and
redistribution of ethanol use across the
country over the last several years as
MTBE was removed. The necessary
facility changes at terminals and at retail
stations to dispense ethanol containing
fuels have been occurring at a record
pace. Given that future growth is
expected to progress at a steadier pace
and with greater advance warning in
response to economic drivers, we
anticipate that the distribution system
will be able to respond appropriately. A
discussion of the costs associated
making the changes discussed above is
58 ‘‘Infrastructure Requirements for an Expanded
Fuel Ethanol Industry,’’ Downstream Alternatives
Inc., January 15, 2002.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55608
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
contained in section VII.B. of this
preamble.
VII. Impacts on Cost of Renewable
Fuels and Gasoline
This section examines the impact on
fuel costs resulting from the growth in
renewable fuel use between a base year
of 2004 and 2012. We note that based
on analyses conducted by the Energy
Information Administration (EIA),
renewable fuels will be used in gasoline
and diesel fuel in excess and
independent of the RFS requirements.
As such, the changes in the use of
renewable fuels and their related cost
impacts are not directly attributable to
the RFS rule. Rather, our analysis
assesses the broader fuels impacts of the
growth in renewable fuel use in the
context of corresponding changes to the
makeup of gasoline. These fuel impacts
include the elimination of the
reformulated gasoline (RFG) oxygen
standard which has resulted in the
refiners ceasing to use the gasoline
blendstock methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE) and replacing it with ethanol.
We also expect that by ending the use
of MTBE that the former MTBE
feedstock, isobutylene, will be reused to
produce increased volumes of alkylate,
a moderate to high octane gasoline
blendstock. Thus, in this analysis, we
are assessing the impact on the cost of
gasoline and diesel fuel of increased use
of renewable fuels, the cost savings
resulting from the phase out of MTBE
and the increased cost due to the
production of alkylate.
As discussed in section II., we chose
to analyze a range of renewable fuels
use. In the case of ethanol’s use in
gasoline, the lower end of this range is
based on the minimum renewable fuel
volume requirements in the Act, and the
higher end is based on AEO 2006. At
both ends of this range, we assume that
biodiesel consumption will be the level
estimated in AEO 2006. We analyzed
the projected fuel consumption scenario
and associated program costs in 2012,
the year that the RFS is fully phased-in.
The volumes of renewable fuels
consumed in 2012 at the two ends of the
range are summarized in Table VII–1.
TABLE VII–1.—RENEWABLE FUELS VOLUMES USED IN COST ANALYSIS
Renewable fuels
consumption in 2012
(billion gallons)
Low
Corn Ethanol ..........................................................................................................................................................
Cellulosic Ethanol ..................................................................................................................................................
Biodiesel ................................................................................................................................................................
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Total Biofuel Consumption .............................................................................................................................
We have estimated an average corn
ethanol production cost of $1.20 per
gallon in 2012 (2004 dollars) in the case
of 7.5 billion gallons per year (bill gal/
yr) and $1.26 per gallon in the case of
9.9 bill gal/yr. For cellulosic ethanol, we
estimate it will cost approximately
$1.65 in 2012 (2004 dollars) to produce
a gallon of ethanol using corn stover as
a cellulosic feedstock. In this analysis,
however, we assume that the cellulosic
requirement will be met by corn-based
ethanol produced by energy sourced
from biomass (animal and other waste
materials as discussed in Section III.B of
this preamble) and costing the same as
corn based ethanol produced by
conventional means.
We estimated production costs for
soy-derived biodiesel of $2.06 per gallon
in 2004 and $1.89 per gal in 2012. For
yellow grease derived biodiesel, we
estimate an average production cost of
$1.19 per gallon in 2004 and $1.10 in
2012.
The impacts on overall gasoline costs
with and without fuel consumption
subsidies resulting from the increased
use of ethanol and the corresponding
changes to the other aspects of gasoline
were estimated for both of these cases.
The 7.5 bill gal/yr case would result in
increased total costs which range from
0.33 cents to 0.41 cents per gallon
depending on assumptions with respect
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
to ethanol use in RFG and butane
control constraints. The 9.9 bill gal/yr
case would result in increased total
costs which range from 0.93 to 1.05
cents per gallon. The actual cost at the
fuel pump, however, will be decreased
due the effect of State and Federal tax
subsidies for ethanol. Taking this into
consideration results in ‘‘at the pump’’
decreased costs (cost savings) ranging
from 0.82 to 0.89 cents per gallon for the
7.5 bill gal/yr case and ‘‘at the pump’’
decreased costs ranging from 0.98 to
1.08 cents per gallon for the 9.9 bill gal/
yr case. We ask for comment on these
derived costs as well as on the analysis
methodology used to derive these costs,
and refer the reader to Section 7 of the
DRIA which contains much more detail
on the cost analysis used to develop
these costs.
A. Renewable Fuel Production and
Blending Costs
1. Ethanol Production Costs
a. Corn Ethanol. A significant amount
of work has been done in the last decade
on surveying and modeling the costs
involved in producing ethanol from
corn, to serve business and investment
purposes as well as to try to educate
energy policy decisions. Corn ethanol
costs for our work were estimated using
a model developed by USDA in the
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
High
6.95
0.25
0.30
9.35
0.25
0.30
7.5
9.90
1990s that has been continuously
updated by USDA. The most current
version was documented in a peerreviewed journal paper on cost
modeling of the dry-grind corn ethanol
process,59 and it produces results that
compare well with cost information
found in surveys of existing plants.60
We made some minor modifications to
the USDA model to allow scaling of the
plant size, to allow consideration of
plant energy sources other than natural
gas, and to adjust for energy prices in
2012, the year of our analysis.
The cost of ethanol production is
most sensitive to the prices of corn and
the primary co-product, DDGS. Utilities,
capital, and labor expenses also have an
impact, although to a lesser extent. Corn
feedstock minus DDGS sale credits
represents about 50% of the final pergallon cost, while utilities, capital and
labor comprise about 20%, 10%, and
5%, respectively. For this work, we
used corn price projections from USDA
of $2.23 per bushel in 2012 for the 7.2
bill gal/yr case, and an adjusted value of
$2.31 per bushel for the 9.6 bill gal/yr
59 Kwaitkowski, J.R., McAloon, A., Taylor, F.,
Johnston, D.B., Industrial Crops and Products 23
(2006) 288–296.
60 Shapouri, H., Gallagher, P., USDA’s 2002
Ethanol Cost-of-Production Survey (published July
2005).
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
case.61 The adjustment at the higher
volume case was taken from work done
by FAPRIand EIA. 62 63 Prices used for
DDGS were $65 per ton in the 7.2 bill
gal/yr case and $55 per ton in the 9.6
case, based on work by FAPRI and
EIA.64 Energy prices were derived from
historical data and projected to 2012
using EIA’s AEO 2006.65 While we
believe the use of USDA and FAPRI
estimates for corn and DDGS prices is
reasonable, additional modeling work is
being done for the final rulemaking
using the Forestry and Agricultural
Sector Optimization Model described
further in Chapter 8 of the RIA.
The estimated average corn ethanol
production cost of $1.20 per gallon in
2012 (2004 dollars) in the case of 7.2 bill
gal/yr and $1.26 per gallon in the case
of 9.6 bill gal/yr represents the full cost
to the plant operator, including
purchase of feedstocks, energy required
for operations, capital depreciation,
labor, overhead, and denaturant, minus
revenue from sale of co-products. It does
not account for any subsidies on
production or sale of ethanol. This cost
is independent of the market price of
ethanol, which has been related closely
to the wholesale price of gasoline for the
past decade.66 67
Under the Energy Act, starch-based
ethanol can be counted as cellulosic if
at least 90% of the process energy is
derived from renewable feedstocks,
which include plant cellulose,
municipal solid waste, and manure
biogas.68 It is expected that the 250
million gallons per year of cellulosic
ethanol production required by 2013
will be made using this provision.
While we have been unable to develop
a detailed production cost estimate for
61 USDA Agricultural Baseline Projections to
2015, Report OCE–2006–1.
62 EIA NEMS model for ethanol production,
updated for AEO 2006.
63 Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute
(FAPRI) study entitled ‘‘Implications of Increased
Ethanol Production for U.S. Agriculture’’, FAPRI–
UMC Report #10–05.
64 Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute
(FAPRI) U.S. and World Agricultural Outlook,
January 2006, FAPRI Staff Report 06–FSR 1.
65 Historical data at https://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/
pet/pet_pri_allmg_d_nus_PTA_cpgal_m.htm
(gasoline), https://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/
ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm (natural gas), https://
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/
sales_revenue.xls (electricity), https://
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table28.html
(coal); EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006, Tables 8,
12, 13, 15; EIA Web site.
66 Whims, J., Sparks Companies, Inc. and Kansas
State University, ‘‘Corn Based Ethanol Costs and
Margins, Attachment 1’’ (Published May 2002).
67 Piel, W.J., Tier & Associates, Inc., March 9,
2006 report on costs of ethanol production and
alternatives.
68 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 1501
amending Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(1)(A).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
corn ethanol meeting cellulosic criteria,
we assume that the costs will not be
significantly different from
conventionally produced corn ethanol.
We believe this is reasonable because
these processes will simply be corn
ethanol plants with additional fuel
handling mechanisms that allow them
to combust waste materials for process
energy instead of natural gas. We expect
them to be in locations where the very
low or zero cost of the waste material or
biogas itself will likely offset the costs
of hauling it and/or the additional
capital for processing and firing it,
making them cost-competitive with
conventional corn ethanol plants.
Furthermore, because the quantity of
ethanol produced using these processes
is still expected to be a relatively small
fraction of the total ethanol demand, the
sensitivity of the overall analysis to this
assumption is also very small. Based on
these factors, we have assigned starch
ethanol made using this cellulosic
criteria the same cost as ethanol
produced from corn using conventional
means.
b. Cellulosic Ethanol. In 1999, the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) published a report outlining its
work with the USDA to design a
computer model of a plant to produce
ethanol from hardwood chips.69
Although the model was originally
prepared for hardwood chips, it was
meant to serve as a modifiable-platform
for ongoing research using cellulosic
biomass as feedstock to produce
ethanol. Their long-term plan was that
various indices, costs, technologies, and
other factors would be regularly
updated.
NREL and USDA used a modified
version of the model to compare the cost
of using corn-grain with the cost of
using corn stover to produce ethanol.
We used the corn stover model from the
second NREL/USDA study for the
analysis for this proposed rule. Because
there were no operating plants that
could potentially provide real world
process design, construction, and
operating data for processing cellulosic
ethanol, NREL had considered modeling
the plant based on assumptions
associated with a first-of-a-kind or
pioneer plant. The literature indicates
that such models often underestimate
actual costs since the high performance
69 Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process
Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute
Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis
Current and Futuristic Scenarios, Robert Wooley,
Mark Ruth, John Sheehan, and Kelly Ibsen,
Biotechnology Center for Fuels and Chemicals
Henry Majdeski and Adrian Galvez, Delta-T
Corporation; National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, CO, July 1999, NREL/TP–580–
26157.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55609
assumed for pioneer process plants is
generally unrealistic.
Instead, the NREL researchers
assumed that the corn stover plant was
an Nth generation plant, e.g., not a
pioneer plant or first-or-its kind, built
after the industry had been sufficiently
established to provide verified costs.
The corn stover plant was normalized to
the corn kernel plant, e.g., placed on a
similar basis.70 It is also reasonable to
expect that the cost of cellulosic ethanol
would be higher than corn ethanol
because of the complexity of the
cellulose conversion process. Recently,
process improvements and
advancements in corn production have
considerably reduced the cost of
producing corn ethanol. We also believe
it is realistic to assume that cellulosederived ethanol process improvements
will be made and that one can likewise
reasonably expect that as the industry
matures, the cost of producing ethanol
from cellulose will also decrease.
We calculated fixed and variable
operating costs using percentages of
direct labor and total installed capital
costs. Following this methodology, we
estimate that producing a gallon of
ethanol using corn stover as a cellulosic
feedstock would cost $1.65 in 2012
(2004 dollars).
c. Ethanol’s Blending Cost. Ethanol
has a high octane value of 115 (R+M)/
2 which contributes to its value as a
gasoline blendstock. As the volume of
ethanol blended into gasoline increases
from 2004 to 2012, refiners will account
for the octane provided by ethanol when
they plan their gasoline production.
This additional octane would allow
them to back off of their octane
production from their other gasoline
producing units resulting in a cost
savings to the refinery. For this cost
analysis, the cost savings is expressed as
a cost credit to ethanol added to the
production cost for producing ethanol.
We obtained gasoline blending costs
on a PADD basis for octane from a
consultant who conducted a cost
analysis for a renewable fuels program
using an LP refinery cost model. LP
refinery models value the cost of octane
based on the octane producing capacity
for the refinery’s existing units, by
70 Determining the Cost of Producing Ethanol
from Corn Starch and Lignocellulosic Feedstocks; A
Joint Study Sponsored by: USDA and USDOE,
October 2000, NREL/TP–580–28893, Andrew
McAloon, Frank Taylor, Winnie Yee, USDA,
Eastern Regional Research Center Agricultural
Research Service; Kelly Ibsen, Robert Wooley,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Biotechnology Center for Fuels and Chemicals,
1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, CO 80401–3393;
NREL is a USDOE Operated by Midwest Research
Institute Battelle Bechtel; Contract No. DE–AC36–
99–GO10337.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55610
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
added capital and operating costs for
new octane producing capacity, and
based on purchased gasoline
blendstocks. The value of octane is
expressed as a per-gallon cost per octane
value, and ranges from 0.38 cents per
octane-gallon in PADD 2 where lots of
ethanol is expected to be used, to 1.43
cents per octane-gallon in California.
Octane is more costly in California
because the Phase 3 RFG standards
restriction aromatics content which also
reduces the use of a gasoline blendstock
named reformate—a relatively cheap
source of octane. Also, California’s
Phase 3 RFG distillation restrictions
tend to limit the volume of eight carbon
alkylate, another lower cost and
moderately high octane blendstock.
Another blending factor for ethanol is
its energy content. Ethanol contains a
lower heat content per gallon than
gasoline. Since refiners blend up their
gasoline based on volume, they do not
consider the energy content of its
gasoline, only its price. Instead, the
consumer pays for a gasoline’s energy
density based on the distance that the
consumer can achieve on a gallon of
gasoline. Since we try to capture all the
costs of using ethanol, we consider this
effect. Ethanol contains 76,000 British
Thermal Units (BTU) per gallon which
is significantly lower than gasoline,
which contains an average of 115,000
BTUs per gallon. This lower energy
density is accounted for below in the
discussion of the gasoline costs.
2. Biodiesel Production Costs
We based our cost to produce
biodiesel fuel on a range estimated from
the use of USDA’s and NREL’s biodiesel
computer models. Both of these models
represent the continuous
transesterification process for
converting vegetable soy oil to esters,
along with the ester finishing processes
and glycerol recovery. The models
estimate biodiesel production costs
using prices for soy oil, methanol,
chemicals and the byproduct glycerol.
The models estimate the capital, fixed
and operating costs associated with the
production of soy based biodiesel fuel,
considering utility, labor, land and any
other process and operating
requirements.
Each model is based on a medium
sized biodiesel plant that was designed
to process raw degummed virgin soy oil
as the feedstock, yielding 10 million
gallons per year of biodiesel fuel. USDA
estimated the equipment needs and
operating requirements for their
biodiesel plant through the use of
process simulation software. This
software determines the biodiesel
process requirements based on the use
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
of established engineering relationships,
process operating conditions and
reagent needs. To substantiate the
validity and accuracy of their model,
USDA solicited feedback from major
biodiesel producers. Based on
responses, they then made adjustments
to their model. The NREL model is also
based on process simulation software,
though the results are adjusted to reflect
NREL’s modeling methods.
The production costs are based on an
average biodiesel plant located in the
Midwest using soy oil and methanol,
which are catalyzed into esters and
glycerol by use of sodium hydroxide.
Because local feedstock costs,
distribution costs, and biodiesel plant
type introduce some variability into cost
estimates, we believe that using an
average plant to estimate production
costs provides a reasonable approach.
Therefore, we simplified our analysis
and used costs based on an average
plant and average feedstock prices since
the total biodiesel volumes forecasted
are not large and represent a small
fraction of the total projected renewable
volumes. The production costs are
based on a plant that makes 10 million
gallons per year of biodiesel fuel.
The model is further modified to use
input prices for the feedstocks,
byproducts and energy prices to reflect
the effects of the fuels provisions in the
Energy Act. Based on the USDA model,
for soy oil-derived biodiesel we estimate
a production cost of $2.06 per gallon in
2004 and $1.89 per gal in 2012 (in 2004
dollars) For yellow grease derived
biodiesel, USDA’s model estimates an
average production cost of $1.19 per
gallon in 2004 and $1.10 in 2012 (in
2004 dollars). In order to capture a range
of production costs, we compared these
cost projections to those derived from
the NREL biodiesel model. With the
NREL model, we estimate biodiesel
production cost of $2.11 per gallon for
soy oil feedstocks and $1.28 per gallon
for yellow grease in 2012, which are
slightly higher than the USDA results.
With the current Biodiesel Blender
Tax Credit Program, producers using
virgin vegetable oil stocks receive a one
dollar per gallon tax subsidy while
yellow grease producers receive 50
cents per gallon, reducing the net
production cost to a range of 89 to 111
cents per gallon for soy derived
biodiesel and 60 to 78 cents per gallon
for yellow grease biodiesel in 2012. This
compares favorably to the projected
wholesale diesel fuel prices of 138 cents
per gallon in 2012, signifying that the
economics for biodiesel are positive
under the effects of the blender credit
program, though, the tax credit program
expires in 2008 if not extended.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Congress may later elect to extend the
blender credit program, though,
following the precedence used for
extending the ethanol blending
subsidies. Additionally, the Small
Biodiesel Blenders Tax credit program
and state tax and credit programs offer
some additional subsidies and credits,
though the benefits are modest in
comparison to the Blender’s Tax credit.
3. Diesel Fuel Costs
Biodiesel fuel is blended into
highway and nonroad diesel fuel, which
increases the volume and therefore the
supply of diesel fuel and thereby
reduces the demand for refineryproduced diesel fuel. In this section, we
estimate the overall cost impact,
considering how much refinery-based
diesel fuel is displaced by the forecasted
production volume of biodiesel fuel.
The cost impacts are evaluated
considering the production cost of
biodiesel with and without the subsidy
from the Biodiesel Blenders Tax credit
program. Additionally, the diesel cost
impacts are quantified under two
scenarios, with refinery diesel prices as
forecasted by EIA’s AEO 2006 with
crude at $47 a barrel and with refinery
diesel prices based on $70 per barrel
crude oil.
We estimate the net effect that
biodiesel production has on overall cost
for diesel fuel in year 2012 using total
production costs for biodiesel and diesel
fuel. The costs are evaluated based on
how much refinery-based diesel fuel is
displaced by the biodiesel volumes as
forecasted by EIA, accounting for energy
density differences between the fuels.
The cost impact is estimated from a
2004 year basis, by multiplying the
production costs of each fuel by the
respective changes in volumes for
biodiesel and estimated displaced diesel
fuel. We further assume that all of the
forecasted biodiesel volume is used as
transport fuel, neglecting minor uses in
the heating oil market.
For the AEO scenario, the net effect of
biodiesel production on diesel fuel
costs, including the biodiesel blenders’
subsidy, is a reduction in the cost of
transport diesel fuel costs by $90
million per year, which equates to a
reduction in fuel cost of about 0.15
c/gal.71 Without the subsidy, the
transport diesel fuel costs are increased
by $118 million per year, or an increase
of 0.20 c/gal for transport diesel fuel.
With crude at $70 per barrel, including
the biodiesel blenders subsidy, results
in a cost reduction of $184 million per
71 Based on EIA’s AEO 2006, the total volume of
highway and off-road diesel fuel consumed in 2012
was estimated at 58.9 billion gallons.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
year, or a reduction of 0.31 c/gal for the
total transport diesel pool. Without the
subsidy, transport diesel costs are
increased by $25 million per year, or
0.04 c/gal.
B. Distribution Costs
1. Ethanol Distribution Costs
There are two components to the costs
associated with distributing the volumes
of ethanol necessary to meet the
requirements of the Renewable Fuels
Standard (RFS): (1) the capital cost of
making the necessary upgrades to the
fuel distribution infrastructure system,
and (2) the ongoing additional freight
costs associated with shipping ethanol
to terminals. The most comprehensive
study of the infrastructure requirements
for an expanded fuel ethanol industry
was conducted for the Department of
Energy (DOE) in 2002.72 That study
provided the foundation our estimates
of the capital costs associated with
upgrading the distribution infrastructure
system as well as the freight costs to
handle the increased volume of ethanol
needed to meet the requirements of the
RFS in 2012. Distribution costs are
evaluated here for the case where the
minimum volume of ethanol is used to
meet the requirements of the RFS (7.2
bill gal/yr) and for the projected case
where the volume of ethanol used is 9.6
bill gal/yr. The 2012 reference case
against which we are estimating the cost
of distributing the additional volume of
ethanol needed to meet the
requirements of the RFS is 3.9 billion
gallons.
a. Capital Costs To Upgrade
Distribution System For Increased
Ethanol Volume. The 2002 DOE study
examined two cases regarding the use of
renewable fuels for estimating the
capital costs for distributing additional
ethanol. The first assumed that 5.1 bill
55611
gal/yr of ethanol would be used in 2010,
and the second assumed that 10 bill gal/
yr of ethanol would be used in the 2015
timetable. We interpolated between
these two cases to provide an estimate
of the capital costs to support the use of
7.2 bill gal/yr of ethanol in 2012.73 The
10 bill gal/yr case examined in the DOE
study was used to represent the
projected case examined in today’s rule
of 9.6 bill gal/yr of ethanol.74 Table
VII.B.1.a–1 contains our estimates of the
infrastructure changes and associated
capital costs for the two ethanol use
scenarios examined in today’s rule.
Amortized over 15 years, the total
capital costs equate to approximately
one cent per gallon. We performed a
sensitivity analysis where we increased
reliance on rail use at the expense of
barge use in transporting ethanol. The
costs were relatively insensitive,
increasing to just 1.1 cents per gallon.
TABLE VII.B.1.A–1.—ESTIMATED ETHANOL DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL COSTS ($M) RELATIVE TO A 3.9
BILLION GALLON PER YEAR REFERENCE CASE
7.2 billion
gallons
(per year)
9.6 billion
gallons
(per year)
Fixed Facilities:
Retail .................................................................................................................................................................
Terminals ..........................................................................................................................................................
Mobile Facilities:
Transport Trucks ..............................................................................................................................................
Barges ..............................................................................................................................................................
Rail Cars ...........................................................................................................................................................
24
142
44
246
38
30
104
50
52
161
Total Capital Costs ....................................................................................................................................
317
542
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
b. Ethanol Freight Costs. The DOE
study contains ethanol freight costs for
each of the 5 PADDs. The Energy
Information Administration translated
these cost estimates to a census division
basis.75 We took the EIA projections and
translated them into State-by-State
ethanol freight costs. In conducting this
translation, we accounted for increases
in the cost in transportation fuels used
to ship ethanol by truck, rail, and barge.
We estimate that the freight cost to
transport ethanol to terminals would
range from 5 cents per gallon in the
Midwest, to 18 cents per gallon to the
West Coast, which averages 9.2 cents
per gallon of ethanol on a national basis.
We estimate the total cost for
producing and distributing ethanol to be
72 Infrastructure Requirements for an Expanded
Fuel Ethanol Industry, Downstream Alternatives
Inc., January 15, 2002.
73 See Chapter 7.3 of the Draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis associated with today’s rule for additional
discussion of how the results of the DAI study were
adjusted to reflect current conditions in estimating
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
between $1.30 and $1.36 per gallon of
ethanol, on a nationwide average basis.
This estimate includes both the capital
costs to upgrade the distribution system
and freight costs.
The volume of biodiesel used by 2012
under the RFS is estimated at 300
million gallons per year. The 2012
baseline case against which we are
estimating the cost of distributing the
additional volume of biodiesel is 28
million gallons.76
For the purposes of this analysis, we
are assuming that to ensure consistent
operations under cold conditions all
terminals will install heated biodiesel
storage tanks and biodiesel will be
transported to terminals in insulated
tank trucks and rail cars in the cold
seasons.77 Due to the developing nature
of the biodiesel industry, specific
information on biodiesel freight costs is
lacking. The need to protect biodiesel
from gelling during the winter may
marginally increase freight costs over
those for ethanol. Counterbalancing this
is the likelihood that biodiesel shipping
distances may be somewhat shorter due
to the more geographically dispersed
nature of biodiesel production facilities.
In any event, the potential difference
between biodiesel and ethanol freight
costs is likely to be small and the cost
of distributing biodiesel does not
appreciably affect the results of our
analysis. Therefore, we believe that
the ethanol distribution infrastructure capital costs
under today’s rule.
74 For both the 7.2 bill gal/yr and 9.6 bill gal/yr
cases, the baseline from which the DOE study cases
were projected was adjusted to reflect a 3.9 bill gal/
yr 2012 baseline.
75 Petroleum Market Model of the National Energy
Modeling System, Part 2, March 2006, DOE/EIA–
059 (2006), https://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/
modeldoc/m059(2006)-2.pdf.
76 2004 baseline of 25 million gallons grown with
diesel demand to 2012.
77 See section VI.C. in today’s preamble regarding
the special handling requirements for biodiesel
under cold conditions.
2. Biodiesel Distribution Costs
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55612
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
estimated freight costs for ethanol of 9.2
cents per gallon adequately reflects the
freight costs for biodiesel for this
analysis.
The capital costs associated with
distribution of biodiesel will be
somewhat higher per gallon than those
associated with the distribution of
ethanol due to the need for storage
tanks, barges, tanker trucks and rail cars
to be insulated and in many cases
heated. We estimate that to handle the
increased biodiesel volume will require
a total capital cost investment of
$49,813,000, which equates to about 2
cents per gallon of new biodiesel
volume.
We estimate the total cost for
producing and distributing biodiesel to
be between $2.00 and $2.22 per gallon
of biodiesel, on a nationwide average
basis. This estimate includes both the
capital costs to upgrade the distribution
system and freight costs.
C. Estimated Costs to Gasoline
To estimate the cost of increased use
of renewable fuels, the cost savings from
the phase out of MTBE and the
production cost of alkylate, we
developed our own spreadsheet cost
model. As described above in Section
VI.A, the cost analysis is conducted by
comparing a base year before the Energy
Act’s fuel changes to a modeled year
with the fuel changes. We used 2004 as
the base year. We grew the 2004
gasoline demand to 2012 to create a
reference case assuming that the 2004
fuel demand scenario remained the
same (fuel quality remained constant).
The sum of fuel changes, including the
increased use of ethanol, the phase-out
of MTBE and the conversion of a part
of the MTBE feedstocks to alkylate, is all
assumed to occur by 2012 and is
compared to the 2012 reference case.
This analysis considers the production
cost, distribution cost as well as the cost
for balancing the octane and RVP
caused by these fuel changes.
In addition to assessing the cost at 7.2
and 9.6 billion gallons of total ethanol
use in gasoline, we considered that
ethanol could be used at different levels
in RFG. Instead of picking a single point
for ethanol use in RFG, we assessed a
range (see Section VI.A above). At the
high end of the range, ethanol is used
in RFG in both summer and winter. At
the low end of the range, ethanol is still
used in wintertime RFG, but to only a
very limited extent in summertime RFG.
The lower rate of ethanol use in
summertime RFG may occur because
the RVP increase associated with
ethanol will cause refiners to incur a
cost to further control the volatility of
their summertime RFG.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
1. RVP Cost for Blending Ethanol Into
Summertime RFG
Blending ethanol into summertime
RFG causes about a 1 PSI (pounds per
square inch) increase in RVP. To enable
this gasoline to continue to be sold into
the summertime RFG market, this vapor
pressure increase must be accounted for
by adjusting the RVP of the base
gasoline. The vapor pressure adjustment
is made by reducing of volume of
pentanes in the gasoline boiling that
comes from the fluid catalytic cracking
unit (FCCU). To reduce the pentane
content FCC naphtha, refiners would
likely have to add a distillation column
called a depentanizer, where pentanes
and lighter hydrocarbons are removed
from the hydrocarbon feed and drawn
off the top of the column while the
heavier C6+ hydrocarbons are removed
from the bottom. While the pentanes
would be removed from the
summertime RFG pool, they are
expected to be reblended into either
summertime CG or wintertime CG and
RFG. To rebalance the RVP of the
nonsummertime RFG pool or
wintertime RFG or CG pool caused by
relocated pentanes, butanes are
estimated to be removed from the
gasoline pool. When ethanol is blended
into summertime RFG, about 10 percent
of the base gasoline is lost due to the
removed pentanes. We believe that
refiners would reblend these removed
pentanes into summertime CG or
wintertime CG and RFG and rebalance
the RVP of the gasoline pool into which
the pentanes are being reblended by
removing butanes, thus reducing the
volume loss to one fifth of that if the
pentanes were permanently removed.
There is an opportunity cost to
removing butanes from gasoline. In 2004
butanes sold into the butane market
were valued 36 cents per gallon less
than gasoline, however, this opportunity
cost would be much greater if pentanes
were permanently removed from
gasoline.
We developed cost estimates for
adding and operating a new
depentanizer distillation column for the
removal of pentanes from FCC naphtha
in each refinery. The feed rate for an
average FCC unit was estimated by
PADD and ranged from 7 to 35 thousand
barrels per day. Once the capital and
operating costs were estimated, the total
costs were averaged over the entire
gasoline pool, which ranged from about
two to three times the volume of FCC
naphtha. When ethanol is being blended
newly into summertime RFG, the capital
and operating costs will both apply.
However, when we model ethanol
coming out of a summertime RFG
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
market, we only reduce the
depentanizer operating costs since the
capital costs are sunk.
Our analysis showed that the RVP
blending costs for blending ethanol into
summertime RFG ranges from 1 to 1.4
cents per gallon of RFG. If the ethanol
is coming out of summertime RFG,
which occurs in some of the scenarios
that we modeled, there would be a cost
savings of 0.8 to 1.2 cents per gallon of
RFG.
In the cost of refinery gasoline section
below, we took into account that
butanes have a lower energy density
compared to the gasoline pool from
which the butanes were removed. This
energy content adjustment will offset
some of the cost for removing the
butanes. Butane’s energy density is
94,000 BTUs per gallon compared to
115,000 BTU per gallon for gasoline.
For further details on RVP reduction
costs, see Section 7.4.2 of the RIA.
2. Cost Savings for Phasing Out Methyl
Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)
The Energy Act rescinded the oxygen
standard for RFG and when the
provision took effect, U.S. refiners
stopped blending MTBE into gasoline.
When MTBE use ended, the operating
costs for operating those plants also
ceased. The total costs saved for not
operating the MTBE plants is calculated
by multiplying the volume of MTBE no
longer blended into gasoline with the
operating costs for the plants producing
that MTBE.
We determined the operating costs
saved by shutting down these plants.
The volumetric feedstock demands and
the operating costs factors for each of
these MTBE plants are taken from
literature. We estimated the MTBE
operating costs to be $1.40 per gallon for
captive and ethylene cracker plants,
$1.48 per gallon for propylene oxide
plants and $1.55 per gallon for merchant
operating costs. Weighted by the
percentages for domestic MTBE
production, the average cost savings for
no longer producing MTBE is estimated
to be $1.46 per gallon.
We also credited MTBE for its octane
blending value. MTBE has a high octane
value of 110 (R+M)/2 which increases
its value compared to gasoline. This
high octane value partially offsets its
production cost. The cost of octane is
presented above in subsection
VII.(A)(1)(c) and is applied to the
difference in octane value between
MTBE and the average of the various
gasoline grades (88 (R+M)/2).
Accounting for MTBE’s octane value
reduces its cost down to $1.27 to $1.38
per gallon depending on the PADD.
When accounting for the volume of
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
blending octane of alkylate, which
varies by 1 to 2 cents per gallon
depending on the value of octane in
each PADD. Including its octane value,
the cost of producing alkylate varies
from $1.38 to $ 1.41 per gallon.
For further information on production
of alkylate from MTBE feedstocks, see
section 7.4.4 of the RIA.
MTBE removed, we also adjust for its
energy content, which is 93,500 BTU
per gallon.
For further information on costs
savings due to MTBE phaseout, see
Section 7.4.3 of the RIA.
3. Production of Alkylate From MTBE
Feedstocks
Discontinuing the blending of MTBE
into U.S. gasoline is expected to result
in the reuse of most of the primary
MTBE feedstocks, isobutylene, to be
used to produce alkylate. Alkylate is
formed by reacting isobutylene together
with isobutane. Prior to the
establishment of the oxygen
requirement for RFG, this isobutylene
was, in most cases, used to make
alkylate. Another option would be for
reacting isobutylene with itself to form
isooctene which would likely be
hydrogenated to then form isooctane.
However, our cost analysis found that
alkylate is a more cost-effective way to
reuse the isobutylene, even after
considering isooctane’s higher octane
content. The cost for converting to
alkylate is estimated to be $1.42 per
gallon for captive (in-refinery) plants
and ethylene cracker plants, $1.46 per
gallon for propylene oxide plants and
$1.52 per gallon for merchant MTBE
plants. We believe that the cost for
converting merchant MTBE plants to
alkylate is too high to support its
conversion, thus the conversion cost is
estimated to be $1.43 per gallon, the
average of the conversion costs for
captive, ethylene cracker and propylene
oxide MTBE plants. This projected
percent of MTBE plant conversion
results in 0.84 gallons of alkylate
produced for each gallon of MTBE no
longer produced.
The alkylate production cost is
adjusted by PADD to account for the
4. Changes in Refinery Produced
Gasoline Volume and Its Costs
In the sections above, we estimated
changes in gasoline volume and the cost
associated with those volume changes
for ethanol, MTBE, alkylate and butane.
As these various gasoline blendstocks
are added to or removed from the
gasoline pool, they affect the refinery
production of gasoline (or oxygenate
blendstock).
To estimate the changes in refinery
gasoline production volumes, it was
necessary to balance the total energy
production of each control case to the
reference case. The energy content of
the reference case was estimated by
multiplying the volumetric energy
content of each gasoline pool
blendstock, including MTBE, ethanol
and refinery produced gasoline, by the
associated gallons.
The increase or decrease in ethanol
content in summertime RFG assumed
under the different scenarios resulted in
the change in the volumes of butane in
RFG as described above. We identified
that the increase or decrease in ethanol
in wintertime RFG and CG could cause
reductions or increases in the amount of
butanes blended into wintertime
gasoline. Wintertime gasoline is limited
in vapor pressure by the American
Standard for Testing Materials (ASTM)
RVP and V/L (vapor-liquid) standards.
According to a refiner with extensive
refining capacity, and also Jacobs
55613
Engineering, a refining industry
consulting firm, refineries are blending
their wintertime gasoline up to those
standards today and are limited from
blending more butane available to them.
If this is the case, for each gallon of
summertime RFG and wintertime RFG
and CG blended with ethanol 2 percent
of the base gasoline volume would be
lost in terms of butane removed.
However, some refineries may have
room to blend more butane. Also, we are
aware that some states offer 1 PSI
waivers for blending of ethanol into
wintertime gasoline, presumably to
accommodate splash blending of
ethanol.78 Consequently, it may be
possible to accommodate the 1 PSI
vapor pressure increase without forcing
the removal of some or all of this
butane. For this reason we assessed the
costs as a range, on the upper end
assuming that butane content would
have to be removed to account for new
ethanol blended into summertime RFG
and wintertime RFG and CG , and on
the low end assuming only that
blending of ethanol into summertime
RFG cause butanes to be removed.
For estimating the volume of butane
which must be removed from the
gasoline because of the addition of
ethanol, we assumed that ethanol will
be used at 10 volume percent except for
California where it would continue to be
used at 5.7 volume percent.
Development of the estimates for winter
vs. summer ethanol consumption for the
control cases is discussed in Chapter 2.1
of the RIA. For the reference case, we
estimated that 55 percent of the ethanol
would be used in the winter and 45
percent in the summer. Table VII.C.4–1
summarizes the summertime RFG and
wintertime RFG and CG volumes of
ethanol and estimated change in butane
content.
TABLE VII.C.4–1.—ESTIMATED CHANGES IN U.S. SUMMERTIME RFG ETHANOL VOLUMES AND THEIR IMPACT ON BUTANE
BLENDING INTO GASOLINE
[Million gallons in 2012]
Reference case
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Summertime RFG Ethanol
Wintertime RFG & CG
Ethanol.
Change in Butane .............
7.2 Bil gals max
RFG
7.2 Bil gals min RFG
9.6 Bil gals max
RFG
1,155 ........................
2,178 ........................
1,932 ........................
3,999 ........................
244 ...........................
4,812 ........................
1,932 ........................
5,303 ........................
244
6,132
..................................
¥140 to ¥456 ........
164 to ¥297 ............
¥140 to ¥690 ........
164 to ¥535
The change in volume of ethanol,
MTBE, alkylate, and butane for each
control case is adjusted for energy
content. The volume of refinery gasoline
is then adjusted to maintain the same
energy content as that of the reference
gasoline pool. The refinery gasoline
production is estimated by dividing the
BTU content of gasoline, estimated to be
115,000 BTU per gallon, into the total
78 Most people are aware of the 1 PSI RVP waiver
that ethanol is provided for the summertime, but
some states offer a similar waiver to ethanol for
wintertime blending as well.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
9.6 Bil gals min RFG
amount of BTUs for the entire gasoline
pool after accounting for the BTUs of
the other blendstocks. The BTUbalanced gasoline pool volumes for each
control case are shown in Table
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55614
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
VII.C.4–2. The changes are shown for
both assumptions with respect to the
need to remove butane from winter
gasoline to accommodate more ethanol
blending.
TABLE VII.C.4–2.—ESTIMATED 2012 VOLUMES
[Million gallons]
7.2 Bil gals, max RFG
Total Ethanol ....................................
Increase in Ethanol ..........................
Change in MTBE .............................
New Alkylate ....................................
7,200
3,302
¥2091
1,763
Yes
Change in Butane ............................
Gasoline ...........................................
Change in Gasoline .........................
Change in Gasoline (%) ..................
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Butane Removed in Winter ..............
¥456
143,486
¥1,873
¥1.3
Based on our estimated impacts on
volumes shown in table VII.C.4–2,
refinery produced gasoline demand will
be reduced by a range of 1.3 percent to
2.7 percent compared to the reference
case, which would result in less
imported finished petroleum products
and/or less crude oil use. The projected
impacts on refinery-produced gasoline
demand depend on the volume of new
ethanol blended into gasoline, on the
volume of ethanol blended into
summertime RFG and on whether
butane blending into wintertime
gasoline will be affected or not. To put
this reduction in refinery-produced
gasoline volume in perspective, the
yearly annual growth in gasoline
demand in this country is about 1.7
percent.
The cost for changes to refinery
produced gasoline volume is assumed to
be represented by the bulk price of
gasoline in each PADD from EIA’s 2004
Petroleum Marketing Annual. The 2004
gasoline cost is adjusted to 2012 using
the ratio of the projected crude oil price
in 2012 of $47 per barrel to that in the
2004 base case of $41 per barrel. The
cost for distributing the gasoline to
terminals is added on, which is
estimated to be 4 cents per gallon. The
estimated cost for producing and
distributing gasoline to terminals
(wholesale price at the terminal rack)
ranges from $1.30 per gallon in the Gulf
Coast, to $1.53 per gallon in California.
Crude oil prices are much higher
today which decreases the relative cost
of producing and blending in more
ethanol into gasoline. For this reason,
we conducted a sensitivity analysis
assuming that crude oil is priced at
around $70 per barrel. Since this is only
a sensitivity analysis, we simply ratioed
the gasoline production costs, MTBE
and alkylate feedstock costs and butane
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
7.2 Bil gals, min RFG
No
¥140
143,228
¥2,131
¥1.5
9.6 Bil gals, max RFG
7,200
3,302
¥2091
1,764
Yes
No
¥297
143,357
¥2,002
¥1.4
164
142,980
¥2,379
¥1.6
value upwards by the same ratio. The
ratio is determined by the projected
increase in the wholesale gasoline price
relative to the increase in crude oil
price. We extrapolated this relationship
to crude oil priced at $70 per barrel
compared to the price in 2004 which
was $41 per barrel, which results in
about a 1.4 ratio factor. We did not
adjust other costs and assumptions
which are much less sensitive to the
price of crude oil and therefore not
likely to change much (e.g., distribution
costs, refinery utility costs, incremental
octane costs, and ethanol production
costs). At a $70 per barrel crude oil
price, the cost for production and
distribution of gasoline to the terminal
ranges from $2.05 in the Gulf Coast to
$2.43 per gallon in California.
For further information on gasoline
cost see section 7.4.5 in the RIA.
5. Overall Impact on Fuel Cost
We combined the costs and volume
impacts described in the previous
sections to estimate an overall fuel cost
impact due to the changes in gasoline
occurring with the projected fuel
changes. This aggregated cost estimate
includes the costs for producing and
distributing ethanol, the blending costs
of ethanol in summertime RFG, ending
the production and distribution of
MTBE, and reusing the MTBE feedstock
isobutylene for producing alkylate,
reducing the content of butane in
summertime RFG and wintertime
gasoline and for reducing the volume of
refinery-produced gasoline. We also
present the costs for the scenario that
butanes would not need to be removed
when ethanol is blended into
wintertime gasoline. The costs for each
control case are estimated by
multiplying the change in volume for
each gasoline blendstock, relative to the
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
9.6 Bil gals, min RFG
9,600
5,702
¥2091
1,764
Yes
¥690
142,092
¥3,267
¥2.2
No
¥140
141,642
¥3,716
¥2.6
9,600
5,702
¥2091
1,764
Yes
¥535
141,965
¥3,394
¥2.3
No
164
141,394
¥3,965
¥2.7
reference case, times its production,
distribution and octane blending costs.
The costs of these fuels changes are
expressed two different ways. First, we
express the cost of the program without
the ethanol consumption subsidies in
which the costs are based on the total
accumulated cost of each of the fuels
changes. The second way we express
the cost is with the ethanol
consumption subsidies included since
the subsidized portion of the renewable
fuels costs will be not be represented to
the consumer in its fuels costs paid at
the pump, but instead by being paid
through the state and Federal tax
revenues. For both cases we express the
costs with and without butanes being
removed due to changes in wintertime
blending of ethanol. We evaluated the
fuel costs using ranges in different
assumptions to bound the many
uncertainties in the cost analysis (see
the DRIA for more discussion
concerning the cost uncertainties).
a. Cost without Ethanol Subsidies.
Table VII.C.5.a–1 summarizes the costs
without ethanol subsidies for each of
the four control cases, including the cost
for each aspect of the fuels changes, and
the aggregated total and the per-gallon
costs for all the fuel changes.79 This
estimate of costs reflects the changes in
gasoline that are occurring with the
expanded use of ethanol, including the
corresponding removal of MTBE. These
costs include the labor, utility and other
operating costs, fixed costs and the
capital costs for all the fuel changes
expected. We excluded Federal and
state ethanol consumption subsidies
79 EPA typically assesses social benefits and costs
of a rulemaking. However, this analysis is more
limited in its scope by examining the average cost
of production of ethanol and gasoline without
accounting for the effects of farm subsidies that
tend to distort the market price of agricultural
commodities.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55615
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
which avoids the transfer payments
caused by these subsidies that would
hide a portion of the program’s costs.
caused by these subsidies that would
hide a portion of the program’s costs.
TABLE VII.C.5.A–1.—ESTIMATED COST WITHOUT ETHANOL CONSUMPTION SUBSIDIES ($47/BBL CRUDE)
[million dollars, except where noted]
7.2 Bil gals, max RFG
Adding Ethanol .................................
RFG RVP Cost ................................
Eliminating MTBE ............................
Adding Alkylate ................................
7.2 Bil gals, min RFG
3,769
72
¥2,821
2,520
9.6 Bil gals, max RFG
3,837
¥74
¥2,821
2,520
9.6 Bil gals, min RFG
6,852
72
¥2,821
2,521
6,897
¥74
¥2,821
2,521
Butane Removed in Winter ..............
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Changing Butane Volume ................
Additional Gasoline Production ........
Total Cost Excluding Subsidies .......
Per-Gallon Cost Excluding Subsidies (cents per gallon) ...............
¥439
¥2,484
619
¥133
¥2,826
582
¥275
¥2,638
548
174
¥3,141
496
¥667
¥4,350
1,606
¥133
¥4,948
1,542
¥510
¥4,507
1,507
174
¥5,270
1,426
0.41
0.38
0.38
0.33
1.05
1.01
0.99
0.93
Our analysis shows that when
considering all the costs associated with
these fuel changes resulting from the
expanded use of subsidized ethanol that
these various possible gasoline use
scenarios will cost the U.S. $0.5 billion
to around $1.6 billion in the year 2012.
Expressed as per-gallon costs, these fuel
changes would cost the U.S. 0.3 to just
over 1 cent per gallon of gasoline.
b. Gasoline Costs Including Ethanol
Consumption Tax Subsidies. Table
VII.C.5.b–1 expresses the total and pergallon gasoline costs for the four control
scenarios with the Federal and state
ethanol subsidies included. The Federal
tax subsidy is 51 cents per gallon for
each gallon of new ethanol blended into
gasoline. The state tax subsidies apply
in 5 states and range from 1.6 to 29
cents per gallon. The cost reduction to
the fuel industry and consumers are
estimated by multiplying the subsidy
times the volume of new ethanol
estimated to be used in the state. The
costs are presented for the case that
ethanol causes butanes to be withheld
from the wintertime gasoline pool, and
for the case that the blending of butanes
remains unchanged.
TABLE VII.C.5.B–1.—ESTIMATED COST INCLUDING SUBSIDIES ($47/BBL CRUDE)
[million dollars, except where noted]
7.2 Bil Gals Max RFG
7.2 Bil Gals Min RFG
9.6 Bil Gals Max RFG
9.6 Bil Gals Min RFG
Butane Removed in Winter ..............
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Total Cost without Subsidies ...........
Federal Subsidy ...............................
State Subsidies ................................
Total Cost Including Subsidies ........
Per-Gallon Cost Including Subsidies
(cents/gallon) ................................
619
¥1,684
¥180
¥1,245
582
¥1,684
¥180
¥1,282
548
¥1,684
¥173
¥1,308
496
¥1,684
¥173
¥1,361
1,606
¥2,908
¥189
¥1,491
1,542
¥2,908
¥189
¥1,555
1,507
¥2,908
¥176
¥1,578
1,426
¥3,908
¥176
¥1,657
¥0.82
¥0.84
¥0.86
¥0.89
¥0.98
¥1.02
¥1.03
¥1.08
The cost including subsidies better
represents gasoline’s production cost as
might be reflected to the fuel industry
as a whole and to consumers ‘‘at the
pump’’ because the Federal and state
subsidies tends to hide a portion of the
actual costs. Our analysis suggests that
the fuel industry and consumers will
see a 0.8 to 1.1 cent per gallon decrease
in the apparent cost of producing
gasoline with these changes to gasoline.
c. Cost Sensitivity Case Assuming $70
per Barrel Crude Oil. As described
above, we analyzed a sensitivity
analysis with the future price of crude
oil remained at today’s prices which is
around $70 per barrel. This analysis was
conducted by applying about a 1.4
multiplication factor times the 2004
gasoline production costs, MTBE and
alkylate feedstock costs and butane
value. This factor was derived by
examining the historical association
between increasing wholesale gasoline
prices with increasing crude oil prices.
We did not adjust the distribution costs,
any of the utility costs, octane value and
ethanol prices based on the assumption
that these would change much less and
therefore we kept them the same as that
used in the primary analysis. The cost
results of the sensitivity analysis are
provided with and without the ethanol
consumption subsidies in Table
VII.C.5.c–1.
TABLE VII.C.5.C–1.—ESTIMATED COSTS FOR CRUDE OIL PRICED AT $70 PER BARREL
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
[Million dollars and cents per gallon]
7.2 Bil gals, max RFG
Butane Removed in Winter ..............
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
Yes
PO 00000
No
Frm 00065
7.2 Bil gals, min RFG
Yes
Fmt 4701
No
Sfmt 4702
9.6 Bil gals, max RFG
Yes
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
No
22SEP2
9.6 Bil gals, min RFG
Yes
No
55616
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VII.C.5.C–1.—ESTIMATED COSTS FOR CRUDE OIL PRICED AT $70 PER BARREL—Continued
[Million dollars and cents per gallon]
Total
Cost
without
Subsidies
($million) .......................................
Per-Gallon Cost without Subsidies
(c/gal) ............................................
Total Cost Including Subsidies
($million) .......................................
Per-Gallon Cost Including Subsidies
(c/gal) ............................................
¥171
¥187
¥223
¥245
222
196
138
105
¥0.11
¥0.12
¥0.15
¥0.16
0.15
0.13
0.09
0.07
¥2,035
¥2,051
¥2,080
¥2,102
¥2,875
¥2,901
¥2,945
¥2,978
¥1.34
¥1.35
¥1.37
¥1.38
¥1.88
¥1.90
¥1.93
¥1.95
If crude oil stays priced at around $70
per barrel, the cost of these fuel changes
would decrease significantly. In fact, we
estimate that the 7.2 billion gallon
ethanol case would result in a cost
savings to the U.S. even if butanes are
removed from the wintertime gasoline
pool when ethanol is added. When
considering the ethanol subsidies, the
incentive to blend in ethanol becomes
much stronger at today’s crude oil
prices likely causing a rapid increase in
ethanol production volume.
VIII. What Are the Impacts of Increased
Ethanol Use on Emissions and Air
Quality?
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
In this section, we evaluate the impact
of increased production and use of
renewable fuels on emissions and air
quality in the U.S., particularly ethanol
and biodiesel. In performing these
analyses, we compare the emissions
which would have occurred in the
future if fuel quality had remained
unchanged from pre-Act levels to those
which will be required under the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (Energy Act or the
Act). This approach differs from that
traditionally taken in EPA regulatory
impact analyses. Traditionally, we
would have compared future emissions
with and without the requirement of the
Energy Act. However, as described in
Section VI, we expect that total
renewable fuel use in the U.S. in 2012
to exceed 7.5 billion gallons even in the
absence of the RFS program. Thus, a
traditional regulatory impact analysis
would have shown no impact on
emissions or air quality.
Strictly speaking, if the same volume
and types of renewable fuels are
produced and used with and without
the RFS program, the RFS program is
having no impact on emissions or air
quality. However, levels of renewable
80 Subject
to funding.
of Automobile Manufacturers North
American Fuel Survey 2005. For the final rule, we
81 Alliance
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
1. Emissions From Gasoline Fueled
Motor Vehicles and Equipment
Several models of the impact of
gasoline quality on motor vehicle
emissions have been developed since
the early 1990’s. We evaluated these
models and selected those which were
based on the most comprehensive set of
emissions data and developed using the
most advanced statistical tools for this
analysis. Still, as will be described
below, significant uncertainty still exists
as to the effect of these gasoline
components on emissions from both
motor vehicle and nonroad equipment,
particularly from the latest models
equipped with the most advanced
emission controls. Pending adequate
funding, we plan to conduct significant
vehicle and equipment testing over the
next several years to improve our
estimates of the impact of these
additives and other gasoline properties
on emissions. The results of this testing
will not be available for inclusion in the
analyses supporting this rulemaking.
We hope that the results from these test
programs will be available for reference
in the future evaluations of the emission
and air quality impacts of U.S. fuel
programs required by the Act.80
The remainder of this sub-section is
divided into three parts. The first
evaluates the impact of increased
ethanol use and decreased MTBE use on
gasoline quality. The second evaluates
the impact of increased ethanol use and
decreased MTBE use on motor vehicle
emissions. The third evaluates the
impact of increased ethanol use and
decreased MTBE use on nonroad
equipment emissions.
a. Gasoline Fuel Quality. For this
proposal, we estimate the impact of
ethanol use on gasoline quality using
fuel survey data obtained by Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) from
2001–2005.81 We estimate the impact of
removing MTBE from gasoline based on
refinery modeling performed in support
of the RFG rulemaking. We plan to
update these estimates for the FRM
using refinery modeling which is
currently underway. In general, as
shown in Table VIII.A.1.a–1, adding
ethanol to gasoline is expected to reduce
levels of aromatics and olefins in
conventional gasoline, as well as reduce
mid and high distillation temperatures
(e.g., T50 and T90). RVP is expected to
increase, as most areas of the country
grant ethanol blends a 1.0 RVP waiver
of the applicable RVP standards in the
summer. With the exception of RVP, the
effect of removing MTBE results in
essentially the opposite impacts. Please
see Chapter 2 of the DRIA for a detailed
description of the methodologies used
and the specific changes in projected
fuel quality.
intend to supplement this empirical approach with
the results of refinery modeling which might better
capture all of the effects of ethanol blending on
gasoline quality.
fuel use are increasing dramatically
relative to both today and the recent
past, with corresponding impacts on
emissions and air quality. We believe
that it is appropriate to evaluate these
changes here, regardless of whether they
are occurring due to economic forces or
Energy Act requirements.
In the process of estimating the
impact of increased renewable fuel use,
we also include the impact of reduced
use of MTBE in gasoline. It is the
increased production and use of ethanol
which is facilitating the removal of
MTBE while still producing the
required volume of RFG which meets
both commercial and EPA regulatory
specifications. Because of this
connection, we found it impractical to
isolate the impact of increased ethanol
use from the removal of MTBE.
A. Effect of Renewable Fuel Use on
Emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55617
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.A.1.A–1.—CG FUEL QUALITY WITH AND WITHOUT OXYGENATES
Typical 9
RVP CG
Fuel parameter
RVP (psi) .......................................................................................................................................................
T50 .................................................................................................................................................................
T90 .................................................................................................................................................................
Aromatics (vol%) ............................................................................................................................................
Olefins (vol%) ................................................................................................................................................
Oxygen (wt%) ................................................................................................................................................
Sulfur (ppm) ...................................................................................................................................................
Benzene (vol%) .............................................................................................................................................
8.7
218
332
32
7.7
0
30
1.0
MTBE CG
blend
8.7
206
324
25.5
7.7
2
30
1.0
Ethanol
CG blend
9.7
186
325
27
6.1
3.5
30
1.0
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
The effect of adding ethanol and
removing MTBE on the quality of RFG
is expected to very limited. RFG must
meet stringent VOC, NOX and toxics
performance standards. Thus, the
natural effects of MTBE and ethanol
blending on gasoline must often be
addressed through further refining. The
largest differences are expected to exist
in terms of the distillation temperatures,
due to the relatively low boiling point
of ethanol. Other fuel parameters are
expected to be very similar. For this
analysis we have assumed no changes to
fuel parameters other than ethanol and
MTBE content for RFG.
b. Emissions from Motor Vehicles. We
use the EPA Predictive Models to
estimate the impact of gasoline fuel
quality on exhaust VOC and NOX
emissions from motor vehicles. These
models were developed in 2000, in
support of EPA’s response to
California’s request for a waiver of the
RFG oxygen mandate. These models
represent a significant update of the
EPA Complex Model. However, they are
still based on emission data from Tier 0
vehicles (roughly equivalent to 1990
model year vehicles). We based our
estimates of the impact of fuel quality
on CO emissions on the EPA
MOBILE6.2 model. We base our
estimates of the impact of fuel quality
on exhaust toxic emissions (benzene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and 1,3butadiene) primarily on the MOBILE6.2
model, updated to reflect the effect of
fuel quality on exhaust VOC emissions
per the EPA Predictive Models. Very
limited data are available on the effect
of gasoline quality on PM emissions.
Therefore, the effect of increased
ethanol use on PM emissions can only
be qualitatively discussed.
In responding to California’s request
for a waiver of the RFG oxygen mandate
in 2000, we found that both very limited
and conflicting data were available on
the effect of fuel quality on exhaust
emissions from Tier 1 and later
vehicles.82 Thus, we assumed at the
time that changes to gasoline quality
would not affect VOC, CO and NOX
exhaust emissions from these vehicles.
Very little additional data has been
collected since that time on which to
modify this assumption. Consequently,
for our primary analysis for today’s
proposal we have maintained the
assumption that changes to gasoline do
not affect exhaust emissions from Tier 1
and later technology vehicles.
There is one recent study by the
Coordinating Research Council (CRC)
which assessed the impact of ethanol
and two other fuel properties on
emissions from twelve 2000–2004
model year vehicles (CRC study E–67).
The results of this program indicate that
emissions from these late model year
vehicles may be at least as sensitive to
changes to these three fuel properties as
Tier 0 vehicles on a percentage basis.83
However, because this study is the first
of its kind and not all relevant fuel
properties have yet been studied, in our
primary analysis we continue to assume
that exhaust emissions from Tier 1 and
later vehicles are not sensitive to fuel
quality. Based on the indications of the
CRC E–67 study, we also conducted a
sensitivity analysis where the exhaust
VOC and NOX emission impacts for all
vehicles were assumed to be as sensitive
to fuel quality as Tier 0 vehicles (i.e., as
indicated by the EPA Predictive
Models).
We base our estimates of fuel quality
on non-exhaust VOC and benzene
emissions on the EPA MOBILE6.2
model. The one exception to this is the
effect of ethanol on permeation
emissions through plastic fuel tanks and
elastomers used in fuel line
connections. Recent testing has shown
that ethanol increases permeation
emissions, both by permeating itself and
increasing the permeation of other
gasoline components. This effect was
included in EPA’s analysis of
California’s most recent request for a
waiver of the RFG oxygen requirement,
but is not in MOBILE6.2.84 Therefore,
we have added the effect of ethanol on
permeation emissions to MOBILE6.2’s
estimate of non-exhaust VOC emissions
in assessing the impact of gasoline
quality on these emissions.
No models are available which
address the impact of gasoline quality
on PM emissions. Very limited data
indicate that ethanol blending might
reduce exhaust PM emissions under
very cold weather conditions (e.g., –20
F to 0 F). Very limited testing at warmer
temperatures (e.g., 20 F to 75 F) shows
no definite trend in PM emissions with
oxygen content. Thus, for now, no
quantitative estimates can be made
regarding the effect of ethanol use on
direct PM emissions.
Table VIII.A.1.b–1 presents the
average per vehicle (2012 fleet) emission
impacts of three types of RFG: Nonoxygenated, a typical MTBE RFG as has
been marketed in the Gulf Coast, and a
typical ethanol RFG which has been
marketed in the Midwest.
82 The one exception was the impact of sulfur on
emissions from these later vehicles, which is not an
issue here due to the fact that renewable fuel use
is not expected to change sulfur levels significantly.
83 The VOC and NO emissions from the 2000–
X
2004 model year vehicles are an order of magnitude
lower than those from the Tier 0 vehicles used to
develop the EPA Complex and Predictive Models.
Thus, a similar impact of a fuel parameter in terms
of percentage means a much smaller impact in
terms of absolute emissions.
84 For more information on California’s request
for a waiver of the RFG oxygen mandate and the
Decision Document for EPA’s response, see
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg_regs.htm#waiver.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55618
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.A.1.B–1.—EFFECT OF RFG ON PER MILE EMISSIONS FROM TIER 0 VEHICLES RELATIVE TO A TYPICAL 9PSI
RVP CONVENTIONAL GASOLINE a
Pollutant
10 Volume
percent
ethanol
Non-Oxy RFG
(percent)
Source
11 Volume
percent MTBE
–7.7
–1.7
–24
–18
7
7
22
–11.1
2.4
–28
–30
11
–8
2
–12.9
6.3
–32
–35
2
143
–7
–30
–5
–30
–15
–18
–7
Exhaust Emissions
VOC ................................................................
NOX .................................................................
CO ...................................................................
Exhaust Benzene ............................................
Formaldehyde .................................................
Acetaldehyde ..................................................
1,3-Butadiene ..................................................
EPA Predictive Models ..................................
.........................................................................
MOBILE6.2 .....................................................
EPA Predictive and Complex Models ............
.........................................................................
.........................................................................
.........................................................................
Non-Exhaust Emissions
VOC ................................................................
Benzene ..........................................................
a Average
MOBILE6.2 & CRC E–65 ...............................
MOBILE6.2 & Complex Models .....................
per vehicle effects for the 2012 fleet during summer conditions.
As can be seen, the oxygenated RFG
blends are predicted to produce a
greater reduction in exhaust VOC and
CO emissions than 9 RVP conventional
gasoline, but a larger increase in NOX
emissions. This comparison assumes
that all gasoline meets EPA’s Tier 2
gasoline sulfur standard of 30 ppm.
Prior to this program, RFG contained
less sulfur than conventional gasoline
and produced less NOX emissions. Nonexhaust VOC emissions with the
exception of permeation are roughly the
same due to the fact that the RVP level
of the three blends is the same.
However, the increased permeation
emissions associated with ethanol
reduces the overall effectiveness of
ethanol RFG.
An increase in ethanol use will also
impact emissions of air toxics. We
evaluated effects on four air toxics
affected by fuel parameter changes in
the Complex Model-benzene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and 1,3butadiene. The most notable effect on
toxic emissions in percentage terms is
the increase in acetaldehyde with the
use of ethanol. Acetaldehyde emissions
more than double. However, as will be
seen below, base acetaldehyde
emissions are low relative to the other
toxics. Thus, the absolute increase in
total emissions of these four air toxics
is still relatively low.
Table VIII.A.1.b–2 presents the effect
of blending either MTBE or ethanol into
conventional gasoline while matching
octane.
TABLE VIII.A.1.B–2.—EFFECT OF MTBE AND ETHANOL IN CONVENTIONAL GASOLINE ON TIER 0 VEHICLE EMISSIONS
RELATIVE TO A TYPICAL NON-OXYGENATED CONVENTIONAL GASOLINE a
11 Volume
percent
MTBE
Pollutant
Source
Exhaust VOC ..................................................................
NOX .................................................................................
CO c .................................................................................
Exhaust Benzene ............................................................
Formaldehyde .................................................................
Acetaldehyde ..................................................................
1,3-Butadiene ..................................................................
Non-Exhaust VOC ..........................................................
Non-Exhaust Benzene ....................................................
EPA Predictive Models ...................................................
.........................................................................................
MOBILE6.2 .....................................................................
EPA Predictive and Complex Models ............................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
MOBILE6.2 .....................................................................
MOBILE6.2 & Complex Models .....................................
¥9.2
2.6
¥6/¥11
¥22
+10
¥8
¥12
0
¥10
10 Volume
percent
ethanol b
¥7.4
7.7
¥11/¥19
¥27
+3
+141
¥27
+17
+13
a Average
per vehicle effects for the 2012 fleet during summer conditions.
a 1.0 psi RVP waiver for ethanol blends.
first figure shown applies to normal emitters; the second applies to high emitters.
b Assumes
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
c The
As was the case with the RFG blends,
the two oxygenated blends both reduce
exhaust VOC and CO emissions, but
increase NOX emissions. The MTBE
blend does not increase non-exhaust
VOC emissions, but the ethanol blend
does due to the commonly granted
waiver of the RVP standard. Both blends
have lower exhaust benzene and 1,3butadiene emissions. As above, ethanol
increases non-exhaust benzene and
acetaldehyde emissions.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
The exhaust emission effects shown
above for VOC and NOX emissions only
apply to Tier 0 vehicles in our primary
analysis. For example, MOBILE6.2
estimates that 34% of exhaust VOC
emissions and 16% of NOX emissions
from gasoline vehicles in 2012 come
from Tier 0 vehicles. In the sensitivity
analysis, these effects are extended to all
gasoline vehicles. The effect of RVP on
non-exhaust VOC emissions is
temperature dependent. The figures
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
shown above are based on the
distribution of temperatures occurring
across the U.S. in July.
c. Nonroad Equipment. To estimate
the effect of gasoline quality on
emissions from nonroad equipment, we
used EPA’s NONROAD emission model.
We used the 2005 version of this model,
NONROAD2005, which includes the
effect of ethanol on permeation
emissions from most nonroad
equipment.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55619
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Only sulfur and oxygen content affect
exhaust VOC, CO and NOX emissions in
NONROAD. Since sulfur level is
assumed to remain constant, the only
difference in exhaust emissions between
conventional and reformulated gasoline
is due to oxygen content. Table
VIII.A.1.c–1 shows the effect of adding
11 volume percent MTBE or 10 volume
percent ethanol to non-oxygenated
gasoline on these emissions.
TABLE VIII.A.1.C–1.—EFFECT MTBE AND ETHANOL ON NONROAD EXHAUST EMISSIONS
4-Stroke engines
Base fuel
11 Volume
percent
MTBE
As can be seen, higher oxygen content
reduces exhaust VOC and CO emissions
significantly, but also increases NOX
emissions. However, NOX emissions
from these engines tend to be fairly low
to start with, given the fact that these
engines run much richer than
stoichiometric. Thus, a large percentage
increase of a relative low base value can
be a relatively small increase in absolute
terms.
Evaporative emissions from nonroad
equipment are impacted by only RVP,
and permeation by ethanol content.
Both the RVP increase due to blending
of ethanol and its permeation effect
cause non-exhaust VOC emissions to
increase with the use of ethanol in
nonroad equipment. The 26 percent
effect represents the average impact
across the U.S. in July for both 2-stroke
and 4-stroke equipment. We updated
10 Volume
percent
ethanol
¥9
0
¥13
+24
Exhaust VOC ...................................................................................................................
Non-Exhaust VOC 0 ........................................................................................................
CO ....................................................................................................................................
NOX ..................................................................................................................................
the NONROAD2005 hose permeation
emission factors for small spark-ignition
engines and recreational marine
watercraft to reflect the use of ethanol.
For nonroad toxics emissions, we base
our estimates of the impact of fuel
quality on the fraction of exhaust VOC
emissions represented by each toxic on
MOBILE6.2 (i.e., the same effects
predicted for onroad vehicles). The
National Mobile Inventory Model
(NMIM) contains estimates of the
fraction of VOC emissions represented
by the various air toxics based on
oxygenate type (none, MTBE or
ethanol). However, estimates for
nonroad gasoline engines running on
different fuel types are limited, making
it difficult to accurately model the
impacts of changes in fuel quality. In
the recent NPRM addressing mobile air
toxic emissions, EPA replaced the toxic-
2-Stroke engines
11 Volume
percent
MTBE
¥15
26
¥21
+37
10 Volume
percent
ethanol
¥1
0
¥8
+12
¥1
26
¥12
+18
related fuel effects contained in NMIM
with those from MOBILE6.2 for onroad
vehicles.85 We follow the same
methodology here. Future testing could
significantly alter these emission impact
estimates.
2. Diesel Fuel Quality: Biodiesel
EPA assessed the impact of biodiesel
fuel on emissions in 2002 and published
a draft report summarizing the results.86
At that time, most of the data available
was for pre-1998 model year onroad
diesel engines. The results are
summarized in Table VIII.A.2–1. As
shown, it indicated that biodiesel
tended to reduce emissions of VOC, CO
and PM. The NOX emission effect was
more variable, showing a very small
increase on average.
TABLE VIII.A.2–1.—EFFECT OF 20 VO% BIODIESEL BLENDS ON DIESEL EMISSIONS (%)
2002 draft
EPA study
(percent)
Pollutant
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
VOC .......................................................................................................
CO ..........................................................................................................
NOX ........................................................................................................
PM ..........................................................................................................
We collected relevant engine and
vehicle emission test data developed
since the time of the 2002 study. The
results of our analysis of this data are
also shown in Table VIII.A.2–1. There,
we show the average change in the
emissions of each pollutant across all
the engines or vehicles tested, as well as
the range of effects found for each
engine or vehicle. As can be seen, the
variability in the emission effects is
quite large, but the results of the more
recent testing generally corroborate the
findings of the 2002 study. Refer to
85 71,
Federal Register, 15804, March 29, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
Recent test results
Engine testing
¥21
¥11
+2
¥10
¥12% (¥35% to +14%) ....
¥14% (¥28% to +1%) ......
+1% (¥3% to +6%) ...........
¥20% (¥31%+6%) ...........
Vehicle testing
+10% (¥33% to +113%)
+4% (¥11% to +44%)
+2% (¥1% to +9%)
¥3% (¥57% to +40%)
DRIA Tables 3.1–15 and 3.1–16, and
their corresponding discussion, for more
detail on the data in the above table.
Overall, data indicating the effect of
biodiesel on emissions is still quite
limited. The emission effects also
appear to be dependent on the load and
speed of the engine (or driving cycle
and vehicle type in the case of vehicle
testing). However, the data are too
limited to determine the specific way in
which this occurs. Also, with the
implementation of stringent NOX and
PM emission standards to onroad and
nonroad diesels in the 2007–2010
timeframe, any effect on a percentage
basis will rapidly decrease in magnitude
on a mass basis as base emission
inventory level decreases. As additional
testing is performed over the next
several years we will update this
assessment.
86 ‘‘A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel
Impacts on Exhaust Emissions,’’ Draft Technical
Report, U.S. EPA, EPA420–P–02–001, October
2002. https://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/biodsl.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
3. Renewable Fuel Production and
Distribution
The primary impact of renewable fuel
production and distribution regards
ethanol, since it is expected to be the
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55620
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
future had renewable fuel use not risen.
However, to the degree that increased
renewable fuel use reduces imports of
gasoline and diesel fuel, as opposed to
the domestic production of these fuels,
these reduced refinery emissions will
occur overseas and not in the U.S.
Similarly, areas with MTBE
production facilities might experience
reduced emissions from these plants as
they cease producing MTBE. However,
many of these plants may be converted
to produce other gasoline blendstocks,
TABLE VIII.A.3–1.—WELL-TO-PUMP such as iso-octane or alkylate. In this
EMISSIONS FOR PRODUCING AND case, their emissions are not likely to
change substantially.
DISTRIBUTING RENEWABLE FUELS
B. Impact on Emission Inventories
[Grams per gallon ethanol or biodiesel] a
We use the NMIM to estimate
Pollutant
Ethanol
Biodiesel
emissions under the various ethanol
scenarios on a county by county basis.
VOC ..................
3.6
41.5
CO ....................
4.4
25.1 NMIM basically runs MOBILE6.2 and
NOX ..................
10.8
44.3 NONROAD2005 with county-specific
PM10 ................
6.1
1.5 inputs pertaining to fuel quality,
SOX ...................
7.2
7.5 ambient conditions, levels of onroad
vehicle VMT and nonroad equipment
a Includes credit for reduced distribution of
usage, etc. We ran NMIM for two
gasoline and diesel fuel.
months, July and January. We estimate
At the same time, areas with refineries annual emission inventories by
might experience reduced emissions,
summing the two monthly inventories
not necessarily relative to current
and multiplying by six.
emission levels, but relative to those
As described above, we removed the
which would have occurred in the
effect of gasoline fuel quality on exhaust
predominant renewable fuel used in the
foreseeable future. We approximate the
impact of increased ethanol and
biodiesel production, including corn
and soy farming, on emissions based on
DOE’s GREET model, version 1.6. We
also include emissions related to
distributing the renewable fuels and
take credit for reduced emissions related
to distributing displaced gasoline and
diesel fuel. These emissions are
summarized in Table VIII.A.3–1.
VOC and NOX emissions from the
onroad motor vehicle inventories which
are embedded in MOBILE6.2. We then
applied the exhaust emission effects
from the EPA Predictive Models. In our
primary analysis, we only applied these
EPA Predictive Model effects to exhaust
VOC and NOX emissions from Tier 0
vehicles. In a sensitivity case, we
applied them to exhaust VOC and NOX
emissions from all vehicles. Regarding
the effect of fuel quality on emissions of
four air toxics from nonroad equipment
(in terms of their fraction of VOC
emissions), in all cases we replaced the
fuel effects contained in NMIM with
those for motor vehicles contained in
MOBILE6.2. The projected emission
inventories for the primary analysis are
presented first, followed by those for the
sensitivity analysis.
1. Primary Analysis
The national emission inventories for
VOC, CO and NOX in 2012 with current
fuels (i.e., ‘‘reference fuel’’) are
summarized in Table VIII.B.1–1. Also
shown are the changes in emissions
projected for the two levels of ethanol
use (i.e., ‘‘control cases’’) described in
Section VI and the two different cases
for ethanol use in RFG.
TABLE VIII.B.1.–1.—2012 EMISSIONS NATIONWIDE FROM GASOLINE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT UNDER SEVERAL
ETHANOL USE SCENARIOS—PRIMARY ANALYSIS
[Tons per year]
Inventory
Pollutant
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Both VOC and NOX emissions are
projected to increase with increased use
of ethanol. However, the increases are
small, generally less than 2 percent.
Emissions of formaldehyde are also
projected to increase slightly, on the
order of 1–3 percent. Emissions of 1,3butadiene and CO are projected to
decrease by about 1–4 percent. Benzene
emissions are projected to decrease by
2–6 percent. The largest change is in
acetaldehyde emissions, an increase of
25–48 percent, as acetaldehyde is a
partial combustion product of ethanol.
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
7.2 Billion gallons of ethanol
Reference
case
VOC .....................................................................................
NOX ......................................................................................
CO ........................................................................................
Benzene ...............................................................................
Formaldehyde ......................................................................
Acetaldehyde .......................................................................
1,3-Butadiene .......................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Change in inventory in control cases
Minimum RFG
use
5,837,000
2,576,000
64,799,000
177,000
40,200
19,800
18,200
31,000
19,000
¥843,000
¥6,000
300
6,200
¥500
CO also participates in forming ozone,
much like VOCs. Generally, CO is 15–
50 times less reactive than typical VOC.
Still, the reduction in CO emissions is
roughly 20–140 times the increase in
VOC emissions in the four scenarios.
Thus, the projected reduction in CO
emissions is important from an ozone
perspective. However, as described
above, the methodology for projecting
the effect of ethanol use on CO
emissions is inconsistent with that for
exhaust VOC and NOX emissions. Thus,
comparisons between changes in VOC
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
9.6 Billion gallons of ethanol
Maximum
RFG use
8,000
20,000
¥1,229,000
¥3,000
0
5,000
¥300
Minimum RFG
use
57,000
40,000
¥1,971,000
¥11,000
800
9,600
¥800
Maximum
RFG use
29,000
39,000
¥2,319,000
¥8,000
500
8,500
¥600
and CO emissions are particularly
uncertain.
In addition to these changes in
emissions due to ethanol use, biodiesel
use is expected to have a minor impact
on diesel emissions. Table VIII.B.1–2
shows the expected emission reductions
associated with an increase in biodiesel
fuel use from the reference case of 28
million gallons in 2012 to
approximately 300 million gallons per
year in 2012. This represents an
increase from 0.06 to 0.6 percent of
onroad diesel fuel consumption. In
terms of a 20 percent biodiesel blend
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55621
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(B20), it represents an increase from 0.3
to 3.2 percent of onroad diesel fuel
consumption.
TABLE VIII.B.1–2.—ANNUAL EMISSIONS NATIONWIDE FROM ONROAD DIESELS IN 2012
[Tons per year]
Reference
inventory: 28
mill gal biodiesel per year
VOC .........................................................................................................................................................................
NOX ..........................................................................................................................................................................
CO ............................................................................................................................................................................
Fine PM ...................................................................................................................................................................
As can be seen, the emission impacts
due to biodiesel use are roughly two
orders of magnitude smaller than those
due to ethanol use.
There will also be some increases in
emissions due to ethanol and biodiesel
production. Table VIII.B.1–3 shows
estimates of annual emissions expected
to occur nationwide due to increased
Change in
emissions
Inventory: 300
mill gal biodiesel per year
135,000
1,430,000
353,000
27,000
¥800
800
¥1,100
¥100
production of ethanol. These estimates
include a reduction in emissions related
to the distribution of the displaced
gasoline.
TABLE VIII.B.1–3.—ANNUAL EMISSIONS NATIONWIDE FROM ETHANOL PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION
[Tons per year]
Increase in emissions
Reference
inventory
VOC .............................................................................................................................................
NOX ..............................................................................................................................................
CO ................................................................................................................................................
PM10 .............................................................................................................................................
SOX ..............................................................................................................................................
As can be seen, the potential increases
in emissions from ethanol production
and transportation are of the same order
of magnitude as those from ethanol use,
with the exception of CO emissions. The
vast majority of these emissions are
related to farming and ethanol
production. Both farms and ethanol
plants are generally located in ozone
attainment areas.
Table VIII.B.1–4 shows estimates of
annual emissions expected to occur
15,929
47,716
19,389
27,094
31,760
7.2 Billion
gallons of
ethanol
9.6 Billion
gallons of
ethanol
12,744
38,173
15,511
21,675
25,408
22,301
66,802
27,144
37,931
44,464
nationwide due to increased production
of biodiesel. These estimates include a
reduction in emissions related to the
distribution of the displaced diesel fuel.
TABLE VIII.B.1–4.—ANNUAL EMISSIONS NATIONWIDE FROM BIODIESEL PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION
[Tons per year]
Reference
inventory: 28
mill gal biodiesel per year
Pollutant
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
VOC .........................................................................................................................................................................
NOX ..........................................................................................................................................................................
CO ............................................................................................................................................................................
PM10 .........................................................................................................................................................................
SOX ..........................................................................................................................................................................
The potential emission increases
related to biodiesel production and
distribution are generally much smaller,
with the possible exception of VOC
emissions. Again, these emissions are
generally expected to be in ozone
attainment areas.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
2. Sensitivity Analysis
The national emission inventories for
VOC and NOX in 2012 with current
fuels are summarized in Table VIII.B.2–
1. Here, the emission effects contained
in the EPA Predictive Models are
assumed to apply to all vehicles, not
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Change in
emissions
Inventory: 300
mill gal biodiesel per year
1,300
1,400
800
50
200
12,700
13,600
7,200
1,000
1,800
just Tier 0 vehicles. Also shown are the
changes in emissions projected for the
two cases for future ethanol volume and
the two cases of ethanol use in RFG. CO
emissions are the same as in the primary
analysis, as they are not affected by the
EPA Predictive Models.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55622
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.B.2–1.—2012 EMISSIONS NATIONWIDE FROM GASOLINE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT UNDER SEVERAL ETHANOL
USE SCENARIOS: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
[Tons per year]
Inventory
Change in inventory in control cases
7.2 Billion gallons of ethanol
Pollutant
Reference
case
VOC .....................................................................................
NOX ......................................................................................
CO ........................................................................................
Benzene ...............................................................................
Formaldehyde ......................................................................
Acetaldehyde .......................................................................
1,3-Butadiene .......................................................................
The overall VOC and NOX emission
impacts of the various ethanol use
scenarios change to some degree when
all motor vehicles are assumed to be
sensitive to fuel ethanol content. The
increase in VOC emissions either
decreases substantially or turns into a
net decrease due to a greater reduction
in exhaust VOC emissions from onroad
vehicles. However, the increase in NOX
emissions gets larger, as more vehicles
are assumed to be affected by ethanol.
Emissions of the four air toxics
generally decrease slightly, due to the
greater reduction in exhaust VOC
emissions.
Minimum RFG
use
5,775,000
2,610,000
64,799,000
175,000
39,300
19,200
17,900
4,000
49,000
¥843,000
¥9,000
0
5,800
¥600
3. Local and Regional VOC and NOX
Emission Impacts in July
We also estimate the percentage
change in VOC and NOX emissions from
gasoline fueled motor vehicles and
equipment in those areas which actually
experienced a significant change in
ethanol use. Specifically, we focused on
areas where the market share of ethanol
blends was projected to change by 50
percent or more. We also focused on
summertime emissions, as these are
most relevant to ozone formation.
Finally, we developed separately
estimates for: (1) RFG areas, including
the state of California and the portions
of Arizona where their CBG fuel
programs apply, (2) low RVP areas (i.e.,
Maximum
RFG use
9.6 Billion gallons of ethanol
Minimum RFG
use
¥8,000
45,000
¥1,229,000
¥5,000
¥200
4,700
¥400
14,000
95,000
¥1,971,000
¥14,000
300
9,000
¥1,100
Maximum
RFG use
¥5,000
89,000
¥2,319,000
¥ 10,000
0
8,000
¥800
RVP standards less than 9.0 RVP, and
(3) areas with a 9.0 RVP standard. This
set of groupings helps to highlight the
emissions impact of increased ethanol
use in those areas where emission
control is most important.
Table VIII.B.3–1 presents our primary
estimates of the percentage change in
VOC and NOX emission inventories for
these three types of areas. While ethanol
use is going up in the vast majority of
the nation, ethanol use in RFG areas
under the ‘‘Minimum Use in RFG’’
scenarios is actually decreasing
compared to the 2012 reference case.
This is important to note in order to
understand the changes in emissions
indicated.
TABLE VIII.B.3–1.—CHANGE IN EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT IN COUNTIES WHERE ETHANOL
USE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY—PRIMARY ANALYSIS
Ethanol use
7.2 Billion gallons
Ethanol use in RFG
Minimum
9.6 Billion gallons
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
RFG Areas
Ethanol Use .......................
VOC ...................................
NOX ...................................
Down .................................
1.6% ..................................
¥5.2% ..............................
Up ......................................
0.4% ..................................
2.4% ..................................
Down .................................
1.6% ..................................
¥5.2% ..............................
Up.
0.4%.
2.4%.
Up ......................................
4.1% ..................................
4.8% ..................................
Up.
3.5%.
4.4%.
Up ......................................
5.4% ..................................
5.8% ..................................
Up.
4.4%.
4.8%.
Low RVP Areas
Ethanol Use .......................
VOC ...................................
NOX ...................................
Up ......................................
3.1% ..................................
4.1% ..................................
Up ......................................
3.2% ..................................
6.0% ..................................
Other Areas
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Ethanol Use .......................
VOC ...................................
NOX ...................................
Up ......................................
4.1% ..................................
4.6% ..................................
As expected, increased ethanol use
tends to increase NOX emissions. The
increase in low RVP and other areas is
greater than in RFG areas, since the RFG
in the RFG areas included in this
analysis all contained MTBE. Also,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
Up ......................................
4.1% ..................................
6.0% ..................................
increased ethanol use tends to increase
VOC emissions, indicating that the
increase in non-exhaust VOC emissions
exceeds the reduction in exhaust VOC
emissions. This effect is muted with
RFG due to the absence of an RVP
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
waiver for ethanol blends. The reader is
referred to Chapter 2 of the DRIA for
discussion of how ethanol levels will
change at the state-level.
Table VIII.B.3–2 presents the
percentage change in VOC and NOX
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
emission inventories under our
sensitivity case (i.e., when we apply the
55623
emission effects of the EPA Predictive
Models to all motor vehicles).
TABLE VIII.B.3–2.—CHANGE IN EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT IN COUNTIES WHERE ETHANOL
USE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY—SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
7.2 Bgal Min
7.2 Bgal Max
9.6 Bgal Min
9.6 Bgal Max
RFG Areas
Ethanol Use .......................
VOC ...................................
NOX ...................................
Down .................................
2.6% ..................................
¥9.0% ..............................
Up ......................................
0.2% ..................................
4.7% ..................................
Down .................................
2.6% ..................................
¥9.0% ..............................
Up.
0.2%.
4.7%.
Up ......................................
3.1% ..................................
9.8% ..................................
Up.
2.5%.
8.9%.
Up ......................................
4.6% ..................................
10.3% ................................
Up.
3.7%.
8.8%.
Low RVP Areas
Ethanol Use .......................
VOC ...................................
NOX ...................................
Up ......................................
2.1% ..................................
8.2% ..................................
Up ......................................
2.1% ..................................
10.6% ................................
Other Areas
Ethanol Use .......................
VOC ...................................
NOX ...................................
Up ......................................
3.4% ..................................
8.4% ..................................
Directionally, the changes in VOC and
NOX emissions in the various areas are
consistent with those from our primary
analysis. The main difference is that the
increases in VOC emissions are smaller,
due to more vehicles experiencing a
reduction in exhaust VOC emissions,
and the increases in NOX emissions are
larger.
C. Impact on Air Quality
We estimate the impact of increased
ethanol use on the ambient
concentrations of two pollutants: ozone
and PM. Quantitative estimates are
made for ozone, while only qualitative
estimates can be made currently for
ambient PM. These impacts are
described below.
1. Impact of 7.2 Billion Gallon Ethanol
Use on Ozone
We use a metamodeling tool
developed at EPA, the ozone response
surface metamodel (Ozone RSM), to
estimate the effects of the projected
Up ......................................
3.4% ..................................
10.1% ................................
changes in emissions from gasoline
vehicles and equipment for the 7.2
billion gallon ethanol use case. The
changes in diesel emissions are
negligible in comparison. We did not
include the estimated changes in
emissions from renewable fuel
production and distribution, because of
their more approximate nature. Their
geographical concentration also makes it
more difficult to simulate with the
Ozone RSM.
The Ozone RSM was created using
multiple runs of the Comprehensive Air
Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx).
Base and proposed control CAMx
metamodeling was completed for the
year 2015 over a modeling domain that
includes all or part of 37 Eastern U.S.
states, plus the District of Columbia. For
more information on the Ozone RSM,
please see the Chapter 5 of the DRIA for
this proposal.
The Ozone RSM limits the number of
geographically distinct changes in VOC
and NOX emissions which can be
simulated. As a result, we could not
apply distinct changes in emissions for
each county. Therefore, two separate
runs were made with different VOC and
NOX emissions reductions. We then
selected the ozone impacts from the
various runs which best matched the
VOC and NOX emission reductions for
that county. This models the impact of
local emissions reasonably well, but
loses some accuracy with respect to
ozone transport. No ozone impact was
assumed for areas which did not
experience a significant change in
ethanol use. The predicted ozone
impacts of increased ethanol use for
those areas where ethanol use is
projected to change by more than a 50%
market share are summarized in Table
VIII.C.1–1. As shown in Table 5.1–2 of
the DRIA, national average impacts
(based on the 37-state area modeled)
which include those areas where no
change in ethanol use is occurring are
considerably smaller.
TABLE VIII.C.1–1.—IMPACT ON 8-HOUR DESIGN VALUE EQUIVALENT OZONE LEVELS (PPB) a
Primary Analysis
Min RFG
Use
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Minimum Change .............................................................................................................
Maximum Change ............................................................................................................
Average Change b ............................................................................................................
Population-Weighted Change b ........................................................................................
a In
¥0.030
0.395
0.137
0.134
Max RFG
Use
¥0.025
0.526
0.171
0.129
Sensitivity Analysis
Min RFG
Use
¥0.180
0.637
0.294
0.268
Max RFG
Use
0.000
0.625
0.318
0.250
comparison to the 80 ppb 8-hour ozone standards.
for those areas experiencing a change in ethanol blend market share of at least 50 percent.
b Only
As can be seen, ozone levels generally
increase to a small degree with
increased ethanol use. This is likely due
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
to the projected increases in both VOC
and NOX emissions. Some areas do see
a small decrease in ozone levels. In our
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
primary analysis, where exhaust
emissions from Tier 1 and later onroad
vehicles are assumed to be unaffected
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
55624
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
by ethanol use, the population-weighted
increase in ambient ozone levels in
those areas where ethanol use changed
significantly is 0.129–0.134 ppb. Since
the 8-hour ambient ozone standard is 80
ppb, this increase represents about 0.16
percent of the standard, a very small
percentage.
In our sensitivity analysis, where
exhaust emissions from Tier 1 and later
onroad vehicles are assumed to respond
to ethanol like Tier 0 vehicles, the
population-weighted increase in
ambient ozone levels is roughly twice as
high, or 0.250–0.268 ppb. This increase
represents about 0.32 percent of the
standard.
There are a number of important
caveats concerning these estimates.
First, the emission effects of adding
ethanol to gasoline are based on
extremely limited data for recent
vehicles and equipment. Second, the
Ozone RSM does not account for
changes in CO emissions. As shown
above, ethanol use should reduce CO
emissions significantly, directionally
reducing ambient ozone levels in those
areas where ozone formation is VOClimited. (Ozone levels in areas which
are NOX-limited are unlikely to be
affected by a change in CO emissions.)
The Ozone RSM also does not account
for changes in VOC reactivity. With
additional ethanol use, the ethanol
content of VOC should increase. Ethanol
is less reactive than the average VOC.
Therefore, this change should also
reduce ambient ozone levels in a way
not addressed by the Ozone RSM, again
in those areas where ozone formation is
predominantly VOC-limited.
Moving to health effects, exposure to
ozone has been linked to a variety of
respiratory effects including premature
mortality, hospital admissions and
illnesses resulting in school absences.
Ozone can also adversely affect the
agricultural and forestry sectors by
decreasing yields of crops and forests.
Although the health and welfare
impacts of changes in ambient ozone
levels are typically quantified in
regulatory impact analyses, we do not
evaluate them for this analysis. On
average, the changes in ambient ozone
levels shown above are small and would
be even smaller if changes in CO
emissions and VOC reactivity were
taken into account. The increase in
ozone would likely lead to negligible
monetized impacts. We therefore do not
estimate and monetize ozone health
impacts for the changes in renewable
use due to the small magnitude of this
change, and the uncertainty present in
the air quality modeling conducted
here, as well as the uncertainty in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
underlying emission effects themselves
discussed earlier.
2. Particulate Matter
Ambient PM can come from two
distinct sources. First, PM can be
directly emitted into the atmosphere.
Second, PM can be formed in the
atmosphere from gaseous pollutants.
Gasoline-fueled vehicles and equipment
contribute to ambient PM
concentrations in both ways.
As described above, we are not
currently able to predict the impact of
fuel quality on direct PM emissions
from gasoline-fueled vehicles or
equipment. Therefore, we are unable at
this time to project the effect that
increased ethanol use will have on
levels of directly emitted PM in the
atmosphere.
PM can also be formed in the
atmosphere (termed secondary PM here)
from several gaseous pollutants emitted
by gasoline-fueled vehicles and
equipment. Sulfur dioxide emissions
contribute to ambient sulfate PM. NOX
emissions contribute to ambient nitrate
PM. VOC emissions contribute to
ambient organic PM, particularly the
portion of this PM comprised of organic
carbon. Increased ethanol use is not
expected to change gasoline sulfur
levels, so emissions of sulfur dioxide
and any resultant ambient
concentrations of sulfate PM are not
expected to change. Increased ethanol
use is expected to increase NOX
emissions, as described above. Thus, the
possibility exists that ambient nitrate
PM levels could increase. Increased
ethanol is generally expected to increase
VOC emissions, which could also
impact the formation of secondary
organic PM. However, some VOC
emissions, namely exhaust VOC
emissions, are expected to decrease,
while non-exhaust VOC emissions are
expected to increase and the impact on
PM is a function of the type of VOC
emissions.
The formation of secondary organic
PM is very complex, due in part to the
wide variety of VOCs emitted into the
atmosphere. Whether or not a specific
gaseous VOC reacts to form PM in the
atmosphere depends on the types of
reactions that VOC undergoes, which in
turn can depend on other pollutants
present, such as ozone, NOX and other
reactive compounds. The relative mass
of secondary PM formed per mass of
gaseous VOC emitted can also depend
on the concentration of the gaseous VOC
and the organic PM in the atmosphere.
Most of the secondary organic PM exists
in a continually changing equilibrium
between the gaseous and PM phases.
Both the rates of these reactions and the
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
gaseous-PM equilibria depend on
temperature, so seasonal differences can
be expected.
Recent smog chamber studies have
indicated that gaseous aromatic VOCs
can form secondary PM under certain
conditions. These compounds comprise
a greater fraction of exhaust VOC
emissions than non-exhaust VOC
emissions, as non-exhaust VOC
emissions are dominated by VOCs with
relatively high vapor pressures.
Aromatic VOCs tend to have lower
vapor pressures. As increased ethanol
use is expected to reduce exhaust VOC
emissions, emissions of aromatic VOCs
should also decrease. In addition,
refiners are expected to reduce the
aromatic content of gasoline by 5
volume percentage points as ethanol is
blended into gasoline. Emissions of
aromatic VOCs should decrease with
lower concentrations of aromatics in
gasoline. Thus, emissions of gaseous
aromatic VOCs could decrease for both
reasons.
Overall, we expect that the decrease
in secondary organic PM is likely to
exceed the increase in secondary nitrate
PM. In 1999, NOX emissions from
gasoline-fueled vehicles and equipment
comprised about 20% of national NOX
emissions from all sources. In contrast,
gasoline-fueled vehicles and equipment
comprised over 60% of all national
gaseous aromatic VOC emissions. The
percentage increase in national NOX
emissions due to increased ethanol use
should be smaller than the percentage
decrease in national emissions of
gaseous aromatics. Finally, in most
urban areas, ambient levels of secondary
organic PM exceed those of secondary
nitrate PM. Thus, directionally, we
expect a net reduction in ambient PM
levels due to increased ethanol use.
However, we are unable to quantify this
reduction at this time.
EPA currently utilizes the CMAQ
model to predict ambient levels of PM
as a function of gaseous and PM
emissions. This model includes
mechanisms to predict the formation of
nitrate PM from NOX emissions.
However, it does not currently include
any mechanisms addressing the
formation of secondary organic PM. EPA
is currently developing a model of
secondary organic PM from gaseous
toluene emissions. We plan to
incorporate this mechanism into the
CMAQ model in 2007. The impact of
other aromatic compounds will be
added as further research clarifies their
role in secondary organic PM formation.
Therefore, we expect to be able to
quantitatively estimate the impact of
decreased toluene emissions and
increased NOX emissions due to
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55625
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
increased ethanol use as part of future
analyses of U.S. fuel requirements
required by the Act.
IX. Impacts on Fossil Fuel Consumption
and Related Implications
Renewable fuels have been of
significant interest for many years due
to their ability to displace fossil fuels,
which have often been targeted as
primary contributors to emissions of
greenhouse gases such as carbon
dioxide and national energy concerns
such as dependence on foreign sources
of petroleum. Because significantly
more renewable fuel is expected to be
consumed over the next few years than
has been consumed in the past, there is
increased interest in the degree to which
their increased use will impact
greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel
consumption.
Based on our analysis, we estimate
that increases in the use of renewable
fuels will reduce fossil fuel
consumption and GHG emissions as
shown in Table IX–1 in 2012. The
results represent the percent reduction
in total transportation sector emissions
and energy use. The ranges result from
different cases evaluated of the amount
of renewable fuel (7.5 billion gallons
versus 9.9 billion gallons) that will
actually be produced in 2012.
TABLE IX–1.—LIFECYCLE IMPACTS OF INCREASED RENEWABLE FUEL USE RELATIVE TO THE 2012 REFERENCE CASE
7.5 Billion
case a
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
a 7.2
b 9.6
Reduction
Reduction
Reduction
Reduction
in
in
in
in
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Sector
Sector
Sector
Sector
Petroleum Energy Use .............................................................................
Fossil Fuel Energy Use ............................................................................
GHG Emissions ........................................................................................
CO2 Emissions ..........................................................................................
1.6
0.8
0.6
0.9
billion gallons of ethanol.
billion gallons of ethanol.
This section provides a summary of
our analysis of the fossil fuel impacts of
the RFS rule.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
1.0
0.5
0.4
0.6
9.9 Billion
case b
A. Lifecycle Modeling
Although the use of renewable fuels
in the transportation sector directly
displaces some petroleum consumed as
motor vehicle fuel, this displacement of
petroleum is in fact only one aspect of
the overall impact of renewable fuels on
fossil fuel use. Fossil fuels are also used
in producing and transporting
renewable feedstocks such as plants or
animal byproducts, in converting the
renewable feedstocks into renewable
fuel, and in transporting and blending
the renewable fuels for consumption as
motor vehicle fuel. To estimate the true
impacts of increases in renewable fuels
on fossil fuel use, modelers attempt to
take many or all these steps into
account. Similarly, energy is used and
GHGs emitted in the pumping of oil,
transporting the oil to the refinery,
refining the crude oil into finished
transportation fuel, transporting the
refined gasoline or diesel fuel to the
consumer and then burning the fuel in
the vehicle. Such analyses are termed
lifecycle or well-to-wheels analyses.
A variety of approaches are available
to conduct lifecycle analysis. This
variety largely reflects different
assumptions about (1) the boundary
conditions and (2) the estimates of input
factors. The boundary conditions
determine the scope of the analysis. For
example, a lifecycle analysis could
include energy required to make farm
equipment as part of the estimate of
energy required to grow corn. The
agency chose a lifecycle analytic
boundary that encompasses the fuel-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
cycle and does not include the example
used above. Differing estimates on input
factors (e.g. amount of fertilizer to grow
corn) can also affect the results of the
lifecycle analysis.
For this proposed rulemaking, we
have made use of a fuel-cycle model,
GREET,87 developed at Argonne
National Laboratory (ANL) under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Department of
Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE). GREET has
been under development for several
years and has undergone extensive peer
review through multiple updates. Of the
available sources of information on
lifecycle analyses of energy consumed
and emissions generated, we believe
that GREET offers the most
comprehensive treatment of the
transportation sector. For instance,
GREET provides lifecycle assessments
for ethanol made from corn and
cellulosic materials, biodiesel made
from soybean oil, and petroleum-based
gasoline and diesel fuel. Thus GREET
provides a means for calculating the
relative greenhouse gas (GHG) and
petroleum impacts of renewable fuels
that displace conventional motor
vehicle fuels. For this proposal, we used
version 1.7 of the GREET model, with a
few modifications to its input
assumptions as described in more detail
below.
We do not believe that it would be
appropriate at this time to base the
regulatory provisions for this rule on
lifecycle modeling, as described in more
detail in Section III.B.4. Although the
GREET model does provide a peer87 Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and
Energy use in Transportation.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reviewed source for lifecycle modeling,
a consensus on all the assumptions,
including point estimates, that are used
as inputs into that model does not
exist.88 Also, given the short timeframe
available for the development of this
proposal, we have not had the
opportunity to initiate the type of public
dialogue on lifecycle modeling that
would be necessary before such
analyses could be incorporated into a
regulatory framework. We have
therefore chosen to use lifecycle
modeling only as a means to estimate
the impacts of the increased use of
renewable fuel.
In addition to the GREET model tool,
EPA has also developed a lifecycle
modeling tool that is specific to
individual fuel producers. This FUELCO2 model is intended to help fuel
producers estimate the lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions and fossil
energy use for all stages in the
development of their specific fuel. EPA
will evaluate whether the FUEL-CO2
model would be an appropriate tool for
fuel providers who wish to demonstrate
their actual reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions and fossil energy use.
This may also be the best way for
ethanol producers to quantify the
benefits of their renewable process
energy use when qualifying corn
ethanol as cellulosic biomass ethanol
(an option for ethanol producers,
stipulated in the Act).
88 See Chapter 6.1.2 of the RIA for further
discussion of input assumptions used for the
GREET modeling. Also see IX.A.2 of this preamble
section for a discussion about the differing
estimates.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55626
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
1. Modifications to GREET Assumptions
GREET is subject to periodic updates
by ANL, each of which results in some
changes to the inputs and assumptions
that form the basis for the lifecycle
estimates of emissions generated and
energy consumed. These updates
generally focus on those input values for
those fuels or vehicle technologies that
are the focus of ANL at the time. As a
result there are a variety of other inputs
related to ethanol and biodiesel that
have not been updated in some time. In
the context of the RFS program, we
determined that some of the GREET
input values that were either based on
outdated information or did not
appropriately reflect market conditions
under a renewable fuels mandate should
be examined more closely, and updated
if necessary.
In the timeframe available for
developing this proposal, we chose to
concentrate our efforts on those GREET
input values for ethanol that had
significant influence on the lifecycle
emissions or energy estimates and that
were likely to be based on outdated
information. We reviewed the input
values only for ethanol made from corn,
since this particular renewable fuel is
likely to continue to dominate the
renewable fuel pool through at least
2012. For cellulosic ethanol and
biodiesel the GREET default values were
used in this proposal. However, we have
also initiated a contract with ANL to
investigate a wider variety of GREET
input values, including those associated
with the following fuel/feedstock
pathways:
• Ethanol from corn.
• Ethanol from cellulosic materials
(hybrid populars, switchgrass, and corn
stover).
• Biodiesel from soybean oil.
• Methanol from renewable sources.
• Natural gas from renewable sources.
• Renewable diesel formulations.
The contract focuses on the potential
fuel production developments and
efficiency improvements that could
occur within the time-frame of the RFS
program. The GREET input value
changes resulting from this work are
projected to be available in the fall of
2006, not in time for this proposal, but
they will be incorporated into revised
lifecycle assessments for the final rule.
We did not investigate the input
values associated with the production of
petroleum-based gasoline or diesel fuel
in the GREET model for this proposal.
However, the refinery modeling
discussed in Section VII will provide
some additional information on the
process energy requirements associated
with the production of gasoline and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
diesel under a renewable fuels mandate.
We will use information from this
refinery modeling for the final rule to
determine if any GREET input values
should be changed.
A summary of the GREET corn
ethanol input values we investigated
and modified for this proposal is given
below. We also examined several other
GREET input values, but determined
that the default GREET values should
not be changed for a variety of reasons.
These included ethanol plant process
efficiency, corn and ethanol transport
distances and modes, corn farming
inputs, CO2 emissions from corn
farming land use change, and byproduct
allocation methods. Our investigation of
these other GREET input values are
discussed more fully in Chapter 6 of the
RIA. The current GREET default factors
for these other inputs were included in
the analysis for this proposal.
a. Wet-Mill Versus Dry Mill Ethanol
Plants. The two basic methods for
producing ethanol from corn are wet
milling and dry milling. In the wet
milling process, the corn is soaked to
separate the starch, used to make
ethanol, from the other components of
the corn kernel. In the dry milling
process, the entire corn kernel is ground
and fermented to produce ethanol. The
remaining components of the corn are
then dried for animal feed (dried
distillers grains with solubles, or
DDGS). Wet milling is more
complicated and expensive than dry
milling, but it produces more valuable
products (ethanol plus corn syrup, corn
oil, and corn gluten meal and feeds).
The majority of ethanol plants in the
United States are dry mill plants, which
produce ethanol more simply and
efficiently. The GREET default is 70
percent dry mill, 30 percent wet mill.
For this analysis, we expect most new
ethanol plants will be dry mill
operations. That has been the trend in
the last few years as the demand for
ethanol has grown, and our analysis of
ethanol plants under construction and
planned for the near future has verified
this. Therefore, it was assumed that
essentially all new ethanol facilities
would be dry mill plants.
b. Coal Versus Natural Gas in Ethanol
Plants. The type of fuel used within the
ethanol plant for process energy, to
power the various components that are
used in ethanol production (dryers,
grinders, heating, etc.) can vary among
ethanol plants. The type of fuel used has
an impact on the energy usage,
efficiency, and emissions of the plant,
and is primarily determined by
economics. Most new plants built in the
last few years have used natural gas.
Based on specific situations and
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
economics, some new plants are using
coal. In addition, EPA is promoting the
use of combined heat and power, or
cogeneration, in ethanol plants to
improve plant energy-efficiency and to
reduce air emissions. This technology,
in the face of increasing natural gas
prices, may make coal a more attractive
energy source for new ethanol plants.
GREET assumes that 20 percent of
plants will be powered by coal.
However, our review of plants under
construction and those planned for the
near future indicates that coal will only
be used for approximately 10% of the
plants. This is the value we assumed in
GREET for our analysis. However, as
new plants are constructed to meet the
demands of the RFS, this percentage is
expected to go up. Future work in
preparation for the final rule will
evaluate the potential trends for
combined heat and power and coal as
process fuel.
c. Ethanol Production Yield. It is
generally assumed that 1 bushel of corn
yields 2.7 gallons of ethanol. However,
the development of new enzymes
continues to increase the potential
ethanol yield. We used a value of 2.71
gal/bu in our analysis. This value
represents pure ethanol production (i.e.
no denaturant). This value is consistent
with the cost modeling of corn ethanol
discussed in Section VII.
2. Controversy Concerning the Ethanol
Energy Balance
Although we have made use of
lifecycle impact estimates from ANL’s
GREET model, there are a variety of
lifecycle impact analyses from other
researchers that provide alternative and
sometimes significantly different
estimates. The lifecycle energy balance
for corn-ethanol, in particular, has been
the subject of numerous and sometimes
contentious debates.
Several metrics are commonly used to
describe the energy efficiency of
renewable fuels. We have chosen to use
displacement indexes for this proposal
because they provide the least
ambiguous and most relevant
mechanism for estimating the impacts of
renewable fuels on GHGs and petroleum
consumption. However, other metrics,
such as the net energy balance and
energy efficiency, have more commonly
been used in the past. The use of these
metrics has served to complicate the
issue since they do not involve a direct
comparison to the gasoline that the
ethanol is replacing.
Among researchers who have studied
the lifecycle energy balance of cornethanol, the primary differences of
opinion appear to center on fossil
energy associated with fertilizers, the
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
energy required to convert corn into
ethanol, and the value of co-products.
As a result of these differences, the net
energy balance has been estimated to be
somewhere between ¥34 and + 31
thousand Btu/gal, and the energy
efficiency has been estimated to be
somewhere between 0.6 and 1.4.89 A
concern arises in cases where a
researcher concludes that the net energy
balance is negative, or the energy
efficiency is less than 1.0. Such cases
would indicate that the fossil energy
used in the production and
transportation of ethanol exceeds the
energy in the ethanol itself, and this is
generally interpreted to mean that
lifecycle fossil fuel use negates the
benefits of replacing gasoline with
ethanol. However, since the metrics
used do not actually compare ethanol to
gasoline, such interpretations are
unwarranted.
The primary studies that conclude
that the energy balance is negative were
conducted by Dr. David Pimental of
Cornell University and Dr. T. Patzek of
University of California, Berkeley 90 91.
Many other researchers, however, have
criticized that work as being based on
out-dated farming and ethanol
production data, including data not
normally considered in lifecycle
analysis for fuels, and not following the
standard methodology for lifecycle
analysis in terms of valuing co-products.
Furthermore, several recent surveys
have concluded that the energy balance
is positive, although they differ in their
numerical estimates.92 93 94 Authors of
89 A net energy balance of zero, or an energy
efficiency of 1.0, would indicate that the full
lifecycle fossil fuels used in the production and
transportation of ethanol are exactly equal to the
energy in the ethanol itself.
90 Pimentel, David ‘‘Ethanol Fuel: Energy
Balance, Economics, and Environmental Impacts
are Negative’’, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2003 International
Association for Mathematical Geology, Natural
Resources Research.
91 Pimentel, D.; Patzek, T. ‘‘Ethanol production
using corn, switchgrass, and wood; biodiesel
production using soybean and sunflower.’’ Nat.
Resour. Res. 2005, 14 (1), 65–76.
92 Hammerschlag, R. ‘‘Ethanol’s Energy Return on
Investment: A Survey of the Literature 1990—
Present.’’ Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 1744–
1750.
93 Farrell, A., Pelvin, R., Turner, B., Joenes, A.,
O’Hare, M., Kammen, D., ‘‘Ethanol Can Contribute
to Energy and Environmental Goals’’, Science, 1/27/
2006, Vol. 311, 506–508.
94 Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S.,
Tiffany, D., ‘‘Environmental, economic, and
energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol
biofuels’’, Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 7/25/2006, Vol. 103, No. 30, 11206–
11210.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
the GREET model have also concluded
that the lifecycle amount of fossil energy
used to produce ethanol is less than the
amount of energy in the ethanol itself.
Based on our review of all the available
information, we have concluded that the
energy balance is indeed positive, and
we believe that the GREET model
provides an accurate basis for
quantifying the lifecycle impacts.
B. Overview of Methodology
The GREET model does not provide
estimates of energy consumed and
emissions generated in total, such as the
total amount of natural gas consumed in
the U.S. in a given year by ethanol
production facilities. Instead, it
provides estimates on a national
average, per fuel unit basis, such as the
amount of natural gas consumed for the
average ethanol production facility per
million Btus of ethanol produced. As a
result we could not use GREET directly
to estimate the nationwide impacts of
replacing some gasoline and diesel with
renewable fuels.
Instead, we used GREET to generate
comparisons between renewable fuels
and the petroleum-based fuels that they
displace. These comparisons allowed us
to develop displacement indexes that
represent the amount of lifecycle GHGs
or fossil fuel reduced when a Btu of
renewable fuel replaces a Btu of
gasoline or diesel. In order to estimate
the incremental impacts of increased
use of renewable fuels on GHGs and
fossil fuels, we combined those
displacement indexes with our
renewable fuel volume scenarios and
GHG emissions and fossil fuel
consumption data for the conventional
fuels replaced. For example, to estimate
the impact of corn-ethanol use on GHGs,
these factors were combined in the
following way:
SGHG,corn ethanol = Rcorn ethanol × LCgasoline ×
DIGHG,corn ethanol
Where:
SGHG,corn ethanol = Lifecycle GHG emission
reduction relative to the 2012 reference
case associated with use of corn ethanol
(million tons of GHG).
Rcorn ethanol = Amount of gasoline replaced by
corn ethanol on an energy basis (Btu).
LCgasoline = Lifecycle emissions associated
with gasoline use (million tons of GHG
per Btu of gasoline).
DIGHG,corn ethanol = Displacement Index for
GHGs and corn ethanol, representing the
percent reduction in gasoline lifecycle
GHG emissions which occurs when a Btu
of gasoline is replaced by a Btu of corn
ethanol.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55627
Variations of the above equation were
also generated for impacts on all four
endpoints of interest (emissions of CO2,
emissions of GHGs, fossil fuel
consumption, and petroleum
consumption) as well as all three
renewable fuels examined (cornethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and
biodiesel). Each of the variables in the
above equation are discussed in more
detail below. Section 6 of the DRIA
provides details of the analysis.
1. Amount of Conventional Fuel
Replaced by Renewable Fuel (R)
In general, the volume fraction (R)
represents the amount of conventional
fuel no longer consumed—that is,
displaced—as a result of the use of the
replacement renewable fuel. Thus R
represents the total amount of
renewable fuel used under each of our
renewable fuel volume scenarios, in
units of Btu. We make the assumption
that vehicle energy efficiency will not
be affected by the presence of renewable
fuels (i.e., efficiency of combusting one
Btu of ethanol is equal to the efficiency
of combusting one Btu of gasoline).
Consistent with the emissions
modeling described in Section VII, our
analysis of the GHG and fossil fuel
consumption impacts of renewable fuel
use was conducted using three volume
scenarios. The first scenario was a base
case representing 2004 renewable fuel
production levels, projected to 2012.
This scenario provided the point of
comparison for the other two scenarios.
The other two renewable fuel scenarios
for 2012 represented the RFS program
requirements and the volume projected
by EIA. In both scenarios, we assumed
that the biodiesel production volume
would be 0.3 billion gallons based on an
EIA projection, and that the cellulosic
ethanol production volume would be
0.25 billion gallons based on the Energy
Act’s requirement that 250 million
gallons of cellulosic ethanol be
produced starting in the next year, 2013.
The remaining renewable fuel volumes
in each scenario would be ethanol made
from corn. The total volumes for all
three scenarios are shown in Table
IX.B.1–1. For the purposes of
calculating the R values, we assumed
the ethanol volumes are 5% denatured,
and the volumes were converted to total
Btu using the appropriate volumetric
energy content values (76,000 Btu/gal
for ethanol, and 118,000 Btu/gal for
biodiesel).
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55628
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IX.B.1–1.—VOLUME SCENARIOS IN 2012
[billion gallons]
Reference
case
RFS
required
volume:
7.5 B gal
Projected volume:
9.9 B gal
Corn-ethanol ......................................................................................................................................
Cellulosic ethanol ...............................................................................................................................
Biodiesel ............................................................................................................................................
3.9
0.0
0.028
6.95
0.25
0.3
9.35
0.25
0.3
Total volume ...............................................................................................................................
3.928
7.5
9.9
Since the impacts of increased
renewable fuel use were measured
relative to the 2012 reference case, the
value of R actually represented the
incremental amount of renewable fuel
between the reference case and each of
the two other scenarios.
2. Lifecycle Impacts of Conventional
Fuel Use (LC)
In order to determine the lifecycle
impact that increased renewable fuel
volumes may have on any particular
endpoint (fossil fuel consumption or
emissions of GHGs), we also needed to
know the conventional fuel inventory
on a lifecycle basis. Since available
sources of GHG emissions are provided
on a direct rather than a lifecycle basis,
we converted these direct emission and
energy estimates into their lifecycle
counterparts. We used GREET to
develop multiplicative factors for
converting direct (vehicle-based)
emissions of GHGs and energy use into
full lifecycle factors. Table IX.B.2–1
shows the total lifecycle petroleum and
GHG emissions associated with direct
use of a Btu value of gasoline and diesel
fuel.
The displacement index (DI)
represents the percent reduction in GHG
emissions or fossil fuel energy brought
about by the use of a renewable fuel in
comparison to the conventional gasoline
or diesel that the renewable fuel
replaces. The formula for calculating the
displacement index depends on which
TABLE IX.B.2–1.—LIFECYCLE
EMISSIONS AND ENERGY (LC VALUES) fuel is being displaced (i.e. gasoline or
diesel), and which endpoint is of
Gasoline
Diesel
interest (e.g. petroleum energy, GHG).
For instance, when investigating the
Petroleum (Btu/
CO2 impacts of ethanol used in gasoline,
Btu) ................
1.11
1.10
the displacement index is calculated as
Fossil fuel (Btu/
Btu) ................
1.22
1.21 follows:
GHG (Tg-CO2eq/QBtu) ........
CO2 (Tg-CO2/
QBtu) .............
DICO2 = 1 −
The units of g/Btu ensure that the
comparison between the renewable fuel
and the conventional fuel is made on a
common basis, and that differences in
the volumetric energy content of the
fuels is taken into account. The
denominator includes the CO2 emitted
through combustion of the gasoline
itself in addition to all the CO2 emitted
during its manufacturer and
distribution. The numerator, in contrast,
includes only the CO2 emitted during
the manufacturer and distribution of
ethanol, not the CO2 emitted during
combustion of the ethanol.
3. Displacement Indexes (DI)
99.4
94.5
94.2
91.9
lifecycle CO 2 emitted for ethanol in g/Btu
lifecycle CO 2 emitted for gasoline in g/Btu
The combustion of biomass-based
fuels, such as ethanol from corn and
woody crops, generates CO2. However,
in the long run the CO2 emitted from
biomass-based fuels combustion does
not increase atmospheric CO2
concentrations, assuming the biogenic
carbon emitted is offset by the uptake of
CO2 resulting from the growth of new
biomass. As a result, CO2 emissions
from biomass-based fuels combustion
are not included in their lifecycle
emissions results and are not used in
the CO2 displacement index
calculations shown above.
Using GREET, we calculated the
lifecycle values for energy consumed
and GHGs produced for corn-ethanol,
cellulosic ethanol, and soybean-based
biodiesel. These values were in turn
used to calculate the displacement
indexes. The results are shown in Table
IX.B.3–1. Details of these calculations
can be found in Chapter 6 of the RIA.
As noted previously, different models
can result in different estimates. For
example, whereas GREET estimates a
net GHG reduction of about 26% for
corn ethanol compared to gasoline, the
previously cited works by Farrell et al.
estimates around a 13% reduction.
Corn ethanol
(percent)
DIPetroleum ......................................................................................................................................
DIFossil Fuel .....................................................................................................................................
DIGHG ...........................................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
92.3
40.1
25.8
22SEP2
Cellulosic ethanol
(percent)
92.7
96.0
98.1
Biodiesel
(percent)
84.6
47.9
53.4
EP22SE06.005
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
TABLE IX.B.3–1.—DISPLACEMENT INDEXES DERIVED FROM GREET
55629
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IX.B.3–1.—DISPLACEMENT INDEXES DERIVED FROM GREET—Continued
Corn ethanol
(percent)
DICO2 .............................................................................................................................................
The displacement indexes in this
table represent the impact of replacing
a Btu of gasoline or diesel with a Btu of
renewable fuel. Thus, for instance, for
every Btu of gasoline which is replaced
by corn ethanol, the total lifecycle GHG
emissions that would have been
produced from that Btu of gasoline
would be reduced by 25.8 percent. For
every Btu of diesel which is replaced by
biodiesel, the total lifecycle petroleum
energy that would have been consumed
as a result of burning that Btu of diesel
fuel would be reduced by 84.6 percent.
Note that our DI estimates for
cellulosic ethanol assume that the
ethanol in question was in fact
produced from a cellulosic feedstock,
such as wood, corn stalks, or
switchgrass. However, the definition of
cellulosic biomass ethanol given in the
Energy Act also includes ethanol made
from non-cellulosic feedstocks if 90
percent of the process energy used to
operate the facility is derived from a
renewable source. In the context of our
cost analysis, we have assumed this
latter definition of cellulosic ethanol.
Further discussion of this issue can be
found in Chapter 1, Section 1.2.2 of the
RIA.
C. Impacts of Increased Renewable Fuel
Use
We used the methodology described
above to calculate impacts of increased
43.9
Cellulosic ethanol
(percent)
Biodiesel
(percent)
110.1
56.8
use of renewable fuels on consumption
of petroleum and fossil fuels and also on
emissions of CO2 and GHGs. This
section describes our results.
1. Fossil Fuels and Petroleum
We used the equation for S above to
calculate the reduction associated with
the increased use of renewable fuels on
lifecycle fossil fuels and petroleum.
These values are then compared to the
total U.S. transportation sector
emissions to get a percent reduction.
The results are presented in Tables
IX.C.1–1 and IX.C.1–2.
TABLE IX.C.1.–1.—FOSSIL FUEL IMPACTS OF INCREASED USE OF RENEWABLE FUELS IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
IN 2012, RELATIVE TO THE 2012 REFERENCE CASE
RFS Required
volume: 7.5
Bgal
Projected volume: 9.9 Bgal
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.8
Reduction (quadrillion Btu) ......................................................................................................................................
Percent reduction .....................................................................................................................................................
TABLE IX.C.1.–2.—PETROLEUM IMPACTS OF INCREASED USE OF RENEWABLE FUELS IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR IN
2012, RELATIVE TO THE 2012 REFERENCE CASE
RFS Required
volume: 7.5
Bgal
Projected volume: 9.9 Bgal
2.3
1.0
3.9
1.6
Reduction (billion gal) ..............................................................................................................................................
Percent reduction .....................................................................................................................................................
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
2. Greenhouse Gases and Carbon
Dioxide
One issue that has come to the
forefront in the assessment of the
environmental impacts of transportation
fuels relates to the effect that the use of
such fuels could have on emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHGs). The
combustion of fossil fuels has been
identified as a major contributor to the
increase in concentrations of
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) since
the beginning of the industrialized era,
as well as the build-up of trace GHGs
such as methane (CH4) and nitrous
oxide (N2O). This lifecycle analysis
evaluates the impacts of renewable fuel
use on greenhouse gas emissions.
The relative global warming
contribution of emissions of various
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
greenhouse gases is dependant on their
radiative forcing, atmospheric lifetime,
and other considerations. For example,
on a mass basis, the radiative forcing of
CH4 is much higher than that of CO2,
but its effective atmospheric residence
time is much lower. The relative
warming impacts of various greenhouse
gases, taking into account factors such
as atmospheric lifetime and direct
warming effects, are reported on a CO2equivalent basis as global warming
potentials (GWPs). The GWPs used by
GREET were developed by the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) as listed in their Third
Assessment Report 95, and are shown in
Table IX.C.2–1.
95 IPCC ‘‘Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
Basis’’, Chapter 6; Intergovernmental Panel on
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
TABLE IX.C.2–1.—GLOBAL WARMING
POTENTIALS FOR GREENHOUSE GASES
Greenhouse gas
GWP
CO2 ...............................................
CH4 ...............................................
N2O ...............................................
1
23
296
Greenhouse gases are measured in
terms of CO2-equivalent emissions,
which result from multiplying the GWP
for each of the three pollutants shown
in the above table by the mass of
emission for each pollutant. The sum of
Climate Change; J. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. J.
Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, X. Dai,
C. A. Johnson; and K. Maskell, eds.; Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge, U. K. 2001. https://
www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55630
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
impacts for CH4, N2O, and CO2, yields
the total effective GHG impact.
We used the equation for S above to
calculate the reduction associated with
the increased use of renewable fuels on
lifecycle emissions of CO2. These values
are then compared to the total U.S.
transportation sector emissions to get a
percent reduction. The results are
presented in Table IX.C.2–2.
TABLE IX.C.2–2.—CO2 EMISSION IMPACTS OF INCREASED USE OF RENEWABLE FUELS IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
IN 2012, RELATIVE TO THE 2012 REFERENCE CASE
RFS Required volume: 7.5 Bgal
Reduction (million metric tons CO2)
Percent reduction
U.S. economy. Expanded production of
renewable fuel is expected to contribute
to energy diversification and the
development of domestic sources of
energy. We consider whether the RFS
will reduce U.S. dependence on
imported oil by calculating avoided
expenditures on petroleum imports.
Note that we do not calculate whether
this reduction is socially beneficially,
which would depend on the scarcity
value of domestically produced ethanol
versus that of imported petroleum
products.
To assess the impact of the RFS
TABLE IX.C.2–3.—GHG EMISSION IM- program on petroleum imports, the
PACTS OF INCREASED USE OF RE- fraction of domestic consumption
derived from foreign sources was
NEWABLE FUELS IN THE TRANSPORestimated using results from the AEO
TATION SECTOR IN 2012, RELATIVE
2006. In section 6.4.1 of the DRIA we
TO THE 2012 REFERENCE CASE
describe how fuel producers change
their mix in response to a decrease in
RFS ReProjected
fuel demand. We do not expect the
quired volVolume: 9.9 projected reductions in petroleum
ume: 7.5
Bgal
Bgal
consumption (0.3 to 0.57 Quads) to
impact world oil prices by a measurable
Reduction (milamount. We base this assumption on the
lion metric
overall size of worldwide petroleum
tons CO2-eq.) ..
9.0
13.5
demand and analysis of the AEO 2006
Percent reduction ................
0.4%
0.6% cases. As a consequence, domestic
crude oil production for the 7.5 or 9.9
cases would not be expected to change
D. Implications of Reduced Imports of
significantly versus the RFS reference
Petroleum Products
case. Thus, petroleum reductions will
This section only considers the
come largely from reductions in net
impacts on imports of oil and petroleum petroleum imports. This conclusion is
products. Expanded production and use confirmed by comparing the AEO 2006
of renewable fuels could have other
low macroeconomic growth case to the
economic impacts such as on the
AEO 2006 reference case, as discussed
exports of agricultural products like
in the RIA 6.4.1. The AEO 2006 shows
corn. See section X of the preamble for
that for a reduction in petroleum
a discussion on agricultural sector
demand on the order of the reductions
impacts.
estimated for the RFS, net imports will
In 2005, the United States imported
account for approximately 95% of the
almost 60 percent of the oil it
reductions. However, if petroleum
consumed. This compares to just over
reductions were large enough to impact
96
35 percent oil imports in 1975.
world oil prices, the mix of domestic
Transportation accounts for 70% of the
crude oil, imports of finished products,
U.S. oil consumption. It is clear that oil
and imports of crude oil used by fuel
imports have a significant impact on the producers would change. We discuss
this uncertainty in more detail in
96 Davis, Stacy C.; Diegel, Susan W.,
section 6.4.1 of the RIA and solicit
Transportation Energy Data Book: 25th Edition, Oak
comments to the extent by which the
Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of
Energy, ORNL–6974, 2006.
RFS may have a price effect and impact
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Carbon dioxide is a subset of GHGs,
along with CH4 and N2O as discussed
above. It can be seen from Table IX.B.3–
1 that the displacement index of CO2 is
greater than for GHGs for each
renewable fuel. This indicates that
lifecycle emissions of CH4 and N2O are
higher for renewable fuels than for the
conventional fuels replaced. Therefore,
reductions associated with the increased
use of renewable fuels on lifecycle
emissions of GHGs are lower than the
values for CO2. The results for GHGs are
presented in Table IX.C.2–3.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Projected Volume: 9.9
Bgal
12.6
0.6 %
19.8
0.9 %
the imports of crude oil and refined
products.
We quantified the fraction of net
petroleum imports that would be crude
oil versus finished products.
Comparison of same cases in the AEO
2006 shows that finished products
initially compose all the net import
reductions, followed by imported crude
oil once reductions in consumption
reach beyond 1.2 Quads of petroleum
product. However, there is significant
uncertainty in quantifying how
refineries will change their mix of
sources with a decrease in petroleum
demand, particularly at the levels
estimated for the RFS. For example, a
comparison between the AEO low price
case (as opposed to low macroeconomic
growth case) and the reference case
would yield a 50–50 split between
product and crude imports. We believe
that the actual refinery response could
range between these two points, so that
finished product imports would
compose between 50 to 100% of the net
import reductions, with crude oil
imports making up the remainder. For
the purposes of this rulemaking, we
show values for the case where net
import reductions come entirely from
imports of finished products, as shown
below in Table IX.D–1. We compare
these reductions in imports against the
AEO projected levels of net petroleum
imports. The range of reductions in net
petroleum imports are estimated to be
between 1 to 2%, as shown in Table
IX.D–2.
TABLE IX.D–1.—REDUCTIONS IN
IMPORTS OF FINISHED PRODUCTS
[barrels per day]
Cases
7.5 .............................................
9.9 .............................................
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
2012
145,454
240,892
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
the level of oil imports or
consumption.99
Since the 1997 publication of this
report changes in oil market conditions,
both current and projected, suggest that
the magnitude of the ‘‘oil premium’’
Cases
2012
may have changed. Significant factors
7.5 .....................................................
1.1% that should be reconsidered include: Oil
9.9 .....................................................
1.7% prices, current and anticipated levels of
OPEC production, U.S. import levels,
potential OPEC behavior and responses,
One of the effects of increased use of
and disruption likelihoods. ORNL will
renewable fuel is that it diversifies the
apply the most recently available careful
energy sources used in making
quantitative assessment of disruption
transportation fuel. To the extent that
likelihoods, from the Stanford Energy
diverse sources of fuel energy reduce
Modeling Forum’s 2005 workshop
the dependence on any one source, the
100
risks, both financial as well as strategic, series, as well as other assessments .
ORNL will also revisit the issue of the
of potential disruption in supply or
macroeconomic consequences of oil
spike in cost of a particular energy
market disruptions and sustained higher
source is reduced.
oil prices. Using the ‘‘oil premium’’
To understand the energy security
calculation methodology which
implications of the RFS, EPA will work
combines short-run and long-run costs
with Oak Ridge National Laboratory
and benefits, and accounting for
(ORNL). As a first step, ORNL will
uncertainty in the key driving factors,
update and apply the approach used in
ORNL will provide an updated range of
the 1997 report Oil Imports: An
estimates of the marginal energy
Assessment of Benefits and Costs, by
security implications of displacing oil
Leiby, Jones, Curlee and Lee.97 This
consumption with renewable fuels. The
paper was cited and its results utilized
results of this work effort are not
in previous DOT/NHTSA rulemakings,
available for this proposal but will be
including the 2006 Final Regulatory
part of the assessment of impacts of the
Impact Analysis of CAFE Reform for
RFS in the final rule. Although not
Light Trucks.98 This approach is
directly applicable, financial economics
consistent with that used in the
literature has examined risk
Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate
diversification. The agency is interested
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
in ways to examine changes in risks
Standards Report conducted by the
associated with diversifying energy
National Research Council/National
sources in general and solicits
Academy of Sciences in 2002. Both
comments as such.
We also calculate the decreased
reports estimate the marginal benefits to
society, in dollars per barrel, of reducing expenditures on petroleum imports and
compare this with the U.S. trade
either imports or consumption. This
position measured as U.S. net exports of
‘‘oil premium’’ approach emphasizes
identifying those energy-security related all goods and services economy-wide.
costs that are not reflected in the market All reductions in petroleum imports are
expected to be from finished petroleum
price of oil, and which may change in
response to an incremental change in
TABLE IX.D–2.—PERCENT REDUCTIONS IN PETROLEUM IMPORTS COMPARED TO AEO2006 IMPORT PROJECTIONS
Paul N., Donald W. Jones, T. Randall
Curlee, and Russell Lee, Oil Imports: An
Assessment of Benefits and Costs, ORNL–6851, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, November 1, 1997.
(https://pzl1.ed.ornl.gov/energysecurity.html).
98 US DOT, NHTSA 2006. ‘‘Final Regulatory
Impact Analysis: Corporate Average Fuel Economy
and CAFE Reform for MY 2008–2011 Light Trucks,’’
Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation,
National Center for Statistics and Analysis, March.
(https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/
Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/
2006_FRIAPublic.pdf).
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
97 Leiby,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
99 For instance, the 1997 ORNL study gave a range
for the ‘‘oil premium’’ $0 to $13 per barrel (adjusted
to $2004) based on 1994 market conditions. The
actual value depended on assumptions about the
market power of foreign exporters and the
monopsony power of the U.S., the risk of future oil
price shocks and the employment of hedging
strategies, and the connections between oil shocks
and GNP.
100 Stanford Energy Modeling Forum, Phillip C.
Beccue and Hillard G. Huntington, 2005. ‘‘An
Assessment of Oil Market Disruption Risks,’’ FINAL
REPORT, EMF SR 8, October 3. (https://
www.stanford.edu/group/EMF/publications/
search.htm).
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55631
products rather than crude oil. The
reduced expenditures in petroleum
product imports were calculated by
multiplying the reductions in gasoline
and diesel imports by their
corresponding price. According to the
EIA, the price of imported finished
products is the market price minus
domestic local transportation from
refineries and minus taxes.101 An
estimate was made by using the AEO
2006 gasoline and distillate price
forecasts and subtracting the average
Federal and state taxes based on
historical data.102
We compare these avoided petroleum
import expenditures against the
projected value of total U.S. net exports
of all goods and services economy-wide.
Net exports is a measure of the
difference between the value of exports
of goods and services by the U.S. and
the value of U.S. imports of goods and
services from the rest of the world. For
example, according to the AEO 2006,
the value of total import expenditures of
goods and services exceeds the value of
U.S. exports of goods and services to the
rest of the world by $695 billion for
2006 (for a net export level of minus
$695 billion).103 This net exports level
is projected to diminish to minus $383
billion by 2012. In Table IX.D–3, we
compare the avoided expenditures in
petroleum imports versus the total value
of U.S. net exports of goods and services
for the whole economy for 2012.
Relative to the 2012 projection, the
avoided petroleum expenditures due to
the RFS would represent 0.9 to 1.5% of
economy-wide net exports.
101 EIA (September 1997), ‘‘Petroleum 1996:
Issues and Trends’’, Office of Oil and Gas, DOE/
EIA–0615, p. 71. (https://tonto.eia.doe.gov/
FTPROOT/petroleum/061596.pdf)
102 The average taxes per gallon of gasoline and
diesel have stayed relatively constant. For 2000–
2006, gasoline taxes were $0.44/gallon ($2004)
while for 2002–2006, diesel taxes were $0.49/
gallon. The average was taken from available EIA
data (https://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/
gasdiesel.asp).
103 For reference, the U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA) reports that the 2005 import
expenditures. on energy-related petroleum products
totaled $235.5 billion (2004$) while petroleum
exports totaled $13.6 billion—for a net of $221.9
billion in expenditures. Net petroleum expenditures
made up a significant fraction of the $591.3 billion
current account deficit in goods and services for
2005 (2004$). (https://www.bea.gov/)
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55632
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IX.D–3.—AVOIDED PETROLEUM IMPORT EXPENDITURES FOR 2012
[$2004 billion]
RFS Cases
AEO2006 total net exports
Avoided expenditures
in petroleum
imports
Percent
versus total
net exports
(Percent)
7.5
9.9
3.5
5.8
0.9
1.5
¥$383 .....................................................................................................................................................
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
X. Agricultural Sector Economic
Impacts
As described in more detail in the
Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis
accompanying this proposal, we plan to
evaluate the economic impact on the
agricultural sector. However, due to the
timing of that analysis, it will not be
completed until the final rule. In the
meantime, we briefly describe here (and
in more detail in the draft RIA) our
planned analyses and the sources of
assumptions which could critically
impact those assessments. Finally, we
ask for specific comment on the best
sources of information we use in these
analyses.
We will be using the Forest and
Agricultural Sector Optimization Model
(‘‘FASOM’’) developed over the past 30
years by Bruce McCarl, Texas A&M
University and others. This is a
constrained optimization model which
seeks to allocate resources and
production to maximize producer plus
consumer surpluses. We have consulted
with a range of experts both within EPA
as well as at our sister agencies, the U.S.
Departments of Agriculture and Energy
and they support the use of this model
for assessing the economic impacts on
the agricultural sector of various
renewable fuel pathways evaluated in
this rule. The objective of this modeling
assessment is to predict the economic
impacts that will directly result from the
expanded use of farm products for
transportation fuel production. We
anticipate that the growing demand for
corn for ethanol production in
particular but also soybeans and other
agricultural crops such as rapeseed and
other oil seeds for biodiesel production
will increase the production of these
feedstocks and impact farm income. The
additional corn to produce ethanol may
come from several sources, including (1)
more intensive cultivation of existing
land that currently produces corn, (2)
switching production from soybean and
cotton to corn, (3) additional acres of
land being cultivated, or (4) diversion
from corn exports. The implications to
U.S. net exports and environment
effects partially depend on which
source supplies more corn. Eventually
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
various cellulose sources such as corn
stover and switchgrass for cellulosebased ethanol production may well
become highly demanded and also
significantly impact the agricultural
sector.
Using the FASOM model, we will
estimate the direct impact on farm
income resulting from higher demand
for corn and soybeans, for example.
Additionally, we will estimate impacts
on farm employment. Since we expect
the higher demand for feedstock will
increase both the supply and cost of
feedstock, we will also consider how the
higher renewable fuel feedstock cost
impacts the cost of other agricultural
products (corn and soy meal are
important sources not only for directly
making food for human consumption
but also as feed for farm animals). As an
estimate of the impact on corn and
soybeans prices, we are relying on the
estimates provided by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture 104 rather
than using the FASOM model to derive
these price impacts. Additionally, we
will rely on the Energy Information
Agency’s estimates for fuel mix in
predicting the amount of ethanol and
biodiesel in the fuel pool. Other than
these external constraints, we expect to
use FASOM as the basic model for
estimating economic impacts on farm
sector and how these might more
generally impact the U.S. economy.
Note that this FASOM analysis is a
partial equilibrium analysis, focusing
almost exclusively on impacts in the
U.S. agricultural sector. As a result, it
cannot be utilized to make broader
assessments of net social benefits
resulting from this rulemaking, which
for example would require evaluation of
the transfer payments to farmers and
ethanol producers from consumers and
refiners.
XI. Public Participation
We request comments on all aspects
of this proposal. The comment period
for this proposed rule will be November
12, 2006. Comments can be submitted to
104 ‘‘USDA Agricultural Baseline Projections to
2015.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the Agency through any of the means
listed under ADDRESSES above.
We will hold a public hearing on
October 13, 2006. The public hearing
will start at 10 a.m. (Central) at the
Sheraton Gateway Suites Chicago
O’Hare, 6501 North Mannheim Road,
Rosemont, Illinois 60018. If you would
like to present testimony at the public
hearing, we ask that you notify the
contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT above at least ten
days beforehand. You should estimate
the time you will need for your
presentation and identify any needed
audio/visual equipment. We suggest
that you bring copies of your statement
or other material for the EPA panel and
the audience. It would also be helpful
if you send us a copy of your statement
or other materials before the hearing.
We will arrange for a written
transcript of the hearing and keep the
official record of the hearing open for 30
days to allow for the public to
supplement the record. You may make
arrangements for copies of the transcript
directly with the court reporter.
XII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866,
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) this
action is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ because of the policy
implications of the proposed rule. Even
though EPA has estimated that
renewable fuel use through 2012 will be
sufficient to meet the levels required in
the standard, the proposed rule reflects
the first renewable fuel mandate at the
Federal level. Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under EO 12866 and any
changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this
action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2242.01.
The information is planned to be
collected to ensure that the required
amount of renewable fuel is used each
year. The credit trading program
required by the Energy Act will be
satisfied through a program utilizing
Renewable Identification Numbers
(RIN), which serve as a surrogate for
renewable fuel consumption. Our
proposed RIN-based program would
fulfill all the functions of a credit
trading program, and thus would meet
the Energy Act’s requirements. For each
calendar year, each obligated party
would be required to submit a report to
the Agency documenting the RINs it
acquired, and showing that the sum of
all RINs acquired were equal to or
greater than its renewable volume
obligation. The Agency could then
verify that the RINs used for compliance
purposes were valid by simply
comparing RINs reported by producers
to RINs claimed by obligated parties.
The Agency will then calculate the total
amount of renewable fuel produced
each year.
For fuel standards, Section 208(a) of
the Clean Air Act requires that
manufacturers provide information the
Administrator may reasonably require to
determine compliance with the
regulations; submission of the
information is therefore mandatory. We
will consider confidential all
information meeting the requirements of
Section 208(c) of the Clean Air Act.
The annual public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to be 3.1
hours per response. Burden means the
total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.
This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install,
and utilize technology and systems for
the purposes of collecting, validating,
and verifying information, processing
and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with
any previously applicable instructions
and requirements which have
subsequently changed; train personnel
to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
A document entitled ‘‘Information
Collection Request (ICR); OMB–83
Supporting Statement, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation,’’ has been placed in the
public docket. The supporting statement
provides a detailed explanation of the
Agency’s estimates by collection
activity. The estimates contained in the
docket are briefly summarized here:
Estimated total number of potential
respondents: 4,945.
Estimated total number of responses:
4,970.
Estimated total annual burden hours:
15,560.
Estimated total annual costs:
$2,911,000, including $1,806,240 in
purchased services.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency’s need for
this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques, EPA
has established a public docket for this
rule, which includes this ICR, under
Docket ID number EPA–OAR–2005–
0161. Submit any comments related to
the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA
and OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at
55633
the beginning of this notice for where to
submit comments to EPA. Send
comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.
Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after publication in the
Federal Register, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if
OMB receives it by October 30, 2006.
The final rule will respond to any OMB
or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in
this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Overview
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201 (see table below); (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. The following
table provides an overview of the
primary SBA small business categories
potentially affected by this regulation:
NAICS
codesa
Industry
Defined as small entity by SBA if:
Gasoline refiners ........................
≤1,500 employees and a crude capacity of ≤125,000 bpcdb .........................................................
324110
a North
American Industrial Classification System.
b barrels of crude per day.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
2. Background—Small Refiners Versus
Small Refineries
Title XV (Ethanol and Motor Fuels) of
the Energy Policy Act provides, at
Section 1501(a)(2) [42 U.S.C.
7545(o)(9)(A)–(D)], special provisions
for ‘‘small refineries’’, such as a
temporary exemption from the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
standards until calendar year 2011. The
Act defines the term ‘‘small refinery’’ as
‘‘* * * a refinery for which the average
aggregate daily crude oil throughput for
a calendar year * * * does not exceed
75,000 barrels.’’ This term is different
from a small refiner, which is what the
Regulatory Flexibility Act is concerned
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with. A small refiner is a small business
that meets the criteria set out in SBA’s
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; whereas
a small refinery, per the Energy Policy
Act, is a refinery where the annual
crude throughput is less than or equal
to 75,000 barrels (i.e., a small-capacity
refinery), and could be owned by a
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55634
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
larger refiner that exceeds SBA’s small
entity size standards.
Previous EPA fuel regulations have
afforded regulatory flexibility provisions
to small refiners, as we believe that
refineries owned by small businesses
generally face unique economic
challenges, compared to larger refiners.
As small refiners generally lack the
resources available to larger companies
(including those larger companies that
own small-capacity refineries) to raise
capital for any necessary investments
for meeting regulatory requirements,
these flexibility provisions were
provided to reduce the disproportionate
burden on those refiners that qualified
as small refiners.
3. Summary of Potentially Affected
Small Entities
The refiners that are potentially
affected by this proposed rule are those
that produce gasoline. For our recent
proposed rule ‘‘Control of Hazardous
Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources’’
(71 FR 15804, Wednesday, March 29,
2006), we performed an industry
characterization of potentially affected
gasoline refiners; we used that industry
characterization to determine which
refiners would also meet the SBA
definition of a small refiner under this
proposal. From the industry
characterization, we determined that
there were 20 gasoline refiners that met
the definition of a small refiner. Of these
20 refiners, 17 owned refineries that
also met the Energy Policy Act’s
definition of a small refinery.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
4. Impact of the Regulations on Small
Entities
As previously stated, many aspects of
the RFS program, such as the required
amount of annual renewable fuel
volumes, were specified in the Energy
Policy Act. As shown above in Table
III.D.3.c–2, the annual projections of
ethanol production exceed the required
annual renewable fuel volumes. When
the small refinery exemption ends, it is
anticipated that there will be over one
billion gallons in excess RINs available.
We believe that this large volume of
excess RINs will also lower the costs of
this program. If there were a shortage of
RINs, or if any party were to ‘hoard’
RINs, the cost of a RIN could be high;
however with excess RINs, we believe
that this program will not impose a
significant economic burden on small
refineries, small refiners, or any other
obligated party. Further, we have
determined that this proposed rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
When the Agency certifies that a rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities, EPA’s policy is to make an
assessment of the rule’s impact on any
small entities and to engage the
potentially regulated entities in a dialog
regarding the rule, and minimize the
impact to the extent feasible. The
following sections discuss our outreach
with the potentially affected small
entities and proposed regulatory
flexibilities to decrease the burden on
these entities in compliance with the
requirements of the RFS program
5. Small Refiner Outreach
Although we do not believe that the
RFS program would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, EPA
nonetheless has tried to reduce the
impact of this rule on small entities. We
held meetings with small refiners to
discuss the requirements of the RFS
program and the special provisions
offered by the Energy Policy Act for
small refineries.
The Energy Policy Act set out the
following provisions for small
refineries:
• A temporary exemption from the
Renewable Fuels Standard requirement
until 2011;
• An extension of the temporary
exemption period for at least two years
for any small refinery where it is
determined that the refinery would be
subject to a disproportionate economic
hardship if required to comply;
• Any small refinery may petition, at
any time, for an exemption based on
disproportionate economic hardship;
and,
• A small refinery may waive its
temporary exemption to participate in
the credit generation program, or it may
also ‘‘opt-in’’, by waiving its temporary
exemption, to be subject to the RFS
requirement.
During these meetings with the small
refiners we also discussed the impacts
of these provisions being offered to
small refineries only. As stated above,
three refiners met the definition of a
small refiner, but their refineries did not
meet the Act’s definition of a small
refinery; which naturally concerned the
small refiners. Another concern that the
small refiners had was that if this rule
were to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities a lengthy SBREFA process
would ensue (which would delay the
promulgation of the RFS rulemaking,
and thus provide less lead time for these
small entities prior to the RFS program
start date).
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Following our discussions with the
small refiners, they provided three
suggested regulatory flexibility options
that they believed could further assist
affected small entities in complying
with the RFS program standard: (1) That
all small refiners be afforded the Act’s
small refinery temporary exemption, (2)
that small refiners be allowed to
generate credits if they elect to comply
with the RFS program standard prior to
the 2011 small refinery compliance
date, and (3) relieve small refiners who
generate blending credits of the RFS
program compliance requirements.
We agreed with the small refiners’’
suggestion that small refiners be
afforded temporary exemption that the
Act specifies for small refineries.
Regarding the small refiners’ second and
third suggestions regarding credits, our
proposed RIN-based program will
automatically provide them with credit
for any renewables that they blend into
their motor fuels. Until 2011, small
refiners will essentially be treated as
oxygenate blenders and may separate
RINs from batches and trade or sell
these RINs.
6. Conclusions
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, we certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
While the Energy Policy Act provided
for a temporary exemption for small
refineries from the requirements of
today’s proposed rule, these parties will
have to comply with the requirements
following the exemption period.
However, we still believe that small
refiners generally lack the resources
available to larger companies, and
therefore find it necessary to extend the
small refinery temporary exemption to
all small refiners. Thus, we are
proposing to allow the small refinery
temporary exemption, as set out in the
Act, to all qualified small refiners. In
addition, past fuels rulemakings have
included a provision that, to qualify for
EPA’s small refiner flexibilities, a
refiner must have no more than 1,500
total corporate employees and have a
crude capacity of no more than 155,000
bpcd (slightly higher than SBA’s crude
capacity limit of 125,000 bpcd). To be
consistent with these previous rules, we
are also proposing to allow those
refiners that meet these criteria to be
considered small refiners for this
rulemaking. Lastly, we are proposing
that small refiners may separate RINs
from batches and trade or sell these
RINs prior to 2011 if the small refiner
operates as a blender
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of this proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, Section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of Section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, Section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
including tribal governments, it must
have developed under Section 203 of
the UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year. EPA
has estimated that renewable fuel use
through 2012 will be sufficient to meet
the required levels. Therefore,
individual refiners, blenders, and
importers are already on track to meet
rule obligations through normal marketdriven incentives. Thus, today’s rule is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
55635
not subject to the requirements of
Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
This rule contains no Federal
mandates for State, local, or tribal
governments as defined by the
provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The
rule imposes no enforceable duties on
any of these governmental entities.
Nothing in the rule would significantly
or uniquely affect small governments.
to the extent they purchase and use
regulated fuels. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment
on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have Federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
Federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
This proposed rule does not have
Federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from State and local
officials.
Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required
under Section 5–501 of the Order has
the potential to influence the regulation.
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does
not establish an environmental standard
intended to mitigate health or safety
risks and because it implements specific
standards established by Congress in
statutes.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This rule would
be implemented at the Federal level and
collectively apply to refiners, blenders,
and importers. EPA expects these
entities to meet the standards on a
collective basis through 2012 even
without imposition of any RFS
obligations on any individual party.
Tribal governments will be affected only
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)) because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
EPA expects the provisions to have
very little effect on the national fuel
supply, since normal market forces
alone are promoting greater renewable
fuel use than required by the RFS
mandate. Nevertheless, the rule is an
important part of the nation’s efforts to
reduce dependence on foreign oil. We
discuss our analysis of the energy and
supply effects of the increased use of
renewable fuels in Sections VI and X of
this preamble.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55636
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
XIII. Statutory Authority
Statutory authority for the rules
proposed today can be found in section
211 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
7545. Additional support for the
procedural and compliance related
aspects of today’s proposal, including
the proposed recordkeeping
requirements, come from Sections 114,
208, and 301(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7414, 7542, and 7601(a).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Fuel additives,
Gasoline, Imports, Incorporation by
reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 7, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
40 CFR part 80 is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS
AND FUEL ADDITIVES
1. The authority citation for part 80
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7542, 7545, and
7601(a).
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
2. Section 80.1100 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 80.1100 How is the statutory default
requirement for 2006 implemented?
(a) Definitions. The definitions of
§ 80.2 and the following additional
definitions apply to this section only.
(1) Renewable fuel. (i) Renewable fuel
means motor vehicle fuel that is used to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
replace or reduce the quantity of fossil
fuel present in a fuel mixture used to
operate a motor vehicle, and which:
(A) Is produced from grain, starch, oil
seeds, vegetable, animal, or fish
materials including fats, greases, and
oils, sugarcane, sugar beets, sugar
components, tobacco, potatoes, or other
biomass; or
(B) Is natural gas produced from a
biogas source, including a landfill,
sewage waste treatment plant, feedlot,
or other place where decaying organic
material is found.
(ii) The term ‘‘renewable fuel’’
includes cellulosic biomass ethanol,
waste derived ethanol, biodiesel, and
any blending components derived from
renewable fuel.
(2) Cellulosic biomass ethanol means
ethanol derived from any lignocellulosic
or hemicellulosic matter that is
available on a renewable or recurring
basis, including dedicated energy crops
and trees, wood and wood residues,
plants, grasses, agricultural residues,
fibers, animal wastes and other waste
materials, and municipal solid waste.
The term also includes any ethanol
produced in facilities where animal
wastes or other waste materials are
digested or otherwise used to displace
90 percent or more of the fossil fuel
normally used in the production of
ethanol.
(3) Waste derived ethanol means
ethanol derived from animal wastes,
including poultry fats and poultry
wastes, and other waste materials, or
municipal solid waste.
(4) Small refinery means a refinery for
which the average aggregate daily crude
oil throughput for a calendar year (as
determined by dividing the aggregate
throughput for the calendar year by the
number of days in the calendar year)
does not exceed 75,000 barrels.
(5) Biodiesel means a diesel fuel
substitute produced from nonpetroleum
renewable resources that meets the
registration requirements for fuels and
fuel additives established by the
Environmental Protection Agency under
section 211 of the Clean Air Act. It
includes biodiesel derived from animal
wastes (including poultry fats and
poultry wastes) and other waste
materials, or biodiesel derived from
municipal solid waste and sludges and
oils derived from wastewater and the
treatment of wastewater.
(b) Renewable fuel standard for 2006.
The percentage of renewable fuel in the
total volume of gasoline sold or
dispensed to consumers in 2006 in the
United States shall be a minimum of
2.78 percent on an annual average
volume basis.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(c) Responsible parties. Parties
collectively responsible for attainment
of the standard in paragraph (b) of this
section are refiners (including blenders)
and importers of gasoline. However, a
party that is a refiner only because he
owns or operates a small refinery is
exempt from this responsibility.
(d) EPA determination of attainment.
EPA will determine after the close of
2006 whether or not the requirement in
paragraph (b) of this section has been
met. EPA will base this determination
on information routinely published by
the Energy Information Administration
on the annual domestic volume of
gasoline sold or dispensed to U.S.
consumers and of ethanol produced for
use in such gasoline, supplemented by
readily available information
concerning the use in motor fuel of
other renewable fuels such as cellulosic
biomass ethanol, waste derived ethanol,
biodiesel, and other non-ethanol
renewable fuels.
(1) The renewable fuel volume will
equal the sum of all renewable fuel
volumes used in motor fuel, provided
that:
(i) One gallon of cellulosic biomass
ethanol or waste derived ethanol shall
be considered to be the equivalent of 2.5
gallons of renewable fuel; and
(ii) Only the renewable fuel portion of
blending components derived from
renewable fuel shall be counted towards
the renewable fuel volume.
(2) If the nationwide average volume
percent of renewable fuel in gasoline in
2006 is equal to or greater than the
standard in paragraph (b) of this section,
the standard has been met.
(e) Consequence of nonattainment in
2006. In the event that EPA determines
that the requirement in paragraph (b) of
this section has not been attained in
2006, a deficit carryover volume shall be
added to the renewable fuel volume
obligation for 2007 for use in calculating
the standard applicable to gasoline in
2007.
(1) The deficit carryover volume shall
be calculated as follows:
DC = Vgas* (Rs–Ra)
Where:
DC = Deficit carryover in gallons of
renewable fuel.
Vgas = Volume of gasoline sold or dispensed
to U.S. consumers in 2006, in gallons.
Rs = 0.0278.
Ra = Ratio of renewable fuel volume divided
by total gasoline volume determined in
accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this
section.
(2) There shall be no other
consequence of failure to attain the
standard in paragraph (b) of this section
in 2006 for any of the parties in
paragraph (c) of this section.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
3. Section 80.1101 is added to read as
follows:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
§ 80.1101
Definitions.
The definitions of § 80.2 and the
following additional definitions apply
for purposes of this subpart.
(a) Cellulosic biomass ethanol means
either of the following:
(1) Ethanol derived from any
lignocellulosic or hemicellulosic matter
that is available on a renewable or
recurring basis, which includes any of
the following:
(i) Dedicated energy crops and trees.
(ii) Wood and wood residues.
(iii) Plants.
(iv) Grasses.
(v) Agricultural residues.
(vi) Animal wastes and other waste
materials.
(vii) Municipal solid waste.
(2) Ethanol made at facilities at which
animal wastes or other waste materials
are digested or otherwise used onsite to
displace 90 percent or more of the fossil
fuel that is combusted to produce
thermal energy integral to the process of
making ethanol and which comply with
the recordkeeping requirements of
§ 80.1151(a)(4).
(b) Other waste materials means
either of the following:
(1) Waste materials that are residues
rather than being produced solely for
the purpose of being combusted to
produce energy (e.g., residual tops,
branches, and limbs from a tree farm
could be waste materials while wood
chips used as fuel and which come from
plants grown solely for such purpose
would not be waste materials).
(2) Waste heat that is captured from
an off-site combustion process (e.g.,
furnace, boiler, heater, or chemical
process).
(c) Otherwise used means either of the
following:
(1) The direct combustion of the waste
materials to make thermal energy.
(2) The use of waste heat as a source
of thermal energy.
(d) Waste derived ethanol means
ethanol derived from either of the
following:
(1) Animal wastes, including poultry
fats and poultry wastes, and other waste
materials.
(2) Municipal solid waste.
(e) Biogas means methane or other
hydrocarbon gas produced from
decaying organic material, including
landfills, sewage waste treatment plants,
and animal feedlots.
(f) Renewable fuel. (1) Renewable fuel
is motor vehicle fuel that is used to
replace or reduce the quantity of fossil
fuel present in a fuel mixture used to
operate a motor vehicle, and is
produced from either of the following:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
(i) Grain.
(ii) Starch.
(iii) Oilseeds.
(iv) Vegetable, animal or fish
materials including fats, greases and
oils.
(v) Sugarcane.
(vi) Sugar beets.
(vii) Sugar components.
(viii) Tobacco.
(ix) Potatoes.
(x) Other biomass; or is natural gas
produced from a biogas source,
including a landfill, sewage waste
treatment plant, feedlot, or other place
where decaying organic material is
found.
(2) The term ‘‘Renewable fuel’’
includes cellulosic biomass ethanol,
waste derived ethanol, biodiesel (monoalkyl ester), non-ester renewable diesel,
and blending components derived from
renewable fuel.
(3) Small volume additives less than
1.0 percent of the total volume of a
renewable fuel shall be counted as part
of the total renewable fuel volume.
(4) A fuel produced by a renewable
fuel producer that is used in boilers or
heaters is not a motor vehicle fuel, and
therefore is not a renewable fuel.
(g) Blending component has the same
meaning as ‘‘Gasoline blending stock,
blendstock, or component’’ as defined at
§ 80.2(s), for which the portion that can
be counted as renewable fuel is
calculated as set forth in § 80.1115(a).
(h) Motor vehicle has the meaning
given in Section 216(2) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7550).
(i) Small refinery means a refinery for
which the average aggregate daily crude
oil throughput for the calendar year
2004 (as determined by dividing the
aggregate throughput for the calendar
year by the number of days in the
calendar year) does not exceed 75,000
barrels.
(j) Biodiesel (mono-alkyl ester) means
a motor vehicle fuel or fuel additive
which:
(1) Is registered as a motor vehicle
fuel or fuel additive under 40 CFR part
79;
(2) Is a mono-alkyl ester;
(3) Meets ASTM D–6751–02a;
(4) Is intended for use in engines that
are designed to run on conventional
diesel fuel, and
(5) Is derived from nonpetroleum
renewable resources (as defined in
paragraph (o) of this section).
(k) Non-ester renewable diesel means
a motor vehicle fuel or fuel additive
which:
(1) Is registered as a motor vehicle
fuel or fuel additive under 40 CFR part
79;
(2) Is not a mono-alkyl ester;
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55637
(3) Is intended for use in engines that
are designed to run on conventional
diesel fuel; and
(4) Is derived from nonpetroleum
renewable resources (as defined in
paragraph (o) of this section).
(l) Biocrude means plant oils or
animal fats that are used as feedstocks
to any production unit in a refinery that
normally processes crude oil to make
gasoline or diesel fuels.
(m) Biocrude-based renewable fuels
are renewable fuels that are gasoline or
diesel products resulting from the
processing of biocrudes in atmospheric
distillation or other process units at
refineries that normally process
petroleum-based feedstocks.
(n) Importers, for the purposes of this
subpart only, are those persons who:
(1) Are considered importers under
§ 80.2(r); and
(2) Are persons who bring gasoline
into the 48 contiguous states of the
United States from areas that have not
chosen to opt in to the program
requirements of this subpart (per
§ 80.1143).
(o) Nonpetroleum renewable
resources include, but are not limited to,
either of the following:
(1) Plant oils.
(2) Animal fats and animal wastes,
including poultry fats and poultry
wastes, and other waste materials.
(3) Municipal solid waste and sludges
and oils derived from wastewater and
the treatment of wastewater.
(p) Export of renewable fuel means:
(1) Transfer of a batch of renewable
fuel to a location outside the United
States; and
(2) Transfer of a batch of renewable
fuel from the contiguous 48 states to
Alaska, Hawaii, or a United States
territory, unless that state or territory
has received an approval from the
Administrator to opt-in to the renewable
fuel program pursuant to § 80.1143.
(q) Renewable Identification Number
(RIN), is a unique number generated to
represent a volume of renewable fuel in
accordance with § 80.1126.
(r) Standard-value is a RIN generated
to represent renewable fuel with an
equivalence value up to and including
1.0.
(s) Extra-value RIN is a RIN generated
to represent renewable fuel with an
equivalence value greater than 1.0.
(t) Batch-RIN is a RIN that represents
a batch of renewable fuel containing
multiple gallons. A batch-RIN uniquely
identifies all of the gallon-RINs in that
batch.
(u) Gallon-RIN is a RIN that represents
an individual gallon of renewable fuel.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
[Added and Reserved]
4. Sections 80.1102 and 80.1103 are
added and reserved.
5. Sections 80.1104 through 80.1107
are added to read as follows:
§ 80.1104 What are the implementation
dates for the Renewable Fuel Standard
Program?
The RFS standards and other
requirements of this subpart are
effective beginning the day after [DATE
60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER.
§ 80.1105 What is the Renewable Fuel
Standard?
(a) The annual value of the renewable
fuel standard for 2007 shall be 3.71
percent.
(b) Beginning with the 2008
compliance period, EPA will calculate
the value of the annual standard and
publish this value in the Federal
RFStd i = 100 ×
Where:
RFStdi = Renewable Fuel Standard in year i,
in percent.
RFVi = Nationwide annual volume of
renewable fuels required by section
211(o)(2)(B) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7545)
for year i, in gallons.
Gi = Amount of gasoline projected to be used
in the 48 contiguous states, in year i, in
gallons.
Ri = Amount of renewable fuel blended into
gasoline that is projected to be used in
the 48 contiguous states, in year i, in
gallons.
GSi = Amount of gasoline projected to be
used in noncontiguous states or
territories (if the state or territory optsin) in year i, in gallons.
RSi = Amount of renewable fuel blended into
gasoline that is projected to be used in
noncontiguous states or territories (if the
state or territory opts-in) in year i, in
gallons.
GEi = Amount of gasoline projected to be
produced by exempt small refineries and
small refiners in year i, in gallons
(through 2010 only).
Celli = Beginning in 2013, the amount of
renewable fuel that is required to come
from cellulosic sources, in year i, in
gallons (250,000,000 gallons minimum).
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
(e) Beginning with the 2013 compliance
period, EPA will calculate the value
of the annual cellulosic standard
and publish this value in the
Federal Register by November 30 of
the year preceding the compliance
period.
(f) EPA will calculate the annual
cellulosic standard using the
following equation:
Celli
RFCelli = 100 ×
( G i − R i ) + ( GSi − RSi )
Where:
RFCelli = Renewable Fuel Cellulosic
Standard in year i, in percent.
Gi = Amount of gasoline projected to be used
in the 48 contiguous states, in year i, in
gallons.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
RFVi − Celli
( G i − R i ) + ( GSi − RSi ) − GEi
Ri = Amount of renewable fuel blended into
gasoline that is projected to be used in
the 48 contiguous states, in year i, in
gallons.
GSi = Amount of gasoline projected to be
used in noncontiguous states or
territories (if the state or territory optsin) in year i, in gallons.
RSi = Amount of renewable fuel blended into
gasoline that is projected to be used in
noncontiguous states or territories (if the
state or territory opts-in) in year i, in
gallons.
Celli = Amount of renewable fuel that is
required to come from cellulosic sources,
in year i, in gallons (250,000,000 gallons
minimum).
§ 80.1106 To whom does the Renewable
Volume Obligation apply?
(a)(1) An obligated party is a refiner
or blender which produces gasoline
within the 48 contiguous states, or an
importer which imports gasoline into
the 48 contiguous states.
(2) If the Administrator approves a
petition of Alaska, Hawaii, or a United
States territory to opt-in to the
renewable fuel program under the
provisions in § 80.1143, then ‘‘obligated
party’’ shall include any refiner or
blender which produces gasoline within
that state or territory, or an importer
which imports gasoline into that state or
territory.
(b)(1) For each calendar year starting
with 2007, any obligated party is
required to demonstrate, pursuant to
§ 80.1127, that they have satisfied the
Renewable Volume Obligation for that
calendar year, as specified in
§ 80.1107(a), except as otherwise
provided in this section.
(2) The deficit carryover provisions in
§ 80.1127(b) only apply if all of the
requirements specified in § 80.1127(b)
are fully satisfied.
(c) Any blender whose sole blending
activity in a calendar year is to blend a
renewable fuel (or fuels) into gasoline,
RBOB, CBOB, or diesel fuel is not
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Register by November 30 of the year
preceding the compliance period.
(c) EPA will base the calculation of
the standard on information provided
by the Energy Information
Administration regarding projected
gasoline volumes and projected volumes
of renewable fuel expected to be used in
gasoline blending for the upcoming
year.
(d) EPA will calculate the annual
renewable fuel standard using the
following equation:
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
required to meet the renewable volume
obligation specified in § 80.1107(a) for
that gasoline for that calendar year.
§ 80.1107 How is the Renewable Volume
Obligation calculated?
For the purposes of this section, all
reformulated gasoline, conventional
gasoline and blendstock, collectively
called ‘‘gasoline’’ unless otherwise
specified, is subject to the requirements
under this subpart, as applicable.
(a) The Renewable Volume Obligation
for an obligated party is determined
according to the following formula:
RVOi = RFStdi × GVi + Di¥1
Where:
RVOi = The Renewable Volume Obligation
for a refiner, blender, or importer for
calendar year i, in gallons of renewable
fuel.
RFStdi = The renewable fuel standard for
calendar year i from § 80.1105, in
percent.
GVi = The non-renewable gasoline volume,
determined in accordance with
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this
section, which is produced or imported,
in year i, in gallons.
Di-1 = Renewable fuel deficit carryover from
the previous year, per § 80.1127(b), in
gallons.
(b) The non-renewable gasoline
volume for a refiner, blender, or
importer for a given year, GVi, specified
in paragraph (a) of this section is
calculated as follows:
n
n
x
x
GVi = ∑ G x − ∑ RBx
Where:
x = Batch.
n = Total number of batches of gasoline
produced or imported.
Gx = Total volume of gasoline produced or
imported, per paragraph (c) of this
section, in gallons.
RBx = Total volume of renewable fuel
blended into gasoline, in gallons.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
EP22SE06.008
§§ 80.1102–80.1103
EP22SE06.006 EP22SE06.007
55638
55639
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(c) For the purposes of this section, all
of the following products that are
produced or imported during a calendar
year are to be included in the volume
used to calculate a party’s renewable
volume obligation under paragraph (a)
of this section, except as provided in
paragraph (d) of this section:
(1) Reformulated gasoline.
(2) Conventional gasoline.
(3) Reformulated gasoline blendstock
for oxygenate blending (‘‘RBOB’’).
(4) Conventional gasoline blendstock
that becomes finished conventional
gasoline upon the addition of oxygenate
(‘‘CBOB’’).
(5) Gasoline treated as blendstock
(‘‘GTAB’’).
(6) Blendstock that has been
combined with other blendstock or
finished gasoline to produce gasoline.
(d) The following products are not
included in the volume of gasoline
produced or imported used to calculate
a party’s renewable volume obligation
under paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Any renewable fuel as defined in
§ 80.1101(f).
(2) Blendstock that has not been
combined with other blendstock or
finished gasoline to produce gasoline.
(3) Gasoline produced or imported for
use in Alaska, Hawaii, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Marianas, unless the area has opted into
the RFS program under § 80.1143.
(4) Gasoline produced by a small
refinery that has an exemption under
§ 80.1141 or an approved small refiner
that has an exemption under § 80.1142
during the period that such exemptions
are in effect.
(5) Gasoline exported for use outside
the United States.
(6) For blenders, the volume of
finished gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB to
which a blender adds blendstocks.
(e) Compliance period. (1) For 2007,
the compliance period is [DATE 60
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] through December 31, 2007.
(2) Beginning in 2008, and every year
thereafter, the compliance period is
January 1 through December 31.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
§§ 80.1108–80.1114
[Added and Reserved]
6. Sections 80.1108 through 80.1114
are added and reserved.
7. Section 80.1115 is added to read as
follows:
§ 80.1115 How are equivalence values
assigned by renewable fuel producers?
(a) Each gallon of a renewable fuel
shall be assigned an equivalence value.
The equivalence value is a number
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
assigned to every renewable fuel that is
used to determine how many gallonRINs can be generated for a batch of
renewable fuel according to § 80.1126.
Equivalence Values for certain
renewable fuels are assigned in
paragraph (d) of this section. For other
renewable fuels, the equivalence value
shall be calculated using the following
formula:
TABLE 1 OF § 80.1115.—EQUIVALENCE
VALUES FOR SOME RENEWABLE FUELS
Renewable fuel type
EV = (R / 0.931) * (EC / 77,550)
Where:
EV = Equivalence Value for the renewable
fuel.
R = Renewable content of the renewable fuel.
This is a measure of the portion of a
renewable fuel that came from a
renewable source, expressed as a
percent, on an energy basis, of the
renewable fuel that comes from a
renewable feedstock.
EC = Energy content of the renewable fuel,
in Btu per gallon (lower heating value).
Cellulosic biomass ethanol and
waste derived ethanol produced
on or before December 31,
2012 ..........................................
Ethanol from corn, starches, or
sugar .........................................
Biodiesel (mono-alkyl ester) .........
Non-ester renewable diesel ..........
Butanol ..........................................
ETBE from corn ethanol ...............
§§ 80.1116—80.1124
Reserved]
Equivalence
value
(EV)
(b) Technical justification and
approval of calculation of the
Equivalence Value.
(1) Producers of renewable fuels must
prepare a technical justification of the
calculation of the Equivalence Value for
the renewable fuel including a
description of the renewable fuel, its
feedstock and production process.
(2) Producers shall submit the
justification to the EPA for approval.
(3) The Agency will review the
technical justification and assign an
appropriate Equivalence Value to the
renewable fuel based on the procedure
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) The equivalence value is assigned
as follows:
(1) A value rounded to the nearest
tenth if such value is less than 0.9.
(2) 1.0 if the calculated equivalence
value is in the range of 0.9 to 1.2.
(3) 1.3, 1.5, or 1.7, for calculated
values over 1.2, whichever value is
closest to the calculated equivalence
value, based on the positive difference
between the calculated equivalence
value and each of these three values,
except as specified in paragraphs (c)(4)
and (c)(5) of this section.
(4) 2.5 for cellulosic biomass ethanol
that is produced on or before December
31, 2012.
(5) 2.5 for waste derived ethanol.
(d) Equivalence values for some
renewable fuels are as given in the
following table:
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2.5
1.0
1.5
1.7
1.3
0.4
[Added and
8. Sections 80.1116 through 80.1124
are added and reserved.
9. Sections 80.1125 through 80.1131
are added to read as follows:
§ 80.1125 Renewable Identification
Numbers (RINs).
Each RIN is a 34 character numerical
code of the following form:
YYYYCCCCFFFFFBBBBBRRDKSSSSSS
EEEEEE
(a) YYYY is the calendar year in
which the batch of renewable fuel was
produced or imported. YYYY also
represents the year in which the RIN
was originally generated.
(b) CCCC is the registration number
assigned according to § 80.1150 to the
producer or importer of the batch of
renewable fuel.
(c) FFFFF is the registration number
assigned according to § 80.1150 to the
facility at which the batch of renewable
fuel was produced or imported.
(d) BBBBB is a serial number assigned
to the batch which:
(1) Is chosen by the producer or
importer of the batch such that no two
batches have the same value in a given
calendar year;
(2) Begins with the value 00001 for
the first batch produced or imported by
a facility in a given calendar year; and
(3) Increases sequentially for
subsequent batches produced or
imported by that facility in that calendar
year.
(e) RR is a number representing the
equivalence value of the renewable fuel.
(1) Equivalence values are specified in
§ 80.1115.
(2) Multiply the equivalence value by
10 to produce the value for RR.
(f) D is a number identifying the type
of renewable fuel, as follows:
(1) D has the value of 1 if the
renewable fuel can be categorized as
cellulosic biomass ethanol.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55640
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(2) D has the value of 2 if the
renewable fuel cannot be categorized as
cellulosic biomass ethanol.
(g) K is a number identifying the type
of RIN as follows:
(1) K has the value of 1 if the batchRIN is a standard-value RIN.
(2) K has the value of 2 if the batchRIN is an extra-value RIN.
(h) SSSSSS is a number representing
the first gallon associated with a batch
of renewable fuel.
(i) EEEEEE is a number representing
the last gallon associated with a batch
of renewable fuel. EEEEEE will be
identical to SSSSSS in the case of a
gallon-RIN. Assign the value of EEEEEE
as described in § 80.1126.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
§ 80.1126 How are RINs assigned to
batches of renewable fuel by renewable fuel
producers or importers?
(a) Regional applicability. (1) Except
as provided in paragraph (b) of this
section, every batch of renewable fuel
produced by a facility located in the
contiguous 48 states of the United
States, or imported into the contiguous
48 states, must be assigned a RIN.
(2) If the Administrator approves a
petition of Alaska, Hawaii, or a United
States territory to opt-in to the
renewable fuel program under the
provisions in § 80.1143, then the
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this
section shall also apply to renewable
fuel produced or imported into that
state or territory beginning in the next
calendar year.
(b) Volume threshold. Pursuant to
§ 80.1154, producers with renewable
fuel production facilities located within
the United States that produce less than
10,000 gallons of renewable fuel each
year, and importers that import less
than 10,000 gallons of renewable fuel
each year, are not required to generate
and assign RINs to batches of renewable
fuel. Such producers and importers are
also exempt from the registration,
reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements of §§ 80.1150 through
80.1152. However, for those producers
and importers that voluntarily generate
and assign RINs, all the requirements of
this subpart apply.
(c) Generation of RINs. (1) The
producer or importer of a batch of
renewable fuel must generate the RINs
associated with that batch. However, a
producer of a batch of renewable fuel for
export is not required to generate a RIN
for that batch if that producer is also the
exporter and exports the renewable fuel.
(2) A party generating a RIN shall
specify the appropriate numerical
values for each component of the RIN in
accordance with the provisions of
§ 80.1125 and this paragraph (c).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
(3) Standard-value RINs shall be
generated separately from extra-value
RINs, and distinguished from one
another by the K component of the RIN.
(4) When a standard-value batch-RIN
or an extra-value batch-RIN is initially
generated by a renewable fuel producer
or importer, the value of SSSSSS in the
batch-RIN shall be 000001 to represent
the first gallon in the batch of renewable
fuel.
(5) Generation of standard-value
batch-RINs. (i) Except as provided in
paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section, a
standard-value batch-RIN shall be
generated to represent the gallons in a
batch of renewable fuel. The value of
EEEEEE when a batch-RIN is initially
generated by a renewable fuel producer
or importer shall be determined as
follows:
(A) For renewable fuels with an
equivalence value of 1.0 or greater, the
value of EEEEEE shall be the
standardized volume of the batch in
gallons.
(B) For renewable fuels with an
equivalence value of less than 1.0, the
value of EEEEEE shall be the applicable
volume, in gallons, calculated according
to the following formula:
Va = EV * Vs
Where:
Va = Applicable volume of renewable fuel, in
gallons, for use in designating the value
of EEEEEE.
EV = Equivalence value for the renewable
fuel per § 80.1115.
Vs = Standardized volume of the batch of
renewable fuel at 60 °F, in gallons.
(ii) For biocrude-based renewable
fuels, a standard-value batch-RIN shall
be generated to represent the gallons of
biocrude rather than the gallons of
renewable fuel. The value of EEEEEE
shall be the standardized volume of the
biocrude in gallons.
(6) Generation of extra-value batchRINs. (i) Extra-value batch-RINs may be
generated for renewable fuels having an
equivalence value greater than 1.0.
(ii) The value for EEEEEE in an extravalue batch-RIN when a batch-RIN is
initially generated by a renewable fuel
producer or importer shall be the
applicable volume of renewable fuel
calculated according to the following
formula:
Va = (EV¥1.0) * Vs
Where:
Va = Applicable volume of renewable fuel, in
gallons, for use in designating the value
of EEEEEE.
EV= Equivalence value for the renewable fuel
per § 80.1115.
Vs = Standardized volume of the batch of
renewable fuel at 60 °F, in gallons.
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(7) Standardization of volumes. In
determining the standardized volume of
a batch of renewable fuel for purposes
of generating standard-value batch-RINs
or extra-value batch-RINs, pursuant to
paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(6) of this
section, the batch volumes shall be
adjusted to a standard temperature of 60
°F.
(i) For ethanol, the following formula
shall be used:
Vs,e = Va,e * (¥0.0006301 × T + 1.0378)
Where:
Vs,e = Standardized volume of ethanol at 60
°F, in gallons.
Va,e = Actual volume of ethanol, in gallons.
T = Actual temperature of the batch, in °F.
(ii) For biodiesel (mono alkyl esters),
the following formula shall be used:
Vs,b = Va,b * (¥0.0008008 × T + 1.0480)
Where:
Vs,b = Standardized volume of biodiesel at 60
°F, in gallons.
Va,b = Actual volume of biodiesel, in gallons.
T = Actual temperature of the batch, in °F.
(iii) For other renewable fuels, an
appropriate formula commonly
accepted by the industry shall be used
to standardize the actual volume to 60
°F.
(d) Assignment of batch-RINs to
batches. (1) The producer or importer of
a batch of renewable fuel must assign
standard-value RINs to the batch of
renewable fuel that those batch-RINs
represent.
(2) The producer or importer of a
batch of renewable fuel may assign
extra-value batch-RINs to the batch of
renewable fuel that those batch-RINs
represent.
(3) A batch-RIN is assigned to a batch
when the batch-RIN is recorded in a
prominent location on a product
transfer document assigned to that batch
of renewable fuel per § 80.1153.
§ 80.1127 How are RINs used to
demonstrate compliance?
(a) Renewable volume obligations. (1)
Except as specified in paragraph (b) of
this section, each party that is obligated
to meet the Renewable Volume
Obligation under § 80.1107, or an
exporter of renewable fuels, must
demonstrate that it has acquired
sufficient RINs to satisfy the following
equation:
(SRINVOL)i + (SRINVOL)i–1 = RVOi
Where:
(SRINVOL)i = Sum of all acquired gallonRINs that were generated in year i and
are being applied towards the RVOi, in
gallons.
(SRINVOL)i–1 = Sum of all acquired gallonRINs that were generated in year i–1 and
are being applied towards the RVOi, in
gallons.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
RVOi = The Renewable Volume Obligation
for the obligated party or renewable fuel
exporter for calendar year i, in gallons.
(2) For compliance for calendar years
2009 and later, the value of
(SRINVOL)i–1 may not exceed a value
determined by the following inequality:
(SRINVOL)i–1 ≤ 0.20 * RVOi
(ΣRINVOL)i¥1 = Sum of all acquired gallonRINs that were generated in year i¥1
and are being applied towards the RVOi,
in gallons.
§ 80.1128 General requirements for RIN
distribution.
Where:
(SRINVOL)i–1 = Sum of all acquired gallonRINs that were generated in year i–1 and
are being applied towards the RVOi, in
gallons.
(3) RINs may only be used to
demonstrate compliance with the RVO
for the calendar year in which they were
generated or the following calendar
year. RINs used to demonstrate
compliance in one year cannot be used
to demonstrate compliance in any other
year.
(4) A party may acquire a RIN only if
that RIN is obtained in accordance with
§§ 80.1128 and 80.1129.
(5) Gallon-RINs that can be used for
compliance with the RVO shall be
calculated from the following formula:
RINVOL = EEEEEE ¥ SSSSSS + 1
Where:
RINVOL = Gallon-RINs associated with a
batch-RIN, in gallons.
EEEEEE = Batch-RIN component identifying
the last gallon associated with the batch
of renewable fuel that the batch-RIN
represents.
SSSSSS = Batch-RIN component identifying
the first gallon associated with the batch
of renewable fuel that the batch-RIN
represents.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
(b) Deficit carryovers. (1) An obligated
party or an exporter of renewable fuel
that fails to meet the requirements of
paragraph (a)(1) of this section for
calendar year i is permitted to carry a
deficit into year i + 1 under the
following conditions:
(i) The party did not carry a deficit
into calendar year i from calendar year
i¥1.
(ii) The party subsequently meets the
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this
section for calendar year i+1.
(2) A deficit is calculated according to
the following formula:
Di = RVOi ¥ [(ΣRINVOL)i +
(ΣRINVOL)i¥1]
Where:
Di = The deficit generated in calendar year
i that must be carried over to year i+1 if
allowed pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(i) of
this section, in gallons.
RVOi = The Renewable Volume Obligation
for the obligated party or renewable fuel
exporter for calendar year i, in gallons.
(ΣRINVOL)1 = Sum of all acquired gallonRINs that were generated in year i and
are being applied towards the RVOi, in
gallons.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
(a) RINs assigned to batches of
renewable fuel. (1) Except as provided
in § 80.1129 and paragraph (a)(3) of this
section, as title to a batch of renewable
fuel is transferred from one party to
another, a batch-RIN that has been
assigned to that batch according to
§ 80.1126(d) must remain assigned to an
equivalent renewable fuel volume
having the same equivalence value.
(i) A batch-RIN assigned to a batch
shall be identified on product transfer
documents representing the batch
pursuant to § 80.1153.
(ii) Any documentation used to
transfer custody of or title to a batch
from one party to another must identify
the batch-RINs assigned to that batch.
(2) If two or more batches of
renewable fuel are combined into a
single batch, then all the batch-RINs
assigned to all the batches involved in
the merger shall be assigned to the final
combined batch.
(3) If a batch of renewable fuel is split
into two or more smaller batches, any
batch-RINs assigned to the parent batch
must likewise be split and assigned to
the daughter batches.
(i) If the Equivalence Value for the
renewable fuel in the parent batch is
equal to or greater than 1.0, then there
shall be at least one gallon-RIN for every
gallon in each of the daughter batches.
(ii) If the Equivalence Value for the
renewable fuel in the parent batch is
less than 1.0, then the ratio of gallonRINs to gallons in the parent batch shall
be preserved in all daughter batches.
(iii) For purposes of this paragraph
(a)(3), the volume of each parent and
daughter batch shall be standardized to
60 °F pursuant to § 80.1126(c)(7).
(b) RINs not assigned to batches of
renewable fuel. (1) Unassigned RIN
means one of the following:
(i) It is a RIN that contains a K value
identifying it as an extra-value RIN and
was not assigned to a batch of renewable
fuel by the producer or importer of that
batch; or
(ii) It is a RIN that was separated from
the batch to which it was assigned in
accordance with § 80.1129.
(2) Any party that has registered
pursuant to § 80.1150 can hold title to
an unassigned RIN.
(3) Unassigned RINs can be
transferred from one party to another
any number of times.
(4) An unassigned batch-RIN can be
divided by its holder into two batch-
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55641
RINs, each representing a smaller
number of gallon-RINs if all of the
following conditions are met:
(i) All RIN components other than
SSSSSS and EEEEEE are identical for
the parent and daughter RINs.
(ii) The sum of the gallon-RINs
associated with the two daughter batchRINs is equal to the gallon-RINs
associated with the parent batch.
§ 80.1129 Requirements for separating
RINs from batches.
(a)(1) Separation of a RIN from a batch
means termination of the assignment of
the RIN from a batch of renewable fuel.
(2) A RIN that has been assigned to a
batch of renewable fuel according to
§ 80.1126(d) may be separated from a
batch only under one of the following
conditions:
(i) A party that is an obligated party
according to § 80.1106 may separate any
RINs that have been assigned to a batch
if they own the batch.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph
(a)(2)(v) of this section, any party that
owns a batch of renewable fuel shall
have the right to separate any RINs that
have been assigned to that batch once
the batch is blended with gasoline or
diesel to produce a motor vehicle fuel.
(iii) Any party that exports a batch of
renewable fuel shall have the right to
separate any RINs that have been
assigned to the exported batch.
(iv) Except as provided in paragraph
(a)(2)(v) of this section, any renewable
fuel producer that owns a batch of
renewable fuel shall have the right to
separate any RINs that have been
assigned to that batch if the renewable
fuel is designated as motor vehicle fuel
in its neat form and is used as motor
vehicle fuel in its neat form.
(v) RINs assigned to batches of
biodiesel (mono-alkyl esters) can only
be separated from those batches once
the biodiesel is blended into diesel fuel
at a concentration of 80 volume percent
biodiesel or less.
(b) Upon separation from its
associated batch, a RIN shall be
removed from all documentation that:
(1) Is used to identify custody or title
to the batch; or
(2) Is transferred with the batch.
(c) RINs that have been separated
from batches of renewable fuel become
unassigned RINs subject to the
provisions of § 80.1128(b).
§ 80.1130 Requirements for exporters of
renewable fuels.
(a)(1) Any party that exports any
amount of renewable fuel shall acquire
sufficient RINs to offset a Renewable
Volume Obligation representing the
exported renewable fuel.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55642
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(2) Only exporters located in the
applicable region described in
§ 80.1126(a) are subject to the
requirements of this section.
(b) Renewable Volume Obligations.
An exporter of renewable fuel shall
determine its Renewable Volume
Obligation from the volumes of the
batches exported.
(1) A renewable fuel exporter’s total
Renewable Volume Obligation shall be
calculated according to the following
formula:
RVOi = Σ(VOLk * EVk) + Di¥1
Where:
k = Batch.
RVOi = The Renewable Volume Obligation
for the exporter for calendar year i, in
gallons of renewable fuel.
VOLk = The standardized volume of batch k
of exported renewable fuel, in gallons.
EVk = The equivalence value for batch k.
Di¥1 = Renewable fuel deficit carryover from
the previous year, in gallons.
(2)(i) For exported batches of
renewable fuel that have assigned RINs,
the equivalence value may be
determined from the RR component of
the RIN.
(ii) If a batch of renewable fuel does
not have assigned RINs but its
equivalence value may nevertheless be
determined pursuant to § 80.1115(d)
based on its composition, then the
appropriate equivalence value shall be
used in the calculation of the exporter’s
Renewable Volume Obligation.
(iii) If the equivalence value for a
batch of renewable fuel cannot be
determined, the value of EVk shall be
1.0.
(3) If the exporter of a batch of
renewable fuel is also the producer of
that batch, and no RIN was generated to
represent that batch, then the volume of
that batch shall be excluded from the
calculation of the Renewable Volume
Obligation.
(c) Each exporter of renewable fuel
must demonstrate compliance with its
RVO using RINs it has acquired
pursuant to § 80.1127.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
§ 80.1131
Treatment of invalid RINs.
(a) Invalid RINs. An invalid RIN is a
RIN that:
(1) Is a duplicate of a valid RIN;
(2) Was based on volumes that have
not been standardized to 60 °F;
(3) Has expired;
(4) Was based on an incorrect
equivalence value; or
(5) Was otherwise improperly
generated.
(b) In the case of RINs that have been
determined to be invalid, the following
provisions apply:
(1) Invalid RINs cannot be used to
achieve compliance with the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
transferee’s Renewable Volume
Obligation, regardless of the transferee’s
good faith belief that the RINs were
valid.
(2) The refiner or importer who used
the invalid RINs, and any transferor of
the invalid RINs, must adjust their
records, reports, and compliance
calculations as necessary to reflect the
deletion of invalid RINs.
(3) Any valid RINs remaining after
deleting invalid RINs, and after an
obligated party applies valid RINs as
needed to meet the RVO at the end of
the compliance year, must first be
applied to correct the invalid transfers
before the transferor trades or banks the
RINs.
(4) In the event that the same RIN is
transferred to two or more parties, the
RIN will be deemed to be invalid, and
any party to any transfer of the invalid
RIN will be deemed liable for any
violations arising from the transfer or
use of the invalid RIN.
(5) A RIN will not be deemed invalid
where it can be determined that the RIN
was properly created and transferred.
§§ 80.1132–80.1140
[Added and Reserved]
10. Sections 80.1132 through 80.1140
are added and reserved.
11. Sections 80.1141 through 80.1143
are added to read as follows:
§ 80.1141
Small refinery exemption.
(a)(1) Pursuant to § 80.1107(d),
gasoline produced by a refiner at a small
refinery is qualified for an exemption
from the renewable fuels standards of
§ 80.1105 if that refinery meets the
definition of a small refinery under
§ 80.1101(i) for calendar year 2004.
(2) This exemption shall apply
through December 31, 2010, unless a
refiner chooses to opt-in to the program
requirements of this subpart (per
paragraph (g) of this section) prior to
this date.
(b)(1) To apply for an exemption
under this section, a refiner must submit
an application to EPA containing the
following information:
(i) The annual average aggregate daily
crude oil throughput for the period
January 1, 2004, through December 31,
2004 (as determined by dividing the
aggregate throughput for the calendar
year by the number 365);
(ii) A letter signed by the president,
chief operating or chief executive officer
of the company, or his/her designee,
stating that the information contained in
the application is true to the best of his/
her knowledge, and that the company
owned the refinery as of January 1,
2006; and
(iii) Name, address, phone number,
facsimile number, and E-mail address of
a corporate contact person.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) Applications must be submitted by
September 1, 2007.
(c) Within 60 days of EPA’s receipt of
a refiner’s application for a small
refinery exemption, EPA will notify the
refiner if the exemption is not approved
or of any deficiencies in the application.
In the absence of such notification from
EPA, the effective date of the small
refinery exemption is 60 days from
EPA’s receipt of the refiner’s
submission.
(d) If EPA finds that a refiner
provided false or inaccurate information
on its application for a small refinery
exemption, the exemption will be void
ab initio upon notice from EPA.
(e) If a refiner is complying on an
aggregate basis for multiple refineries,
any such refiner may exclude from the
calculation of its Renewable Volume
Obligation (under § 80.1107(a)) gasoline
from any refinery receiving the small
refinery exemption under paragraph (a)
of this section.
(f)(1) The exemption period in
paragraph (a) of this section shall be
extended by the Administrator for a
period of not less than two additional
years if a study by the Secretary of
Energy determines that compliance with
the requirements of this subpart would
impose a disproportionate economic
hardship on the small refinery.
(2) A refiner may at any time petition
the Administrator for an extension of its
small refinery exemption under
paragraph (a) of this section for the
reason of disproportionate economic
hardship.
(3) A petition for an extension of the
small refinery exemption must specify
the factors that demonstrate a
disproportionate economic hardship
and must provide a detailed discussion
regarding the inability of the refinery to
produce gasoline meeting the
requirements of § 80.1105 and the date
the refiner anticipates that compliance
with the requirements can be achieved
at the small refinery.
(4) The Administrator shall act on
such a petition not later than 90 days
after the date of receipt of the petition.
(g) At any time, a refiner with an
approved small refinery exemption
under paragraph (a) of this section may
waive that exemption upon notification
to EPA.
(1) A refiner’s notice to EPA that it
intends to waive its small refinery
exemption must be received by
November 1.
(2) The waiver will be effective
beginning on January 1 of the following
calendar year, at which point the
gasoline produced at that refinery will
be subject to the renewable fuels
standard of § 80.1105.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(3) The waiver must be sent to EPA
at one of the addresses listed in
paragraph (m) of this section.
(h) A refiner that acquires a refinery
from either an approved small refiner
(under § 80.1142) or another refiner
with an approved small refinery
exemption under paragraph (a) of this
section shall notify EPA in writing no
later than 20 days following the
acquisition.
(i) Applications under paragraph (b)
of this section, petitions for hardship
extensions under paragraph (f) of this
section, and small refinery exemption
waivers under paragraph (g) of this
section shall be sent to one of the
following addresses:
(1) For U.S. mail: U.S. EPA—Attn:
RFS Program, Transportation and
Regional Programs Division (6406J),
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; or
(2) For overnight or courier services:
U.S. EPA, Attn: RFS Program,
Transportation and Regional Programs
Division (6406J), 1310 L Street, NW., 6th
floor, Washington, DC 20005.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
§ 80.1142 What are the provisions for
small refiners under the RFS program?
(a)(1) A refiner qualifies for a small
refiner exemption if the refiner does not
meet the definition of a small refinery
under § 80.1101(i) but meets all of the
following criteria:
(i) The refiner produced gasoline at
the refinery by processing crude oil
through refinery processing units from
January 1, 2004 through December 31,
2004.
(ii) The refiner employed an average
of no more than 1,500 people, based on
the average number of employees for all
pay periods for calendar year 2004 for
all subsidiary companies, all parent
companies, all subsidiaries of the parent
companies, and all joint venture
partners.
(iii) The refiner had a corporateaverage crude oil capacity less than or
equal to 155,000 barrels per calendar
day (bpcd) for 2004.
(2) The small refiner exemption shall
apply through December 31, 2010,
unless a refiner chooses to opt-in to the
program requirements of this subpart
(per paragraph (g) of this section) prior
to this date.
(b) To apply for an exemption under
this section, a refiner must submit an
application to EPA containing all of the
following information for the refiner
and for all subsidiary companies, all
parent companies, all subsidiaries of the
parent companies, and all joint venture
partners; approval of an exemption
application will be based on all
information submitted under this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
paragraph and any other relevant
information:
(1) (i) A listing of the name and
address of each company location where
any employee worked for the period
January 1, 2004 through December 31,
2004.
(ii) The average number of employees
at each location based on the number of
employees for each pay period for the
period January 1, 2004 through
December 31, 2004.
(iii) The type of business activities
carried out at each location.
(iv) For joint ventures, the total
number of employees includes the
combined employee count of all
corporate entities in the venture.
(v) For government-owned refiners,
the total employee count includes all
government employees.
(2) The total corporate crude oil
capacity of each refinery as reported to
the Energy Information Administration
(EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), for the period January 1, 2004
through December 31, 2004. The
information submitted to EIA is
presumed to be correct. In cases where
a company disagrees with this
information, the company may petition
EPA with appropriate data to correct the
record when the company submits its
application.
(3) A letter signed by the president,
chief operating or chief executive officer
of the company, or his/her designee,
stating that the information contained in
the application is true to the best of his/
her knowledge, and that the company
owned the refinery as of January 1,
2006.
(4) Name, address, phone number,
facsimile number, and e-mail address of
a corporate contact person.
(c) Applications under paragraph (b)
of this section must be submitted by
September 1, 2007. EPA will notify a
refiner of approval or disapproval of its
small refiner status in writing.
(d) A refiner who qualifies as a small
refiner under this section and
subsequently fails to meet all of the
qualifying criteria as set out in
paragraph (a) of this section will have
its small refiner exemption terminated
effective January 1 of the next calendar
year; however, disqualification shall not
apply in the case of a merger between
two approved small refiners.
(e) If EPA finds that a refiner provided
false or inaccurate information on its
application for small refiner status
under this subpart, the small refiner’s
exemption will be void ab initio upon
notice from EPA.
(f) If a small refiner is complying on
an aggregate basis for multiple
refineries, the refiner may exclude those
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55643
refineries from the compliance
calculations under § 80.1125.
(g) (1) An approved small refiner may,
at any time, waive the exemption under
paragraph (a) of this section upon
notification to EPA.
(2) An approved small refiner’s notice
to EPA that it intends to waive the
exemption under paragraph (a) of this
section must be received by November
1 in order for the waiver to be effective
for the following calendar year. The
waiver will be effective beginning on
January 1 of the following calendar year,
at which point the refiner will be
subject to the renewable fuels standard
of § 80.1105.
(3) The waiver must be sent to EPA
at one of the addresses listed in
paragraph (i) of this section.
(h) A refiner that acquires a refinery
from another refiner with approved
small refiner status under paragraph (a)
of this section shall notify EPA in
writing no later than 20 days following
the acquisition.
(i) Applications under paragraph (b)
of this section shall be sent to one of the
following addresses:
(1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA—Attn:
RFS Program, Transportation and
Regional Programs Division (6406J),
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; or
(2) For overnight or courier services:
U.S. EPA, Attn: RFS Program,
Transportation and Regional Programs
Division (6406J), 1310 L Street, NW., 6th
floor, Washington, DC 20005.
§ 80.1143 What are the opt-in provisions
for noncontiguous states and territories?
(a) A noncontiguous state or United
States territory may petition the
Administrator to opt-in to the program
requirements of this subpart.
(b) The petition must be signed by the
Governor of the state or his authorized
representative (or the equivalent official
of the territory).
(c) The Administrator will approve
the petition if it meets the provisions of
paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section.
(d)(1) A petition submitted under this
section must be received by the Agency
by October 31 for the state or territory
to be included in the RFS program in
the next calendar year.
(2) A petition submitted under this
section should be sent to one of the
following addresses:
(i) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA–Attn: RFS
Program, Transportation and Regional
Programs Division (6406J), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; or
(ii) For overnight or courier services:
U.S. EPA, Attn: RFS Program,
Transportation and Regional Programs
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55644
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Division (6406J), 1310 L Street, NW., 6th
floor, Washington, DC 20005.
(e) Upon approval of the petition by
the Administrator—
(1) EPA shall calculate the standard
for the following year, including the
total gasoline volume for the state or
territory in question.
(2) Beginning on January 1 of the next
calendar year, all gasoline producers in
the state or territory for which a petition
has been approved shall be obligated
parties as defined in § 80.1106.
(3) Beginning on January 1 of the next
calendar year, all renewable fuel
producers in the State or territory for
which a petition has been approved
shall, pursuant to § 80.1126(a)(2), be
required to generate RINs and assign
them to batches of renewable fuel.
§§ 80.1144–80.1149
[Added and Reserved]
12. Sections 80.1144 through 80.1149
are added and reserved.
13. Sections 80.1150 through 80.1154
are added to read as follows:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
§ 80.1150 What are the registration
requirements under the RFS program?
(a)(1) Any obligated party as defined
in § 80.1106 and any exporter of
renewable fuel that is subject to a
renewable fuels standard under this
subpart, as of [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], must
provide EPA with the information
specified for registration under § 80.76,
if such information has not already been
provided under the provisions of this
part. In addition, for each import
facility, the same identifying
information as required for each refinery
under § 80.76(c) must be provided.
Registrations must be submitted by no
later than [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) Any obligated party, as defined in
§ 80.1106, or any exporter of renewable
fuel that becomes subject to a renewable
fuels standard under this subpart after
the date specified in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, must provide EPA the
information specified for registration
under § 80.76, if such information has
not already been provided under the
provisions of this part, and must receive
EPA-issued company and facility
identification numbers prior to engaging
in any transaction involving RINs.
Additionally, for each import facility,
the same identifying information as
required for each refinery under
§ 80.76(c) must be provided.
(b)(1) Any producer of a renewable
fuel that is subject to a renewable fuels
standard under this subpart as of [DATE
60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], must provide EPA the
information specified under § 80.76, if
such information has not already been
provided under the provisions of this
part, by no later than [DATE 90 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] .
(2) Any producer of renewable fuel
that becomes subject to a renewable
fuels standard under this subpart after
the date specified in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section, must provide EPA the
information specified for registration
under § 80.76, if such information has
not already been provided under the
provisions of this part, and must receive
EPA-issued company and facility
identification numbers prior to
generating or creating any RINs.
(c) Any party not covered by
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
must provide EPA the information
specified under § 80.76, if such
information has not already been
provided under the provisions of this
part, and must receive EPA-issued
company and facility identification
numbers prior to owning any RINs.
(d) Registration shall be on forms, and
following policies, established by the
Administrator.
§ 80.1151 What are the recordkeeping
requirements under the RFS program?
(a) Beginning with [DATE 60 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
any obligated party as defined under
§ 80.1106 or exporter of renewable fuel
that is subject to the renewable fuels
standard under § 80.1105 must keep all
the following records:
(1) The applicable product transfer
documents under § 80.1153.
(2) Copies of all reports submitted to
EPA under § 80.1152(a).
(3) Records related to each transaction
involving the sale, purchase, brokering,
and trading of RINs, which includes all
the following:
(i) A list of the RINs owned or
transferred.
(ii) The parties involved in each
transaction including the transferor,
transferee, and any broker or agent.
(iii) The location, time, and date of
the transfer of the RIN(s).
(iv) Additional information related to
details of the transaction and its terms.
(4) Records related to the use of RINs,
by facility, for compliance, which
includes all the following:
(i) Methods and variables used to
calculate the Renewable Volume
Obligation pursuant to § 80.1107.
(ii) List of RINs surrendered to EPA
used to demonstrate compliance.
(iii) Additional information related to
details of RIN use for compliance.
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(5) Verifiable records of all the
following:
(i) The amount and type of fossil fuel
and waste material-derived fuel used in
producing on-site thermal energy
dedicated to the production of ethanol
at plants producing cellulosic ethanol as
defined in § 80.1101(a)(2).
(ii) The equivalent amount of fossil
fuel (based on reasonable estimates)
associated with the use of off-site
generated waste heat that is used in the
production of ethanol at plants
producing cellulosic ethanol as defined
in § 80.1101(a)(2).
(b) Beginning with [DATE 60 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
any importer or producer of renewable
fuel as defined under § 80.1101(e) must
keep all the following records:
(1) The applicable product transfer
documents under § 80.1153.
(2) Copies of all reports submitted to
EPA under § 80.1152(b).
(3) Records related to the generation
of RINs, for each facility, including all
of the following:
(i) Batch Volume.
(ii) RIN number as assigned under
§ 80.1126.
(iii) Identification of those batches
meeting the definition of cellulosic
biomass ethanol.
(iv) Date of production or import.
(v) Results of any laboratory analysis
of batch chemical composition or
physical properties.
(vi) Additional information related to
details of RIN generation.
(4) Records related to each transaction
involving the sale, purchase, brokering,
and trading of RINs, including all of the
following:
(i) A list of the RINs acquired, owned
or transferred.
(ii) The parties involved in each
transaction including the transferor,
transferee, and any broker or agent.
(iii) The location, time, and date of
the transfer of the RIN(s).
(iv) Additional information related to
details of the transaction and its terms.
(c) Beginning with [DATE 60 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
any party, other than those parties
covered in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section, that owns RINs must keep all of
the following records:
(1) The applicable product transfer
documents under § 80.1153.
(2) Copies of all reports submitted to
EPA under § 80.1152(c).
(3) Records related to each transaction
involving the sale, purchase, brokering,
and trading of RINs, including all of the
following:
(i) A list of the RINs acquired, owned,
or transferred.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(ii) The parties involved in each
transaction including the transferor,
transferee, and any broker or agent.
(iii) The location, time, and date of
the transfer of the RIN(s).
(iv) Additional information related to
details of the transaction and its terms.
(d) The records required under this
section and under § 80.1153 shall be
kept for five years from the date they
were created, except that records related
to transactions involving RINs shall be
kept for five years from the date of
transfer.
(e) On request by EPA, the records
required under this section and under
§ 80.1153 must be made available to the
Administrator or the Administrator’s
authorized representative. For records
that are electronically generated or
maintained, the equipment or software
necessary to read the records shall be
made available; or, if requested by EPA,
electronic records shall be converted to
paper documents which shall be
provided to the Administrator’s
authorized representative.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
§ 80.1152 What are the reporting
requirements under the RFS program?
(a) Beginning with [DATE 60 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
any obligated party as defined in
§ 80.1106 or exporter of renewable fuel
that is subject to the renewable fuels
standard under § 80.1105, and
continuing for each year thereafter, must
submit to EPA annual reports that
contain the information required in this
section and such other information as
EPA may require:
(1) A summary report of the annual
gasoline volume produced or imported,
or volume of renewable fuel exported,
and whether the party is complying on
a corporate (aggregate) or facility-byfacility basis. This report shall include
all of the following:
(i) The obligated party’s name.
(ii) The EPA company registration
number.
(iii) The EPA facility registration
number(s).
(iv) The production volume of
finished gasoline, RBOB as defined in
§ 80.1107(c) and CBOB as defined in
§ 80.1107(c).
(v) The renewable volume obligation
(RVO), as defined in § 80.1127(a) for
obligated parties and § 80.1130 for
exporters of renewable fuel, for the
reporting year.
(vi) Any deficit RVO carried over from
the previous year.
(vii) Any deficit RVO carried into the
subsequent year.
(viii) The total number of RINs used
for compliance.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
(ix) A list of all RINs used for
compliance.
(x) Any additional information that
the Administrator may require.
(2) A report documenting each
transaction of RINs traded between two
parties, shall include all of the
following:
(i) The submitting party’s name.
(ii) The submitter’s EPA company
registration number.
(iii) The submitter’s EPA facility
registration number(s).
(iv) The compliance period,
(v) Transaction type (e.g. purchase,
sale).
(vi) Transaction date.
(vii) Trading partner’s name.
(viii) Trading partner’s EPA company
registration number.
(ix) Trading partner’s EPA facility
registration number.
(x) RINs traded.
(xi) Any additional information that
the Administrator may require.
(3) A report that summarizes RIN
activities for a given compliance year
shall include all of the following
information:
(i) The total prior-years RINs carried
over into the current year (on an annual
basis beginning January 1).
(ii) The total current-year RINS
acquired.
(iii) The total prior-years RINs
acquired.
(iv) The total current-year RINs sold.
(v) The total prior-years RINs sold.
(vi) The total current-year RINs used.
(vii) The total prior-years RINs used.
(viii) The total current-year RINs
expired.
(ix) The total prior-years RINs
expired.
(x) The total current-year RINs to be
carried into next year.
(xi) Any additional information that
the Administrator may require.
(4) Reports shall be submitted on
forms and following procedures as
prescribed by EPA.
(5) Reports shall be submitted by
February 28 for the previous compliance
year.
(6) All reports must be signed and
certified as meeting all the applicable
requirements of this subpart by the
owner or a responsible corporate officer
of the obligated party.
(b) Beginning with [DATE 60 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
any producer or importer of a renewable
fuel that is subject to the renewable
fuels standard under § 80.1105, and
continuing for each year thereafter, must
submit to EPA annual reports that
contain all of the following information:
(1) An annual report that includes all
of the following information on a per-
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55645
batch basis, where ‘‘batch’’ means a
discreet quantity of renewable fuel
produced and assigned a unique RIN:
(i) The renewable fuel producer’s
name.
(ii) The EPA company registration
number.
(iii) The EPA facility registration
number(s).
(iv) The 34 character RINs generated
for each batch according to § 80.1126.
(v) The production date of each batch.
(vi) The renewable fuel type as
defined in § 80.1101(f).
(vii) Information related to the volume
of denaturant and applicable
equivalence value.
(viii) The volume produced.
(ix) Any additional information the
Administrator may require.
(2) A report documenting each
transaction of RINs traded between two
parties, shall include all of the following
information:
(i) The submitting party’s name.
(ii) The submitter’s EPA company
registration number.
(iii) The submitter’s EPA facility
registration number(s).
(iv) The compliance period.
(v) Transaction type (e.g. purchase,
sale).
(vi) Transaction date.
(vii) Trading partner’s name.
(viii) Trading partner’s EPA company
registration number.
(ix) Trading partner’s EPA facility
registration number;
(x) RINs traded.
(xi) Any additional information the
Administrator may require.
(3) A report that summarizes RIN
activities for a compliance year shall
include all of the following information:
(i) The total prior-years RINs carried
over into the current year (on an annual
basis beginning January 1).
(ii) The total current-year RINs
generated.
(iii) The total current-year RINS
acquired.
(iv) The total prior-years RINs
acquired.
(v) The total current-years RINs sold.
(vi) The total prior-years RINs sold.
(vii) The total current-years RINs
expired.
(viii) The total prior-years RINs
expired.
(ix) The total current-year RINs to be
carried into next year.
(x) Any additional information the
Administrator may require.
(4) Reports shall be submitted on
forms and following procedures as
prescribed by EPA.
(5) Reports shall be submitted by
February 28 for the previous year.
(6) All reports must be signed and
certified as meeting all the applicable
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
55646
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
requirements of this subpart by the
owner or a responsible corporate officer
of the renewable fuel producer.
(c) Any party, other than those parties
covered in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section, who owns RINs must submit to
EPA annual reports that contain all of
the following information:
(1) A report documenting each
transaction of RINs traded between two
parties shall include all of the following:
(i) The submitting party’s name.
(ii) The submitter’s EPA company
registration number.
(iii) The submitter’s EPA facility
registration number(s).
(iv) The compliance period.
(v) Transaction type (e.g. purchase,
sale).
(vi) Transaction date.
(vii) Trading partner’s name.
(viii) Trading partner’s EPA company
registration number.
(ix) Trading partner’s EPA facility
registration number.
(x) RINs traded.
(xi) Any additional information the
Administrator may require.
(2) A report that summarizes RIN
activities for a compliance year shall
include all of the following information:
(i) The total prior-years RINs carried
over into the current year (on an annual
basis beginning January 1).
(ii) The total current-year RINS
acquired.
(iii) The total prior-years RINs
acquired.
(iv) The total current-years RINs sold.
(v) The total prior-years RINs sold.
(vi) The total current-years RINs
expired.
(vii) The total prior-years RINs
expired.
(viii) The total current-year RINs to be
carried into next year.
(ix) Any additional information the
Administrator may require.
(3) Reports shall be submitted on
forms and following procedures as
prescribed by EPA.
(4) Reports shall be submitted by
February 28 for the previous year.
(5) All reports must be signed and
certified as meeting all the applicable
requirements of this subpart by the
owner or a responsible corporate officer
of the renewable fuel producer.
all of the following information as
applicable:
(1) The name and address of the
transferor and transferee.
(2) The transferor’s and transferee’s
EPA company registration number.
(3) The transferor’s and transferee’s
EPA facility registration number.
(4) The volume of renewable fuel that
is being transferred.
(5) The location of the renewable fuel
at the time of transfer.
(6) The date of the transfer.
(7) The RINs assigned to the volume
of renewable fuel that is being
transferred.
(b) Except for transfers to truck
carriers, retailers or wholesale
purchaser-consumers, product codes
may be used to convey the information
required under paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(4) of this section if such
codes are clearly understood by each
transferee. The RIN number required
under paragraph (a)(7) of this section
must always appear in its entirety.
§ 80.1154 What are the provisions for
renewable fuel producers and importers
who produce or import less than 10,000
gallons of renewable fuel per year?
import a renewable fuel that is not
assigned the proper RIN value or
identified by a RIN number as required
under § 80.1126.
(b) RIN generation and transfer
violations. No person shall do any of the
following:
(1) Improperly generate a RIN (i.e.,
generate a RIN for which the applicable
renewable fuel volume was not
produced).
(2) Transfer to any person an invalid
RIN or a RIN that is not properly
identified as required under § 80.1125.
(c) RIN use violations. No person shall
do any of the following:
(1) Fail to acquire sufficient RINs, or
use invalid RINs, to meet the party’s
renewable fuel obligation under
§ 80.1127.
(2) Fail to acquire sufficient RINs to
meet the party’s renewable fuel
obligation under § 80.1130.
(d) Causing a violation. No person
shall cause another person to commit an
act in violation of any prohibited act
under this section.
§ 80.1161 Who is liable for violations
under the RFS program?
(a) Renewable fuel production
facilities located within the United
States that produce less than 10,000
gallons of renewable fuel each year, and
importers who import less than 10,000
gallons of renewable fuel each year, are
not required to generate RINs or to
assign RINs to batches of renewable
fuel. Such producers and importers that
do not generate and/or assign RINs to
batches of renewable fuel are exempt
from the following requirements of
subpart K, except as stated in paragraph
(b) of this section:
(1) The registration requirements of
§ 80.1150:
(2) The recordkeeping requirements of
§ 80.1151; and
(3) The reporting requirements of
§ 80.1152.
(b) Renewable fuel producers and
importers who produce or import less
than 10,000 gallons of renewable fuel
each year and that generate and/or
assign RINs to batches of renewable fuel
are subject to the provisions of
§§ 80.1150 through 80.1152.
§§ 80.1155–80.1159
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
§ 80.1153 What are the product transfer
document (PTD) requirements for the RFS
program?
(a) Any time that a person transfers
ownership of renewable fuels subject to
this subpart, and when RINs continue to
accompany the renewable fuel, the
transferor must provide to the transferee
documents identifying the renewable
fuel and assigned RINs which include
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
[Added and Reserved]
14. Sections 80.1155 through 80.1159
are added and reserved.
15. Sections 80.1160 through 80.1165
are added to read as follows:
§ 80.1160 What acts are prohibited under
the RFS program?
(a) Renewable fuels producer or
importer violation. Except as provided
in § 80.1154, no person shall produce or
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(a) Persons liable for violations of
prohibited acts. (1) Any person who
violates a prohibition under § 80.1160(a)
through (c) is liable for the violation of
that prohibition.
(2) Any person who causes another
person to violate a prohibition under
§ 80.1160(a) through (c) is liable for a
violation of § 80.1160(d).
(b) Persons liable for failure to meet
other provisions of this subpart. (1) Any
person who fails to meet a requirement
of any provision of this subpart is liable
for a violation of that provision.
(2) Any person who causes another
person to fail to meet a requirement of
any provision of this subpart is liable for
causing a violation of that provision.
(c) Parent corporation liability. Any
parent corporation is liable for any
violation of this subpart that is
committed by any of its subsidiaries.
(d) Joint venture liability. Each partner
to a joint venture is jointly and severally
liable for any violation of this subpart
that is committed by the joint venture
operation.
§ 80.1162
[Reserved]
§ 80.1163 What penalties apply under the
RFS program?
(a) Any person who is liable for a
violation under § 80.1161 is subject a to
civil penalty of up to $32,500, as
specified in sections 205 and 211(d) of
the Clean Air Act, for every day of each
such violation and the amount of
economic benefit or savings resulting
from each violation.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(b) Any person liable under
§ 80.1161(a) for a violation of
§ 80.1160(c) for failure to meet a
renewable fuels obligation or causing
another party to fail to meet a renewable
fuels obligation during any averaging
period, is subject to a separate day of
violation for each day in the averaging
period.
(c) Any person liable under
§ 80.1161(b) for failure to meet, or
causing a failure to meet, a requirement
of any provision of this subpart is liable
for a separate day of violation for each
day such a requirement remains
unfulfilled.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
§ 80.1164 What are the attest engagement
requirements under the RFS program?
In addition to the requirements for
attest engagements under §§ 80.125
through 80.133, and other applicable
attest engagement provisions, the
following annual attest engagement
procedures are required under this
subpart.
(a) The following attest procedures
shall be completed for any obligated
party as stated in § 80.1106(b) or
exporter of renewable fuel that is subject
to the renewable fuel standard under
§ 80.1105:
(1) Annual summary report. (i) Obtain
and read a copy of the annual summary
report required under § 80.1152(a)(1)
which contains information regarding:
(A) The obligated party’s volume of
finished gasoline, reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending
(RBOB), and conventional gasoline
blendstock that becomes finished
conventional gasoline upon the addition
of oxygenate (CBOB) produced or
imported during the reporting year;
(B) Renewable volume obligation
(RVO); and
(C) RINs used for compliance.
(ii) Obtain documentation of any
volumes of renewable fuel used in
gasoline during the reporting year;
compute and report as a finding the
volumes of renewable fuel represented
in these documents.
(iii) Agree the volumes of gasoline
reported to EPA in the report required
under § 80.1152(a)(1) with the volumes,
excluding any renewable fuel volumes,
contained in the inventory
reconciliation analysis under § 80.133.
(iv) Verify that the production volume
information in the obligated party’s
annual summary report required under
§ 80.1152(a)(1) agrees with the volume
information, excluding any renewable
fuel volumes, contained in the
inventory reconciliation analysis under
§ 80.133.
(v) Compute and report as a finding
the obligated party’s RVO, and any
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
deficit RVO carried over from the
previous year or carried into the
subsequent year, and verify that the
values agree with the values reported to
EPA.
(vi) Obtain documentation for all RINs
used for compliance during the year
being reviewed; compute and report as
a finding the RIN numbers and year of
generation of RINs represented in these
documents; and agree with the report to
EPA.
(2) RIN transaction report. (i) Obtain
and read a copy of the RIN transaction
report required under § 80.1152(a)(2)
which contains information regarding
RIN trading transactions.
(ii) Obtain contracts or other
documents for all RIN transactions with
another party during the year being
reviewed; compute and report as a
finding the transaction types,
transaction dates and RINs traded; and
agree with the report to EPA.
(3) RIN activity report. (i) Obtain and
read a copy of the RIN activity report
required under § 80.1152(a)(3) which
contains information regarding RIN
activity for the compliance year.
(ii) Obtain documentation of all RINs
acquired, used for compliance
(including current-year RINs used and
previous-year RINs used) transferred,
sold, and expired during the year being
reviewed; compute and report as a
finding the total RINs acquired, used for
compliance, transferred, sold, and
expired as represented in these
documents; and agree with the report to
EPA.
(b) The following attest procedures
shall be completed for any renewable
fuel producer:
(1) Annual batch report. (i) Obtain
and read a copy of the annual batch
report required under § 80.1152(b)(1)
which contains information regarding
renewable fuel batches.
(ii) Obtain production data for each
renewable fuel batch produced during
the year being reviewed; compute and
report as a finding the RIN numbers,
production dates, types, volumes of
denaturant and applicable equivalence
values, and production volumes for
each batch; and agree with the report to
EPA.
(iii) Verify that the proper number of
RINs were generated for each batch of
renewable fuel produced, as required
under § 80.1126.
(iv) Obtain product transfer
documents for each renewable fuel
batch produced during the year being
reviewed; report as a finding any
product transfer document that did not
include the RIN for the batch.
(2) RIN transaction report. (i) Obtain
and read a copy of the RIN transaction
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55647
report required under § 80.1152(b)(2)
which contains information regarding
RIN trading transactions.
(ii) Obtain contracts or other
documents for all RIN transactions with
another party during the year being
reviewed; compute and report as a
finding the transaction types,
transaction dates, and the RINs traded;
and agree with the report to EPA.
(3) RIN activity report. (i) Obtain and
read a copy of the RIN activity report
required under § 80.1152(b)(3) which
contains information regarding RIN
activity for the compliance year.
(ii) Obtain documentation of all RINs
owned (including RINs created and
acquired), transferred, sold and expired
during the year being reviewed;
compute and report as a finding the
total RINs owned, transferred, sold and
expired as represented in these
documents; and agree with the report to
EPA.
(c) For each averaging period, each
party subject to the attest engagement
requirements under this section shall
cause the reports required under this
section to be submitted to EPA by May
31 of each year.
§ 80.1165 What are the additional
requirements under this subpart for
gasoline produced at foreign refineries?
(a) Definitions. The following
definitions apply for this section:
(1) Foreign refinery is a refinery that
is located outside the United States, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (collectively referred to
in this section as ‘‘the United States’’).
(2) Foreign refiner is a person that
meets the definition of refiner under
§ 80.2(i) for a foreign refinery.
(3) RFS–FRGAS is gasoline produced
at a foreign refinery that has received a
small refinery exemption under
§ 80.1141 or a small refiner exemption
under § 80.1142 that is imported into
the United States.
(4) Non-RFS–FRGAS is one of the
following:
(i) Gasoline produced at a foreign
refinery that has received a small
refinery exemption under § 80.1141 or a
small refiner exemption under § 80.1142
that is not imported into the United
States.
(ii) Gasoline produced at a foreign
refinery that has not received a small
refinery exemption under § 80.1141 or
small refiner exemption under
§ 80.1142.
(b) General requirements for RFS–
FRGAS foreign small refiners. (1) A
foreign refiner that has a small refinery
exemption under § 80.1141 or a small
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
55648
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
refiner exemption under § 80.1142 must
designate, at the time of production,
each batch of gasoline produced at the
foreign refinery that is exported for use
in the United States as RFS–FRGAS;
and
(2) Meet all requirements that apply to
refiners who have received a small
refinery or small refiner exemption
under this subpart.
(c) Designation, foreign refiner
certification, and product transfer
documents. (1) Any foreign refiner that
has received a small refinery exemption
under § 80.1141 or a small refiner
exemption under § 80.1142 must
designate each batch of RFS–FRGAS as
such at the time the gasoline is
produced.
(2) On each occasion when RFS–
FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel or other
transportation mode for transport to the
United States, the foreign refiner shall
prepare a certification for each batch of
RFS–FRGAS that meets the following
requirements:
(i) The certification shall include the
report of the independent third party
under paragraph (d) of this section, and
the following additional information:
(A) The name and EPA registration
number of the refinery that produced
the RFS–FRGAS;
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) The identification of the gasoline
as RFS–FRGAS; and,
(iii) The volume of RFS–FRGAS being
transported, in gallons.
(3) On each occasion when any
person transfers custody or title to any
RFS–FRGAS prior to its being imported
into the United States, it must include
the following information as part of the
product transfer document information:
(i) Designation of the gasoline as RFS–
FRGAS; and
(ii) The certification required under
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(d) Load port independent testing and
refinery identification. (1) On each
occasion that RFS–FRGAS is loaded
onto a vessel for transport to the United
States the small foreign refiner shall
have an independent third party:
(i) Inspect the vessel prior to loading
and determine the volume of any tank
bottoms;
(ii) Determine the volume of RFS–
FRGAS loaded onto the vessel
(exclusive of any tank bottoms before
loading);
(iii) Obtain the EPA-assigned
registration number of the foreign
refinery;
(iv) Determine the name and country
of registration of the vessel used to
transport the RFS–FRGAS to the United
States;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
(v) Determine the date and time the
vessel departs the port serving the
foreign refinery; and
(vi) Review original documents that
reflect movement and storage of the
RFS–FRGAS from the foreign refinery to
the load port, and from this review
determine:
(A) The refinery at which the RFS–
FRGAS was produced; and
(B) That the RFS–FRGAS remained
segregated from Non-RFS–FRGAS and
other RFS–FRGAS produced at a
different refinery.
(2) The independent third party shall
submit a report to:
(i) The foreign small refiner
containing the information required
under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, to
accompany the product transfer
documents for the vessel; and
(ii) The Administrator containing the
information required under paragraph
(d)(1) of this section, within thirty days
following the date of the independent
third party’s inspection. This report
shall include a description of the
method used to determine the identity
of the refinery at which the gasoline was
produced, assurance that the gasoline
remained segregated as specified in
paragraph (i)(1) of this section, and a
description of the gasoline’s movement
and storage between production at the
source refinery and vessel loading.
(3) The independent third party must:
(i) Be approved in advance by EPA,
based on a demonstration of ability to
perform the procedures required in this
paragraph (d);
(ii) Be independent under the criteria
specified in § 80.65(e)(2)(iii); and
(iii) Sign a commitment that contains
the provisions specified in paragraph (f)
of this section with regard to activities,
facilities, and documents relevant to
compliance with the requirements of
this paragraph (d).
(e) Comparison of load port and port
of entry testing. (1)(i) Any small foreign
refiner and any United States importer
of RFS–FRGAS shall compare the
results from the load port testing under
paragraph (d) of this section, with the
port of entry testing as reported under
paragraph (j) of this section, for the
volume of gasoline, except as specified
in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section.
(ii) Where a vessel transporting RFS–
FRGAS off loads this gasoline at more
than one United States port of entry, the
requirements of paragraph (e)(1)(i) of
this section do not apply at subsequent
ports of entry if the United States
importer obtains a certification from the
vessel owner that the requirements of
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section were
met and that the vessel has not loaded
any gasoline or blendstock between the
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
first United States port of entry and the
subsequent port of entry.
(2) If the temperature-corrected
volumes determined at the port of entry
and at the load port differ by more than
one percent, the United States importer
shall include the volume of gasoline
from the importer’s RFS compliance
calculations.
(f) Foreign refiner commitments. Any
small foreign refiner shall commit to
and comply with the provisions
contained in this paragraph (f) as a
condition to being approved for a small
refinery or small refiner exemption
under this subpart.
(1) Any United States Environmental
Protection Agency inspector or auditor
must be given full, complete and
immediate access to conduct
inspections and audits of the foreign
refinery.
(i) Inspections and audits may be
either announced in advance by EPA, or
unannounced.
(ii) Access will be provided to any
location where:
(A) Gasoline is produced;
(B) Documents related to refinery
operations are kept; and
(C) RFS–FRGAS is stored or
transported between the foreign refinery
and the United States, including storage
tanks, vessels and pipelines.
(iii) Inspections and audits may be by
EPA employees or contractors to EPA.
(iv) Any documents requested that are
related to matters covered by
inspections and audits must be
provided to an EPA inspector or auditor
on request.
(v) Inspections and audits by EPA
may include review and copying of any
documents related to:
(A) The volume of RFS–FRGAS;
(B) The proper classification of
gasoline as being RFS–FRGAS or as not
being RFS–FRGAS;
(C) Transfers of title or custody to
RFS–FRGAS;
(D) Testing of RFS–FRGAS; and
(E) Work performed and reports
prepared by independent third parties
and by independent auditors under the
requirements of this section, including
work papers.
(vi) Inspections and audits by EPA
may include interviewing employees.
(vii) Any employee of the foreign
refiner must be made available for
interview by the EPA inspector or
auditor, on request, within a reasonable
time period.
(viii) English language translations of
any documents must be provided to an
EPA inspector or auditor, on request,
within 10 working days.
(ix) English language interpreters
must be provided to accompany EPA
inspectors and auditors, on request.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(2) An agent for service of process
located in the District of Columbia shall
be named, and service on this agent
constitutes service on the foreign refiner
or any employee of the foreign refiner
for any action by EPA or otherwise by
the United States related to the
requirements of this subpart.
(3) The forum for any civil or criminal
enforcement action related to the
provisions of this section for violations
of the Clean Air Act or regulations
promulgated thereunder shall be
governed by the Clean Air Act,
including the EPA administrative forum
where allowed under the Clean Air Act.
(4) United States substantive and
procedural laws shall apply to any civil
or criminal enforcement action against
the foreign refiner or any employee of
the foreign refiner related to the
provisions of this section.
(5) Submitting an application for a
small refinery or small refiner
exemption, or producing and exporting
gasoline under such exemption, and all
other actions to comply with the
requirements of this subpart relating to
such exemption constitute actions or
activities covered by and within the
meaning of the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
1605(a)(2), but solely with respect to
actions instituted against the foreign
refiner, its agents and employees in any
court or other tribunal in the United
States for conduct that violates the
requirements applicable to the foreign
refiner under this subpart, including
conduct that violates the False
Statements Accountability Act of 1996
(18 U.S.C. 1001) and section 113(c)(2) of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7413).
(6) The foreign refiner, or its agents or
employees, will not seek to detain or to
impose civil or criminal remedies
against EPA inspectors or auditors,
whether EPA employees or EPA
contractors, for actions performed
within the scope of EPA employment
related to the provisions of this section.
(7) The commitment required by this
paragraph (f) shall be signed by the
owner or president of the foreign refiner
business.
(8) In any case where RFS–FRGAS
produced at a foreign refinery is stored
or transported by another company
between the refinery and the vessel that
transports the RFS–FRGAS to the
United States, the foreign refiner shall
obtain from each such other company a
commitment that meets the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (f)(7) of this section, and
these commitments shall be included in
the foreign refiner’s application for a
small refinery or small refiner
exemption under this subpart.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
(g) Sovereign immunity. By
submitting an application for a small
refinery or small refiner exemption
under this subpart, or by producing and
exporting gasoline to the United States
under such exemption, the foreign
refiner, and its agents and employees,
without exception, become subject to
the full operation of the administrative
and judicial enforcement powers and
provisions of the United States without
limitation based on sovereign immunity,
with respect to actions instituted against
the foreign refiner, its agents and
employees in any court or other tribunal
in the United States for conduct that
violates the requirements applicable to
the foreign refiner under this subpart,
including conduct that violates the
False Statements Accountability Act of
1996 (18 U.S.C. 1001) and section
113(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7413).
(h) Bond posting. Any foreign refiner
shall meet the requirements of this
paragraph (h) as a condition to approval
as benzene foreign refiner under this
subpart.
(1) The foreign refiner shall post a
bond of the amount calculated using the
following equation:
Bond = G * $ 0.01
Where:
Bond = Amount of the bond in United States
dollars.
G = The largest volume of gasoline produced
at the foreign refinery and exported to
the United States, in gallons, during a
single calendar year among the most
recent of the following calendar years,
up to a maximum of five calendar years:
the calendar year immediately preceding
the date the refinery’s application is
submitted, the calendar year the
application is submitted, and each
succeeding calendar year.
(2) Bonds shall be posted by:
(i) Paying the amount of the bond to
the Treasurer of the United States;
(ii) Obtaining a bond in the proper
amount from a third party surety agent
that is payable to satisfy United States
administrative or judicial judgments
against the foreign refiner, provided
EPA agrees in advance as to the third
party and the nature of the surety
agreement; or
(iii) An alternative commitment that
results in assets of an appropriate
liquidity and value being readily
available to the United States, provided
EPA agrees in advance as to the
alternative commitment.
(3) Bonds posted under this paragraph
(h) shall—
(i) Be used to satisfy any judicial
judgment that results from an
administrative or judicial enforcement
action for conduct in violation of this
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55649
subpart, including where such conduct
violates the False Statements
Accountability Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C.
1001) and section 113(c)(2) of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7413);
(ii) Be provided by a corporate surety
that is listed in the United States
Department of Treasury Circular 570
‘‘Companies Holding Certificates of
Authority as Acceptable Sureties on
Federal Bonds’’ and
(iii) Include a commitment that the
bond will remain in effect for at least
five years following the end of latest
annual reporting period that the foreign
refiner produces gasoline pursuant to
the requirements of this subpart.
(4) On any occasion a foreign refiner
bond is used to satisfy any judgment,
the foreign refiner shall increase the
bond to cover the amount used within
90 days of the date the bond is used.
(5) If the bond amount for a foreign
refiner increases, the foreign refiner
shall increase the bond to cover the
shortfall within 90 days of the date the
bond amount changes. If the bond
amount decreases, the foreign refiner
may reduce the amount of the bond
beginning 90 days after the date the
bond amount changes.
(i) English language reports. Any
document submitted to EPA by a foreign
refiner shall be in English language, or
shall include an English language
translation.
(j) Prohibitions. (1) No person may
combine RFS–FRGAS with any NonRFS–FRGAS, and no person may
combine RFS–FRGAS with any RFS–
FRGAS produced at a different refinery,
until the importer has met all the
requirements of paragraph (k) of this
section.
(2) No foreign refiner or other person
may cause another person to commit an
action prohibited in paragraph (j)(1) of
this section, or that otherwise violates
the requirements of this section.
(k) United States importer
requirements. Any United States
importer of RFS–FRGAS shall meet the
following requirements:
(1) Each batch of imported RFS–
FRGAS shall be classified by the
importer as being RFS–FRGAS.
(2) Gasoline shall be classified as
RFS–FRGAS according to the
designation by the foreign refiner if this
designation is supported by product
transfer documents prepared by the
foreign refiner as required in paragraph
(c) of this section. Additionally, the
importer shall comply with all
requirements of this subpart applicable
to importers.
(3) For each gasoline batch classified
as RFS–FRGAS, any United States
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
55650
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
importer shall have an independent
third party:
(i) Determine the volume of gasoline
in the vessel;
(ii) Use the foreign refiner’s RFS–
FRGAS certification to determine the
name and EPA-assigned registration
number of the foreign refinery that
produced the RFS–FRGAS;
(iii) Determine the name and country
of registration of the vessel used to
transport the RFS–FRGAS to the United
States; and
(iv) Determine the date and time the
vessel arrives at the United States port
of entry.
(4) Any importer shall submit reports
within 30 days following the date any
vessel transporting RFS–FRGAS arrives
at the United States port of entry to:
(i) The Administrator containing the
information determined under
paragraph (k)(3) of this section; and
(ii) The foreign refiner containing the
information determined under
paragraph (k)(3)(i) of this section, and
including identification of the port at
which the product was off loaded.
(5) Any United States importer shall
meet all other requirements of this
subpart for any imported gasoline that is
not classified as RFS–FRGAS under
paragraph (k)(2) of this section.
(l) Truck imports of RFS–FRGAS
produced at a foreign refinery. (1) Any
refiner whose RFS–FRGAS is
transported into the United States by
truck may petition EPA to use
alternative procedures to meet the
following requirements:
(i) Certification under paragraph (c)(2)
of this section;
(ii) Load port and port of entry testing
under paragraphs (d) and (e) of this
section; and
(iii) Importer testing under paragraph
(k)(3) of this section.
(2) These alternative procedures must
ensure RFS–FRGAS remains segregated
from Non-RFS–FRGAS until it is
imported into the United States. The
petition will be evaluated based on
whether it adequately addresses the
following:
(i) Provisions for monitoring pipeline
shipments, if applicable, from the
refinery, that ensure segregation of RFS–
FRGAS from that refinery from all other
gasoline.
(ii) Contracts with any terminals and/
or pipelines that receive and/or
transport RFS–FRGAS that prohibit the
commingling of RFS–FRGAS with NonRFS–FRGAS or RFS–FRGAS from other
foreign refineries.
(iii) Attest procedures to be conducted
annually by an independent third party
that review loading records and import
documents based on volume
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
reconciliation, or other criteria, to
confirm that all RFS–FRGAS remains
segregated throughout the distribution
system.
(3) The petition required by this
section must be submitted to EPA along
with the application for a small refinery
or small refiner exemption under this
subpart.
(m) Additional attest requirements for
importers of RFS–FRGAS. Importers of
RFS–FRGAS, for each annual
compliance period, must arrange to
have an attest engagement performed of
the underlying documentation that
forms the basis of any report or
document required under this subpart.
The attest engagement must comply
with the procedures and requirements
that apply to importers under §§ 80.125
through 80.130, and other applicable
attest engagement provisions, and must
be submitted to the Administrator of
EPA by August 31 of each year for the
prior annual compliance period. The
following additional procedures shall be
carried out for any importer of RFS–
FRGAS.
(1) Obtain listings of all tenders of
RFS–FRGAS. Agree the total volume of
tenders from the listings to the gasoline
inventory reconciliation analysis in
§ 80.128(b), and to the volumes
determined by the third party under
paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) For each tender under paragraph
(m)(1) of this section, where the gasoline
is loaded onto a marine vessel, report as
a finding the name and country of
registration of each vessel, and the
volumes of RFS–FRGAS loaded onto
each vessel.
(3) Select a sample from the list of
vessels identified in paragraph (m)(2) of
this section used to transport RFS–
FRGAS, in accordance with the
guidelines in § 80.127, and for each
vessel selected perform the following:
(i) Obtain the report of the
independent third party, under
paragraph (d) of this section, and of the
United States importer under paragraph
(k) of this section.
(A) Agree the information in these
reports with regard to vessel
identification and gasoline volume.
(B) Identify, and report as a finding,
each occasion the load port and port of
entry volume results differ by more than
the amount allowed in paragraph (e) of
this section, and determine whether the
foreign refiner adjusted its refinery
calculations as required in paragraph (e)
of this section.
(ii) Obtain the documents used by the
independent third party to determine
transportation and storage of the RFS–
FRGAS from the refinery to the load
port, under paragraph (d) of this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Obtain tank activity records for any
storage tank where the RFS–FRGAS is
stored, and pipeline activity records for
any pipeline used to transport the RFS–
FRGAS prior to being loaded onto the
vessel. Use these records to determine
whether the RFS–FRGAS was produced
at the refinery that is the subject of the
attest engagement, and whether the
RFS–FRGAS was mixed with any NonRFS–FRGAS or any RFS–FRGAS
produced at a different refinery.
(4) Select a sample from the list of
vessels identified in paragraph (m)(2) of
this section used to transport RFS–
FRGAS, in accordance with the
guidelines in § 80.127, and for each
vessel selected perform the following:
(i) Obtain a commercial document of
general circulation that lists vessel
arrivals and departures, and that
includes the port and date of departure
of the vessel, and the port of entry and
date of arrival of the vessel.
(ii) Agree the vessel’s departure and
arrival locations and dates from the
independent third party and United
States importer reports to the
information contained in the
commercial document.
(5) Obtain separate listings of all
tenders of RFS–FRGAS, and perform the
following:
(i) Agree the volume of tenders from
the listings to the gasoline inventory
reconciliation analysis in § 80.128(b).
(ii) Obtain a separate listing of the
tenders under this paragraph (m)(5)
where the gasoline is loaded onto a
marine vessel. Select a sample from this
listing in accordance with the
guidelines in § 80.127, and obtain a
commercial document of general
circulation that lists vessel arrivals and
departures, and that includes the port
and date of departure and the ports and
dates where the gasoline was off loaded
for the selected vessels. Determine and
report as a finding the country where
the gasoline was off loaded for each
vessel selected.
(6) In order to complete the
requirements of this paragraph (m) an
auditor shall:
(i) Be independent of the foreign
refiner or importer;
(ii) Be licensed as a Certified Public
Accountant in the United States and a
citizen of the United States, or be
approved in advance by EPA based on
a demonstration of ability to perform the
procedures required in §§ 80.125
through 80.130 and this paragraph (m);
and
(iii) Sign a commitment that contains
the provisions specified in paragraph (f)
of this section with regard to activities
and documents relevant to compliance
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
with the requirements of §§ 80.125
through 80.130 and this paragraph (m).
(n) Withdrawal or suspension of
foreign refiner status. EPA may
withdraw or suspend a foreign refiner’s
small refinery or small refiner
exemption where—
(1) A foreign refiner fails to meet any
requirement of this section;
(2) A foreign government fails to
allow EPA inspections as provided in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section;
(3) A foreign refiner asserts a claim of,
or a right to claim, sovereign immunity
in an action to enforce the requirements
in this subpart; or
(4) A foreign refiner fails to pay a civil
or criminal penalty that is not satisfied
using the foreign refiner bond specified
in paragraph (g) of this section.
(o) Additional requirements for
applications, reports and certificates.
Any application for a small refinery or
small refiner exemption, alternative
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:45 Sep 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
procedures under paragraph (l) of this
section, any report, certification, or
other submission required under this
section shall be—
(1) Submitted in accordance with
procedures specified by the
Administrator, including use of any
forms that may be specified by the
Administrator.
(2) Be signed by the president or
owner of the foreign refiner company, or
by that person’s immediate designee,
and shall contain the following
declaration: ‘‘I hereby certify: (1) That I
have actual authority to sign on behalf
of and to bind [NAME OF FOREIGN
REFINER] with regard to all statements
contained herein; (2) that I am aware
that the information contained herein is
being Certified, or submitted to the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, under the requirements of 40
CFR part 80, subpart K, and that the
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
55651
information is material for determining
compliance under these regulations; and
(3) that I have read and understand the
information being Certified or
submitted, and this information is true,
complete and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief after I have taken
reasonable and appropriate steps to
verify the accuracy thereof. I affirm that
I have read and understand the
provisions of 40 CFR part 80, subpart K,
including 40 CFR 80.1165 apply to
[NAME OF FOREIGN REFINER].
Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 113(c)
and 18 U.S.C. 1001, the penalty for
furnishing false, incomplete or
misleading information in this
certification or submission is a fine of
up to $10,000 U.S., and/or
imprisonment for up to five years.’’
[FR Doc. 06–7887 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\22SEP2.SGM
22SEP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 184 (Friday, September 22, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55552-55651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7887]
[[Page 55551]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 80
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Renewable Fuel Standard
Program; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 55552]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[EPA-OAR-2005-0161; FRL-8218-8]
RIN 2060-AN76
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Renewable Fuel Standard
Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, as amended by Section 1501 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency is
required to promulgate regulations implementing a renewable fuel
program. The statute specifies the total volume of renewable fuel that
needs to be used in each year, with the total volume increasing over
time. In this context, it is expected to simultaneously reduce
dependence on foreign sources of petroleum, increase domestic sources
of energy, and help us make progress in moving beyond a petroleum-based
economy. The increased use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and
biodiesel is also expected to have the added benefit of providing an
expanded market for agricultural products such as corn and soybeans,
expanding economic benefits for our nation's agricultural sector. Based
on our analysis, there is also reason to believe that the expanded use
of renewable fuels will provide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions
and some air toxics emissions, such as benzene, from the transportation
sector, while other emissions may increase.
This action proposes regulations designed to ensure that refiners,
blenders, and importers of gasoline will use enough renewable fuel each
year so that this total volume requirement is met. Our proposal
describes the standard that will apply to these parties and the
renewable fuels that qualify for compliance. The regulations would also
establish a trading program that would be a critical aspect of the
overall program, allowing renewable fuels to be used where they are
most economical while providing a flexible means for obligated parties
to comply with the standard.
DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before November 12,
2006. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information
collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before October 30,
2006.
Hearing: A public hearing will be held at 10 a.m. (Central) on
October 13, 2006 at the Sheraton Gateway Suites Chicago O'Hare in
Rosemont, IL. To request to speak at a public hearing, send a request
to the contact in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by October 4, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-OAR-2005-0161, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: ASDinfo@epa.gov.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air
Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room B108, Mail Code 6102T,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0161. Please
include a total of 2 copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC
20503.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington DC. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2005-
0161. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number
is (202) 566-1742. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744.
Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on
docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for
submitting comments to www.regulations.gov are not affected by the
flooding and will remain the same.
Hearing: The hearing will be held at 10 a.m. (Central) on October
13, 2006 at the Sheraton Gateway Suites Chicago O'Hare, 6501 North
Mannheim Road, Rosemont, Illinois 60018. To request to speak at a
public hearing, send a request to the contact in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia MacAllister, U.S. EPA, National
Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; Telephone (734) 214-4131, FAX (734) 214-4816, E-mail
macallister.julia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Entities potentially affected by this proposed action include those
involved
[[Page 55553]]
with the production, distribution and sale of gasoline motor fuel or
renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Regulated categories and
entities could include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS\1\ SIC \2\ potentially
codes codes regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................... 324110 2911 Petroleum
Refineries.
Industry.................... 325193 2869 Ethyl alcohol
manufacturing.
Industry.................... 325199 2869 Other basic organic
chemical
manufacturing.
Industry.................... 424690 5169 Chemical and allied
products merchant
wholesalers.
Industry.................... 424710 5171 Petroleum bulk
stations and
terminals.
Industry.................... 424720 5172 Petroleum and
petroleum products
merchant
wholesalers.
Industry.................... 454319 5989 Other fuel dealers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\2\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action.
This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could
potentially be affected by this proposed action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To decide
whether your organization might be affected if this proposed action is
finalized, you should carefully examine today's notice and the existing
regulations in 40 CFR part 80. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare my Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
3. Docket Copying Costs. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for
copying docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR part 2.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. The Role of Renewable Fuels in the Transportation Sector
B. Requirements in the Energy Policy Act
C. Default Standard Applicable to 2006
D. Development of the Proposal
II. Overview of the Proposal
A. Impacts of Increased Reliance on Renewable Fuels
1. Renewable Fuel Volumes Scenarios Analyzed
2. Emissions
3. Economic Impacts
4. Greenhouse Gases and Fossil Fuel Consumption
5. Potential Water Quality Impacts
B. Program Structure
1. What is the RFS Program Standard?
2. Who Must Meet the Standard?
3. What Qualifies as a Renewable Fuel?
4. Equivalence Values of Different Renewable Fuels
5. How Will Compliance Be Determined?
6. How Would the Trading Program Work?
7. How Would the Program Be Enforced?
C. Voluntary Labeling Program
III. Complying With the Renewable Fuel Standard
A. What Is the Standard That Must Be Met?
1. How Is the Percentage Standard Calculated?
2. What are the Applicable Standards?
3. Compliance in 2007
4. Renewable Volume Obligations
B. What Counts as a Renewable Fuel in the RFS Program?
1. What Is a Renewable Fuel That Can Be Used for Compliance?
a. Ethanol Made From a Cellulosic Feedstock
b. Ethanol Made From Any Feedstock in Facilities Run Mostly With
Biomass-Based Fuel
c. Ethanol That Is Made From the Non-Cellulosic Portions of
Animal, Other Waste, and Municipal Waste
2. What Is Biodiesel?
a. Biodiesel (Mono-Alkyl Esters)
b. Non-Ester Renewable Diesel
3. Is Motor Fuel That is Made From a Renewable Feedstock a
Renewable Fuel?
4. What Are ``Equivalence Values'' for Renewable Fuel?
a. Authority Under the Act To Establish Equivalence Values
b. Energy Content and Renewable Content as the Basis for
Equivalence Values
c. Lifecycle Analyses as the Basis for Equivalence Values
C. What Gasoline Is Used To Calculate the Renewable Fuel
Obligation and Who Is Required To Meet the Obligation?
1. What Gasoline Is Used To Calculate the Volume of Renewable
Fuel Required To Meet a Party's Obligation?
2. Who Is Required to Meet the Renewable Fuels Obligation?
3. What Exemptions Are Available Under the RFS Program?
a. Small Refinery and Small Refiner Exemption
b. General Hardship Exemption
c. Temporary Exemption Based on Unforeseen Circumstances
4. What Are the Opt-in and State Waiver Provisions Under the RFS
Program?
a. Opt-in Provisions for Noncontiguous States and Territories
b. State Waiver Provisions
D. How Do Obligated Parties Comply With the Standard?
1. Why Use Renewable Identification Numbers?
a. RINs Serve the Purpose of a Credit Trading Program
[[Page 55554]]
b. Alternative Approach to Tracking Batches
2. Generating RINs and Assigning Them to Batches
a. Form of Renewable Identification Numbers
b. Generating Extra-Value RINs
c. Cases in Which RINs Are Not Generated
3. Calculating and Reporting Compliance
a. Using RINs To Meet the Standard
b. Valid Life of RINs
c. Cap on RIN Use To Address Rollover
d. Deficit Carryovers
4. Provisions for Exporters of Renewable Fuel
5. How Would the Agency Verify Compliance?
E. How Are RINs Distributed and Traded?
1. Distribution of RINs With Batches of Renewable Fuel
a. Responsibilities of Renewable Fuel Producers and Importers
b. Responsibilities of Parties That Buy, Sell, or Handle
Renewable Fuels
i. Batch Splits
ii. Batch Mergers
2. Separation of RINs From Batches
3. Distribution of Separated RINs
4. Alternative Approaches to RIN Distribution
a. Producer With Direct Transfer of RINs
b. Producer With Open RIN Market
c. First Purchaser
d. Owner at Time of Blending
e. Blender at Time of Blending
IV. Registration, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
A. Introduction
B. Requirements for Obligated Parties and Exporters of Renewable
Fuels
1. Registration
2. Reporting
3. Recordkeeping
C. Requirements for Producers and Importers of Renewable Fuel
1. Registration
2. Reporting
3. Recordkeeping
D. Requirements for Other Parties Who Own RINs
1. Registration
2. Reporting
3. Recordkeeping
V. What Acts Are Prohibited and Who Is Liable for Violations?
VI. Current and Projected Renewable Fuel Production and Use
A. Overview of U.S. Ethanol Industry and Future Production/
Consumption
1. Current Ethanol Production
2. Expected Growth in Ethanol Production
3. Current Ethanol and MTBE Consumption
4. Expected Growth in Ethanol Consumption
B. Overview of Biodiesel Industry and Future Production/
Consumption
1. Characterization of U.S. Biodiesel Production/Consumption
2. Expected Growth in U.S. Biodiesel Production/Consumption
C. Feasibility of the RFS Program Volume Obligations
1. Production Capacity of Ethanol and Biodiesel
2. Production Capacity of Cellulosic Ethanol
3. Renewable Fuel Distribution System Capability
VII. Impacts on Cost of Renewable Fuels and Gasoline
A. Renewable Fuel Production and Blending Costs
1. Ethanol Production Costs
a. Corn Ethanol
b. Cellulosic Ethanol
c. Ethanol's Blending Cost
2. Biodiesel Production Costs
3. Diesel Fuel Costs
B. Distribution Costs
1. Ethanol Distribution Costs
a. Capital Costs To Upgrade Distribution System for Increased
Ethanol Volume
b. Ethanol Freight Costs
2. Biodiesel Distribution Costs
C. Estimated Costs to Gasoline
1. RVP Cost for Blending Ethanol Into Summertime RFG
2. Cost Savings for Phasing Out Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
(MTBE)
3. Production of Alkylate From MTBE Feedstocks
4. Changes in Refinery Produced Gasoline Volume and Its Costs
5. Overall Impact on Fuel Cost
a. Cost Without Ethanol Subsidies
b. Gasoline Costs Including Ethanol Consumption Tax Subsidies
c. Cost Sensitivity Case Assuming $70 per Barrel Crude Oil
VIII. What Are the Impacts of Increased Ethanol Use on Emissions and
Air Quality?
A. Effect of Renewable Fuel Use on Emissions
1. Emissions From Gasoline Fueled Motor Vehicles and Equipment
a. Gasoline Fuel Quality
b. Emissions From Motor Vehicles
c. Nonroad Equipment
2. Diesel Fuel Quality: Biodiesel
3. Renewable Fuel Production and Distribution
B. Impact on Emission Inventories
1. Primary Analysis
2. Sensitivity Analysis
3. Local and Regional VOC and NOX Emission Impacts in
July
C. Impact on Air Quality
1. Impact of 7.2 Billion Gallon Ethanol Use on Ozone
2. Particulate Matter
IX. Impacts on Fossil Fuel Consumption and Related Implications
A. Lifecycle Modeling
1. Modifications to GREET Assumptions
a. Wet-Mill Versus Dry Mill Ethanol Plants
b. Coal Versus Natural Gas in Ethanol Plants
c. Ethanol Production Yield
2. Controversy Concerning the Ethanol Energy Balance
B. Overview of Methodology
1. Amount of Conventional Fuel Replaced By Renewable Fuel (R)
2. Lifecycle Impacts of Conventional Fuel Use (LC)
3. Displacement Indexes (DI)
C. Impacts of Increased Renewable Fuel Use
1. Fossil Fuels and Petroleum
2. Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Dioxide
D. Implications of Reduced Imports of Petroleum Products
X. Agricultural Sector Economic Impacts
XI. Public Participation
XII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Overview
2. Background--Small Refiners Versus Small Refineries
3. Summary of Potentially Affected Small Entities
4. Impact of the Regulations on Small Entities
5. Small Refiner Outreach
6. Conclusions
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
XIII. Statutory Authority
I. Background
This section describes the required elements of the renewable fuel
program, also known as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, as
stipulated in Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended by
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the Energy Act or the Act).
A. The Role of Renewable Fuels in the Transportation Sector
Renewable fuels have been an important part of our nation's
transportation fuel supply for many years. Following the CAA amendments
of 1990, the use of renewables fuels, particularly ethanol, increased
dramatically. Several key clean fuel programs required by the CAA
established new market opportunities for ethanol. A very successful
mobile source control strategy, the reformulated gasoline (RFG)
program, was implemented in 1995. This program set stringent new
controls on the emissions performance of gasoline, which were designed
to significantly reduce summertime ozone precursors and year round air
toxics emissions. The RFG program also required that RFG meet an oxygen
content standard. Several areas of the country began blending ethanol
into gasoline to help meet this new standard, such as Chicago and St.
Louis. Another successful clean fuel strategy required certain areas
exceeding the national ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide
to also meet an oxygen content standard during the winter time to
reduce harmful carbon
[[Page 55555]]
monoxide emissions. Many of these areas also blended ethanol during the
winter months to help meet this new standard, such as Denver and
Phoenix. As a result of these programs, and other factors, currently
all areas requiring RFG or winter oxygenated fuels are blending ethanol
at some level to support meeting the clean fuel requirements.
Today, the role and importance of renewable fuels in the
transportation sector continues to expand. In the past several years as
crude oil prices have soared above the lower levels of the 1990's, the
relative economics of renewable fuel use has improved dramatically. In
addition, since the vast majority of crude oil produced in or imported
into the U.S. is consumed as gasoline or diesel fuel in the U.S.,
concerns about our dependence on foreign sources of crude oil has
renewed interest in renewable transportation fuels. The passage of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 demonstrated a strong commitment on the part
of U.S. policymakers to consider additional means of supporting
renewable fuels as a supplement to petroleum-based fuels in the
transportation sector. The RFS program is such a program.
The RFS program was debated by the U.S. Congress over several years
before finally being enacted through passage of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. The RFS program is first and foremost designed to increase the
use of renewable fuels in motor vehicle fuels consumed in the U.S. In
this context, it is expected to simultaneously reduce dependence on
foreign sources of petroleum, increase domestic sources of energy, and
diversify our energy portfolio to help in moving beyond a petroleum-
based economy.
The increased use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel
is also expected to have the added benefit of providing an expanded
market for agricultural products such as corn and soybeans. Based on
our analysis, there is also an expectation that the expanded use of
renewable fuels will provide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and
air toxics emissions such as benzene from the transportation sector,
while other emissions such as hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen may
increase.
The level of the renewable fuels standard set forth by Congress
works in conjunction with other provisions that were enacted as part of
the Energy Act. In particular, the level of the renewable fuel standard
more than offset the possible loss in demand for renewable fuels
occasioned by the Act's repeal of the oxygen content mandate in the
reformulated gasoline program while allowing greater flexibility in how
renewable fuels were blended into the nation's fuel supply. The
renewable fuel standard additionally created a specific annual level
for minimum renewable fuel use which increases over time, ensuring
overall growth in the demand and opportunity for renewable fuels.
Because renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel are not new
to the U.S. transportation sector, the expansion of their use is
expected to follow distribution and blending practices already in
place. For instance, the market already has the necessary production
and distribution mechanisms in place in many areas, and the ability to
expand these mechanisms into new markets. Recent spikes in ethanol use
resulting first from the state MTBE bans, and now the virtual
elimination of MTBE from the marketplace, have tested the limits of the
ethanol distribution system. However, future growth is expected to move
in a more orderly fashion since the use of renewable fuels will not be
geographically constrained and, given EIA volume projections,
investment decisions can follow market forces rather than regulatory
mandates. In addition, the increased production volumes of ethanol and
the expanded penetration of ethanol in new markets may create new
opportunities for blending of E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15
percent gasoline, in the long run. The increased availability of E85
will mean that more flexible fueled vehicles (FFV) can use this fuel.
Of the approximately 5 million FFVs currently in use in the U.S, most
are currently fueled with conventional gasoline rather than E85, in
part due to the limited availability of E85.
Given the ever-increasing demand for petroleum-based products in
the transportation sector, the RFS program is an important first step
in U.S. efforts to move toward energy independence. The RFS standard
provides the certainty that at least a minimum amount of renewable fuel
will be used in the U.S., which in turn provides investment certainty
for the growth in production capacity of renewable fuels. However, the
RFS program is not the only thing impacting demand for ethanol and
other renewable fuels. As Congress was developing the RFS program in
the Energy Act, several large states were adopting and implementing
bans on the use of MTBE in gasoline. As a result, refiners were forced
to switch to ethanol to satisfy the oxygen content mandate for their
reformulated gasoline in the U.S., causing a large, quick increase in
demand for ethanol. Even more importantly, with the removal of the
oxygen content mandate for RFG, refiners elected to remove essentially
all MTBE from the gasoline supply in the U.S. during the spring of
2006. In order to accomplish this transition quickly, while still
maintaining gasoline volume, octane, and gasoline air toxics
performance standards, refiners elected to blend ethanol into virtually
all reformulated gasoline nationwide. This caused a second dramatic
increase in demand for ethanol, which in the near term has been met by
temporarily shifting large volumes of ethanol out of conventional
gasoline and into the RFG areas. Perhaps the largest impact on
renewable fuel demand, however, has been the dramatic increase in the
cost of crude oil. In the last few years, both crude oil prices and
crude oil price forecasts have increased dramatically. This has
resulted in a large economic incentive for the use of ethanol and
biodiesel. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) and others are
currently projecting renewable fuel demand to exceed the minimum
volumes required under the RFS program by a substantial margin. In this
context, the statutory goal of the RFS program is to provide an
important foundation for ongoing investment in renewable fuel
production. However, market demand for renewable fuels is expected to
exceed the statutory minimums. We believe we are proposing a program
structure that could continue to operate effectively regardless of the
level of renewable fuel use or market conditions in the energy sector.
B. Requirements in the Energy Policy Act
Section 1501 of the Energy Policy Act provides the statutory basis
for the RFS program. This provision was added to the CAA as Section
211(o). It requires EPA to establish a program to ensure that the pool
of gasoline sold in the contiguous 48 states contains specific volumes
of renewable fuel for each calendar year starting with 2006. The
required overall volumes for 2006 through 2012 are shown in Table I.B-1
below.
Table I.B-1.--Applicable Volumes of Renewable Fuel Under the RFS Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion
Calendar year gallons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006.................................................... 4.0
2007.................................................... 4.7
2008.................................................... 5.4
2009.................................................... 6.1
2010.................................................... 6.8
2011.................................................... 7.4
[[Page 55556]]
2012.................................................... 7.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to ensure the use of the total renewable fuel volume
specified for each year, the Agency must set a standard for each year
representing the amount of renewable fuel that a refiner, blender, or
importer must use, expressed as a percentage of gasoline sold or
introduced into commerce. This yearly percentage standard is to be set
at a level that will ensure that the total renewable fuel volumes shown
in Table I.B-1 will be used based on gasoline volume projections
provided by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). The standard
for each year must be published in the Federal Register by November 30
of the previous year. Starting with 2013, EPA is required to establish
the applicable national volume, based on the criteria contained in the
statute, which must require at least the same overall percentage of
renewable fuel use as was required in 2012.
Renewable fuels are defined in the Act primarily on the basis of
the feedstock. In general, renewable fuels must be a motor vehicle fuel
that is produced from plant or animal products or wastes, as opposed to
fossil fuel sources. The Act specifically identifies several types of
motor vehicle fuels as renewable fuels, including cellulosic biomass
ethanol, waste-derived ethanol, biogas, biodiesel, and blending
components derived from renewable fuel.
The standard set annually by EPA is to be a single percentage
applicable to refiners, blenders, and importers, as appropriate. The
percentage standard is used by obligated parties to determine a volume
of renewable fuel that they are responsible for ensuring is introduced
into the domestic gasoline pool for the given year. The percentage
standard must be adjusted such that it does not apply to multiple
parties for the same volume of gasoline. The standard must also take
into account the fact that small refineries are exempted from the
program until 2011, but must take into account the use of renewable
fuel by those small refineries.
Under the Act, the required volumes in Table I.B-1 apply to the
contiguous 48 states. However, Alaska and Hawaii can opt into the
program, in which case the pool of gasoline used to calculate the
standard, and the number of regulated parties, would change. In
addition, other states can request a waiver of the RFS program under
certain conditions, which would affect the national quantity of
renewable fuel required under the program.
The Act requires the Agency to promulgate a credit trading program
for the RFS program whereby an obligated party may generate credits for
over complying with their annual obligation. The obligated party can
then use these credits or trade them for use by another obligated
party. Thus the credit trading program allows obligated parties to
comply in the most cost-effective manner by permitting them to
generate, transfer, and use credits. The trading program also permits
renewable fuels that are not blended into gasoline, such as biodiesel,
to participate in the RFS program.
The Agency must also determine who can generate credits and under
what conditions, how credits may be transferred from one party to
another, and in certain cases the appropriate value of credits for
different types of renewable fuel. If a party is not able to generate
or purchase sufficient credits to meet their annual obligation, they
are allowed to carry over the deficit to the next annual compliance
period, but must achieve full compliance in that following year.
C. Default Standard Applicable to 2006
The Energy Act was enacted in August of 2005 and included
provisions for a renewable fuel program that was to begin in January of
2006. We recognized that a rulemaking implementing the full RFS
program, including both program design and the various analyses
necessary, would require a substantial effort involving many
stakeholders. This process was expected to take longer than one year,
and as a result we knew it would not be completed in time to be
implemented by January of 2006.
The Energy Act anticipated this possibility and specified a default
standard applicable for just 2006. The default standard specified that
the percentage of renewable fuel in gasoline sold or dispensed to
consumers in the U.S. in calendar year 2006 must be 2.78 volume
percent.\1\ The default standard would be applicable if the Agency did
not promulgate regulations to implement the full RFS program for 2006.
Since the full program could not be promulgated during 2006, the
default standard of 2.78 percent applies to calendar year 2006.
However, the provision for the default standard in the Act does not
provide adequate specificity on how to implement the default standard.
For instance, the Act's default standard provision does not specify the
liable parties and the specific nature of their obligation. It also
does not discuss compliance mechanisms, reporting requirements, or
credit generation and use. The resulting uncertainty associated with
the default standard would have created confusion and risked a
problematic initial implementation of the RFS program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The default standard of 2.78 percent represented
approximately 4.0 billion gallons of renewable fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, the Agency published a rule on December 30, 2005 that
interpreted and implemented the default provision, to provide certainty
to parties involved in the production and distribution of gasoline and
renewable fuels.\2\ In that action, the Agency clarified the default
standard for 2006 with regulations identifying the liable parties as
refiners, importers, and blenders. The default standard was interpreted
as establishing a collective obligation, rather than an individual
obligation. Under this interpretation, refiners, blenders, and
importers are responsible as a group for meeting the default 2.78
percent standard, and compliance with this standard is calculated over
the pool of all gasoline sold to consumers. An individual refiner,
blender, or importer is not responsible for meeting the 2.78 percent
standard for the specific gasoline it produces. The regulations
implementing the default standard for 2006 did not include any
provisions for credit generation or trading, given the collective
nature of the obligation. However, any shortfall in renewable fuel
production in 2006 would be added as a deficit carryover to the
standard for 2007. Based on information available to date, this does
not appear to be necessary. Total ethanol production in the U.S.
exceeded 4.0 billion gallons in 2005 by a small margin, and several
hundred million gallons of additional ethanol production capacity has
come online in 2006. Thus it is anticipated that the total ethanol
production volume and ultimate use in 2006 will be more than sufficient
to meet the default standard of 2.78 percent.
Today's proposal outlines the full RFS program, covering all of the
provisions required in the Act. It applies in calendar year 2007 and
beyond, since the direct final rule described above addresses RFS
compliance for 2006 only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 70 FR 77325 (December 30, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Development of the Proposal
The RFS program was prescribed in section 1501 of the Act,
including the
[[Page 55557]]
required total volumes, the timing of the obligation, the parties who
are obligated to comply, the definition of renewable fuel, and the
general framework for a credit program. As with many legislative
actions, various aspects of the program require additional development
by the Agency beyond the specifications in the Act. The credit trading
program and related compliance mechanisms are a central aspect of the
program, and the Agency is responsible for developing regulations to
ensure the successful implementation of the RFS program, based on the
framework spelled out in the statute.
Under the RFS program the credit trading provisions will comprise a
critical element of compliance. Many obligated parties do not have easy
access to renewable fuels or the ability to blend them, and so will
rely on the use of credits to comply. The RFS credit program is also
unique in that the parties liable for meeting the standard (refiners,
importers, and blenders of gasoline) are not generally the parties who
make the renewable fuels or blend them into gasoline. This creates the
need for trading mechanisms that ensure that the means to demonstrate
compliance will be readily available for use by obligated parties.
Given these considerations, the first step we took in developing
the proposed program was to seek input and recommendations from the
affected stakeholders. There were initially a wide range of thoughts
and views on how to design the program. However, there was broad
consensus that in the end the program should satisfy a number of
guiding principles, including for example that the compliance and
trading program should provide certainty to the marketplace and
minimize cost to the consumers; that the program should preserve
existing business practices for the production, distribution, and use
of both conventional and renewable fuels; that the program should be
designed to accommodate all qualifying renewable fuels; that all
renewable volumes produced are made available to obligated parties for
compliance; and finally that the Agency should have the ability to
easily verify compliance to ensure that the volume obligations are in
fact met. Over the course of several months, these guiding principles
helped to move us toward today's proposal.
II. Overview of the Proposal
Today's action describes our proposed requirements for the RFS
program, as well as a preliminary assessment of the environmental and
economic impacts of the nation's transition to greater use of renewable
fuels. This section provides an overview of our proposal and renewable
fuel impacts assessment. Sections III through V provide the details of
the proposed structure of the program, while Sections VI through X
describe our preliminary assessment of the impacts on emissions, air
quality, fossil fuel use, and cost resulting from expanded renewable
fuel use.
A. Impacts of Increased Reliance on Renewable Fuels
In a typical major rulemaking, EPA would conduct a full assessment
of the economic and environmental impacts of the program. However, as
discussed in Section I.A., the replacement of MTBE with ethanol and the
extremely favorable economics for renewable fuels brought on by the
rise in crude oil prices are causing renewable fuel use to far exceed
the RFS requirements. This makes an assessment of the program of
limited if any utility, given that it is not currently driving real
world impacts and future projections by the Energy Information
Administration indicate that this favorable condition will continue.
Consequently, it is of greater relevance and interest to assess the
impacts of this larger increase in renewable use and the related
changes occurring to gasoline. For this reason we have carried out an
assessment of the economic and environmental impacts of the broader
changes in fuel quality resulting from our nation's transition to
greater utilization of renewable fuels, as opposed to an assessment of
the RFS program itself.
In summary, depending on the volume of renewable fuel assumed to be
used in 2012 (7.5 to 9.9 billion gallons), we estimate that this
transition to renewable fuels will reduce petroleum consumption by 2.3
to 3.9 billion gallons or approximately 1.0 to 1.6 percent of the
petroleum that would otherwise be used by the transportation sector.
Carbon monoxide emissions from gasoline powered vehicles and equipment
will be reduced by 1.3 to 3.6 percent while emissions of benzene (a
mobile source air toxic) will be reduced by 1.7 to 6.2 percent. At the
same time, other emissions may increase. Nationwide, we estimate
between a 28,000 and 97,000 ton increase in VOC + NOX
emissions. However, the effects will vary significantly by region with
some major areas like New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles
experiencing no increase while other areas may see an increase in VOC
emissions from 3 to 5 percent and an increase in NOX
emissions from 4 to 6 percent from gasoline powered vehicles and
equipment. Furthermore, the use of renewable fuel will reduce
CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions by 9 to 14 million
tons, about 0.4 to 0.6 percent of the anticipated greenhouse gas
emissions from the transportation sector in the United States in 2012.
On average, we estimate the cost of this increase in renewable fuel to
range from 0.3 cents per gallon to 1 cent per gallon of gasoline for
the nation as a whole. We anticipate additional impacts that we intend
to evaluate as part of the final rulemaking, including changes in
renewable fuel feedstock market prices, decreased imports of petroleum,
and effects on energy security.
To carry out our analyses, we elected to use 2004 as the baseline
from which to compare the impacts of expanded renewable use. We chose
2004 as a baseline primarily due to the fact that all the necessary
refinery production data, renewable production data, and fuel quality
data was already in hand at the time we needed to begin the analysis.
We did not use 2005 as a baseline year because 2005 may not be an
appropriate year for comparison due to the extraordinary impacts of
hurricanes Katrina and Rita on gasoline production and use. To assess
the impacts of anticipated increases in renewable fuels, we elected to
look at what they would be in 2012, the year the statutorily-mandated
renewable fuel volumes will be fully phased in. By conducting the
analysis in this manner, the impacts include not just the impact of
expanded renewable fuel use by itself, but also the corresponding
decrease in the use of MTBE, and the potential for oxygenates to be
removed from RFG due to the absence of the RFG oxygenate mandate. Since
these three changes are all inextricably linked and are occurring
simultaneously in the marketplace, evaluating the impacts in this
manner is appropriate.
We evaluated the impacts of expanded renewable use and the
corresponding changes to the fuel supply on fuel costs, consumption of
fossil fuels, and some of the economic impacts on the agricultural
sector. We also evaluated the impacts on emissions, including
greenhouse gas emissions, and the corresponding impacts on nationwide
and regional air quality. Our preliminary analyses are summarized in
this section. There are a number of uncertainties associated with this
preliminary assessment. The analyses described here will be updated for
the final rule including additional investigation into these
uncertainties.
[[Page 55558]]
1. Renewable Fuel Volumes Scenarios Analyzed
As shown in Table I.B-1, the Act stipulates that the nationwide
volumes of renewable fuel required under the RFS program must be at
least 4.0 billion gallons in 2006 and increase to 7.5 billion gallons
in 2012. However, we expect that the volume of renewable fuel will
actually exceed the required volumes by a significant margin. Based on
economic modeling, EIA projects renewable demand in 2012 of 9.6 billion
gallons for ethanol, and 300 million gallons for biodiesel using crude
oil prices forecast at $47 per barrel. Therefore, in assessing the
impacts of expanded use of renewable fuels, we evaluated two
comparative scenarios, one representing the statutorily required
minimum, and one reflecting the higher levels projected by EIA.
Although the actual renewable fuel volumes produced in 2012 may differ
from both the required and projected volumes, we believe that these two
volume scenarios together represent a reasonable range for analysis
purposes.
The Act also stipulates that at least 250 million gallons out of
the total volume required in 2013 and beyond must be cellulosic biomass
ethanol. Because we anticipate a ramp-up in production of cellulosic
biomass ethanol products in the coming years, we have assumed that 250
million gallons of ethanol in 2012 will come from a cellulosic biomass
source. Also, EIA has projected in their economic modeling a biodiesel
demand in 2012 of 300 million gallons. Thus for both the required and
projected volume scenarios that we evaluated for 2012, we assumed these
same production volumes for cellulosic biomass ethanol and biodiesel.
As discussed above, we chose 2004 as our baseline. However, a
direct comparison of the fuel quality impacts on emissions and air
quality required that changes in overall fuel volume, fleet
characterization, and other factors be constant. Therefore, we
developed a reference case which represents the fuel volume, fleet
characterization, and other factors expected in 2012. Fuel quality was
maintained by simply growing ethanol use in equal proportion to growth
in gasoline demand through 2012.
A summary of the assumed renewable fuel volumes for the scenarios
we compared is shown in Table II.A.1-1.
Table II.A.1.-1--Renewable Fuel Volume Scenarios
[billion gallons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012
-----------------------------------------
2004 Base RFS
case Reference required Projected
case volume volume
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn-ethanol............................................ 3.5 3.9 6.95 9.35
Cellulosic ethanol...................................... 0 0 0.25 0.25
Biodiesel............................................... 0.025 0.028 0.3 0.3
-------------------------------------------------------
Total volume........................................ 3.025 3.928 7.5 9.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Emissions
We evaluated the impacts of increased use of ethanol and biodiesel
on emissions and air quality in the U.S. relative to the 2012 reference
case. For the nation as a whole, we estimated that summertime VOC and
NOX emissions from gasoline and diesel vehicles and
equipment would each increase by about 0.5 percent for the 7.5 billion
gallon scenario, and by about 1.0 percent for the 9.9 billion gallon
scenario. This would be equivalent to between 28,000 and 97,000 tons of
VOC + NOX nationwide. However, the effects will vary by
region. For instance, for areas in which 10 percent ethanol blends
already predominated in 2004, such as New York City, Chicago, and Los
Angeles, if they continue to use ethanol at the same levels there will
be no impact. However, for conventional gasoline areas in which no
ethanol was used in 2004 but which are projected to transition to full
use of ethanol in 2012, we estimated that VOC and NOX
emissions from gasoline vehicles and equipment would increase by 3-5
percent and 4-6 percent, respectively.
Unlike VOC and NOX, emissions of CO and benzene from
gasoline and diesel vehicles and equipment were estimated to decrease
when the use of renewable fuels increased. Reductions in emissions of
CO varied from as low as 1.3 percent to as high as 3.6 percent for the
nation as a whole, depending on both the renewable fuel volume scenario
and assumptions regarding the amount of ethanol used in reformulated
versus conventional gasoline. Benzene emissions from gasoline vehicles
and equipment were estimated to be reduced from 1.7 to 6.2 percent.
We do not have sufficient data to predict the effect of ethanol use
on levels of either directly emitted particulate matter (PM) or
secondarily formed PM, but do expect a net reduction in ambient PM
levels to result due to the secondary PM impacts as discussed in
section VIII.C. However, data on direct PM emission impacts is
available for biodiesel. We estimate that reductions in emissions of
direct PM from the projected increase in the use of biodiesel to be
about 100 tons nationwide, equivalent to less than 0.5 percent of the
diesel PM inventory.
The emission impact estimates described above are based on the best
available data and models. However, it must be highlighted that most of
the fuel effect estimates are based on very limited or old data which
may no longer be reliable in estimating the emission impacts on
vehicles in the 2012 fleet with advanced emission controls. \3\ As
such, these emission estimates should be viewed as preliminary. EPA
hopes to conduct significant new testing in order to better estimate
the impact of fuel changes on emissions from both highway vehicles and
nonroad equipment, including those fuel changes brought about by the
use of renewable fuels. We hope to be able to incorporate the data from
such additional testing into the analyses for other studies required by
the Energy Act in 2008 and 2009, and into a subsequent rule to set the
RFS program standard for 2013 and later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Advanced emission controls include close-coupled, high
density catalysts and their associated electronic control systems
for light-duty vehicles, and NOX adsorbers and PM traps
for heavy-duty engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We used the Ozone Response Surface Model (RSM) to estimate the
impacts of increased use of ethanol on ozone levels for the 7.5 billion
gallon use scenario representing the required volumes
[[Page 55559]]
under the RFS program. We did not evaluate other renewable fuel volumes
scenarios due to the limited amount of time available for completing
this NPRM. The ozone RSM approximates the effect of VOC and
NOX emissions in a 37-state eastern area of the U.S. Using
this model, we projected that the changes in VOC and NOX
emissions could produce a very small increase in ambient ozone levels.
On average, ozone levels increased by 0.06 ppb, which represents less
than 0.1 percent of the standard. Even for areas expected to experience
a significant increase in ethanol use, ozone levels increased by only
0.1-0.2 ppb, less than 0.2 percent of the standard. These ozone impacts
do not consider the reductions in CO emissions mentioned above, or the
change in the types of compounds comprising VOC emissions.
Directionally, both of these effects may mitigate these already small
ozone increases. The ozone impacts also do not consider the impact of
increased emissions from ethanol and biodiesel production facilities or
any corresponding decrease in emissions from refineries.
We investigated several other issues related to emissions and air
quality that could affect our estimates of the impacts of increased use
of renewable fuels. These are discussed in section VIII and in greater
detail in the draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (DRIA). For instance,
our current models assume that recent model year vehicles are
insensitive to many fuel changes. However, a limited amount of new test
data suggests that newer vehicles may be just as sensitive as older
model year vehicles. Our sensitivity analysis suggests that if this is
the case VOC emissions could decrease slightly while NOX
would still increase. We also evaluated the emissions from the
production of both ethanol and biodiesel fuel and determined that they
will also increase with increased use of these fuels. Nationwide,
emissions related to the production and distribution of ethanol and
biodiesel fuel are expected to be of the same order of magnitude as the
emission impacts related to the use of these fuels in vehicles.
Finally, a lack of emission data and atmospheric modeling tools
prevented us from making specific projections of the impact of
renewable fuels on ambient PM levels. However, ethanol use may have an
affect on ambient PM levels. Emerging science indicates that aromatic
VOC emissions react in the atmosphere to form PM. Increased ethanol use
is expected to cause a corresponding reduction in the aromatic content
of gasoline, which should reduce aromatic VOC emissions and therefore
potentially also impact atmospheric PM levels. All of these issues will
be the subject of further study and analysis in the future.
3. Economic Impacts
As discussed in more detail in Section X, for the final rule we
also plan to assess a range of economic impacts that could result from
the expanded use of renewable fuels. Due to the time required to
complete these analyses, we only have preliminary data for some of
these impacts available for this proposal.
In Section VII of this preamble, we estimate the cost of producing
the extra volumes of renewable fuel anticipated through 2012. For corn
ethanol, we estimate the per gallon cost of ethanol to range from $1.20
per gallon in 2012 (2004 dollars) in the case of the 7.2 billion
gallons per year case and $1.26 per gallon in the case of the 9.6
billion gallon case. These costs take into account the cost of the
feedstock (corn), plant equipment and operation and the value of any
co-products (distiller's dried grain and solubles, for example). For
biodiesel, we estimate the per gallon cost to be between $1.89 and
$2.11 per gallon if produced using soy bean oil, and less if using
yellow grease or other relatively low cost or no-cost feedstocks. All
of these fuel production costs are without accounting for tax subsidies
for these renewable fuels.\4\ We also note that these costs represent
the production cost of the fuel and not the market price. In recent
years, the prices of ethanol and biodiesel have tended to track the
prices of gasoline and diesel, in some cases even exceeding those
prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Tax subsidies were subtracted out of the cost estimates, but
consumer behavior in the absence of these tax subsidies was not
modeled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These renewable feedstocks are then used as blend fuels in gasoline
and diesel. While biodiesel is typically just blended with petroleum
diesel, additional efforts are sometimes necessary and/or economically
advantageous at the refiner level when adding ethanol to gasoline. For
example, ethanol's high octane reduces the need for other octane
enhancements by the refiner, whereas offsetting the volatility increase
caused by ethanol may require removal of other highly volatile
components. Section VII examines these fuel cost impacts and concludes
that the net cost to society in 2012 in comparison to the reference
case of the increased use of renewable fuels and their replacement of
MTBE, will range from an estimate of 0.3 cent to 1 cent per gallon of
gasoline.
This fuel cost impact does not consider other societal benefits.
For example, the petroleum-based fuel displaced by renewable fuel,
largely produced in the United States, should reduce our use of
imported oil and fuel. We estimate that 95 percent of the lifecycle
petroleum reductions resulting from the use of renewable fuel will be
met through reductions in net petroleum imports. In Section IX of this
preamble we estimate the value of the decrease in imported petroleum at
about $3.5 billion in 2012 for the 7.5 billion gallon case and $5.8
billion for the 9.6 billion gallon case, in comparison to our 2012
reference case. Total petroleum import expenditures in 2012 are
projected to be about $698 billion.
The above numbers only assess those impacts of increased production
and use of renewable fuel that we can quantify at this time. The RFS
program attempts to spur the increased use of renewable transportation
fuels made principally from agricultural crops produced in the U.S. As
a result, it is important to analyze the consequences of the transition
to greater renewable fuel use in the U.S. agricultural sector. To
analyze the impacts on the U.S. agricultural sector, EPA has selected
the Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM) developed
by Professor Bruce McCarl, Texas A&M University and others over the
past thirty years. FASOM is a dynamic, nonlinear programming model of
the agriculture and forestry sectors of the U.S. (For this analysis, we
will be focusing upon the agriculture portion of the model.) The
strength of this model is its consideration of the full direct and
indirect impacts of a shift in production of an agricultural commodity.
For example, increased ethanol use will increase the demand for corn.
The model assesses not only the impacts of increased demand for corn on
acres devoted to corn production but also where the incremental corn
will be produced, what other crops will be displaced and how corn is
allocated among competing uses. Shifts in corn production will likely
impact the price of corn and other crop prices. The model can also
estimate the impacts of increased renewable fuel use on animal feed
costs, animal production, costs to consumers and U.S. agricultural
exports. Similarly, FASOM can estimate effects on U.S. farm employment
and income (broken down by region, and farm sector such as corn farmers
versus soybean producers versus the livestock industry, for example).
[[Page 55560]]
One of the effects of increased use of renewable fuel is that it
diversifies the energy sources used in making transportation fuel. To
the extent that diverse sources of fuel energy reduce the dependence on
any one source, the risks, both financial as well as strategic, of
potential disruption in supply or spike in cost of a particular energy
source is reduced. As part of the RFS rulemaking, EPA is estimating the
energy security effects of reduced oil use due to the expanded use of
renewable fuel. However, these analyses will not be available until the
final rule.
4. Greenhouse Gases and Fossil Fuel Consumption
There has been considerable interest in the impacts of fuel
programs on greenhouse gases and fossil fuel consumption. Therefore, in
this proposed rulemaking we have undertaken an analysis of the
greenhouse gas and fossil fuel consumption impacts of a transition to
greater renewable fuel use. This is the first analysis of its kind in a
major rule, and as such it may guide future work in this area.
As a result of the transition to greater renewable fuel use, some
petroleum-based gasoline and diesel will be directly replaced by
renewable fuels. Therefore, consumption of petroleum-based fuels will
be lower than it would be if no renewable fuels were used in
transportation vehicles. However, a true measure of the impact of
greater use of renewable fuels on petroleum use, and indeed on the use
of all fossil fuels, accounts not only for the direct use and
combustion of the finished fuel in a vehicle or engine, but also
includes the petroleum use associated with production and
transportation of that fuel. For instance, fossil fuels are used in
producing and transporting renewable feedstocks such as plants or
animal byproducts, in converting the renewable feedstocks into
renewable fuel, and in transporting and blending the renewable fuels
for consumption as motor vehicle fuel. Likewise, fossil fuels are used
in the production and transportation of petroleum and its finished
products. In order to estimate the true impacts of increases in
renewable fuel use on fossil fuel use, we must take these steps into
account. Such analyses are termed lifecycle analyses.
We compared the lifecycle impacts of renewable fuels to the
petroleum-based gasoline and diesel fuels that they replace. This
analysis allowed us to estimate not only the overall impacts of
renewable fuel use on petroleum use, but also on emissions of
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from all fossil fuels. Based on
a comparison to the 2004 base fuel, we estimated that the increased use
of renewable fuels will reduce petroleum consumption by about 1.0 to
1.6 percent in the transportation sector in 2012. This is equivalent to
2.3-3.9 billion gallons of petroleum in 2012. We also estimated that
greenhouse gases from the transportation sector will be reduced by
about 0.4-0.6 percent, equivalent to about 9-14 million tons. These
reductions are projected to continue to increase in the future as crude
oil prices are expected to continue to provide the stimulus for greater
use of renewable fuels beyond 2012. These greenhouse gas emission
reductions are also dominated by the forecast that the majority of the
future ethanol use will be produced from corn. If advances in
cellulosic technology allow its use to exceed the levels assumed in our
analysis, then even greater greenhouse gas reductions would result.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Cellulosic ethanol is estimated to provide a comparable
petroleum displacement as corn derived ethanol on a per gallon
basis, though the impacts on total energy and greenhouse gas
emissions differ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Potential Water Quality Impacts