Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program, 24904-25143 [E9-10978]
Download as PDF
24904
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161; FRL–8903–1]
RIN 2060–A081
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel
Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel
Standard Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, as
amended by Sections 201, 202, and 210
of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, the Environmental
Protection Agency is required to
promulgate regulations implementing
changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard
program. The revised statutory
requirements specify the volumes of
cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel,
advanced biofuel, and total renewable
fuel that must be used in transportation
fuel each year, with the volumes
increasing over time. The revised
statutory requirements also include new
definitions and criteria for both
renewable fuels and the feedstocks used
to produce them, including new
greenhouse gas emission thresholds for
renewable fuels. For the first time in a
regulatory program, an assessment of
greenhouse gas emission performance is
being utilized to establish those fuels
that qualify for the four different
renewable fuel standards. As mandated
by the revised statutory requirements,
the greenhouse gas emission
assessments must evaluate the full
lifecycle emission impacts of fuel
production including both direct and
indirect emissions, including significant
emissions from land use changes. The
proposed program is expected to reduce
U.S. dependence on foreign sources of
petroleum by increasing domestic
sources of energy. Based on our lifecycle
analysis, we believe that the expanded
use of renewable fuels would provide
significant reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions such as carbon dioxide that
affect climate change. We recognize the
significance of using lifecycle
greenhouse gas emission assessments
that include indirect impacts such as
emission impacts of indirect land use
changes. Therefore, in this preamble we
have been transparent in breaking out
the various sources of greenhouse gas
emissions included in the analysis and
are seeking comments on our
methodology as well as various options
for determining the lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions (GHG) for each fuel. In
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
addition to seeking comments on the
information in this document and its
supporting materials, the Agency is
conducting peer reviews of critical
aspects of the lifecycle methodology.
The increased use of renewable fuels
would also impact criteria pollutant
emissions, with some pollutants such as
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) expected to
increase and other pollutants such as
carbon monoxide (CO) and benzene
expected to decrease. The production of
feedstocks used to produce renewable
fuels is also expected to impact water
quality.
This action proposes regulations
designed to ensure that refiners,
blenders, and importers of gasoline and
diesel would use enough renewable fuel
each year so that the four volume
requirements of the Energy
Independence and Security Act would
be met with renewable fuels that also
meet the required lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions performance standards.
Our proposed rule describes the
standards that would apply to these
parties and the renewable fuels that
would qualify for compliance. The
proposed regulations make a number of
changes to the current Renewable Fuel
Standard program while retaining many
elements of the compliance and trading
system already in place.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 27, 2009, 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of having
full effect if the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of
your comments on or before June 25,
2009, 30 days after date of publication
in the Federal Register.
Hearing: We will hold a public
hearing on June 9, 2009 at the Dupont
Hotel in Washington, DC. The hearing
will start at 10 a.m. local time and
continue until everyone has had a
chance to speak. If you want to testify
at the hearing, notify the contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by June 1, 2009.
Workshop: We will hold a workshop
on June 10–11, 2009 at the Dupont Hotel
in Washington, DC to present details of
our lifecycle GHG analysis. During this
workshop, we intend to go through the
lifecycle GHG analysis included in this
proposal. The intent of this workshop is
to help ensure a full understanding of
our lifecycle analysis, the major issues
identified and the options discussed.
We expect that this workshop will help
ensure that we receive submission of the
most thoughtful and useful comments to
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
this proposal and that the best
methodology and assumptions are used
for calculating GHG emissions impacts
of fuels for the final rule. While this
workshop will be held during the
comment period, it is not intended to
replace either the formal public hearing
or the need to submit comments to the
docket.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2005–0161, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: asdinfo@epa.gov.
• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. 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 West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20004. 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–HQ–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
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
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. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section XI,
Public Participation, of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
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 Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–
1742.
Hearing: The public hearing will be
held on June 9, 2009 at the Dupont
Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20036. See
Section XI, Public Participation, for
more information about the public
hearing.
NAICS 1
codes
Category
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
SIC 2
codes
......................................................................................
......................................................................................
......................................................................................
......................................................................................
......................................................................................
......................................................................................
324110
325193
325199
424690
424710
424720
2911
2869
2869
5169
5171
5172
Industry ......................................................................................
454319
5989
1
2
24905
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia
MacAllister, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Assessment and
Standards Division, Environmental
Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood
Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Telephone
number: 734–214–4131; Fax number:
734–214–4816; E-mail address:
macallister.julia@epa.gov, or
Assessment and Standards Division
Hotline; telephone number (734) 214–
4636; E-mail address asdinfo@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
General Information
A. Does This Proposal Apply to Me?
Entities potentially affected by this
proposal are those involved with the
production, distribution, and sale of
transportation fuels, including gasoline
and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such
as ethanol and biodiesel. Regulated
categories include:
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.
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this proposed action. This
table lists the types of entities that EPA
is now aware could potentially be
regulated by this proposed action. Other
types of entities not listed in the table
could also be regulated. To determine
whether your activities would be
regulated by this proposed action, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 80.
If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this proposed action to
a particular entity, consult the person
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
confidential business information (CBI).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
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:
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible.
• Describe any assumptions that you
used.
• Provide any technical information
and/or data you used that support your
views.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
• If you estimate potential burden or
costs, explain how you arrived at your
estimate.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns.
• Offer alternatives.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
• To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line
on the first page of your response. It
would also be helpful if you provided
the name, date, and Federal Register
citation related to your comments.
We are primarily seeking comment on
the proposed 40 CFR Part 80 Subpart M
regulatory language that is not directly
included in 40 CFR Part 80 Subpart K.
For the proposed subpart M regulatory
language that is unchanged from subpart
K, we are only soliciting comment as it
relates to its use for the RFS2 rule.
Outline of This Preamble
I. Introduction
A. Renewable Fuels and the Transportation
Sector
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24906
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
B. Renewable Fuels and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
C. Building on the RFS1 Program
II. Overview of the Proposed Program
A. Summary of New Provisions of the RFS
Program
1. Required Volumes of Renewable Fuel
2. Changes in How Renewable Fuel Is
Defined
3. Analysis of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Thresholds for Renewable
Fuels
4. Coverage Expanded to Transportation
Fuel, Including Diesel and Nonroad
Fuels
5. Effective Date for New Requirements
6. Treatment of Required Volumes
Preceding the RFS2 Effective Date
7. Waivers and Credits for Cellulosic
Biofuel
8. Proposed Standards for 2010
B. Impacts of Increasing Volume
Requirements in the RFS2 Program
1. Greenhouse Gases and Fossil Fuel
Consumption
2. Economic Impacts and Energy Security
3. Emissions, Air Quality, and Health
Impacts
4. Water
5. Agricultural Commodity Prices
III. What Are the Major Elements of the
Program Required Under EISA?
A. Changes to Renewable Identification
Numbers (RINs)
B. New Eligibility Requirements for
Renewable Fuels
1. Changes in Renewable Fuel Definitions
a. Renewable Fuel and Renewable Biomass
b. Advanced Biofuel
c. Cellulosic Biofuel
d. Biomass-Based Diesel
e. Additional Renewable Fuel
2. Lifecycle GHG Thresholds
3. Renewable Fuel Exempt From 20
Percent GHG Threshold
a. Definition of Commence Construction
b. Definition and Boundaries of a Facility
c. Options Proposed in Today’s
Rulemaking
i. Basic Approach: Grandfathering Limited
to Baseline Volumes
(1) Increases in volume of renewable fuel
produced at grandfathered facilities due
to expansion
(2) Replacements of equipment
(3) Registration, Recordkeeping and
Reporting
(4) Sub-option of treatment of future
modifications
ii. Alternative Options for Which We Seek
Comment
(1) Facilities that meet the definition of
‘‘reconstruction’’ are considered new
(2) Expiration date of 15 years for
exempted facilities
(3) Expiration date of 15 years for
grandfathered facilities and limitation on
volume
(4) ‘‘Significant production units’’ are
defined as facilities
(5) Indefinite grandfathering and no
limitations placed on volume
4. Renewable Biomass with Land
Restrictions
a. Definitions of Terms
i. Planted Crops and Crop Residue
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
ii. Planted Trees and Tree Residue
iii. Slash and Pre-Commercial Thinnings
iv. Biomass Obtained From Certain Areas
at Risk From Wildfire
b. Issues Related to Implementation and
Enforceability
i. Ensuring That RINs Are Generated Only
for Fuels Made From Renewable Biomass
ii. Ensuring That RINs Are Generated for
All Qualifying Renewable Fuel
c. Review of Existing Programs
i. USDA Programs
ii. Third-Party Programs
d. Approaches for Domestic Renewable
Fuel
e. Approaches for Foreign Renewable Fuel
C. Expanded Registration Process for
Producers and Importers
1. Domestic Renewable Fuel Producers
2. Foreign Renewable Fuel Producers
3. Renewable Fuel Importers
4. Process and Timing
D. Generation of RINs
1. Equivalence Values
2. Fuel Pathways and Assignment of D
Codes
a. Domestic Producers
b. Foreign Producers
c. Importers
3. Facilities With Multiple Applicable
Pathways
4. Facilities That Co-Process Renewable
Biomass and Fossil Fuels
5 Treatment of Fuels Without an
Applicable D Code
6. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
E. Applicable Standards
1. Calculation of Standards
a. How Would the Standards Be
Calculated?
b. Proposed Standards for 2010
c. Projected Standards for Other Years
d. Alternative Effective Date
2. Treatment of Biomass-Based Diesel in
2009 and 2010
a. Proposed Shift in Biomass-Based Diesel
Requirement from 2009 to 2010
i. First Option for Treatment of 2009
Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel RINs
ii. Second Option for Treatment of 2009
Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel RINs
b. Proposed Treatment of Deficit
Carryovers and Valid RIN Life for
Adjusted 2010 Biomass-Based Diesel
Requirement
c. Alternative Approach to Treatment of
Biomass-Based Diesel in 2009 and 2010
F. Fuels That Are Subject to the Standards
1. Gasoline
2. Diesel
3. Other Transportation Fuels
G. Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs)
1. Determination of RVOs Corresponding to
the Four Standards
2. RINs Eligible to Meet Each RVO
3. Treatment of RFS1 RINs under RFS2
a. Use of 2009 RINs in 2010
b. Deficit Carryovers from the RFS1
Program to RFS2
4. Alternative Approach to Designation of
Obligated Parties
H. Separation of RINs
1. Nonroad
2. Heating Oil and Jet Fuel
3. Exporters
4. Alternative Approaches to RIN Transfers
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5. Neat Renewable Fuel and Renewable
Fuel Blends Designated as
Transportation Fuel, Home Heating Oil,
or Jet Fuel
I. Treatment of Cellulosic Biofuel
1. Cellulosic Biofuel Standard
2. EPA Cellulosic Allowances for
Cellulosic Biofuel
3. Potential Adverse Impacts of Allowances
J. Changes to Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements
1. Recordkeeping
2. Reporting
3. Additional Requirements for Producers
of Renewable Natural Gas, Electricity,
and Propane
K. Production Outlook Reports
L. What Acts Are Prohibited and Who Is
Liable for Violations?
IV. What Other Program Changes Have We
Considered?
A. Attest Engagements
B. Small Refinery and Small Refiner
Flexibilities
1. Small Refinery Temporary Exemption
2. Small Refiner Flexibilities
a. Extension of Existing RFS1 Temporary
Exemption
b. Program Review
c. Extensions of the Temporary Exemption
Based on Disproportionate Economic
Hardship
d. Phase-in
e. RIN-Related Flexibilities
C. Other Flexibilities
1. Upward Delegation of RIN-Separating
Responsibilities
2. Small Producer Exemption
D. 20% Rollover Cap
E. Concept for EPA Moderated Transaction
System
2. How EMTS Would Work
3. Implementation of EMTS
F. Retail Dispenser Labelling for Gasoline
with Greater than 10 Percent Ethanol
V. Assessment of Renewable Fuel Production
Capacity and Use
A. Summary of Projected Volumes
1. Reference Case
2. Control Case for Analyses
a. Cellulosic Biofuel
b. Biomass-Based Diesel
c. Other Advanced Biofuel
d. Other Renewable Fuel
B. Renewable Fuel Production
1. Corn/Starch Ethanol
a. Historic/Current Production
b. Forecasted Production Under RFS2
2. Cellulosic Ethanol
a. Current Production/Plans
b. Federal/State Production Incentives
c. Feedstock Availability
i Urban Waste
ii. Agricultural and Forestry Residues
iii Dedicated Energy Crops
iv. Summary of Cellulosic Feedstocks for
2022
v. Cellulosic Plant Siting
3. Imported Ethanol
a. Historic World Ethanol Production and
Consumption
b. Historic/Current Domestic Imports
c. Projected Domestic Imports
4. Biodiesel & Renewable Diesel
a. Historic and Projected Production
i. Biodiesel
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
ii. Renewable Diesel
b. Feedstock Availability
C. Renewable Fuel Distribution
1. Overview of Ethanol Distribution
2. Overview of Biodiesel Distribution
3. Overview of Renewable Diesel
Distribution
4. Changes in Freight Tonnage Movements
5. Necessary Rail System Accommodations
6. Necessary Marine System
Accommodations
7. Necessary Accommodations to the Road
Transportation System
8. Necessary Terminal Accommodations
9. Need for Additional E85 Retail Facilities
D. Ethanol Consumption
1. Historic/Current Ethanol Consumption
2. Increased Ethanol Use under RFS2
a. Projected Gasoline Energy Demand
b. Projected Growth in Flexible Fuel
Vehicles
c. Projected Growth in E85 Access
d. Required Increase in E85 Refueling Rates
e. Market Pricing of E85 Versus Gasoline
3. Other Mechanisms for Getting Beyond
the E10 Blend Wall
a. Mandate for FFV Production
b. Waiver of Mid-Level Ethanol Blends
(E15/E20)
c. Partial Waiver for Mid-Level Blends
d. Non-Ethanol Cellulosic Biofuel
Production
e. Measurement Tolerance for E10
f. Redefining ‘‘Substantially Similar’’ to
Allow Mid-Level Ethanol Blends
VI. Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
A. Introduction
1. Definition of Lifecycle GHG Emissions
2. History and Evolution of GHG Lifecycle
Analysis
B. Methodology
1. Scenario Description
2. Scope of the Analysis
a. Legal Interpretation of Lifecycle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
b. System Boundaries
3. Modeling Framework
4. Treatment of Uncertainty
5. Components of the Lifecycle GHG
Emissions Analysis
a. Feedstock Production
i. Domestic Agricultural Sector Impacts
ii. International Agricultural Sector GHG
Impacts
b. Land Use Change
i. Amount of Land Converted
ii. Where Land Is Converted
iii. What Type of Land Is Converted
iv. What Are the GHG Emissions
Associated with Different Types of Land
Conversion
v. Assessing GHG Emissions Impacts Over
Time and Potential Application of a GHG
Discount Rate
c. Feedstock Transport
d. Processing
e. Fuel Transport
f. Tailpipe Combustion
6. Petroleum Baseline
7. Energy Sector Indirect Impacts
C. Fuel Specific GHG Emissions Estimates
1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions
Relative to the 2005 Petroleum Baseline
a. Corn Ethanol
b. Imported Ethanol
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
c. Cellulosic Ethanol
d. Biodiesel
2. Treatment of GHG Emissions Over Time
D. Thresholds
E. Assignment of Pathways to Renewable
Fuel Categories
1. Statutory Requirements
2. Assignments for Pathways Subjected to
Lifecycle Analyses
3. Assignments for Additional Pathways
a. Ethanol From Starch
b. Renewable Fuels from Cellulosic
Biomass
c. Biodiesel
d. Renewable Diesel Through
Hydrotreating
4. Summary
F. Total GHG Emission Reductions
G. Effects of GHG Emission Reductions and
Changes in Global Temperature and Sea
Level
1. Introduction
2. Estimated Projected Reductions in
Global Mean Surface Temperatures
VII. How Would the Proposal Impact Criteria
and Toxic Pollutant Emissions and Their
Associated Effects?
A. Overview of Impacts
B. Fuel Production & Distribution Impacts
of the Proposed Program
C. Vehicle and Equipment Emission
Impacts of Fuel Program
D. Air Quality Impacts
1. Current Levels of PM2.5, Ozone and Air
Toxics
2. Impacts of Proposed Standards on
Future Ambient Concentrations of PM2.5,
Ozone and Air Toxics
E. Health Effects of Criteria and Air Toxic
Pollutants
1. Particulate Matter
a. Background
b. Health Effects of PM
2. Ozone
a. Background
b. Health Effects of Ozone
3. Carbon Monoxide
4. Air Toxics
a. Acetaldehyde
b. Acrolein
c. Benzene
d. 1,3-Butadiene;
e. Ethanol
f. Formaldehyde
g. Naphthalene
h. Peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN)
i. Other Air Toxics
F. Environmental Effects of Criteria and Air
Toxic Pollutants
1. Visibility
2. Atmospheric Deposition
3. Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone
4. Welfare Effects of Air Toxics
VIII. Impacts on Cost of Renewable Fuels,
Gasoline, and Diesel
A. Renewable Fuel Production Costs
1. Ethanol Production Costs
a. Corn Ethanol
b. Cellulosic Ethanol
i. Feedstock Costs
ii. Production Costs
c. Imported Sugarcane Ethanol
2. Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel
Production Costs
a. Biodiesel
b. Renewable Diesel
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24907
3. BTL Diesel Production Costs
B. Distribution Costs
1. Ethanol Distribution Costs
a. Capital Costs to Upgrade the Distribution
System for Increased Ethanol Volume
b. Ethanol Freight Costs
2. Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel
Distribution Costs
a. Capital Costs to Upgrade the Distribution
System for Increased FAME Biodiesel
Volume
b. Biodiesel Freight Costs
c. Renewable Diesel Distribution System
Capital and Freight Costs
C. Reduced Refining Industry Costs
D. Total Estimated Cost Impacts
1. Refinery Modeling Methodology
2. Overall Impact on Fuel Cost
a. Costs Without Federal Tax Subsidies
b. Gasoline and Diesel Costs Reflecting the
Tax Subsidies
IX. Economic Impacts and Benefits of the
Proposal
A. Agricultural Impacts
1. Commodity Price Changes
2. Impacts on U.S. Farm Income
3. Commodity Use Changes
4. U.S. Land Use Changes
5. Impact on U.S. Food Prices
6. International Impacts
B. Energy Security Impacts
1. Implications of Reduced Petroleum Use
on U.S. Imports
2. Energy Security Implications
a. Effect of Oil Use on Long-Run Oil Price,
U.S. Import Costs, and Economic Output
b. Short-Run Disruption Premium from
Expected Costs of Sudden Supply
Disruptions
c. Costs of Existing U.S. Energy Security
Policies
d. Anticipated Future Effort
e. Total Energy Security Benefits
C. Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions
1. Introduction
2. Marginal GHG Benefits Estimates
3. Discussion of Marginal GHG Benefits
Estimates
4. Total Monetized GHG Benefits Estimates
D. Co-pollutant Health and Environmental
Impacts
1. Human Health and Environmental
Impacts
2. Monetized Impacts
3. Other Unquantified Health and
Environmental Impacts
E. Economy-Wide Impacts
X. Impacts on Water
A. Background
1. Ecological Impacts
2. Gulf of Mexico
B. Upper Mississippi River Basin Analysis
1. SWAT Model
2. Baseline Model Scenario
3. Alternative Scenarios
C. Additional Water Issues
1. Chesapeake Bay Watershed
2. Ethanol Production
a. Distillers Grain with Solubles
b. Ethanol Leaks and Spills
3. Biodiesel Plants
4. Water Quantity
5. Drinking Water
D. Request for Comment on Options for
Reducing Water Quality Impacts
XI. Public Participation
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24908
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
A. How Do I Submit Comments?
B. How Should I Submit CBI to the
Agency?
C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?
D. Comment Period
E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My
Comments for EPA?
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Overview
2. Background
3. Summary of Potentially Affected Small
Entities
4. Potential Reporting, Record Keeping,
and Compliance
5. Related Federal Rules
6. Summary of SBREFA Panel Process and
Panel Outreach
a. Significant Panel Findings
b. Panel Process
c. Panel Recommendations
i. Delay in Standards
ii. Phase-in
iii. RIN-Related Flexibilities
iv. Program Review
v. Extensions of the Temporary Exemption
Based on a Study of Small Refinery
Impacts
vi. Extensions of the Temporary Exemption
Based on Disproportionate Economic
Hardship
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
XIII. Statutory Authority
I. Introduction
The current Renewable Fuel Standard
program (RFS1) was originally adopted
by EPA to implement the provisions of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct),
which added section 211(o) to the Clean
Air Act (CAA). With the passage of the
Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (EISA), Congress recently made
several important revisions to these
renewable fuel requirements. This
Notice proposes to revise the RFS
program regulations to implement these
EISA provisions. The proposed changes
would apply starting January 1, 2010.
For the remainder of 2009, the current
RFS1 regulations would apply.
However, in anticipation of the biomassbased diesel standard proposed for
2010, obligated parties may find it in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
their best interest to plan accordingly in
2009.
A. Renewable Fuels and the
Transportation Sector
For the past several years, U.S.
renewable fuel use has been rapidly
increasing for a number of reasons. In
the early 1990’s, certain oxygenated
gasoline fuel programs required by the
CAA amendments of 1990 established
new market opportunities for renewable
fuels, primarily ethanol. At the same
time, growing concern over U.S.
dependence on foreign sources of crude
placed increasing focus on renewable
fuels as a replacement for petroleumbased fuels. More recently, several state
bans on the use of methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE) in gasoline resulted in a
large, sudden increase in demand for
ethanol. 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,
which have resulted in a large economic
incentive for the increased development
and use of renewable fuels.
In 2005, Congress introduced a new
approach to supporting renewable fuels.
EPAct established a major new federal
renewable fuel volume mandate. EPAct
required a ramp up to 7.5 billion gallons
of renewable fuel as motor vehicle fuel
by 2012 and set annual volume targets
for each year leading up to 2012. For
2013 and beyond, EPA was directed to
establish the annual required renewable
fuel volumes, but at a percentage level
no less than that required for 2012.
While the market forces described above
ultimately caused renewable fuel use to
far exceed the EPAct mandates, this
program provided certainty that at least
a minimum amount of renewable fuel
would be used in the U.S. transportation
market, which in turn provided
assurance for investment in production
capacity.
The subsequent passage of EISA made
significant changes to both the structure
and the magnitude of the renewable fuel
program. The renewable fuel program
established by EISA, hereafter referred
to as RFS2, mandates the use of 36
billion gallons of renewable fuel by
2022. This is nearly a five-fold increase
over the highest volume specified by
EPAct and constitutes a 10-year
extension of the scheduled production
ramp-up period provided for in that
legislation. It is clear that the volumes
required by EISA will push the market
to new levels—far beyond what current
market conditions would achieve alone.
In addition, EISA specifies four separate
categories of renewable fuels, each with
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
a separate volume mandate. The
categories are renewable fuel, advanced
biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and
cellulosic biofuel. There is a notable
increase in the mandate for cellulosic
biofuels in particular. EISA increased
the cellulosic biofuel mandate from 250
million in EPAct to 1.0 billion gallons
by 2013, with additional yearly
increases to 16 billion gallons by 2022.
These requirements will provide a
strong foundation for investment in
cellulosic production and position
cellulosic fuel to become a major
portion of the renewable fuel pool over
the next decade.
The implications of the volume
expansion of the program are not trivial.
Development of infrastructure capable
of delivering, storing and blending these
volumes in new markets and expanding
existing market capabilities will be
needed. For example, the market’s
absorption of increased volumes of
ethanol may ultimately require new
‘‘outlets’’ beyond E10 blends (i.e.,
gasoline containing 10% ethanol by
volume), such as an expansion of the
number of flexible-fuel E85 vehicles and
the number of retail outlets selling E85.
B. Renewable Fuels and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Another significant aspect of the RFS2
program is the focus on the greenhouse
gas impact of renewable fuels, from a
lifecycle perspective. The lifecycle GHG
emissions means the aggregate quantity
of GHGs related to the full fuel cycle,
including all stages of fuel and
feedstock production and distribution,
from feedstock generation and
extraction through distribution and
delivery and use of the finished fuel.
EISA established specific greenhouse
gas emission thresholds for each of four
types of renewable fuels, requiring a
percentage improvement compared to a
baseline of the gasoline and diesel used
in 2005. EPA must conduct a lifecycle
analysis to determine whether or not
renewable fuels produced under varying
conditions will meet the greenhouse gas
(GHG) thresholds for the different fuel
types for which EISA establishes
mandates. While these thresholds do
not constitute a control on greenhouse
gases for transportation fuels (such as a
low carbon fuel standard),1 they do
require that the volume mandates be
met through the use of renewable fuels
that meet certain lifecycle GHG
reduction thresholds when compared to
1 See Section IV.D of EPA’s advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking, Regulating Greenhouse Gas
Emissions under the Clean Air Act, for a discussion
of EPA’s possible authority under section 211(c) of
the CAA to establish GHG standards for renewable
and alternative fuels. 73 FR 44354, July 30, 2008.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
the baseline lifecycle emissions of
petroleum fuel they replace.
Compliance with the thresholds
requires a comprehensive evaluation of
renewable fuels, as well as of gasoline
and diesel, on the basis of their lifecycle
emissions. As mandated by EISA, the
greenhouse gas emission assessments
must evaluate the full lifecycle emission
impacts of fuel production including
both direct and indirect emissions,
including significant emissions from
land use changes. We recognize the
significance of using lifecycle
greenhouse gas emission assessments
that include indirect impacts such as
emission impacts of indirect land use
changes. Therefore, in this preamble, we
have been transparent in breaking out
the various sources of greenhouse gas
emissions included in the analysis. As
described in detail in Section VI, EPA
has analyzed the lifecycle GHG impacts
of the range of biofuels currently
expected to contribute significantly to
meeting the volume mandates of EISA
through 2022. In these analyses we have
used the best science available. Our
analysis relies on peer reviewed models
and the best estimate of important
trends in agricultural practices and fuel
production technologies as these may
impact our prediction of individual
biofuel GHG performance through 2022.
We have identified and highlighted
assumptions and model inputs that
particularly influence our assessment
and seek comment on these
assumptions, the models we have used
and our overall methodology so as to
assure the most robust assessment of
lifecycle GHG performance for the final
rule.
Because lifecycle analysis is a new
part of the RFS program, in addition to
the formal comment period on the
proposed rule, EPA is making multiple
efforts to solicit public and expert
feedback on our proposed approach.
EPA plans to hold a public workshop
focused specifically on lifecycle
analysis during the comment period to
assure full understanding of the
analyses conducted, the issues
addressed and the options that are
discussed. We expect that this
workshop will help ensure that we
receive submission of the most
thoughtful and useful comments to this
proposal and that the best methodology
and assumptions are used for
calculating GHG emissions impacts of
fuels for the final rule. Additionally,
between this proposal and the final rule,
we will conduct peer-reviews of key
components of our analysis. As
explained in more detail in the Section
VI, EPA is specifically seeking peer
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
review of: Our use of satellite data to
project future the type of land use
changes; the land conversion GHG
emissions factors estimates we have
used for different types of land use; our
estimates of GHG emissions from
foreign crop production; methods to
account for the variable timing of GHG
emissions; and how the several models
we have relied upon are used together
to provide overall lifecycle GHG
estimates.
In addition to the GHG thresholds,
EISA included several provisions for the
RFS2 program designed to address the
long-term environmental sustainability
of expanded biofuels production. The
new law limits the crops and crop
residues used to produce renewable fuel
to those grown on land cleared or
cultivated at any time prior to
enactment of EISA, that is either
actively managed or fallow, and nonforested. EISA also generally requires
that forest-related slash and tree
thinnings used for renewable fuel
production pursuant to the Act be
harvested from non-federal forest lands.
To address potential air quality
concerns, EPA is required by section
209 of EISA to determine whether the
RFS2 volumes will adversely impact air
quality as a result of changes in vehicle
and engine emissions and then to issue
fuel regulations that mitigate—to the
extent achievable—these impacts. The
Agency is also required by section 204
of EISA to conduct a broad study of
environmental and resource
conservation impacts of EISA, including
impacts on water quality and
availability, soil conservation, and
biodiversity. Congress set specific
deadlines for both of these provisions,
which are separate from this rulemaking
and will be carried out as part of a
future effort. However, this NPRM does
include EPA’s initial assessment of the
air and water quality impacts of the
EISA volumes.
While the above described changes
are significant, it is important to note
that Congress left other structural
elements of the RFS program basically
intact. The various modifications are
discussed throughout this preamble.
C. Building on the RFS1 Program
In designing this proposed RFS2
program, the Agency is utilizing and
building on the same programmatic
structure created to implement the
current renewable fuel program
(hereafter referred to as RFS1). For
example, we propose to continue to use
the Renewable Identification Number
(RIN) system currently in place to track
compliance with the RFS1 program,
with modifications to implement the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24909
EISA provisions. This approach is in
keeping with the Agency’s overall intent
for RFS1—to design a flexible and
enforceable system that could continue
to operate effectively regardless of the
level of renewable fuel use or market
conditions in the transportation fuel
sector.
A key component of the Agency’s
work to build a successful RFS1
program was early and sustained
engagement with our stakeholders. In
developing this proposed rulemaking,
we have again worked closely with a
wide variety of stakeholders. Because
EISA created new obligated parties and
established new, complex provisions
such as the lifecycle GHG thresholds
and previous cropland requirements,
EPA has extended its stakeholder
engagement to include dozens of
meetings with stakeholders from a broad
spectrum of perspectives. For example,
the Agency has had multiple meetings
and discussions with renewable fuel
producers, technology companies,
petroleum refiners and importers,
agricultural associations, lifecycle
experts, environmental groups, vehicle
manufacturers, states, gasoline and
petroleum marketers, pipeline owners
and fuel terminal operators.
II. Overview of the Proposed Program
This section provides an overview of
the RFS2 program requirements that
EPA proposes to implement as a result
of EISA. The RFS2 program would
replace the RFS1 program promulgated
on May 1, 2007 (72 FR 23900).2 We are
also proposing a number of changes to
make the program more flexible based
on what we learned from the operation
of the RFS1 program since it began on
September 1, 2007. Details of the
proposed requirements can be found in
Sections III and IV. We request
comment on our proposed regulatory
requirements and the alternatives that
we have considered.
This section also provides a summary
of EPA’s impacts assessment of the use
of higher renewable fuel volumes.
Impacts that we assessed include:
emissions of pollutants such as
greenhouse gases (GHG), oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), hydrocarbons,
particulate matter (PM), and toxics;
reductions in petroleum use and related
impacts on national energy security;
impacts on the agriculture sector;
impacts on costs of transportation fuels;
economic costs and benefits; and
impacts on water. Details of these
2 To meet the requirements of EPAct, EPA had
previously adopted a limited program that applied
only to calendar year 2006. The RFS1 program
refers to the general program adopted in the May
2007 rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24910
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
analyses can be found in Sections V
through X and in the Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis (DRIA).
A. Summary of New Provisions of the
RFS Program
Today’s notice proposes new
regulatory requirements for the RFS
program that would be implemented
through a new Subpart M to 40 CFR Part
80. EPA is generally proposing to
maintain many elements of the RFS1
program such as regulations governing
the generation, transfer, and use of
Renewable Identification Numbers
(RINs). At the same time, we seek
comment on a number of RFS1
provisions that may require adjustment
under an expanded RFS2 program,
including whether or not to require that
all qualifying renewable fuels have RINs
generated for it (discussed in Section
III.B.4.b.ii), and whether a rollover cap
on RINs other than 20 percent might be
appropriate (discussed in Section IV.D).
Furthermore, EPA is proposing several
new provisions and seeking comment
on alternatives on aspects of the
program for which EISA grants EPA
discretion and flexibility, such as the
grandfathering of existing renewable
fuel production facilities (discussed in
Section III.B.3), the potential inclusion
of electricity for credit (discussed in
Section III.B.1.a), and how renewable
fuels are categorized based on the
results of lifecycle analyses (discussed
in Section VI.B). We believe these and
other aspects of the program are
important because they will affect
available volumes of qualifying
renewable fuel, regulated parties’ ability
to comply with the program and,
ultimately, the program’s environmental
and societal impacts. A full description
of all the changes we are proposing to
the RFS program to implement the
requirements in EISA is provided in
Section III, while Section IV includes
extensive discussion of other changes to
the RFS program under consideration.
1. Required Volumes of Renewable Fuel
The primary purpose of the RFS
program is to require a minimum
volume of renewable fuel to be used
each year in the transportation sector.
Under RFS1, the required volume was
4.0 billion gallons in 2006, ramping up
to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. Starting
in 2013, EPAct required that the total
volume of renewable fuel represent at
minimum the same volume fraction of
the gasoline fuel pool as it did in 2012,
and that the total volume of renewable
fuel contains at least 250 million gallons
of fuel derived from cellulosic biomass.
EISA makes three primary changes to
the volume requirements of the RFS
program. First, it substantially increases
the required volumes and extends the
timeframe over which the volumes ramp
up through at least 2022. Second, it
divides the total renewable fuel
requirement into four separate
categories, each with its own volume
requirement. Third, it requires that each
of these mandated volumes of
renewable fuels achieve certain
minimum thresholds of GHG emission
performance. The volume requirements
in EISA are shown in Table II.A.1–1.
TABLE II.A.1–1—RENEWABLE FUEL VOLUME REQUIREMENTS FOR RFS2
[Billion gallons]
Cellulosic
biofuel
requirement
2009 .................................................................................................................
2010 .................................................................................................................
2011 .................................................................................................................
2012 .................................................................................................................
2013 .................................................................................................................
2014 .................................................................................................................
2015 .................................................................................................................
2016 .................................................................................................................
2017 .................................................................................................................
2018 .................................................................................................................
2019 .................................................................................................................
2020 .................................................................................................................
2021 .................................................................................................................
2022 .................................................................................................................
2023+ ...............................................................................................................
a
b
Biomassbased diesel
requirement
Advanced
biofuel
requirement
n/a
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
1.75
3.0
4.25
5.5
7.0
8.5
10.5
13.5
16.0
0.5
0.65
0.80
1.0
b
Total
renewable fuel
requirement
a
0.6
0.95
1.35
2.0
2.75
3.75
5.5
7.25
9.0
11.0
13.0
15.0
18.0
21.0
11.1
12.95
13.95
15.2
16.55
18.15
20.5
22.25
24.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
33.0
36.0
b
b
b
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
To be determined by EPA through a future rulemaking, but no less than 1.0 billion gallons.
To be determined by EPA through a future rulemaking.
As shown in the table, the volume
requirements are not exclusive, and
generally result in nested requirements.
Any renewable fuel that meets the
requirement for cellulosic biofuel or
biomass-based diesel is also valid for
meeting the advanced biofuel
requirement. Likewise, any renewable
fuel that meets the requirement for
advanced biofuel is also valid for
meeting the total renewable fuel
requirement. See Section VI.E for
further discussion of which specific
types of fuel meet the requirements for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
one of the four categories shown in
Table II.A.1–1.
We are co-proposing and taking
comment on two options for how to
treat the volumes of different renewable
fuels for purposes of complying with the
volume mandates of RFS2: As either
ethanol-equivalent gallons, based on
energy content, as finalized in the RFS1
program, or as actual volume in gallons.
Consideration of the actual volume
option would recognize that EISA now
guarantees a market for specific
categories of renewable fuel and assigns
a GHG requirement to each category in
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the form of minimum GHG thresholds
that each must meet. The approach
taken in RFS1 would continue to assign
value, in terms of gallons, to all
renewable fuels based on their energy
value in comparison with ethanol.
Further discussion of the rationale and
implications of these two approaches
can be found in Section III.D.1.
The statutorily-prescribed phase-in
period ends in 2012 for biomass-based
diesel and in 2022 for cellulosic biofuel,
advanced biofuel, and total renewable
fuel. Beyond these years, EISA requires
EPA to determine the applicable
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
volumes based on a review of the
implementation of the program up to
that time, and an analysis of a wide
variety of factors such as the impact of
the production of renewable fuels on the
environment, energy security,
infrastructure, costs, and other factors.
For these future standards, EPA must
promulgate rules establishing the
applicable volumes no later than 14
months before the first year for which
such applicable volumes would apply.
For biomass-based diesel, this would
mean that final rules would need to be
issued by October 31, 2011 for
application starting on January 1, 2013.
In today’s proposed rulemaking, we are
not suggesting any specific volume
requirements for biomass-based diesel
for 2013 and beyond that would be
appropriate under the statutory criteria
that we must consider. Likewise, we are
not suggesting any specific volume
requirements for the other three
renewable fuel categories for 2023 and
beyond. However, the statute requires
that the biomass-based diesel volume in
2013 and beyond must be no less than
1.0 billion gallons, and that advanced
biofuels in 2023 and beyond must
represent at a minimum the same
percentage of total renewable fuel as it
does in 2022.
2. Changes in How Renewable Fuel Is
Defined
Under the existing Renewable Fuel
Standard, (RFS1) renewable fuel is
defined generally as ‘‘any motor vehicle
fuel that is used to replace or reduce the
quantity of fossil fuel present in a fuel
mixture used to fuel a motor vehicle’’.
The RFS1 definition includes motor
vehicle fuels produced from biomass
material such as grain, starch, fats,
greases, oils and biogas.
The definitions of renewable fuels
under today’s proposed rule (RFS2) are
based on the new statutory definitions
in EISA. Like the existing rules, the
definitions in RFS2 include a general
definition of renewable fuel, but unlike
RFS1, we are including a separate
definition of ‘‘Renewable Biomass’’
which identifies the feedstocks from
which renewable fuels may be made.
Another difference in the definitions
of renewable fuel is that RFS2 contains
three subcategories of renewable fuels:
(1) Advanced Biofuel, (2) Cellulosic
Biofuel and (3) Biomass-Based Diesel.
‘‘Advanced Biofuel’’ is a renewable
fuel other than ethanol derived from
corn starch and which must achieve a
lifecycle GHG emission displacement of
50%, compared to the gasoline or diesel
fuel it displaces.
Cellulosic biofuel is any renewable
fuel, not necessarily ethanol, derived
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
from any cellulose, hemicellulose, or
lignin each of which must originate
from renewable biomass. It must
achieve a lifecycle GHG emission
displacement of 60%, compared to the
gasoline or diesel fuel it displaces for it
to qualify as cellulosic biofuel.
The RFS1 definition provided that
ethanol made at any facility—regardless
of whether cellulosic feedstock is used
or not—may be defined as cellulosic if
at such facility ‘‘animal wastes or other
waste materials are digested or
otherwise used to displace 90% or more
of the fossil fuel normally used in the
production of ethanol.’’ This provision
was not included in EISA, and therefore
does not appear in the definitions
pertaining to cellulosic biofuel in
today’s proposed rule.
The statutory definition of ‘‘renewable
biomass’’ in EISA does not include a
reference to municipal solid waste
(MSW) as did the definition of
‘‘cellulosic biomass ethanol’’ in EPAct,
but instead includes ‘‘separated yard
waste and food waste. EPA’s proposed
definition of renewable biomass in
today’s proposed rule includes the
language present in EISA. As discussed
in Section III.B.1.a, we invite comment
on whether this definition should be
interpreted as including or excluding
MSW containing yard and/or food waste
from the definition of renewable
biomass. EPA intends to resolve this
matter in the final rule, and EPA solicits
comment on the approach that it should
take.
Under today’s proposed rule
‘‘Biomass-based diesel’’ includes
biodiesel (mono-alkyl esters), non-ester
renewable diesel and any other diesel
fuel made from renewable biomass, as
long as they are not ‘‘co-processed’’ with
petroleum. EISA requires that such fuel
achieve a lifecycle GHG emission
displacement of 50%, compared to the
gasoline or diesel fuel it displaces. As
discussed in Section III.B.1.d, we are
proposing that co-processing is
considered to occur only if both
petroleum and biomass feedstock are
processed in the same unit
simultaneously. Thus, if serial batch
processing in which 100% vegetable oil
is processed one day/week/month and
100% petroleum the next day/week/
month occurs, the fuel derived from
renewable biomass would be assigned
RINs with a D code identifying it as
biomass-based diesel. The resulting
products could be blended together, but
only the volume produced from
renewable biomass would count as
biomass-based diesel.
For other renewable fuels, EISA
makes a distinction between fuel from
new and existing facilities. Only
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24911
renewable fuel from new facilities is
required to achieve a lifecycle GHG
emission displacement of 20%. As
discussed in Section III.B.3, this
requirement applies only to renewable
fuel that is produced from certain
facilities which commenced
construction after December 19, 2007.
EISA defines ‘‘additional renewable
fuel’’ as fuel produced from renewable
biomass that is used to replace or reduce
fossil fuels used in home heating oil or
jet fuel. The Act provides that EPA may
allow for the generation of RFS credits
for such fuel. This represents a change
from RFS1, where renewable fuel
qualifying for credits was limited to fuel
used in motor vehicles. We propose to
modify the regulatory requirements to
allow RINs assigned to renewable fuel
blended into heating oil or jet fuel to be
valid for compliance purposes. The fuel
would still have to meet all the other
criteria to qualify as a renewable fuel,
including being made from renewable
biomass. For example, RINs generated
for advanced biofuel or biomass-based
diesel that could be used in automobiles
would still be valid, and would not
need to be retired, if the fuel producer
instead sells the fuels for use in heating
oil or jet fuel.
‘‘Renewable biomass’’ is defined in
EISA to include a number of feedstock
types, such as planted crops and crop
residue, planted trees and tree residue,
animal waste, algae, and yard and food
waste. However, the EISA definition
limits many of these feedstocks
according to the management practices
for the land from which they are
derived. For example, planted crops and
crop residue must be harvested from
agricultural land cleared or cultivated at
any time prior to December 19, 2007,
that is actively managed or fallow, and
non-forested. Therefore, planted crops
and crop residue derived from land that
does not meet this definition cannot be
used to produce renewable fuel for
credit under RFS2.
Under today’s proposed rule, we
describe several options for ensuring
that feedstocks used to produce
renewable fuel for which credits are
generated under RFS2 meet the
definition of renewable biomass. Our
proposed approach places overall
responsibility for verifying a feedstock’s
source on the party who generates a RIN
for the renewable fuel produced from
the feedstock. We also present options
for how a party could or should verify
his or her feedstock, and we seek
comment on these options. A full
discussion of the definition and
implementation options for ‘‘renewable
biomass’’ is presented in Section III.B.4.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24912
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
3. Analysis of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Thresholds for
Renewable Fuels
As shown in Table II.A.3–1, EISA
requires that a renewable fuel must meet
minimum thresholds for their reduction
in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions: A
20% reduction in lifecycle GHG
emissions for any renewable fuel
produced at new facilities; a 50%
reduction in order to be classified as
biomass-based diesel or advanced
biofuel; and a 60% reduction in order to
be classified as cellulosic biofuel. The
lifecycle GHG emissions means the
aggregate quantity of GHG emissions
related to the full fuel cycle, including
all stages of fuel and feedstock
production and distribution, from
feedstock generation or extraction
through distribution and delivery and
use of the finished fuel. As mandated by
EISA, it includes direct emissions and
significant indirect emissions such as
significant emissions from land use
changes. EPA believes that compliance
with the EISA mandate—determining
the aggregate GHG emissions related to
the full fuel lifecycle, including both
direct emissions and significant indirect
emissions such as land use changes—
make it necessary to assess those direct
and indirect impacts that occur not just
within the United States but also those
that occur in other countries. This
applies to determining the lifecycle
emissions for petroleum-based fuels to
determine the baseline, as well as the
lifecycle emissions for biofuels. For
biofuels, this includes evaluating
significant emissions from indirect land
use changes that occur in other
countries as a result of the increased
domestic production or importation of
biofuels into the U.S. As detailed in
Section VI, we have included the GHG
emission impacts of international land
use changes including the indirect land
use changes that result from domestic
production of biofuel feedstocks. We
recognize the significance of including
international land use emission impacts
and, in our analysis presentation in
Section VI, have been transparent in
breaking out the various sources of GHG
emissions so that the reader can readily
see the impact of including
international land use impacts.
TABLE II.A.3–1—LIFECYCLE GHG
THRESHOLDS SPECIFIED IN EISA
[Percent reduction from baseline]
Renewable fuel a ...............................
Advanced biofuel ..............................
Biomass-based diesel ......................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
20
50
50
represents this combination of
TABLE II.A.3–1—LIFECYCLE GHG
THRESHOLDS SPECIFIED IN EISA— emissions increases and decreases
occurring over time led EPA to consider
Continued
[Percent reduction from baseline]
Cellulosic biofuel ...............................
60
a The
20% criterion generally applies to renewable fuel from new facilities that commenced construction after December 19,
2007.
The lifecycle GHG emissions of the
renewable fuel are compared to the
lifecycle GHG emissions for gasoline or
diesel (whichever is being replaced by
the renewable fuel) sold or distributed
as transportation fuel in 2005. EISA
provides some limited flexibility for
EPA to adjust these GHG percentage
thresholds downward by up to 10
percent under certain circumstances. As
discussed in Section VI.D, we are
proposing that the GHG threshold for
advanced biofuels be adjusted to 44% or
potentially as low as 40% depending on
the results from the analyses that will be
conducted for the final rule. This
adjustment would allow ethanol
produced from sugarcane to count as
advanced biofuel and would help
ensure that the volume mandate for
advanced biofuel could be met.
The regulatory purpose of the
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions
analysis is to determine whether
renewable fuels meet the GHG
thresholds for the different categories of
renewable fuel. As described in detail in
Section VI, EPA has analyzed the
lifecycle GHG impacts of the range of
biofuels currently expected to
contribute significantly to meeting the
volume mandates of EISA through 2022.
In these analyses we have used the best
science available. Our analysis relies on
peer reviewed models and the best
estimate of important trends in
agricultural practices and fuel
production technologies as these may
impact our prediction of individual
biofuel GHG performance through 2022.
We have identified and highlighted
assumptions and model inputs that
particularly influence our assessment
and seek comment on these
assumptions, the models we have used
and our overall methodology so as to
assure the most robust assessment of
lifecycle GHG performance for the final
rule.
In addition to the many technical
issues addressed in this proposal,
Section VI discusses the emissions
decreases and increases associated with
the different parts of the lifecycle
emissions of various biofuels and the
timeframes in which these emissions
changes occur. The need to determine a
single lifecycle value that best
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
various alternative ways to analyze the
timeframe of emissions changes related
to biofuel production and use as well as
options for adjusting or discounting
these emissions to determine their net
present value. Section VI highlights two
options. One option assumes a 30 year
time period for assessing future GHG
emissions impacts of the anticipated
increase in biofuel production to meet
the mandates of EISA, both emissions
increases and decreases, and values all
these emission impacts the same
regardless of when they occur during
that time period (i.e., no discounting).
The second option assesses emissions
impacts over a 100 year time period but
then discounts future emissions 2%
annually to arrive at an estimate of a net
present value of those emissions.
Several other variations of time period
and discount rate are also discussed.
The analytical time horizon and the
choice whether to discount GHG
emissions and, if so, at what appropriate
rate can have a significant impact on the
final assessment of the lifecycle GHG
emissions impacts of individual biofuels
as well as the overall GHG impacts of
these EISA provisions and this rule.
We believe that our lifecycle analysis
is based on the best available science
and recognize that in some aspects it
represents a cutting edge approach to
addressing lifecycle GHG emissions.
Because of the varying degrees of
uncertainty in the different aspects of
our analysis, we conducted a number of
sensitivity analyses which focus on key
parameters and demonstrate how our
assessments might change under
alternative assumptions. By focusing
attention on these key parameters, the
comments we receive as well as
additional investigation and analysis by
EPA will allow narrowing of uncertainty
concerns for the final rule. In addition
to this sensitivity analysis approach, we
will also explore options for more
formal uncertainty analyses for the final
rule to the extent possible.
Because lifecycle analysis is a new
part of the RFS program, in addition to
the formal comment period on the
proposed rule, EPA is making multiple
efforts to solicit public and expert
feedback on our proposed approach.
EPA plans to hold a public workshop
focused specifically on lifecycle
analysis during the comment period to
assure full understanding of the
analyses conducted, the issues
addressed and the options that are
discussed. We expect that this
workshop will help ensure that we
receive submission of the most
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
thoughtful and useful comments to this
proposal and that the best methodology
and assumptions are used for
calculating GHG emissions impacts of
fuels for the final rule. Additionally,
between this proposal and the final rule,
we will conduct peer reviews of key
components of our analysis. As
explained in more detail in Section VI,
EPA is specifically seeking peer review
of: Our use of satellite data to project
future types of land use changes; the
land conversion GHG emissions factors
estimates we have used for different
types of land use; our estimates of GHG
emissions from foreign crop production;
methods to account for the variable
timing of GHG emissions; and how the
several models we have relied upon are
used together to provide overall
lifecycle GHG estimates.
Some renewable fuel is not required
to meet the 20% GHG threshold. Section
211(o)(2)(A) provides that only
renewable fuel produced from new
facilities which commenced
construction after December 19, 2007
must meet the 20% threshold. Facilities
that commenced construction on or
before December 19, 2007 are exempt or
‘‘grandfathered’’ from the 20%
threshold requirement. In addition,
section 210(a) of EISA provides a further
exemption from the 20% threshold
requirement for ethanol plants that
commenced construction in 2008 or
2009 and are fired with natural gas,
biomass, or any combination thereof.
The renewable fuel from such facilities
is deemed to be in compliance with the
20% threshold, and would thus also be
‘‘grandfathered.’’
We are proposing and taking
comment on one approach to the
grandfathering provisions in today’s
rule, and seeking comment on five
additional options. The proposed
approach would provide an indefinite
time period for grandfathering status but
with restrictions to the baseline volume
of renewable fuel that is grandfathered.
The alternative options are (1)
Expiration of exemption for
grandfathered status when facilities
undergo sufficient changes to be
considered ‘‘reconstructed’’; (2)
Expiration of exemption 15 years after
EISA enactment, industry-wide; (3)
Expiration of exemption 15 years after
EISA enactment with limitation of
exemption to baseline volume; (4)
‘‘Significant’’ production components
are treated as facilities and
grandfathered or deemed compliant
status ends when they are replaced; and
(5) Indefinite exemption and no
limitations placed on baseline volumes.
Our proposal and the alternative options
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
are discussed in further detail in Section
III.B.3.c.
While renewable fuels would be
required to meet the GHG thresholds
shown in Table II.A.3–1 in order to be
valid for compliance purposes under the
RFS2 program, we are not proposing
that an individual facility-specific
lifecycle GHG emissions value would
have to be determined in order to show
that the biofuel produced or imported at
an individual facility complies with the
threshold. Instead, EPA has determined
lifecycle GHG values for specific
combinations of fuel type, feedstock,
and production process, using average
values for various lifecycle model
inputs. As a result of these assessments,
we propose to assign each combination
of fuel type, feedstock, and production
process to one of the four renewable fuel
categories specified in EISA or,
alternatively, make a determination that
the biofuel combination has been
disqualified from generating RINs
(except as may be allowed for
grandfathered renewable fuel) due to a
failure to meet the minimum 20% GHG
threshold. Section VI.E discusses our
proposed assignments. We are also
proposing a mechanism to allow
biofuels whose lifecycle GHG emissions
have not been assessed to participate in
the RFS program under certain limited
conditions. These conditions are
described in Section III.D.5.
4. Coverage Expanded to Transportation
Fuel, Including Diesel and Nonroad
Fuels
EPAct only mandated the blending of
renewable fuels into gasoline, though it
gave credit for renewable fuels blended
into diesel fuel. EISA expanded the
program to generally cover
transportation fuel, which is defined as
fuel for use in motor vehicles, motor
vehicle engines, nonroad vehicles, or
nonroad engines. This includes diesel
fuel intended for use in highway
vehicles and engines, and nonroad,
locomotive, and marine engines and
vessels, as well as gaseous or other fuels
used in these vehicles, engines, or
vessels. EISA also specifies that
‘‘transportation fuels’’ do not include
fuels for use in ocean-going vessels.
EPA is required to ensure that
transportation fuel contains at least the
specified volumes of renewable fuel.
Under EISA, renewable fuel now
includes fuel that is used to displace
fossil fuel present in transportation fuel,
and as in RFS1, EPA is required to
determine the refiners, blenders, and
importers of transportation fuel that are
subject to the renewable volume
obligation. As discussed in Section III.F,
while we are seeking comment on
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24913
alternatives, EPA is proposing
consistent with RFS1 that these
provisions could best be met by
requiring that the renewable volume
obligation apply to refiners, blenders,
and importers of motor vehicle or
nonroad gasoline or diesel (with limited
flexibilities for small refineries and
small refiners), and that their percentage
obligation would apply to the amount of
gasoline or diesel they produce for such
use. We propose to use the current
definition of motor vehicle, nonroad,
locomotive, and marine diesel fuel
(MVNRLM)—as defined at § 80.2(qqq)—
to determine the obligated volumes of
non-gasoline transportation fuel for this
rule.
We request comment on these aspects
of our proposed program.
5. Effective Date for New Requirements
Under CAA section 211(o) as
modified by EISA, EPA is required to
revise the RFS1 regulations within one
year of enactment, or December 19,
2008. Promulgation by this date would
have been consistent with the revised
volume requirements shown in Table
II.A.1–1 that begin in 2009 for certain
categories of renewable fuel. However,
due to the addition of complex lifecycle
assessments to the determination of
eligibility of renewable fuels, the
extensive analysis of impacts that we
are conducting for the higher renewable
fuel volumes, the various complex
changes to the regulatory program that
require close collaboration with
stakeholders, and various statutory
limitations such as the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act
(SBREFA) and a 60 day Congressional
review period for all significant actions,
we were not able to promulgate final
RFS2 program requirements by
December 19, 2008. As a result, we are
proposing that the RFS2 regulatory
program go into effect on January 1,
2010.
In order to successfully implement
the RFS2 program, parties that generate
RINs, own and/or transfer them, or use
them for compliance purposes will need
to re-register under the RFS2 provisions
and modify their information
technology (IT) systems to accommodate
the changes we are proposing today. As
described more fully in Section III, these
changes would include redefining the D
code within the RIN, adding a process
for verifying that feedstocks meet the
renewable biomass definition, and
calculating compliance with four
standards instead of one. Regulated
parties will need to establish new
contractual relationships to cover the
different types of renewable fuel
required under RFS2. Parties that
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24914
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
produce MVNRLM diesel but not
gasoline will be newly obligated parties
and may be establishing IT systems for
the RFS program for the first time. For
RFS1, regulated parties had four months
between promulgation of the final
rulemaking on May 1, 2007 and the start
of the program on September 1, 2007.
However, this was for a new program
that had not existed before. For the
RFS2 program, most regulated parties
will already be familiar with the general
requirements for RIN generation,
transfer, and use, and the attendant
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. We believe that with
proper attention to the implementation
requirements by regulated parties, the
RFS2 program can be implemented on
January 1, 2010 following release of the
final rule.
Although we are proposing that the
RFS2 regulatory program begin on
January 1, 2010, we seek comment on
whether a start date later than January
1, 2010 would be necessary. Alternative
effective dates for the RFS2 program
include January 1, 2011 and a date after
January 1, 2010 but before January 1,
2011. We are requesting comment on all
issues related to such an alternative
effective date, including the need for
such a delayed start, treatment of diesel
producers and importers, whether the
standards for advanced biofuel,
cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based
diesel should apply to the entire 2010
production or just the production that
would occur after the RFS2 effective
date, and the extent to which RFS1 RINs
should be valid to show compliance
with RFS2 standards. Further
discussion of alternative effective dates
for RFS2 can be found in Section
III.E.1.d.
6. Treatment of Required Volumes
Preceding the RFS2 Effective Date
We are proposing that the RFS2
regulatory program begin on January 1,
2010. Under CAA section 211(o), the
requirements for refiners, blenders, and
importers (called ‘‘obligated parties’’) as
well as the requirements for producers
of renewable fuel and others, stem from
the regulatory provisions adopted by
EPA. In effect while EPAct and EISA
both call for EPA to issue regulations
that achieve certain results, the various
regulated parties are not subject to these
requirements until EPA issues the
regulations establishing their
obligations. The changes brought about
by EISA, such as the 4 separate
standards, the lifecycle GHG thresholds,
changes to obligated parties, and the
revised definition of renewable biomass
do not become effective until today’s
proposal is finalized. Rather, the current
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
RFS1 regulations continue to apply
until EPA amends them to implement
EISA, and any delay in issuance of the
RFS2 regulations means that parties
would continue to be subject to the
RFS1 regulations until the RFS2
regulations were in effect. Therefore,
regulated parties would continue to be
subject to the existing regulations at 40
CFR Part 80 Subpart K through
December 31, 2009, or later if the
effective date of the RFS2 program were
later than January 1, 2010.
Under the RFS1 regulations the
annual percentage standards that are
applicable to obligated parties are
determined by a formula set forth in the
regulations. The formula uses gasoline
volume projections from the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) and
the required volume of renewable fuel
provided in Clean Air Act section
211(o)(2)(B). Since EISA modified the
required volumes in this section of the
Clean Air Act, EPA believes that the
new statutory volumes can be used
under the RFS1 regulations in
generating the standards for 2009.
Therefore, in November 2008 we used
the new total renewable fuel volume of
11.1 billion gallons as the basis for the
2009 standard, and not the 6.1 billion
gallons that was required by EPAct.3
While this approach will ensure that
the total renewable fuel volume of 11.1
billion gallons required by EISA for
2009 will be used, the RFS1 regulatory
structure does not provide a mechanism
for implementing the 0.5 billion gallon
requirement for biomass-based diesel
nor the 0.6 billion gallon requirement
for advanced biofuel. As described in
more detail in Section III.E.2, we are
proposing to address this issue by
increasing the 2010 biomass-based
diesel requirement by 0.5 billion gallons
and allowing 2009 biodiesel and
renewable diesel RINs to be used to
meet this combined 2009/2010
requirement. Doing so would also allow
most of the 2009 advanced biofuel
requirement to be met. We believe this
would provide a similar incentive for
biomass-based diesel use in 2009 as
would have occurred had we been able
to implement this standard for 2009. We
propose that this requirement would
apply to all obligated parties under
RFS2, including producers and
importers of diesel fuel.
As noted above, EPA is proposing a
start date for the RFS2 program of
January 1, 2010, and is also seeking
comment on alternative start dates of
sometime during 2010 or January 1,
2011. If the start date is other than
January 1, 2010, EPA would need to
3 73
PO 00000
FR 70643, November 21, 2008.
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
determine what renewable fuel volumes
to require in the interim between
January 1, 2010 and the start of the
RFS2 program. While we could apply
the same approach, described above,
that we have used for 2009, doing so
could mean that 2009 biodiesel RINs
would be valid for compliance purposes
in 2011, which would run counter to the
statutory valid life of two years.
Nevertheless, we request comment on
whether this potential approach or
another approach is warranted based on
the differing volumes and types of
renewable fuel specified for use in EISA
for 2010.
7. Waivers and Credits for Cellulosic
Biofuel
Section 202(e) of EISA provides that
for any calendar year in which the
projected volume of cellulosic biofuel
production is less than the minimum
applicable volume required by the
statute, EPA will waive a portion of the
cellulosic biofuel standard by using the
projected volume as the basis for setting
the applicable standard. In this event,
EISA also allows but does not require
EPA to reduce the required volume of
advanced biofuel and total renewable
fuel. The process of projecting the
volume of cellulosic biofuel that may be
produced in the next year, and the
associated process of determining
whether and to what degree the
advanced biofuel and total renewable
fuel requirements should be lowered,
will involve considerations that extend
beyond the simple calculation based on
gasoline demand that was used to set
the annual standards under RFS1. As a
result, we believe that this process
should be subject to a notice-andcomment rulemaking process.
Moreover, since we must make these
determinations every year for
application to the following year, we
expect to conduct these rulemakings
every year.
In determining whether the advanced
biofuel and/or total renewable fuel
volume requirements should also be
adjusted downward in the event that
projected volumes of cellulosic biofuel
fall short of the statutorily required
volumes, we believe it would be
appropriate to allow excess advanced
biofuels to make up some or all of the
shortfall in cellulosic biofuel. For
instance, if we determined that
sufficient biomass-based diesel was
available, we could decide that the
required volume of advanced biofuel
need not be lowered, or that it should
be lowered to a smaller degree than the
required cellulosic biofuel volume. We
would then lower the total renewable
fuel volume to the same degree that we
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
would lower the advanced biofuel
volume. We do not believe it would be
appropriate to lower the advanced
biofuel standard but not the total
renewable standard, as this would allow
conventional biofuels to effectively be
used to meet the standards Congress
specifically set for cellulosic and
advanced biofuels.
If EPA reduces the required volume of
cellulosic biofuel, EPA must offer a
number of credits no greater than the
reduced cellulosic biofuel standard.
EISA dictates the cost of these credits
and ties them to inflation. The Act also
dictates that we must promulgate
regulations on the use of these credits
and offers guidance on how these
credits may be offered and used. We
propose that their uses will be very
limited. The credits would not be
allowed to be traded or banked for
future use, but would be allowed to
meet the cellulosic biofuel standard,
advanced biofuel standard and total
renewable fuel standard. Further
discussion of the implementation of
these provisions can be found in Section
III.I.
8. Proposed Standards for 2010
Once the RFS2 program is
implemented, we expect to conduct a
notice-and-comment rulemaking
process each year in order to determine
the appropriate standards applicable in
the following year. We therefore intend
to issue an NPRM in the spring and a
final rule by November 30 of each year
as required by statute.
However, for the 2010 compliance
year, today’s action provides a means
for seeking comment on the applicable
standards. Therefore, rather than issuing
a separate NPRM for the 2010 standard,
we are proposing the 2010 standards in
today’s notice. We will consider
comments received during the comment
period associated with today’s NPRM,
and we expect to issue a Federal
Register notice by November 30, 2009
setting the applicable standards for
2010.
We propose that the RFS2 program be
effective on January 1, 2010. Therefore,
all EISA volume mandates for 2010
would be implemented in that year,
unless EPA exercised its authority to
waive one or more of the standards.
Based on information from the industry,
we believe that there are sufficient plans
underway to build plants capable of
producing 0.1 billion gallons of
cellulosic biofuel in 2010, the minimum
volume of cellulosic biofuel required by
EISA for 2010. However, we recognize
that cellulosic biofuel is at the very
earliest stages of commercialization and
current economic concerns could have
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
significant impacts on these near term
plans. Therefore, while based on
industry plans available to EPA, we are
not proposing that any portion of the
cellulosic biofuel requirement for 2010
be waived, we are seeking additional
and updated information that would be
available prior to November 30, 2009
which could result in a change in this
conclusion. Similarly, we are not aware
of the need to waive any other volume
mandates for 2010. Therefore, we are
proposing that the volumes shown in
Table II.A.1–1 for all four renewable
fuel categories be used as the basis for
the applicable standards for 2010. The
proposed standards are shown in Table
II.A.8–1, each representing the fraction
of a refiner’s or importer’s gasoline and
diesel volume which must be renewable
fuel.
24915
RFS2 proposal and we will have more
complete assessments, including a costbenefit comparison, for the final rule.
These assessments provide important
information to the wider public policy
considerations of renewable fuels,
climate change, and national energy
security. They are also an important
component of all significant
rulemakings.
However, because the volumes of
renewable fuel were specified by
statute, they would not be based on or
revised by our analysis of impacts. In
addition, because we have very limited
discretion to pursue regulatory
alternatives, the proposal does not
include a systematic alternatives
analysis. We have investigated
regulatory alternatives in some areas to
the degree that EISA provides
discretion.
As one point of reference to assess the
TABLE II.A.8–1—PROPOSED
impacts of the volume requirements for
STANDARDS FOR 2010
the RFS2 program, we used projections
[Percent]
for renewable fuel use in 2022 that EIA
issued through their 2007 Annual
Cellulosic biofuel ...............................
0.06
Biomass-based diesel ......................
0.71 Energy Outlook (AEO), and for
Advanced biofuel ..............................
0.59 transportation fuel consumption
Renewable fuel .................................
8.01 through their 2008 AEO. This reference
case, referred to as the ‘‘AEO Reference
Case,’’ represents a projection of the
Note that the proposed 2010
standards shown in Table II.A.8–1 were demand for renewable fuels prior to
based on currently available projections enactment of EISA while still reflecting
the new Corporate Average Fuel
of 2010 gasoline and diesel volumes.
Economy (CAFE) requirements in EISA,
The final standards will be calculated
and the 2008 AEO projections for the
on the basis of gasoline and diesel
future price of crude oil ($53 to $92 per
volume projections from the Energy
barrel). Further discussion of the
Information Administration’s (EIA)
Reference Case can be found in Section
Short-Term Energy Outlook and
V.A.1. Other points of reference include
published by November 30, 2009.
the renewable fuel volumes mandated
Additional discussion of our proposed
by EPAct for the RFS1 program,
2010 standards can be found in Section
renewable fuel use prior to
III.E.1.b.
Note also that the proposed standards implementation of the RFS1 program,
assume an effective date of January 1,
and the full impacts of renewable fuel
2010 for RFS2. We are taking comment
use compared to a petroleum-only
on alternative effective dates for RFS2,
economy.
Given the short time provided by
including January 1, 2011 and a date
Congress to conduct a rulemaking, many
after January 1, 2010 but before January
1, 2011. Such alternative effective dates of our analyses were done in parallel for
this proposal. As a result, some analyses
would raise issues with regard to the
were conducted without the benefit of
calculation and application of the
waiting for the conclusion of another
standards for total renewable fuel and
analysis that could prove influential.
the other standards required under
Thus, for example, impacts on food
EISA, as well as the generation and
prices assume that soy-based biodiesel
application of RINs under RFS1 and
and sugarcane ethanol will qualify as
RFS2. As described more fully in
advanced fuels under the proposed
Section III.E.1.d, we request comment
on the issues associated with alternative RFS2 program, even though the analyses
conducted for this proposal might
effective dates for RFS2.
preclude such eligibility. We have
B. Impacts of Increasing Volume
highlighted such inconsistencies in
Requirements in the RFS2 Program
results and assumptions throughout the
The displacement of gasoline and
proposal. Additionally, since we have
diesel with renewable fuels has a wide
identified many issues and analytical
range of environmental and economic
options in our assessment of which
impacts. As we describe below, we have biofuel pathways would comply with
assessed many of these impacts for the
the GHG thresholds, the assessment we
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24916
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
conducted for this proposal may not
reflect the final rule in all cases. We will
be addressing these issues of analytical
consistency between analyses more
fully in the final rule.
In a similar fashion, while we
recognize uncertainty in our assessment
of impacts of the proposed RFS2
program, we do not present a formal,
comprehensive analysis of uncertainty.
For this proposal, many of the analyses
are without precedent, and as a result
we have identified the more uncertain
aspects of these analyses and have
worked to assess their potential impact
on the results through sensitivity
analyses. We intend to continue these
assessments for the final rule, and
expect that comments on this proposal
will allow us to reduce our uncertainty
in a number of areas. In addition to this
sensitivity analysis approach, we will
also explore options for more formal
uncertainty analyses for the final rule to
the extent possible.
1. Greenhouse Gases and Fossil Fuel
Consumption
Our analyses of GHG impacts
consider the full useful life assessment
of the production of biofuels compared
to the petroleum-based fuels they would
replace. The analysis compared the AEO
reference case transportation fuel pool
in 2022 without the EISA mandates
with the same fuel pool in 2022, but
assuming the greater volumes of biofuel
as mandated by EISA replace an energy
equivalent amount of petroleum-based
fuel. The incremental volumes of each
biofuel type were then evaluated to
determine their average impact on GHG
emissions compared to the 2005
baseline petroleum fuel they would be
displacing. These average GHG emission
reduction results can then be compared
to the threshold performance levels for
each fuel type.
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
The definition of lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions in EISA requires the
Agency to look broadly at lifecycle
analyses and to develop a methodology
that accounts for the significant
secondary or indirect impacts of
expanded biofuels use. These indirect
effects include both the domestic and
international impact of land use change
from increased biofuel feedstock
production and the secondary
agricultural sector GHG impacts from
increased biofuel feedstock production
(e.g., changes in livestock emissions due
to changes in agricultural commodity
prices). Today no single model can
capture all of the complex interactions
required to conduct a complete lifecycle
assessment as required by Congress. As
a result, the methodology EPA has
currently evaluated uses a number of
models and tools to provide a
comprehensive estimate of GHG
emissions. We have used a combination
of peer reviewed models including
Argonne National Laboratory’s GREET
model, Texas A&M’s Forestry and
Agricultural Sector Optimization Model
(FASOM) and Iowa State University’s
Food and Agricultural Policy Research
Institute’s (FAPRI) international
agricultural models as well as the
Winrock International database to
estimate lifecycle GHG emissions
estimates. These models are described
in more detail in Section VI and have
been used in combination to provide the
lifecycle GHG estimates presented in
this proposal. However, we recognize
other models and sources of information
can also be used and these are also
discussed in Section VI.
Based on the combined use of these
models we have estimated the lifecycle
GHG emissions for a number of
pathways for producing the increased
volumes of renewable fuels as mandated
by EISA. Section VI of this proposal
outlines the approach taken and
describes the key assumptions and
parameters used in this analysis. In
addition, this section highlights the
impacts of varying these key inputs on
the overall results.
We estimate the greater volumes of
biofuel mandated by RFS2 will reduce
lifecycle GHG emissions from
transportation by approximately 6.8
billion tons of CO2 equivalent emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
when accounting for all the emissions
changes over 100 years and then
discounting this emission stream by 2%
per year. This is equivalent to an
average annualized emission rate of 160
million metric tons of CO2-eq. emissions
per year over the entire 100 year
modeling time frame if that average
annualized emission rate is also
discounted at 2% per year. Determining
lifecycle GHG emissions values for
renewable fuels using a 0% discount
rate over 30 years would result in an
estimated total reduction of 4.5 billion
tons of CO2-eq. over the 30 year period
or an average annualized emission rate
reduction of 150 million metric tons of
CO2-eq. GHG emissions per year. (See
Section VI.F of this preamble for
additional information on how these
emission reductions were calculated).
Our analysis of the petroleum
consumption impacts took a similar
lifecycle approach. For the year 2022,
we estimate that the 36 billion gallons
of renewable fuel mandated by these
rules will increase renewable fuel usage
by approximately 22 billion gallons
which will displace about 15 billion
gallons of petroleum-based gasoline and
diesel fuel. This represents about 8% of
annual oil consumed by the
transportation sector in 2022.
2. Economic Impacts and Energy
Security
The substantially increased volumes
of renewable fuel that would be
required under RFS2 would produce a
variety of different economic impacts.
These would include changes in the
cost of gasoline and diesel, a reduction
in nationwide expenditures on
petroleum imports and the associated
increase in energy security, and
increases in the prices of agricultural
commodities such as corn and soybeans.
The RFS program is projected to
significantly impact the cost of gasoline
and diesel, though the estimated costs
vary based on the price of crude oil that
is assumed. In our analysis we used
both $92 and $53 per barrel crude oil
based on price projections made by EIA.
At these two crude oil price points, we
estimate that gasoline costs would
increase by about 2.7 and 10.9 cents per
gallon, respectively, by 2022. Likewise,
diesel fuel costs could experience a
small cost reduction of 0.1 cents per
gallon, or increase by about 1.2 cent per
gallon, respectively. For the nation as a
whole, these costs are equivalent to $4
and $18 billion in 2022, respectively (in
2006 dollars, and amortizing capital
costs using a 7% before-tax rate of
return). These costs represent the
nationwide average impacts including
the costs of producing and distributing
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
both renewable fuels and gasoline and
diesel, as well as blending costs, but
without consideration of either the tax
subsidies and import tariff for ethanol or
tax subsidies for biodiesel and
renewable diesel fuel.
EPA’s estimates of economic impacts
of fuels do not consider other societal
benefits. For example, the displacement
of petroleum-based fuel (largely
imported) by renewable fuel (largely
produced in the United States), should
reduce our consumption of imported oil
and fuel. We estimate that 91% 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
$12.4 billion in 2022 due to increased
volumes of renewable fuels mandated
by RFS2 in comparison to the AEO
reference case. Net U.S. expenditures on
petroleum imports in 2022 are projected
to be about $208 billion.
Furthermore, the above estimate of
reduced U.S. petroleum import
expenditures only partly assesses the
economic impacts of this proposal. 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 U.S. dependence on any one source,
the risks, both financial as well as
strategic, of a potential disruption in
supply of a particular energy source are
reduced. EPA has worked with
researchers at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) to update a study
they previously published that has been
used or cited in several government
actions impacting U.S. oil consumption.
This updated study went through an
independent, third-party peer review
process and a final draft report of this
updated study was developed. This
peer-reviewed report is being made
available in the docket at this time for
further consideration. Using the
updated ORNL estimate, the total energy
security benefits associated with a
reduction of U.S. imported oil is $12.38
per barrel of imported oil that is
reduced. Based on these values, we
estimate that the total annual energy
security benefits would be $3.7 billion
in 2022 (in 2006 dollars).
We recognize that our current energy
security analysis does not take into
account risk-shifting that might occur as
the U.S. reduces its dependency on
petroleum by increasing its use of
biofuels. For example, our analysis did
not take into account other energy
security implications associated with
biofuels, such as possible supply
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
disruptions of corn-based ethanol. We
will attempt to broaden our energy
security analysis to incorporate
estimates of overall motor fuel supply
and demand flexibility and reliability
for the final rule, along with impacts of
possible agricultural sector market
disruptions. A complete discussion of
the Agency’s plans for this analysis can
be found in Section IX.B.2. of this
preamble.
While increased use of renewable fuel
will reduce expenditures on imported
oil, it will also increase expenditures on
renewable fuels and in turn on the
sources of those renewable fuels. The
RFS program is likely to spur the
increased use of renewable
transportation fuels made principally
from agricultural crops and it is
expected that most of these crops will
be 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
domestic agricultural sector impacts,
EPA selected the Forest and
Agricultural Sector Optimization Model
(FASOM) developed by Professor Bruce
McCarl of 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.
In Section IX of this preamble, we
estimate the change in the price of
various agricultural products as a result
of this rulemaking. By 2022, we estimate
the price of corn would increase by
$0.15 per bushel (4.6%) above the
Reference Case price of $3.19 per
bushel. By 2022, U.S. soybean prices
would increase by $0.29 per bushel
(2.9%) above the Reference Case price of
$9.97 per bushel. Due to higher
commodity prices, FASOM estimates
that U.S. food costs would increase by
$10 per person per year by 2022,
relative to the Reference Case. Total
farm gate food costs would increase by
$3.3 billion (0.2%) in 2022. As a result
of increased renewable fuel
requirements, FASOM predicts that net
U.S. farm income would increase by
$7.1 billion dollars in 2022 (10.6%),
relative to the Reference Case.
Due to higher commodity prices,
FASOM estimates that U.S. corn exports
would drop from 2.7 billion bushels
under the Reference Case to 2.4 billion
bushels (a 10% decrease) by 2022. In
value terms, U.S. exports of corn would
fall by $487 million in 2022. FASOM
estimates that U.S. exports of soybeans
would decrease from 1.03 billion
bushels to 943 million bushels (an 8%
decrease) in 2022. In value terms, U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24917
exports of soybeans would decrease by
$691 million in 2022.
Assuming current subsidies remain in
place, the Renewable Fuels Standard, by
encouraging the use of biofuels, will
result in an expansion of subsidy
payments by the U.S. government. If
this resulting loss of tax revenue were
offset by an increase in taxes, this could
have a distortionary impact on the
economy. We intend to consider the
impact of the expansion of biofuel
subsidies associated with the RFS2 in
the context of the economy-wide
modeling to be conducted for the final
rule.
We note that the economic analyses
that support this proposal do not reflect
all of the potentially quantifiable
economic impacts. There are several key
impacts that remain incomplete as a
result of time and resource constraints,
including the economic impact analysis
(see Section IX) and the air quality and
health impacts analysis (see Section
II.B.3). As a result, this proposal does
not combine economic impacts in an
attempt to compare costs and benefits,
in order to avoid presenting an
incomplete and potentially misleading
characterization. For the final rule,
when the planned analyses are complete
and current analyses updated, we will
provide a consistent cost-benefit
comparison.
3. Emissions, Air Quality, and Health
Impacts
Analysis of criteria and toxic emission
impacts was performed relative to three
different reference case ethanol
volumes, ranging from 3.64 to 13.2
billion gallons per year. To assess the
total impact of the RFS program,
emissions were analyzed relative to the
RFS1 rule base case of 3.64 billion
gallons in 2004. To assess the impact of
today’s RFS2 proposal relative to the
current mandated volumes, we analyzed
impacts relative to RFS1 mandate of 7.5
billion gallons of renewable fuel use by
2012, which was estimated to include
6.7 billion gallons of ethanol.4 In order
to assess the impact of today’s proposal
relative to the level of ethanol projected
to be used in 2022 without RFS2, the
AEO2007 projection of 13.2 billion
gallons of ethanol in 2022 was analyzed.
We are also presenting a range of
impacts meant to bracket the impacts of
ethanol blends on light-duty vehicle
emissions. Similar to the approach
presented in the RFS1 rule, we present
a ‘‘less sensitive’’ and ‘‘more sensitive’’
case to present a range of the possible
4 RFS1 base and mandated ethanol levels were
projected to remain essentially unchanged in 2022
due to the flat energy demands projected by EIA.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24918
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
in 2022, and the percent contribution of
this impact relative to the total U.S.
inventory across all sectors. Overall we
project the proposed program will result
in significant increases in ethanol and
acetaldehyde emissions—increasing the
total U.S inventories of these pollutants
by up to 30–40% in 2022 relative to the
RFS1 mandate case. We project more
modest but still significant increases in
acrolein, NOX, formaldehyde and PM.
We project today’s action will result in
decreased ammonia emissions (due to
emission impacts of E10 on recent
model year light duty gasoline vehicles.
As detailed in Section VII.C, ‘‘less
sensitive’’ does not apply any E10
effects to NOX or HC emissions for later
model year vehicles, or E85 effects for
any pollutant, while ‘‘more sensitive’’
does.
Our projected emission impacts for
the ‘‘less sensitive’’ and ‘‘more
sensitive’’ cases are shown in Table
II.B.3–1 and II.B.3–2, showing the
expected emission changes for the U.S.
reductions in livestock agricultural
activity), decreased CO emissions
(driven primarily by the impacts of
ethanol on exhaust emissions from
vehicles and nonroad equipment), and
decreased benzene emissions (due to
displacement of gasoline with ethanol
in the fuel pool). Discussion and a
breakdown of these results by the fuel
production/distribution and vehicle and
equipment emissions are presented in
Section VII.
TABLE II.B.3–1—RFS2 ‘‘LESS SENSITIVE’’ CASE EMISSION IMPACTS IN 2022 RELATIVE TO EACH REFERENCE CASE
RFS1 base
Pollutant
Annual short
tons
NOX ..........................................................
HC ............................................................
PM10 .........................................................
PM2.5 ........................................................
CO ............................................................
Benzene ...................................................
Ethanol .....................................................
1,3-Butadiene ...........................................
Acetaldehyde ...........................................
Formaldehyde ..........................................
Naphthalene .............................................
Acrolein ....................................................
SO2 ...........................................................
NH3 ...........................................................
RFS1 mandate
% of total U.S.
inventory
312,400
112,401
50,305
14,321
¥2,344,646
¥2,791
210,680
344
12,516
1,647
5
290
28,770
¥27,161
2.8
1.0
1.4
0.4
¥4.4
¥1.7
36.5
2.9
33.7
2.3
0.03
5.0
0.3
¥0.6
Annual short
tons
AEO2007
% of total U.S.
inventory
274,982
72,362
37,147
11,452
¥1,669,872
¥2,507
169,929
255
10,369
1,348
3
252
4,461
¥27,161
2.5
0.6
1.0
0.3
¥3.1
¥1.5
29.4
2.1
27.9
1.9
0.02
4.4
0.05
¥0.6
Annual short
tons
% of total U.S.
inventory
195,735
¥8,193
9,276
5,376
¥240,943
¥1,894
83,761
65
5,822
714
¥1
174
¥47,030
¥27,161
1.7
¥0.07
0.3
0.16
¥0.4
¥1.1
14.5
0.5
15.7
1.0
¥0.01
3.0
¥0.5
¥0.6
TABLE II.B.3–2—RFS2 ‘‘MORE SENSITIVE’’ CASE EMISSION IMPACTS IN 2022 RELATIVE TO EACH REFERENCE CASE
RFS1 base
Pollutant
Annual short
tons
NOX ..........................................................
HC ............................................................
PM10 .........................................................
PM2.5 ........................................................
CO ............................................................
Benzene ...................................................
Ethanol .....................................................
1,3-Butadiene ...........................................
Acetaldehyde ...........................................
Formaldehyde ..........................................
Naphthalene .............................................
Acrolein ....................................................
SO2 ...........................................................
NH3 ...........................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
% of total U.S.
inventory
402,795
100,313
46,193
10,535
¥3,779,572
¥5,962
228,563
¥212
16,375
3,373
¥175
253
28,770
¥27,161
We note that the aggregate nationwide
emission inventory impacts presented
here will likely lead to health impacts
throughout the U.S. due to changes in
future-year ambient air quality.
However, emissions changes alone are
not a good indication of local or regional
air quality and health impacts, as there
may be highly localized impacts such as
increased emissions from ethanol plants
and evaporative emissions from cars,
and decreased emissions from gasoline
refineries. In addition, the atmospheric
RFS1 mandate
3.6
0.9
1.3
0.3
¥7.0
¥3.5
39.6
¥1.8
44.0
4.7
¥1.2
4.4
0.3
¥0.6
Annual short
tons
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
% of total U.S.
inventory
341,028
63,530
33,035
7,666
¥3,104,798
¥5,494
187,926
¥282
14,278
3,124
¥178
218
4,461
¥27,161
chemistry related to ambient
concentrations of PM2.5, ozone and air
toxics is very complex, and making
predictions based solely on emissions
changes is extremely difficult. Full-scale
photochemical modeling is necessary to
provide the needed spatial and temporal
detail to more completely and
accurately estimate the changes in
ambient levels of these pollutants. As
discussed in Section VII.D, timing and
resource constraints precluded EPA
from conducting a full-scale
Sfmt 4702
AEO2007
3.0
0.6
0.9
0.2
¥5.8
¥3.3
32.5
¥2.4
38.4
4.3
¥1.3
3.8
0.05
¥0.6
Annual short
tons
210,217
¥15,948
5,164
1,589
¥1,675,869
¥4,489
105,264
¥430
9,839
2,596
¥187
143
¥47,030
¥27,161
% of total U.S.
inventory
1.9
¥0.14
0.15
0.05
¥3.1
¥2.7
18.2
¥3.6
26.5
3.6
¥1.3
2.5
¥0.5
¥0.6
photochemical air quality modeling
analysis in time for the NPRM. For the
final rule, however, a national-scale air
quality modeling analysis will be
performed to analyze the impacts of the
proposed standards on PM2.5, ozone,
and selected air toxics (i.e., benzene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, ethanol,
acrolein and 1,3-butadiene). As
described in Section VII.D.2, EPA
intends to use a 2005-based Community
Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ)
modeling platform as the tool for the air
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24919
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
quality modeling. The CMAQ modeling
system is a comprehensive threedimensional grid-based Eulerian air
quality model designed to estimate the
formation and fate of oxidant
precursors, primary and secondary PM
concentrations and deposition, and air
toxics, over regional and urban spatial
scales (e.g., over the contiguous U.S.).
The lack of air quality modeling data
also precluded EPA from conducting its
standard analysis of human health
impacts, where CMAQ output data are
used as inputs to the Environmental
Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program
(BenMAP). Section IX.D of this
preamble describes the human health
impacts that will be quantified and
monetized for the final rule, as well as
the unquantified impacts that will be
qualitatively described.
4. Water
As the production of biofuels
increases to meet the requirements of
this proposed rule, there may be adverse
impacts on both water quality and
quantity. Increased production of
biofuels may lead to increased
application of fertilizer and pesticides
and increased soil erosion, which could
impact water quality. Since ethanol
production uses large quantities of
water, the supply of water could also be
significantly impacted in some
locations.
EPA focused the water quality
analysis for this proposal on the impacts
of corn produced for ethanol for several
reasons. Corn has the highest fertilizer
and pesticide use per acre and accounts
for the largest share of nitrogen fertilizer
use among all crops. Furthermore, cornbased ethanol is expected to be a large
component of the biofuels mix.
Fertilizer nutrients that are not used
by the crops are available to runoff to
surface water or leach into groundwater.
Nutrient enrichment due to human
activities is one of the leading problems
facing our nation’s lakes, reservoirs, and
estuaries, and also has negative impacts
on aquatic life in streams; adverse
health effects on humans and domestic
animals; and impairs aesthetic and
recreational use. Excess nutrients can
lead to excessive growth of algae in
rivers and streams, and aquatic plants in
all waters. Nutrient pollution is
widespread. The most widely known
examples of significant nutrient impacts
include the Gulf of Mexico and the
Chesapeake Bay, however waterbodies
in virtually every state and territory are
impacted by nutrient-related
degradation. A more detailed discussion
of nutrient pollution can be found in
Section X of this preamble and in
Chapter 6 of the DRIA.
To provide a quantitative estimate of
the impact of this proposal and
production of corn ethanol generally on
water quality, EPA conducted an
analysis that modeled the changes in
loadings of nitrogen, phosphorus, and
sediment from agricultural production
in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
(UMRB). The UMRB is representative of
the many potential issues associated
with ethanol production, including its
connection to major water quality
concerns such as Gulf of Mexico
hypoxia, large corn acreage, and
numerous ethanol production plants.
The UMRB contributes 39% of nitrogen
loads and 26% of phosphorus loads to
the Gulf of Mexico.
EPA selected the SWAT (Soil and
Water Assessment Tool) model to assess
nutrient loads from changes in
agricultural production in the UMRB.
SWAT is a physical process model
developed to quantify the impact of
land management practices in large,
complex watersheds. In conducting its
analysis EPA quantified the impacts
from a baseline that preceded the
current high production of ethanol from
corn to four future years—2010, 2015,
2020 and 2022.
Table II.B.4–1 summarizes the model
outputs at the outlet of the UMRB in the
Mississippi River at Grafton, Illinois for
each of the four scenario years. The
local impact in smaller watersheds
within the UMRB may be significantly
different. The decreasing nitrogen load
over time is likely attributed to the
increased corn yield production,
resulting in greater plant uptake of
nitrogen. The relatively stable sediment
loadings are likely due to the fact that
corn was modeled assuming that corn
stover is left on the fields following
harvest.
TABLE II.B.4–1—CHANGES FROM THE 2005 BASELINE TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT GRAFTON, ILLINOIS FROM THE
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN
2005 Baseline
Average corn yield (bushels/acre) ........................
Nitrogen ................................................................
Phosphorus ...........................................................
Sediment ...............................................................
After evaluating comments on this
proposal, if time and resources permit,
EPA may conduct additional water
quality analyses using the SWAT model
in the UMRB. Potential future analyses
could include: (1) Determination of the
most sensitive assumptions in the
model, (2) water quality impacts from
the changes in ethanol volumes between
the reference case and this proposal, (3)
removing corn stover for cellulosic
ethanol, and (4) a case study of a smaller
watershed to evaluate local water
quality impacts that are impossible to
ascertain at the scale of the UMRB.
EPA also qualitatively examined other
water issues, which are also discussed
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
2010
141 ........................................................................
1433.5 million lbs .................................................
132.4 million lbs ...................................................
6.4 million tons .....................................................
in detail in Section X of this Preamble,
and Chapter 6 of the DRIA.
5. Agricultural Commodity Prices
The recent increase in food prices,
both domestically and internationally,
has raised the issue of whether diverting
grains and oilseeds for fuel production
is having a large impact on commodity
markets. While we share the concern
that food prices have increased
significantly over the same time period
in which renewable fuel production has
increased, many factors have
contributed to recent increases in food
prices. As described by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the
Department of Energy (DOE), the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2015
2020
2022
150
+5.5%
+2.8%
+0.5%
158
+4.7%
+1.7%
+0.3%
168
+2.5%
+0.98%
+0.2%
171
+1.8%
+0.8%
+0.1%
Council of Economic Advisors (CEA),
and others, the recent increase in
commodity prices has been influenced
by factors as diverse as world economic
growth, droughts in Australia, China
and Eastern Europe, increasing oil
prices, changes in investment strategies,
and the declining value of the U.S.
dollar. While the increase in renewable
fuel production has contributed to the
increase in commodity prices, the
magnitude of the contribution of the
RFS has most likely been minor, as
market conditions have continued to
push renewable fuel use beyond the
mandated levels.
As the mandated levels of renewable
fuels continue to rise in the future, our
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24920
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
and reporting, deficit carryovers, and
the valid life of RINs.
The primary elements of the RFS
program that we propose changing to
implement the requirements in EISA fall
primarily into the following five areas:
(1) Expansion of the applicable
volumes of renewable fuel
(2) Separation of the volume
requirements into four separate
categories of renewable fuel, with
TABLE II.B.5–1—CHANGE IN U.S.
COMMODITY PRICES FOR 2022 IN corresponding changes to the RIN and to
the applicable standards
COMPARISON TO THE REFERENCE
(3) Changes to the definition of
CASE
renewable fuels and criteria for
[2006$]
determining which if any of the four
renewable fuel categories a given
Corn ........................ $0.15/bushel.
renewable fuel is eligible to meet
Soybeans ................ $0.29/bushel.
(4) Expansion of the fuels subject to
Sugarcane ............... $13.34/ton.
the standards (and applicable to
Beef ......................... $0.93/hundred pounds. refiners, blenders, and importers of
those fuels) to include diesel and certain
II. What Are the Major Elements of the
nonroad fuels
(5) Inclusion of specific types of
Program Required Under EISA?
waivers and EPA-generated credits for
While EISA made a number of
cellulosic biofuel.
changes to CAA section 211(o) that must
EISA does not change the basic
be reflected in the RFS program
requirement under CAA 211(o) that the
regulations, it left many of the basic
RFS program include a credit trading
program elements intact, including the
program. In the May 1, 2007 final
mechanism for translating national
rulemaking implementing the RFS1
renewable fuel volume requirements
program, we described how we
into applicable standards for individual reviewed a variety of approaches to
obligated parties, requirements for a
program design in collaboration with
credit trading program, geographic
various stakeholders. We finally settled
applicability, treatment of small
on a RIN-based system for compliance
refineries, and general waiver
and credit purposes as the one which
provisions. As a result, we propose that
met our goals of being straightforward,
many of the regulatory requirements of
maximizing flexibility, ensuring that
the RFS1 program would remain largely volumes are verifiable, and maintaining
or, in some cases, entirely unchanged.
the existing system of fuel distribution
These provisions would include the
and blending. RINs represent the basic
distribution of RINs, separation of RINs, framework for ensuring that the
use of RINs to demonstrate compliance, statutorily required volumes of
provisions for exporters, recordkeeping
renewable fuel are produced and used
economic modeling suggests that the
impact of the RFS2 program on food
prices will continue to be modest,
particularly with the expansion of
cellulosic biofuels. Table II.B.5–1
summarizes the changes in prices for
some commodities we have estimated
for this proposal. Further discussion can
be found in Section IX.A.
as transportation fuel in the U.S. The
use of RINs is predicated on the fact that
once renewable fuels are produced or
imported, there is very high confidence
that, setting aside exports, all but de
minimus quantities will in fact be used
as transportation fuel in the U.S.
Focusing on production of renewable
fuel as a surrogate for the later actual
blending and use of such fuel has many
benefits as far as streamlining the RFS
program and minimizing the impact that
the program has on the business
operations of the regulated industries.
Since the RIN-based system generally
has been successful in meeting EPA’s
goals, we propose to maintain much of
its structure under RFS2.
This section describes the regulatory
changes we propose to implement the
new EISA provisions. Section IV
describes other changes to the RFS
program that we have considered or are
proposing, including a concept for an
EPA-moderated RIN trading system that
would provide a context within which
all RIN transfers could occur.
A. Changes to Renewable Identification
Numbers (RINs)
Under RFS2, we propose that each
RIN would continue to represent one
gallon of renewable fuel for compliance
purposes consistent with our approach
under RFS1, and the RIN would
continue to have 38 digits. In general
the codes within the RIN would have
the same meaning under RFS2 as they
do under RFS1, with the exception of
the D code which would be expanded
to cover the four categories of renewable
fuel defined in EISA. The proposed
change to the D code is described in
Table III.A–1.
TABLE III.A–1—PROPOSED CHANGE TO D CODE
D value
1
2
3
4
Meaning under RFS1
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
Meaning under RFS2
Cellulosic biomass ethanol .................................................................................
Any renewable fuel that is not cellulosic biomass ethanol ................................
Not applicable .....................................................................................................
Not applicable .....................................................................................................
Cellulosic biofuel.
Biomass-based diesel.
Advanced biofuel.
Renewable fuel.
The determination of which D code
would be assigned to a given batch of
renewable fuel is described in more
detail in Section III.D.2 below.
As described in Section II.A.5, we are
proposing that the RFS2 program go into
effect on January 1, 2010. However, we
are also taking comment on other
potential start dates including January 1,
2011 and dates between January 1, 2010
and January 1, 2011. If we were to start
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
the RFS2 program during 2010 but after
January 1, some 2010 RINs would be
generated under the RFS1 requirements
and others would be generated under
the RFS2 requirements, but all RINs
generated in 2010 would need to be
valid for meeting the appropriate 2010
annual standards. Since RFS1 RINs and
RFS2 RINs would differ in the meaning
of the D codes, we would need a
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mechanism for distinguishing between
these two categories of RINs in order to
appropriately apply them to the
standards. One straightforward way of
accomplishing this would be to use
values for the D code under RFS2 that
do not overlap the values for the D code
under RFS1. Table III.A–2 describes the
D code definitions under such an
alternative approach.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
24921
TABLE III.A–2—ALTERNATIVE D CODE DEFINITIONS
D value
1
2
3
4
5
6
Meaning under RFS1
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
Meaning under RFS2
Cellulosic biomass ethanol .................................................................................
Any renewable fuel that is not cellulosic biomass ethanol ................................
Not applicable .....................................................................................................
Not applicable .....................................................................................................
Not applicable .....................................................................................................
Not applicable .....................................................................................................
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Cellulosic biofuel.
Biomass-based diesel.
Advanced biofuel.
Renewable fuel.
In this alternative approach, D code
values of 1 and 2 would only be relevant
for RINs generated under RFS1, and D
code values of 3, 4, 5, and 6 would only
be relevant for RINs generated under
RFS2. As a result, 2010 RINs generated
under RFS1 would be subject to our
proposed RFS1/RFS2 transition
provisions wherein they would be
assigned to one of the four annual
standards that would apply in 2010
using their RR and/or D codes. See
Section III.G.3 for further description of
how we propose using RFS1 RINs to
meet standards under RFS2.
Under RFS2, each batch-RIN
generated would continue to uniquely
identify not only a specific batch of
renewable fuel, but also every gallonRIN assigned to that batch. Thus the RIN
would continue to be defined as
follows:
RIN: KYYYYCCCCFFFFFBBBBBR
RDSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEE
Where:
K = Code distinguishing assigned RINs from
separated RINs
YYYY = Calendar year of production or
import
CCCC = Company ID
FFFFF = Facility ID
BBBBB = Batch number
RR = Code identifying the Equivalence Value
D = Code identifying the renewable fuel
category
SSSSSSSS = Start of RIN block
EEEEEEEE = End of RIN block
B. New Eligibility Requirements for
Renewable Fuels
Aside from the higher volume
requirements, most of the substantive
changes that EISA makes to the RFS
program affect the eligibility of
renewable fuels in meeting one of the
four volume requirements. Eligibility
would be determined based on the types
of feedstocks that can be used, the land
that can be used to grow feedstocks for
renewable fuel production, the
processes that can be used to convert
those feedstocks into fuel, and the
lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions that can be emitted in
comparison to the gasoline or diesel that
the renewable fuel displaces. This
section describes these eligibility
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
criteria and how we propose to include
them in the RFS2 program.
1. Changes in Renewable Fuel
Definitions
Under the existing Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS1), renewable fuel is
defined generally as ‘‘any motor vehicle
fuel that is used to replace or reduce the
quantity of fossil fuel present in a fuel
mixture used to fuel a motor vehicle’’.
The RFS1 definition includes motor
vehicle fuels produced from biomass
material such as grain, starch, fats,
greases, oils, and biogas. The definition
specifically includes cellulosic biomass
ethanol, waste derived ethanol, and
biodiesel, all of which are defined
separately. (See 72 FR 23915.)
The definitions of renewable fuels
under today’s proposed rule (RFS2) are
based on the new statutory definition in
EISA. Like the existing rules, the
definitions in RFS2 include a general
definition of renewable fuel, but unlike
RFS1, we are including a separate
definition of ‘‘Renewable Biomass’’
which identifies the feedstocks from
which renewable fuels may be made.
Another difference in the definitions
of renewable fuel is that RFS2 contains
three subcategories of renewable fuels:
(1) Advanced Biofuel, (2) Cellulosic
Biofuel and (3) Biomass-Based Diesel.
Each must meet threshold levels of
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
as discussed in Section III.B.2. The
specific definitions and how they differ
from RFS1 follow below.
a. Renewable Fuel and Renewable
Biomass
‘‘Renewable Fuel’’ is defined as fuel
produced from renewable biomass and
that is used to replace or reduce the
quantity of fossil fuel present in a
transportation fuel. The definition of
‘‘Renewable Fuel’’ now refers to
‘‘transportation fuel’’ rather than
referring to motor vehicle fuel.
‘‘Transportation fuel’’ is also defined,
and means fuel used in motor vehicles,
motor vehicle engines, nonroad vehicles
or nonroad engines (except for ocean
going vessels).
We propose to allow fuel producers
and importers to include electricity,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
natural gas, and propane (i.e.,
compressed natural gas (CNG) and
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)) as a RINgenerating renewable fuel in today’s
program only if they can identify the
specific quantities of their product
which are actually used as a
transportation fuel, and if the fuel is
produced from renewable biomass. This
may be possible for some portion of
electricity, natural gas, and propane
since many of the affected vehicles and
equipment are in centrally-fueled fleets
supplied under contract by a particular
producer or importer of natural gas or
propane. A producer or importer of
electricity, natural gas, or propane who
could document the use of his product
in a vehicle or engine would be allowed
to generate RINs to represent that
product, if it met the definition of
renewable fuel. Given that the primary
use of electricity, natural gas, and
propane is not for fueling vehicles and
engines, and the producer generally
does not know how it will be used, we
cannot require that producers or
importers of these fuels generate RINs
for all the volumes they produce as we
do with other renewable fuels.
Our proposal to allow electricity,
natural gas, and propane to generate
RINs under certain conditions is
consistent with our treatment of neat
renewable fuels under RFS1 and EISA’s
requirement that all transportation fuels
be included in RFS2. With specific
regard to renewable electricity, Section
206 of EISA requires the EPA to conduct
a study of the feasibility of issuing
credits under the RFS2 program for
renewable electricity used by electric
vehicles. Once completed, this study
will provide additional information
regarding the means by which
renewable electricity is able to generate
RINs under the RFS2 program.
As an alternative to allowing
producers and importers of electricity,
natural gas, and propane to generate
RINs if they can demonstrate that their
product is a renewable fuel and it is
used as transportation fuel, we could
allow or require parties who supply
these fuels to centrally fueled fleets to
generate the RINs even if they are not
the producer of the fuel. This approach
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24922
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
would treat the supplier of the fuel to
the fleet as the producer or importer
who then generates RINs, as they are the
party who in effect changes the fuel
from a fuel that can be used in a variety
of ways and ensures that it is in fact
used as transportation fuel. This
alternative approach might enable a
larger volume of electricity, natural gas,
and propane that is made from
renewable biomass and which is
actually used in vehicles or engines to
be included in our proposed fuels
program as RIN-generating, since in
many cases a supplier could document
the use of these fuels in vehicles or
engines, while a producer could not. In
addition, in this case the supplier is the
party who causes the fuel to transition
from general fuel supply to fuel
designated for use in motor vehicles or
nonroad applications—in that sense, the
supplier is more like a producer or
importer than the upstream producer or
importer. However, if we were to allow
the supplier of renewable electricity,
natural gas, or propane to generate RINs
in such cases, it may also be appropriate
to require suppliers of fossil-based
electricity, natural gas, or propane to
determine a Renewable Volume
Obligation (RVO) that includes these
fuels used as transportation fuel. See
Section III.F.3 for further discussion. We
request comment on this alternative
approach for generating RINs for
renewable electricity, natural gas and
propane.
The term ‘‘Renewable Biomass’’ as
defined in EISA, means:
1. Planted crops and crop residue,
2. Planted trees and tree residues,
3. Animal waste material and
byproducts,
4. Slash and pre-commercial
thinnings (from non-federal forestlands),
5. Biomass cleared from the vicinity
of buildings and other areas to reduce
the risk of wildfire,
6. Algae, and
7. Separated yard waste or food waste.
Section III.B.4 of this preamble
outlines our proposed interpretations
for most of the key terms contained in
the EISA definition of ‘‘renewable
biomass’’ and possible approaches for
implementing the land restrictions on
renewable biomass that are included in
EISA. It is worth noting here, however,
that the statutory definition of
‘‘renewable biomass’’ does not include a
reference to municipal solid waste
(MSW) as did the definition of
‘‘cellulosic biomass ethanol’’ in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), but
instead includes ‘‘separated yard waste
and food waste. EPA’s proposed
definition of renewable biomass in
today’s regulation includes the language
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
present in EISA, and we propose to
clarify in the regulations that ‘‘yard
waste’’ is leaves, sticks, pine needles,
grass and hedge clippings, and similar
waste from residential, commercial, or
industrial areas. Nevertheless, EPA
invites comment on whether the
definition of ‘‘renewable biomass’’
should be interpreted as including or
excluding MSW from the definition of
renewable biomass.
While the lack of a reference to MSW
and the new listing of separated yard
waste and food waste could be readily
interpreted to exclude MSW as a
qualifying feedstock under RFS2, EPA
believes there are indications of
ambiguity on this issue and solicits
comment on whether EPA can and
should interpret EISA as including
MSW that contains yard and/or food
waste within the definition of renewable
biomass. On the one hand, the reference
in the statutory definition to ‘‘separated
yard waste and food waste,’’ and the
lack of reference to other components of
MSW (such as waste paper and wood
waste) suggests that only yard and food
wastes physically separated from other
waste materials satisfy the definition of
renewable biomass as opposed to the
yard and food waste present in MSW.
This view would exclude unprocessed
MSW from any role in the development
of renewable fuel under EISA, and
would also likely severely limit the
amount of yard and food waste available
as feedstock for EISA-qualifying fuel,
since large quantities of these materials
are disposed of as unprocessed MSW.
On the other hand, there are some
indications that Congress may not have
specifically intended to exclude MSW
from playing a role in the development
of renewable fuels under EISA. For
example, ethanol ‘‘derived from waste
material’’ and biogas ‘‘including landfill
gas’’ are specifically identified as
‘‘eligible for consideration’’ in the
definition of advanced biofuel. While
landfill gas is generated primarily by the
yard waste and food waste in a landfill,
these wastes typically are not separated
from each other in a landfill. In
addition, Congress did not define the
term ‘‘separated’’ and did not otherwise
specify the degree of ‘‘separation’’
required of yard and food waste in the
definition of renewable biomass. Thus,
it might be reasonable to consider these
items sufficiently ‘‘separated’’ from
other materials, including non-waste
materials, when food and yard waste is
present in MSW. In addition, the
processing of MSW to fuel will
effectively separate out the materials in
MSW that cannot be made into fuel,
such as glass and metal, and nonbiomass portions of MSW (for example,
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
pastics) could be excluded from getting
credit under the RFS program as
described in Section III.D.4. EPA invites
comment on whether there is enough
separation of food and yard waste in
MSW used in renewable fuel production
for MSW containing yard and food
waste to meet the definition of
renewable biomass.
Approximately 35% by weight of
MSW is paper wastes, and another 6%
by weight from wood wastes. Combined
with food and yard wastes, more than
60% by weight of MSW is biomass that
could be used to make ethanol and other
renewable fuels.5 The volume of ethanol
associated with MSW as a feedstock is
described in more detail in Section 1.1
of the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis
(DRIA).
Our discussions with stakeholders
indicate that a potential concern with
interpreting the definition of renewable
biomass to include MSW containing
yard and/or food waste is that this
approach may cause some decrease in
the amount of paper that is separated
from the MSW waste stream and
recycled into paper products. We
believe, however, that current waste
handling practices and current and
anticipated market conditions would
continue to provide a strong incentive
for paper separation and recycling. A
narrow reading of the statute to exclude
MSW-derived renewable fuel would
directionally reduce the options
available for meeting the goal of EISA to
reduce our dependence on foreign
sources of energy.
By including MSW containing yard
and/or food waste in the definition of
renewable biomass, we could also allow
renewable fuel to be produced in part
from certain plastics in the MSW waste
stream. We believe this could be
appropriate given that plastics that
would otherwise be destined for
landfills can be used for fuel and energy
production. We recognize that the
definition of renewable biomass
generally includes only materials of a
non fossil-fuel origin, and ask that
commenters consider this issue in their
comments on whether: (1) MSW
containing yard and food waste should
qualify as renewable biomass, (2) if nonfossil portions of MSW should be
included in the definition of renewable
biomass, and (3) if non-fossil portions of
5 Construction and demolition (C&D) wastes are
not typically considered as elements of MSW.
Because they are significant feedstocks for the
production of ethanol, we include such wastes in
our economic analysis (Section V). Therefore, for all
practical purposes, the discussion here as it
pertains to whether MSW should be included in the
definition of ‘‘renewable biomass’’ also applies to
C&D wastes.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
MSW should not be included, whether
the approach discussed in Section
III.D.4 can provide an appropriate
means for excluding the non-fossil
portions.
Although we are proposing to exclude
MSW from the definition of ‘‘renewable
biomass’’ for the proposed rule, our
analysis of renewable fuel volume
(discussed in Section V) assumes that
MSW is included for purposes of
quantifying the potential future volume
of renewable fuel. EPA intends to
resolve this matter in the final rule, and
we solicit comment on the approach
that we should take.
b. Advanced Biofuel
‘‘Advanced Biofuel’’ is a renewable
fuel other than ethanol derived from
corn starch and which must also
achieve a lifecycle GHG emission
displacement of 50%, compared to the
gasoline or diesel fuel it displaces. As
such, advanced biofuel would be
assigned a D code of 3 as shown in
Table III.A–1.
‘‘Advanced biofuel’’ also may be
biomass-based diesel, biogas (including
landfill gas and sewage waste treatment
gas), butanol or other alcohols produced
through conversion of organic matter
from renewable biomass, and other fuels
derived from cellulosic biomass, as long
as it meets the proposed 40–44% GHG
emission reduction threshold.
‘‘Advanced Biofuel’’ is a renewable fuel
other than ethanol derived from corn
starch and for which lifecycle GHG
emissions are at least 40–44% less than
the gasoline or diesel fuel it displaces.
Advanced biofuel would be assigned a
D code of 3 as shown in Table III.A–1.
While ‘‘Advanced Biofuel’’
specifically excludes ethanol derived
from corn starch, it includes other types
of ethanol derived from renewable
biomass, including ethanol made from
cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, sugar or
any starch other than corn starch, as
long as it meets the proposed 40–44%
GHG emission reduction threshold.
Thus, even if corn starch-derived
ethanol were made so that it met the
proposed 40–44% GHG reduction
threshold, it would still be excluded
from being defined as an advanced
biofuel. Such ethanol, while not an
advanced biofuel, would still qualify as
a renewable fuel for purposes of meeting
the standards.
‘‘Advanced biofuel’’ also may be
biomass-based diesel, biogas (including
landfill gas and sewage waste treatment
gas), butanol or other alcohols produced
through conversion of organic matter
from renewable biomass, and other fuels
derived from cellulosic biomass, as long
as it is derived from renewable biomass
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
and meets the proposed 40–44% GHG
emission reduction threshold.
c. Cellulosic Biofuel
Cellulosic biofuel is renewable fuel,
not necessarily ethanol, derived from
any cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin
each of which must originate from
renewable biomass. It must also achieve
a lifecycle GHG emission reduction of at
least 60%, compared to the gasoline or
diesel fuel it displaces. Cellulosic
biofuel is assigned a D code of 1 as
shown in Table III.A–1. Cellulosic
biofuel in general also qualifies as both
‘‘advanced biofuel’’ and ‘‘renewable
fuel’’.
The proposed definition of cellulosic
biofuel for RFS2 is broader in some
respects than the RFS1 definition of
‘‘cellulosic biomass ethanol’’. That
definition included only ethanol,
whereas the RFS2 definition of
cellulosic biofuels includes any
biomass-to-liquid fuel in addition to
ethanol. The definition of ‘‘cellulosic
biofuel’’ in RFS2 differs from RFS1 in
another significant way. The RFS1
definition provided that ethanol made at
any facility—regardless of whether
cellulosic feedstock is used or not—may
be defined as cellulosic if at such
facility ‘‘animal wastes or other waste
materials are digested or otherwise used
to displace 90% or more of the fossil
fuel normally used in the production of
ethanol.’’ This provision was not
included in EISA, and therefore does
not appear in the definitions pertaining
to cellulosic biofuel in today’s proposed
rule.
d. Biomass-Based Diesel
Under today’s proposed rule
‘‘Biomass-based diesel’’ includes both
biodiesel (mono-alkyl esters) and nonester renewable diesel (including
cellulosic diesel). The definition is the
same very broad definition of
‘‘biodiesel’’ that was in EPAct and in
RFS1, with three exceptions. First, EISA
requires that such fuel be made from
renewable biomass. Second, its lifecycle
GHG emissions must be at least 50%
less than the gasoline or diesel fuel it
displaces. Third, the statutory definition
of ‘‘Biomass-based diesel’’ excludes
renewable fuel derived from coprocessing biomass with a petroleum
feedstock. In drafting the proposed
definition, we considered two options
for how co-processing could be treated.
The first option would consider coprocessing to occur only if both
petroleum and biomass feedstock are
processed in the same unit
simultaneously. The second option
would consider co-processing to occur if
renewable biomass and petroleum
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24923
feedstock are processed in the same unit
at any time; i.e., either simultaneously
or sequentially. Under the second
option, if petroleum feedstock was
processed in the unit, then no fuel
produced from such unit, even from a
biomass feedstock, would be deemed to
be biomass-based diesel.
We are proposing the first option to be
used in the definition in today’s rule.
Under this approach, a batch of fuel
qualifying for the D code of 2 that is
produced in a processing unit in which
only renewable biomass is the feedstock
for such batch, would meet the
definition of ‘‘Biomass-Based Diesel.
Thus, serial batch processing in which
100% vegetable oil is processed one
day/week/month and 100% petroleum
the next day/week/month could occur
without the activity being considered
‘‘co-processing.’’ The resulting products
could be blended together, but only the
volume produced from vegetable oil
would count as biomass-based diesel.
We believe this is the most
straightforward approach and an
appropriate one, given that it would
allow RINs to be generated for volumes
of fuel meeting the 50% GHG reduction
threshold that is derived from
renewable biomass, while not providing
any credit for fuel derived from
petroleum sources. In addition, this
approach avoids the need for potentially
complex provisions addressing how fuel
should be treated when existing or even
mothballed petroleum hydrotreating
equipment is retrofitted and placed into
new service for renewable fuel
production or vice versa.
Under today’s proposal, any fuel that
does not satisfy the definition of
biomass-based diesel only because it is
co-processed with petroleum would still
meet the definition of ‘‘Advanced
Biofuel’’ provided it meets the 50%
GHG threshold and other criteria for the
D code of 3. Similarly it would meet the
definition of renewable fuel if it meets
a GHG emission reduction threshold of
20%. In neither case, however, would it
meet the definition of biomass-based
diesel.
This restriction is only really an issue
for renewable diesel and biodiesel
produced via the fatty acid methyl ester
(FAME) process. For other forms of
biodiesel, it is never made through any
sort of co-processing with petroleum.6
6 The production of biodiesel (mono alkyl esters)
does require the addition of methanol which is
usually derived from natural gas, but which
contributes a very small amount to the resulting
product. We do not believe that this was intended
by the statute’s reference to ‘‘co-processing’’ which
we believe was intended to address only renewable
fats or oils co-processed with petroleum in a
hydrotreater to produce renewable diesel.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24924
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Producers of renewable diesel must
therefore specify whether or not they
use ‘‘co-processing’’ to produce the fuel
in order to determine the correct D code
for the RIN.
e. Additional Renewable Fuel
The statutory definition of ‘‘additional
renewable fuel’’ specifies fuel produced
from renewable biomass that is used to
replace or reduce fossil fuels used in
home heating oil or jet fuel. EISA
indicates that EPA may allow for the
generation of credits for such additional
renewable fuel that will be valid for
compliance purposes. Under the RFS
program, RINs operate in the role of
credits, and RINs are generated when
renewable fuel is produced rather than
when it is blended. In most cases,
however, renewable fuel producers do
not know at the time of fuel production
(and RIN generation) how their fuel will
ultimately be used.
Under RFS1, only RINs assigned to
renewable fuel that was blended into
motor vehicle fuel are valid for
compliance purposes. As a result, we
created special provisions requiring that
RINs be retired if they were assigned to
renewable fuel that was ultimately
blended into nonroad fuel. The new
EISA provisions regarding additional
renewable fuel make the RFS1
requirement for retiring RINs
unnecessary if renewable fuel is
blended into heating oil or jet fuel. As
a result, we propose modifying the
regulatory requirements to allow RINs
assigned to renewable fuel blended into
heating oil or jet fuel to continue to be
valid for compliance purposes.
2. Lifecycle GHG Thresholds
As part of the new definitions that
EISA creates for cellulosic biofuel,
biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel,
and renewable fuel, EISA also sets
minimum performance measures or
‘‘thresholds’’ for lifecycle GHG
emissions. These thresholds represent
the percent reduction in lifecycle GHGs
that is estimated to occur when a
renewable fuel displaces gasoline or
diesel fuel. Table III.B.2–1 lists the
thresholds required by EISA.
TABLE III.B.2–1—REQUIRED
LIFECYCLE GHG THRESHOLDS
[Percent reduction from a 2005 gasoline or
diesel baseline]
Renewable fuel .................................
Advanced biofuel ..............................
Biomass-based diesel ......................
Cellulosic biofuel ...............................
There are also special provisions for
each of these thresholds:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
20
50
50
60
Renewable fuel: The 20% threshold
only applies to renewable fuel from new
facilities that commenced construction
after December 19, 2007, with an
additional exemption from the 20%
threshold for ethanol plants that
commenced construction in 2008 or
2009 and are fired with natural gas,
biomass, or any combination thereof.
Facilities not subject to the 20%
threshold would be ‘‘grandfathered.’’
See Section III.B.3 below for a complete
discussion of grandfathering. Also, EPA
can adjust the 20% threshold to as low
as 10%, but the adjustment must be the
minimum possible, and the resulting
threshold must be established at the
maximum achievable level based on
natural gas fired corn-based ethanol
plants.
Advanced biofuel and biomass-based
diesel: The 50% threshold can be
adjusted to as low as 40%, but the
adjustment must be the minimum
possible and result in the maximum
achievable threshold taking cost into
consideration. Also, such adjustments
could be made only if it was determined
that the 50% threshold was not
commercially feasible for fuels made
using a variety of feedstocks,
technologies, and processes. As
described more fully in Section VI.D, we
are proposing that the GHG threshold
for advanced biofuels be adjusted to
44% or potentially as low as 40%
depending on the results from the
analyses that will be conducted for the
final rule.
Cellulosic biofuel: Similarly to
advanced biofuel and biomass-based
diesel, the 60% threshold applicable to
cellulosic biofuel can be adjusted to as
low as 50%, but the adjustment must be
the minimum possible and result in the
maximum achievable threshold taking
cost into consideration. Also, such
adjustments could be made only if it
was determined that the 60% threshold
was not commercially feasible for fuels
made using a variety of feedstocks,
technologies, and processes.
Our analyses of lifecycle GHG
emissions, discussed in detail in Section
VI, included all GHGs related to the full
fuel cycle, including all stages of fuel
and feedstock production and
distribution, from feedstock generation
and extraction through distribution,
delivery, and use of the finished fuel.
They included direct emissions and any
significant indirect emissions such as
significant emissions from land use
changes. These lifecycle analyses were
used to determine whether the
thresholds shown in Table III.B.2–1
should be adjusted downwards and
which specific combinations of
feedstock, fuel type, and production
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
process met those thresholds under the
assumption of a 100-year timeframe and
2% discount rate for GHG emission
impacts.
We are not proposing to adjust any of
these thresholds. However, we may
adjust the GHG threshold for biomassbased diesel and/or advanced biofuel
downward for the final rule based on
additional lifecycle GHG analyses and
further assessments of the market
potential for volumes that can meet the
requirements for these categories of
renewable fuel. As explained in more
detail in Section VI.D, ethanol produced
from sugarcane sugar has been
estimated to have a lifecycle GHG
performance of 44% (under the
assumption of a 100 year timeframe and
2% discount rate), short of the 50%
threshold specified in EISA. Ethanol
from sugarcane is one of the few
currently commercial pathways that
have the potential to meet the
requirements for advanced biofuel in
the near term (in addition to cellulosic
biofuel and biomass-based diesel which
are a subset of advanced biofuel, and
any other new fuels that may arise), and
the only such pathway that was
subjected to lifecycle analysis to date. If
ethanol from sugarcane does not qualify
as advanced biofuel, it is likely that it
would not be commercially feasible for
the advanced biofuel volume
requirements to be met in the near term.
We request comment on whether it
would be necessary to adjust the GHG
threshold for advanced biofuel. For
similar reasons, as discussed in more
detail in Section VI.D, we are also
seeking comment on the need to adjust
the GHG threshold for biomass-based
diesel.
3. Renewable Fuel Exempt From 20
Percent GHG Threshold
EISA amends section 211(o) of the
Clean Air Act to provide that renewable
fuel produced from new facilities which
commenced construction after
December 19, 2007 must achieve at least
a 20% reduction in lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions compared to baseline
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.7
Facilities that commenced construction
before December 19, 2007 are
‘‘grandfathered’’ and thereby exempt
from the 20% GHG reduction
requirement.
7 Section 211(o)(2)(A)(i) of the Clean Air Act as
amended by EISA. Note that this is not a
prohibition—facilities that make ethanol can
continue to do so. It is a minimum requirement for
facilities to generate RINs under today’s proposed
rule; failure to meet such requirements means that
the ethanol produced from such facilities cannot
generate RINs.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
For facilities that produce ethanol and
for which construction commenced after
December 19, 2007, section 210 of EISA
states that ‘‘for calendar years 2008 and
2009, any ethanol plant that is fired
with natural gas, biomass, or any
combination thereof is deemed to be in
compliance with the 20% threshold.’’
We refer to these facilities as ‘‘deemed
compliant.’’ This provision does not
specify whether such facilities are
deemed to be in compliance only for the
period of 2008 and 2009, or indefinitely.
Nor does EISA specify a date by which
such qualifying facilities must have
started operation. Although the Act is
unclear as to whether their special
treatment is only for 2008/2009, or for
a longer time period, we believe that it
would be a harsh result for investors in
these new facilities, and generally
inconsistent with the energy
independence goals of EISA, for these
new facilities to only be guaranteed two
years of participation in the RFS2
program. We propose that the statute be
interpreted to mean that fuel from such
qualifying facilities, regardless of date of
startup of operations, would be exempt
from the 20% GHG threshold
requirement for the same time period as
facilities that commence construction
prior to December 19, 2007, provided
that such plants commence construction
prior to December 31, 2009, complete
such construction in a reasonable
amount of time, and continue to burn
only natural gas, biomass, or a
combination thereof. Therefore, we
believe that they should be treated like
grandfathered facilities. We seek
comment, however, on the alternative in
which after 2009, such plants must meet
the 20% threshold in order to generate
RINs for renewable fuel produced.
Based on our survey of ethanol plants
in operation, as well as those not yet in
operation but which commenced
construction prior to December 19,
2007, it is likely that production
capacity of ethanol from all such
facilities will reach 15 billion gallons.
(See Section 1.5.1.4 of the DRIA.) This
volume of ethanol will be excluded
from having to meet the 20% GHG
threshold by the grandfathering and
deemed compliant provisions of EISA.8
For ease of reference, we will refer to
both these provisions as the ‘‘exemption
provisions’’ of EISA.
EISA does not define the term ‘‘new
facility’’ and, as mentioned above, does
8 The grandfathering and deemed compliant
provisions in EISA sections 202 and 210 do not
apply to the advanced biofuels, biomass-based
diesel or cellulosic biofuel standards for which the
Act requires a 50 or 60% GHG reduction threshold
to be met regardless of when the facilities
producing such fuels are constructed.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
not clarify whether ‘‘deemed
compliant’’ facilities have that status for
only 2008 and 2009, or for a longer time
period. EPA seeks, in interpreting these
terms, to avoid long-term backsliding
with respect to environmental
performance and to also provide a level
playing field for future investments.
Thus, we want to avoid incentives that
would allow overall GHG performance
to worsen via expansion at older plants
with poorer GHG performance or by
modifications such as switches to more
polluting process heat sources, such as
coal. At the same time, we also want to
offer protection for historical business
investments that were made prior to
enactment of EISA, and we want future
significant investments to meet the GHG
reduction standards of the Act. Finally
we want to avoid excessive case-by-case
decision making where possible, and
seek instead a rule that offers ease of
implementation while providing
certainty to EPA and the regulated
industry.
We are proposing one basic approach
to the exemption provisions and seeking
comment on five additional options. In
fashioning the basic proposal and
alternative options for exempted
facilities, we considered aspects of
exemption approaches elsewhere in the
CAA and EPA regulations to evaluate
whether they would foster the abovedescribed objectives. We are only
looking to these other provisions for
guidance and are not bound to follow
any already-established approach for a
different statutory provision (especially
as those other provisions may contain
definitions that Congress did not
incorporate here).
a. Definition of Commence Construction
In defining ‘‘commence’’ and
‘‘construction’’, we wanted a clear
designation that would be broad enough
to avoid facility-specific issues, but
narrow enough to prevent new facilities
(i.e., post-December 19, 2007) from
being grandfathered. We believe that the
definitions of ‘‘commence’’ and ‘‘Begin
actual construction’’ in the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
regulations, which draws upon
definitions in the Clean Air Act, served
this purpose. (40 CFR 52.21(b)(9) and
(11)). Specifically, under the PSD
regulations, ‘‘commence’’ means that
the owner or operator has all necessary
preconstruction approvals or permits
and either has begun a continuous
program of actual on-site construction to
be completed in a reasonable time, or
entered into binding agreements which
cannot be cancelled or modified without
substantial loss.’’ Such activities
include, but are not limited to,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24925
‘‘installation of building supports and
foundations, laying underground pipe
work and construction of permanent
storage structures.’’ We have added
language to the definition that is
currently not in the PSD definition with
respect to multi-phased projects. We are
proposing that for multi-phased
projects, commencement of construction
of one phase does not constitute
commencement of construction of any
later phase, unless each phase is
‘‘mutually dependent’’ on the other on
a physical and chemical basis, rather
than economic.
The PSD regulations provide
additional conditions beyond what
constitutes commencement.
Specifically, the regulations require that
the owner or operator ‘‘did not
discontinue construction for a period of
18 months or more and completed
construction within a reasonable time.’’
(40 CFR 52.21(i)(4)(ii)(c). While
‘‘reasonable time’’ may vary depending
on the type of project, we believe that
with respect to renewable fuel facilities,
a reasonable time to complete
construction is no greater than 3 years
from initial commencement of
construction. We seek comment on the
use of these definitions.
b. Definition and Boundaries of a
Facility
We propose that the grandfathering
and deemed compliant exemptions
apply to ‘‘facilities.’’ Our proposed
definition of this term is similar in some
respects to the definition of ‘‘building,
structure, facility, or installation’’
contained in the PSD regulations in 40
CFR 52.21. We have modified the
definition, however, to focus on the
typical renewable fuel plant. We
therefore propose to describe the
exempt ‘‘facilities’’ as including all of
the activities and equipment associated
with the manufacture of renewable fuel
which are located on one property and
under the control of the same person or
persons.
c. Options Proposed in Today’s
Rulemaking
We are proposing one basic approach
to the grandfathering provisions and
seeking comment on five additional
options. The basic approach would
provide an indefinite extension of
grandfathering and deemed compliant
status but with a limitation of the
exemption from the 20% GHG threshold
to a baseline volume of renewable fuel.
The five additional options for which
we seek comment are: (1) Expiration of
exemption for grandfathered and
‘‘deemed compliant’’ status when
facilities undergo sufficient changes to
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24926
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
be considered ‘‘reconstructed’’; (2)
Expiration of exemption 15 years after
EISA enactment, industry-wide; (3)
Expiration of exemption 15 years after
EISA enactment with limitation of
exemption to baseline volume; (4)
‘‘Significant’’ production components
are treated as facilities and
grandfathered or deemed compliant
status ends when they are replaced; and
(5) Indefinite exemption and no
limitations placed on baseline volumes.
i. Basic Approach: Grandfathering
Limited to Baseline Volumes
We are proposing and seeking
comments on an option which generally
limits the volume of any renewable fuel
for which a grandfathered and deemed
compliant facility can generate RINs
without complying with the 20% GHG
reduction threshold to the capacity
volume specified in a state or Federal
air permit or the greater of nameplate
capacity or actual production. This
approach is similar to how we have
treated small refiner flexibilities under
our other fuel rules. As a sub-option to
this approach, we also seek comment on
a provision whereby facilities would
lose their status if they switch to a
process fuel or feedstock which results
in an increase of GHG emissions.
(1) Increases in Volume of Renewable
Fuel Produced at Grandfathered
Facilities due to Expansion
For facilities that commenced
construction prior to December 19,
2007, we are proposing to define the
baseline volume of renewable fuel
exempt from the 20% GHG threshold
requirement to be the maximum
volumetric capacity of the facility as
allowed in any applicable state air
permit or Federal Title V operating
permit. If the capacity of a facility is not
stipulated in such air permits, then the
grandfathered volume is the greater of
the nameplate capacity of the facility or
historical annual peak production prior
to enactment of EISA. Volumes greater
than this amount which may typically
be due to expansions of the facility
which occur after December 19, 2007,
would be subject to the 20% GHG
reduction requirement in order for the
facility to generate RINs for the
incremental expanded volume. The
increased volume would be considered
as if produced from a ‘‘new facility’’
which commenced construction after
December 19, 2007. Changes that might
occur to the mix of renewable fuels
produced within the facility would
remain grandfathered as long as the
overall volume fell within the baseline
volume.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
The baseline volume would be
defined as above for deemed compliant
facilities with the exception that if the
maximum capacity is not stipulated in
air permits, then the exempt volume
would be the maximum annual peak
production during the plant’s first three
years of operation. In addition, any
production volume increase that is
attributable to construction which
commenced prior to December 31, 2009
would be exempt from the 20% GHG
threshold, provided that the facility
continued to use natural gas, biomass or
a combination thereof for process
energy. Because deemed compliant
facilities owe their status to the fact that
they use natural gas, biomass or a
combination thereof for process heat, we
propose that their status would be lost,
and they would be subject to the 20%
GHG threshold requirement, at any time
that they change to a process energy
source other than natural gas and/or
biomass. Finally, because EISA limits
deemed compliant facilities to ethanol
facilities, we propose that if there are
any changes in the mix of renewable
fuels produced by the facility that only
the ethanol volume remain
grandfathered. We solicit comment,
however, on whether the statute could
be read to allow deemed compliant
facilities to be treated the same as
grandfathered facilities by allowing a
mix of renewable fuels.
Volume limitations contained in air
permits may be defined in terms of peak
hourly production rates or a maximum
annual capacity. If they are defined only
as maximum hourly production rates,
they would need to be converted to an
annual rate. We believe that assuming
24-hour per day production over 365
days per year (8,760 production hours)
may overstate nameplate capacity. In
other regulations that pertain to refinery
operations, we have assumed a
conversion rate of 90% of the total
hours in a year (7884 production hours).
We seek comment on what would be an
appropriate conversion rate for
renewable fuel facilities.
The facility registration process (see
Section III.C) would be used to define
the baseline volume for individual
facilities. Owners and operators would
submit information substantiating the
nameplate capacity of the plant, as well
as historical annual peak capacity if
such is greater than nameplate capacity.
Subsequent expansions at a
grandfathered that result in an increase
in volume would subject the increase in
volume to the 20% GHG emission
reduction threshold (but not the original
baseline volume). Thus, any new
expansions would need to be designed
to achieve the 20% GHG reduction
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
threshold if the facility wants to
generate RINs for that volume. Such
determinations would be made on the
basis of EPA-defined corn ethanol fuel
pathway categories that are deemed to
represent such 20% reduction. As an
alternative approach to the greater of
nameplate capacity or historical annual
peak capacity, we seek comment on an
approach in which the baseline volume
is the actual volume of renewable fuel
produced during the 2006 calendar year,
where adequate data is available. Since
there has been a particularly high
demand for ethanol in recent years, the
use of 2006 data may be a fair
representation of the real production
capacity for most plants. For plants that
have not operated for an adequate shake
down period, the information in the
state or Federal air permit could be used
and if this is not available, the
nameplate capacity could be used. As
mentioned above, deemed compliant
facilities would be exempt from the
20% GHG threshold for baseline
volumes and any additional volumes
regarding which construction
commenced prior to December 31, 2009.
We recognize, however, that some
debottlenecking type changes may cause
increases in volume that are within a
plant’s inherent capacity. To account for
this in past regulations (e.g., 40 CFR
80.552 and 554) we allowed for an
increase of 5% above the baseline
volume. Based on conversations with
builders of ethanol plants, however,
such plants have often been
debottlenecked to exceed nameplate
capacity by 20% and sometimes much
higher. We seek comment on whether
we should allow a 10% tolerance on the
baseline volume for which RINs can be
generated without complying with the
20% GHG reduction threshold. Once
that 10% increase in volume is
exceeded, the total increase above
baseline volume would then be subject
to the 20% GHG reduction requirement
in order to generate RINs. We also seek
comment on tolerance values in the 5 to
20% range.
Our guiding philosophy of protecting
historical business investments that
were made to comply with the
provisions of RFS1 is realized by
allowing production increases within a
plant’s inherent capacity. At the same
time, the alternative of requiring
compliance with the 20% GHG
reduction requirement for increases in
volume above 10% over the baseline
volume, would place new volumes from
grandfathered facilities on a level
playing field with product from new
grass roots facilities. We believe that a
level playing field for new investments
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
is fair and consistent with the
provisions of EISA.
(2) Replacements of Equipment
If production equipment such as
boilers, conveyors, hoppers, storage
tanks and other equipment are replaced,
it would not be considered construction
of a ‘‘new facility’’ under this option of
today’s proposal—the baseline volume
of fuel would continue to be exempt
from the 20% GHG threshold. We
discuss in a sub-option in III.B.3.c.i(4)
below in which if the replacement unit
uses a higher polluting fuel in terms of
GHG emissions such replacement would
render the facility a new facility, and it
would no longer be exempt from the
20% GHG threshold. We also solicit
comment on an approach that would
require that if coal-fired units are
replaced, that the replacement units
must be fired with natural gas or biofuel
for the product to be eligible for RINs
that do not satisfy the 20% GHG
threshold.
(3) Registration, Recordkeeping and
Reporting
Facility owner/operators would be
required to provide evidence and
certification of commencement of
construction. Owner/operators must
provide annual records of process fuels
used on a BTU basis, feedstocks used
and product volumes. For facilities that
are located outside the United States
(including outside the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands) owners would be required to
provide certification as well. Since the
definition of commencement of
construction includes having all
necessary air permits, we would require
that facilities outside the United States
to certify that such facilities have
obtained all necessary permits for
construction and operation required by
the appropriate national and local
environmental agencies.
(4) Sub-Option of Treatment of Future
Modifications
We seek comment on a sub-option to
the basic approach whereby facilities
would lose their grandfathered status if
they switch to a process fuel or
feedstock which results in an increase of
GHG emissions. Some facilities may
keep production volumes the same, but
change some or all of their feedstocks
and energy sources, thus causing a
facility’s product to fall further below
the GHG performance for the fuel
pathway it produced at the time of
enactment. We are therefore seeking
comment on an approach to limit the
initial grandfathering only for the fuel
pathways that applied during 2007,
when establishing the volume baseline.
Table III.B.3.c.i–1 below presents a
ranking of fuels and feedstock by fuel
pathway in order of life cycle GHG
24927
emissions (as discussed further in
Section VI.E). (Table III.B.3.c.i–1 is
based on the table of fuel pathways
contained in proposed regulations 40
CFR 80.1426.) Since the majority of
facilities under consideration in this
portion of the rulemaking consists of
ethanol plants, the table below is
limited to those types. Any changes to
a facility that shift it to a feedstock or
use of a process energy source that
results in higher GHG emissions on the
basis of the ranking categories in Table
III.B.3.c.i–1 below would terminate the
facility’s grandfathered status.
For example, an ethanol dry mill
plant using natural gas for process heat,
as well as combined heat and power
(CHP), is ranked as ‘‘2’’ in the table
below. If the plant (or any portion of the
plant) switches to coal, it is ranked as
‘‘4’’. The higher number indicates an
increase in GHG emissions. Therefore in
this example, the plant is considered to
have undertaken a modification that
increases GHG emissions, would render
the facility as ‘‘new’’ and its
grandfathered status would end.
Similarly, replacements of equipment
that worsen GHG emissions would also
terminate grandfathered status. (For
replacements of equipment that do not
change the fuel, nor result in an increase
in volume of renewable fuel, the
grandfathered status of the plant would
remain, as discussed in Section
III.B.3.c.i(2) above.)
TABLE III.B.3.c.I–1—GROUPS OF RENEWABLE FUEL FACILITIES BY FUEL FEEDSTOCK AND PROCESS ENERGY
Feedstock
Production process requirements
Starch from corn, wheat, barley, oats, rice, or sorghum ..............
Starch from corn, wheat, barley, oats, rice, or sorghum ..............
—Process heat derived from biomass ........................................
—Dry mill plant ............................................................................
—All process heat derived from natural gas.
—Combined heat and power (CHP).
—Fractionation of feedstocks.
—Dried distillers grains.
—Dry mill plant ............................................................................
—All process heat derived from natural gas.
—Wet distillers grains.
—Dry mill plant ............................................................................
—All or part of process heat derived from coal.
—Combined heat and power (CHP).
—Fractionation of feedstocks.
—Membrane separation of ethanol.
—Raw starch hydrolysis.
—Dried distillers grains.
—Dry mill plant ............................................................................
—All or part of process heat derived from coal.
—Combined heat and power (CHP).
—Fractionation of feedstocks.
—Membrane separation of ethanol.
—Wet distillers grains.
—Process heat derived from sugarcane bagasse ......................
—Process heat derived from natural gas ....................................
—Process heat derived from coal ...............................................
Starch from corn, wheat, barley, oats, rice, or sorghum ..............
Starch from corn, wheat, barley, oats, rice, or sorghum ..............
Starch from corn, wheat, barley, oats, rice, or sorghum ..............
Sugarcane sugar ...........................................................................
Sugarcane sugar ...........................................................................
Sugarcane sugar ...........................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
24928
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
We considered whether
improvements at a facility (i.e., a fuel
switch from coal to natural gas) that still
result in GHG performance less than
20% should be credited to allow the
facility to increase its baseline volume.
We decided not to propose such an
approach because it would take away an
incentive for new plants that achieve
greater than 20% GHG reduction to be
constructed. As such, this would go
against our guiding principle of
providing equal opportunities for future
investments in new plants.
We recognize that there may be
combinations of changes made at a
plant, some of which may worsen GHG
emissions and others which may cause
an improvement and that not all such
combinations can be taken into account
in a single table of fuel pathways. We
seek comment on ways to address such
combinations.
ii. Alternative Options for Which We
Seek Comment
(1) Facilities That Meet the Definition of
‘‘Reconstruction’’ Are Considered New
An alternative approach on which we
are seeking comment would consider
whether a facility is effectively a ‘‘new’’
facility with respect to the costs
incurred in maintaining the plant over
time. Starting in 2010, we would require
facility owners to report annually
(specifically by January 31) to EPA the
expenses for replacements, additions,
and repairs undertaken at facilities since
start up of the facility through the year
prior to reporting. The Agency would
then determine whether the degree of
such activities warrants considering the
facility as effectively ‘‘new’’. That
substantial rebuilding or modernization
may render an existing facility a new
facility for regulatory purposes finds
analogies in other Clean Air Act
regulatory programs. For example,
under the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) equipment that has
been ‘‘reconstructed’’ as defined in 40
CFR 60.15 is considered new.
Specifically, ‘‘reconstruction’’ is defined
in 40 CFR 60.15 as ‘‘the replacement of
components of an existing facility to
such an extent that the fixed capital cost
of the new components exceeds 50% of
the fixed capital cost that would be
required to construct a comparable
entirely new facility. In addition to the
NSPS program, regulations such as the
recently promulgated standards for
locomotive and marine engines (73 FR
25160; May 6, 2008) use a more
encompassing concept of reconstruction
and consider a vessel to be new if it is
modified such that the value of the
modifications exceeds 50% of the value
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
of the modified vessel. We are seeking
comment on an approach wherein upon
the Agency’s determination that costs of
replacements, repairs and upgrades
conducted since the start-up of the
facility meet the test of ‘‘reconstruction’’
(i.e., the costs equal or exceed 50% of
what it would cost to rebuild), that the
facility would be considered effectively
new, and would be subject to the 20%
GHG reduction requirements.
The application of the definition of
reconstruction in the NSPS program
occurs on an equipment-wide rather
than on a plant-wide basis. Under this
option, we would apply the concept of
a ‘‘new’’ facility on a plant-wide basis
similar to the approach we have taken
in the recently promulgated locomotive
and marine standards. We believe that
a plant-wide approach is appropriate
under RFS2 because it is not the
emissions from individual pieces of
equipment that are being regulated.
Rather, the 20% GHG reduction
standard applies to the renewable fuel
produced by the facility, and it is logical
to consider all of the equipment and
structures at the facility involved in
producing the product in evaluating
when a grandfathered facility has been
reconstructed. For these reasons, we
believe that it would be reasonable to
apply the definition of ‘‘new’’ on a
plant-wide basis. Also, since upgrades,
replacements and repairs will occur on
an ongoing basis we would consider
rebuilding or reconstruction to occur
over time as the accumulation of all
individual upgrades, replacements and
repairs.
The NSPS definition also requires that
it be ‘‘technologically and economically
feasible for the reconstructed facility to
meet applicable standards that apply to
new facilities.’’ We do not think that
EISA requires this additional
consideration, and also do not believe
that there is any compelling public
policy justification for allowing a
reconstructed facility to continue to
make renewable fuel that does not meet
the 20% GHG reduction standard based
upon a claim that it is technologically
or economically infeasible. EPA’s
experience in the New Source Review
(NSR) program has demonstrated that it
is extremely difficult to clearly define
what the terms ‘‘technologically and
economically feasible’’ mean. Aside
from such definitional difficulties,
however, and as discussed in Section
III.B.3.c.ii(2) below, we believe that it is
technologically feasible to meet the 20%
GHG reduction and with proper
planning would be economically so, as
well. Therefore, this alternative option
would not require such a showing.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Our assessment of whether a facility
has been reconstructed would be based
on application of an appropriate cost
model such as U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s cost estimation model for
construction of new ethanol plants
described by Kwiatkowski, J. et al.
(2006) 9. Costs associated with the costs
of repair and replacement of all parts
(including the labor associated with
replacement and repair), would be
included in such calculation, regardless
of the parts’ intended useful life. We
seek comment on whether to also
include costs associated with employee
labor related to routine maintenance,
and also whether the costs of repairs
and replacements at the facility should
be limited only to the property directly
related to the production of biofuels.10
Under this alternative option, the
volume of renewable fuel that qualifies
for an exemption from the 20% GHG
threshold would remain fixed at the
baseline volume as in the basic option
described in III.B.3(c)(i). However, we
also seek comment on whether the
volume of renewable fuel at a
grandfathered facility should be allowed
to increase above baseline volumes
under this option. Specifically,
increases in volume could be exempt
until such time as the entire plant is
deemed to have been reconstructed. In
making such assessment and applying
the 50% test, the basis for the cost of a
‘‘comparable entirely new facility’’
would be a facility with the original
baseline volume. For example, if an
existing plant has a 100 million gallon
per year capacity and expands its
volume to 120 million gallons per year,
reconstruction would occur if the costs
incurred over time equal or exceed 50%
of the cost of a comparable 100 million
gallon per year facility.
Under this alternative option, owner/
operators or other responsible parties
would be required to provide records of
costs incurred for additions,
replacements, and repairs that have
9 Kwiatkowski, J.R., McAloon, A., Taylor, F.
Johnson, D. 2006. ‘‘Modeling the process and costs
of fuel ethanol production by the corn dry-grind
process.’’ Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006)
288–296.
10 We note that under NSPS the costs considered
in determining whether the definition of
reconstruction has been met are restricted to the
capital costs of equipment and materials. The RFS2
program is authorized from EISA which does not
rely on the definitions of ‘‘modification’’ and
‘‘routine maintenance and repair’’ that are in NSPS
and other new source programs (e.g., New Source
Review, National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Pollutants). Since our application of the term
‘‘reconstruction’’ assumes that over time, renewable
fuel facilities may become substantially rebuilt it is
therefore appropriate to consider not only
equipment replacements but some of the labor costs
associated with such replacements.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
occurred since start-up. Such records
would be provided on an annual basis
to EPA by May 31, and would include
cumulative cost information up to the
prior year.
We recognize that implementation of
a facility-wide definition of
‘‘reconstruction’’ would be complex.
Records of costs since start-up may not
be available for older facilities. Also,
this alternative option requires EPA
enforcement staff to have sufficient
financial knowledge and experience to
be able to evaluate the veracity of claims
regarding various types of expenditures.
Calculating the costs of repairs and
replacements also poses challenges.
Specifically, as discussed above, we
seek comment on whether the costs of
routine maintenance and repair should
be included in such assessments. Were
such costs to be included, the
determination of whether a replacement
or a repair is routine may not always be
straightforward. In addition to the
recordkeeping and implementation
issues, however, there is an important
policy consideration that is also
significant. As in the case of the NSR
program, where many industry
representatives have argued that the
program has a chilling effect on projects
that could provide environmental
benefits, the reconstruction approach in
this alternative option could also
provide a disincentive to
implementation of safety and
environmental projects. Thus, this
option could have the unintended
consequence of causing facilities to
refrain from investing in projects that
will increase safety and efficiency and
reduce emissions in order to avoid
triggering the 50% cost threshold. We
seek comment on this issue.
(2) Expiration Date of 15 Years for
Exempted Facilities
The above discussion highlights
potential complexities in implementing
the option of considering reconstruction
of exempted facilities on a case-by-case
basis. These include potential disputes
over how to calculate costs, as well as
verifying records of expenditures. In
addition, that option has as a potential
unintended consequence, a disincentive
for investment in projects that could
improve safety, efficiency and
environmental performance. As an
alternative to the case-by case approach
described above, this option offers a
practical way of implementing the
reconstruction concept by establishing
an expiration date for all grandfathered
and deemed compliant facilities after a
period of 15 years from enactment of
EISA (i.e., after December 31, 2022),
regardless of when such facilities
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
commenced construction or began
operation. Under such option, the
grandfathered and deemed compliant
facilities would be subject to the 20%
GHG threshold starting on January 1,
2023. Renewable fuel produced from
these facilities after this date would be
required to comply with the 20%
threshold requirement in order to
generate RINs.
Based on our discussions with
companies that construct ethanol plants,
we believe that facility owners will
make decisions about equipment
replacements and technology upgrades
that will continue to improve the overall
operating costs and energy efficiency of
the plant which ultimately lead to
improvements in GHG emission
performance as well. In particular,
energy-intensive processes in the plant
are likely to be replaced or upgraded to
increase fuel and operating efficiency,
thus reducing operating costs of the
plant, and increasing output. Nilles
(2006) reports that the first line of nextgeneration dry-grind ethanol plants was
built with mild steel components and
that in 10 or 15 years, those components
will need to be replaced entirely—most
likely with stainless steel. Of particular
importance is that durable materials as
well as weaker materials all require
maintenance and replacement. As such,
the components and equipment in
ethanol facilities are designed to be
easily replaced and to allow simple
maintenance.11
Using cost data contained in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s cost
estimation model for construction of
new ethanol plants described by
Kwiatkowski, J. et al (2006), we
calculated the cost of a replacement of
specific components in a hypothetical
100 million gallon ethanol facility.12 13
We assumed that all steel tanks are
replaced with stainless steel tanks, and
that specific combustion equipment is
replaced. Combining replacement costs
with maintenance, repairs, upgrades
and supply costs (at 2% of the capital
cost of the facility per year), we
calculated that over 15 years, the
accumulated costs range from 50% to
75% of the capital cost of an equivalent
facility.14
11 Nilles, D. 2006. ‘‘Time Testing’’; Ethanol
Producer Magazine, May, Vol. 12, No. 5.
12 Op Cit., Kwiatkowski, et al. (2006).
13 Note to Docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161),
‘‘Analysis of Costs of Replacements and Repairs at
a Hypothetical 100 MM GPY Ethanol Facility’’;
from Barry Garelick, Environmental Protection
Specialist, Assessment and Standards Division,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality; October
16, 2008.
14 The USDA model gives the installed capitol
cost of a 40 million GPY facility at approximately
$60 million (2006 dollars). The model also gives
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24929
As discussed in Section 1.5.1.3 of the
DRIA, per our conversations with
builders of ethanol plants, the changes
and upgrades would be made to
improve competitiveness which will
also improve operating and fuel
efficiency, thus tending to improve
overall GHG performance of the plant.
The high price of natural gas has many
ethanol plants considering alternative
fuel sources. Greater biofuel availability
and potential low life cycle green house
gas emissions incentives may further
encourage ethanol producers to switch
from fossil fuels for process heat to
biomass based fuels. In addition,
ethanol producers may consider energy
saving changes to the ethanol
production process. Several process
changes, including raw starch
hydrolysis, corn fractionation, corn oil
extraction, and membrane separation,
are likely to be adopted to varying
degrees. Since such changes would be
consistent with ultimately achieving the
20% GHG reduction required of new
facilities, we believe it is reasonable to
expect that the newly rebuilt facilities
could meet the 20% GHG reduction
threshold, based on the results of a life
cycle analysis.15
We solicit further information and
data, particularly evidence of the types
of replacements and ongoing
maintenance that has occurred at
existing plants and what is projected to
occur in the future. We will evaluate
such information along with other
comments received during the public
comment period. We also solicit
comment on whether a period other
than 15 years may be more appropriate.
Under this approach, facilities that are
exempted could expand their volume of
renewable fuel production, or could
switch fuels or feedstocks within the 15
year exemption period without fear of
losing their temporary exemption.
While some of these activities have the
potential to worsen GHG emissions
further below the 20% threshold
requirement, we believe that the
imposition of an expiration date will
result in modifications to facilities that
tend to increase the efficiency and GHG
performance of the plant rather than
worsen them. The need for compliance
with the 20% threshold requirement by
a date certain would provide an
incentive for owners and operators of
replacement costs of individual components (steel
tanks and the ring dryer) at about $13 million.
Ongoing maintenance costs are estimated at about
$6 million per year.
15 Unless and until EPA conducts facility specific
life cycle analyses, however, compliance with the
20% GHG reduction threshold would be made on
the basis of fuel pathways as described in Section
III.D.2.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24930
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
such plants to ensure the changes they
make over time would bring them into
compliance with the 20% requirement
at the end of the 15 year period.
While the facilities built in 2008 and
2009 would be in operation for less than
15 years, the majority of ethanol plants
will have been in operation for 15 years
or longer. As discussed in Section V.B.1,
approximately 15 billion gallons of corn
ethanol production capacity is currently
online, idled or under construction.
While some of these plants/projects are
currently on hold due to the economy,
we anticipate that this corn ethanol
capacity will come online in the future
under the proposed RFS2 program. And
the majority of these plants commenced
construction prior to 2008. We solicit
comment, however, on whether there
should be a plant-specific expiration
date of 15 years after commencement of
operations for deemed compliant
facilities that commenced construction
in 2008 or 2009. Under this sub-option,
the expiration date for such plants
would be 15 years from the time the
facility began operation, per registration
made by the owner of the facility.
The option of limiting the exemption
period to 15 years or other specific time
period offers certainty to industry for a
15 year period, and also certainty that
at the end of that time period they will
be subject to the 20% GHG reduction
threshold. This time period could be
used by facility owners to ensure the
facility will ultimately meet the
requirement. Finally, the option ensures
that investments made in equipment to
comply with RFS1 requirements are
protected with respect to being fully
depreciated for tax purposes.16
Furthermore, this approach is easy to
implement, and avoids case-by-case
determinations that can extremely be
time-consuming, contentious, and costly
for both industry and EPA. In addition,
because the exemption expiration date
would apply to all facilities, this option
would provide no incentive to delay
modifications that increase energy
efficiency, safety, or improve
environmental performance unlike the
option described above involving caseby-case consideration of reconstruction.
16 Specifically, Table B–2 of IRS Publication 946,
‘‘How To Depreciate Property’’ provides class lives
and recovery periods for use in computing
depreciation for asset classes categorized by SIC
codes. Ethanol facilities (which are in SIC 28,
Manufacture of Chemical and Allied Products) is
given a class life of 10 years. For facilities that
qualify for Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery
System (MACRS), the period is 7 years.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
(3) Expiration Date of 15 Years for
Grandfathered Facilities and Limitation
on Volume
We also seek comment on a hybrid
approach in which an expiration date of
15 years is established for grandfathered
and deemed compliant facilities, but
prior to then, the facilities’ exemption
from the 20% GHG threshold would be
limited to their baseline volumes, as in
the option described in Section III.B.3.c.
(4) ‘‘Significant Production Units’’ Are
Defined as Facilities
We seek comment on an approach in
which ‘‘facility’’ would be defined on
the basis of ‘‘significant production
units’’. For example, the regulations
regarding air toxic emissions for the
miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing industry (which includes
ethanol manufacturing plants) under
NESHAPS (40 CFR 2440(c)) apply to
miscellaneous chemical process units
and heat exchangers within a single
facility. This option, therefore, would
follow a similar approach, and treat as
new facilities subject to the 20% GHG
reduction requirement any new
significant production units.
Defining ‘‘facility’’ as a significant
production unit would raise the
question of when an increase in volume
due to the addition of specific pieces of
equipment should be considered
augmenting current production lines as
opposed to being a new production line.
We solicit comment on this approach as
well as how the term ‘‘significant
production unit’’ would need to be
defined in the regulations to avoid
ambiguity. Any incidental increases in
volume due to the addition of pieces of
equipment that would not constitute a
new ‘‘significant production unit’’ line
would continue to be grandfathered, as
would increases in volume associated
with changes made to debottleneck the
facility.
(5) Indefinite Grandfathering and No
Limitations Placed on Volume
Under our basic option, described in
Section III.B.3.c.i, we would interpret
the statutory language to mean that
expansions of grandfathered facilities
after enactment of EISA and which
expand volume beyond a plant’s
inherent capacity are not among those
that qualify for an exemption from the
20% GHG reduction requirement.
Otherwise, a facility that qualifies for
grandfathering could be expanded by
any amount, and the additional volume
would also receive protection. We do
not believe that this was the intent of
the language in EISA. Nevertheless, we
recognize that there are alternative
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
interpretations of the statute and
therefore seek comment on an
alternative that places no limitations on
the volume of renewable fuel from
grandfathered or deemed compliant
facilities. Under such option, ‘‘new
facility’’ would be defined solely as a
new ‘‘greenfield’’ plant.
4. Renewable Biomass With Land
Restrictions
As explained in Section III.B.1.a,
EISA lists seven types of feedstock that
qualify as ‘‘renewable biomass’’:
1. Planted crops and crop residue.
2. Planted trees and tree residue.
3. Animal waste material and animal
byproducts.
4. Slash and pre-commercial
thinnings.
5. Biomass obtained from the vicinity
of buildings at risk from wildfire.
6. Algae.
7. Separated yard or food waste.
EISA limits not only the types of
feedstocks that can be used to make
renewable fuel, but also the land that
several of these renewable fuel
feedstocks may come from. Specifically,
EISA’s definition of renewable biomass
incorporates land restrictions for
planted crops and crop residue, planted
trees and tree residue, slash and precommercial thinnings, and biomass
from wildfire areas. EISA does not
prohibit the production of renewable
fuel feedstock that does not meet the
definition of renewable biomass, nor
does it prohibit the production of
renewable fuel from feedstock that does
not meet the definition of renewable
biomass. It does, however, prohibit the
generation of RINs for renewable fuel
made from feedstock that does not meet
the definition of renewable biomass,
which includes not meeting the
associated land restrictions. The
following sections discuss the
challenges of implementing the land
restrictions contained in the definition
of renewable biomass and propose
approaches for establishing a workable
implementation scheme.
a. Definitions of Terms
EISA’s descriptions of four feedstock
types noted above—planted crops and
crop residue, planted trees and tree
residue, slash and pre-commercial
thinnings, and biomass from wildfire
areas—contain terms that can be
interpreted in multiple ways. The
following sections discuss our proposed
interpretations for many of the terms
contained in EISA’s definition of
renewable biomass. In developing this
proposal, we consulted many sources,
including the USDA, as well as
stakeholder groups, in order to
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
determine the range of possible
interpretations for these different terms.
We have made every attempt to define
these terms as consistently with USDA
and industry standards as possible,
while keeping them workable for
purposes of program implementation.
We seek comment on our proposed
definitions of important terms in the
following sections.
i. Planted Crops and Crop Residue
The first type of renewable biomass
described in EISA is planted crops and
crop residue harvested from agricultural
land cleared or cultivated at any time
prior to December 19, 2007, that is
either actively managed or fallow, and
nonforested. We propose to interpret the
term ‘‘planted crops’’ to include all
annual or perennial agricultural crops
that may be used as feedstock for
renewable fuel, such as grains, oilseeds,
and sugarcane, as well as energy crops,
such as switchgrass, prairie grass, and
other species, providing that they were
intentionally applied to the ground by
humans either by direct application as
seed or nursery stock, or through
intentional natural seeding by mature
plants left undisturbed for that purpose.
Many energy crops that could be used
for cellulosic biofuel production,
especially perennial cover plants, are
currently grown in the U.S. without
significant agronomic inputs such as
fertilizer, pesticides, or other chemical
treatment. These crops may be
introduced or indigenous to the area in
which they grow, and may have been
originally planted decades ago. We
propose to include this type of
vegetation as a planted crop with the
recognition that it may include some
plants that were intentionally naturally
generated, i.e., resulted from natural
seeding from existing plants, and not
planted through direct human
intervention. We believe that given the
increasing importance under RFS2 of
biofuels produced from cellulosic
feedstocks, such as switchgrass and
other grasses, such a definition is
appropriate. We note that because EISA
contains specific provisions for planted
trees and tree residue from tree
plantations, we propose that the
definition of planted crops in EISA
exclude planted trees, even if they may
be considered planted crops under some
circumstances.
We further propose that ‘‘crop
residue’’ be limited to the residue left
over from the harvesting of planted
crops, such as corn stover and sugarcane
bagasse. However, we seek comment on
an alternative interpretation that would
include as crop residue biomass from
agricultural land removed for purposes
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
of invasive species control or fire
management. In that context ‘‘crop
residue’’ would include any biomass
removed from agricultural land that
facilitates crop management, whether or
not the crop itself is part of the residue.
Our proposed regulations would
restrict planted crops and crop residue
to that harvested from existing
agricultural land. With respect to what
land would qualify as agricultural land,
we first turned to the mutually
exclusive categories of land defined by
USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) in its annual Natural
Resources Inventory (NRI), a statistical
survey designed to estimate natural
resource conditions and trends on nonfederal U.S. lands.17 The categories used
in the NRI are cropland, pastureland,
rangeland, forest land, Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) land, federal
land, developed land, and ‘‘other rural
land.’’ We have chosen to include in our
proposed definition of agricultural land
three of these land categories—
cropland, pastureland, and CRP land.
Using the NRI descriptions of these land
types as models, we developed
definitions for these land types for this
proposal.
We propose to define cropland as
land used for the production of crops for
harvest, including cultivated cropland
for row crops or close-grown crops and
non-cultivated cropland for
horticultural crops. Corn, wheat, barley,
and soybeans are renewable fuel
feedstocks that would be grown on
cropland. We propose to define
pastureland as land managed primarily
for the production of indigenous or
introduced forage plants for livestock
grazing or hay production, and to
prevent succession to other plant types.
Under this proposed definition, land
would qualify as pastureland if it is
maintained for grazing or hay
production and not allowed to develop
greater ecological diversity. Switchgrass
is one example of a renewable fuel
feedstock that could be grown on
pastureland.
We also propose that CRP land be
counted as ‘‘agricultural land’’ under
RFS2. The CRP is administered by
USDA’s Farm Service Agency and is
designed to promote restoration of
environmentally sensitive lands by
offering annual rental payments in
return for removing land from
cultivation over a period of several
years. To qualify for the CRP, land had
to have been used for agricultural
17 Natural Resource Conservation Service, USDA,
‘‘Natural Resources Inventory 2003 Annual NRI,’’
February 2007. Available at https://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2003/Landusemrb.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24931
production for at least three years prior
to entering the program. For this reason,
we believe it is appropriate to propose
that CRP land be included under the
rubric of agricultural land.
In addition, we seek comment on
whether rangeland should be included
as agricultural land under RFS2.
Rangeland is land on which the
indigenous or introduced vegetation is
predominantly grasses, grass-like plants,
forbs or shrubs and which—unlike
cropland or pastureland—is
predominantly managed as a natural
ecosystem. Given the relative lower
degree of management of such lands, it
is questionable whether any rangeland
should qualify as ‘‘actively managed’’
under EISA (a general discussion on our
proposed interpretation of the term
‘‘actively managed’’ is presented later in
this section). On the other hand, we
understand that there is frequently some
degree of management on such lands,
such as controlling invasive species,
managing grazing rates, fencing, etc.
Therefore, we believe that there may
be merit in allowing planted crops and
crop residue from rangeland to qualify
as renewable biomass under this
program. This would allow, for
example, existing switchgrass or native
grasses on rangeland to be used for
renewable fuel production that qualifies
for RIN generation under this program.
However, we are not proposing to
include rangeland as agricultural land
due to our own implementation
concerns as well as issues raised by
stakeholders over the potential for
providing any incentive for increased
crop production in rangeland areas. We
seek comment on the issue and on the
points raised in the following
discussion.
Allowing rangeland to qualify as
agricultural land under RFS2 would
make millions of acres of additional
non-cropland, non-forested land qualify
for renewable fuel feedstock production
in the U.S. This additional land could
be important to support future
expansion of dedicated energy crops,
such as switchgrass and tall prairie
grass, which currently grow or could
grow on such lands. The availability of
rangeland could alleviate some of the
competition on cropland and
pastureland for space to grow crops for
biofuel feedstocks, thereby allowing
continued growth of food crops on land
best suited for that specific purpose. It
would also provide rangeland owners
with the potential for increased
revenues from their lands by producing
feedstocks for renewable fuel, and
decrease the pressure for such lands to
be converted to cropland for food crop
production.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24932
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
However, we recognize that rangeland
is a term that can be used to describe a
wide variety of ecosystems, including
certain grasslands, savannas, wetlands,
deserts, and even tundra. These types of
ecosystems represent land that at best
could serve only marginally well for
producing renewable fuel feedstocks,
and at worst could suffer significantly if
intensive agricultural practices were
imposed upon them for purposes of
producing crops. We also recognize that
if we were to include rangeland as
agricultural land under RFS2, there is a
risk that some rangeland, including
native grasslands and shrublands, could
be converted to produce monoculture
crops. We raise these concerns for two
reasons. First, certain rangeland cannot
be used sustainably for agricultural crop
production, and any such short-term use
could seriously diminish the long-term
potential of these lands to be used for
less-intensive forage production or even
to return to their previous ecological
state. Second, conversion of relatively
undisturbed rangeland to the
production of annual crops could in
some cases result in large releases of
GHGs that have been stored in the soil.
EPA believes that Congress enacted the
renewable biomass definition in part to
minimize GHG releases from land
conversion, a goal that could be
undermined by conversion of rangeland
to intensive crop production under
RFS2. On the other hand, it may be
argued that while GHGs would be
emitted initially, planting dedicated
energy crops rather than food crops on
such land could yield more positive
than negative results over time. Such
could be the case if the alternative were
to grow energy crops on cropland,
consequently displacing food crops to
other lands, either in the U.S. or abroad.
This displacement could lead to overall
higher direct and indirect GHG
emissions. EPA solicits comment on the
potential GHG effects if rangeland were
included as eligible agricultural land
under RFS2. We are especially
interested in data that could help us to
quantify such impacts.
While enforcement of the overall
renewable biomass provisions under the
final RFS2 program is expected to be
challenging, it is possible that including
rangeland as qualifying agricultural land
under the RFS2 program would increase
enforcement complexity. As discussed
later in this section, in order to qualify
as renewable biomass under RFS2,
agricultural products must come from
agricultural land that was cleared or
cultivated at any time prior to
enactment of EISA, and either actively
managed or fallow, and nonforested. We
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
believe that evidence of past intensive
use and management of rangeland may
be considerably more rare, and
considerably less definitive, than for
other types of agricultural land. In
addition, given the continuous, open
nature of some rangeland, there would
likely be difficulty in identifying the
precise boundaries of a parcel of
qualifying rangeland. EPA seeks
comment on these issues.
We thus seek comment on whether or
not we should include rangeland in the
definition of ‘‘existing agricultural land’’
in the final RFS2 program, as well as
comment on whether or not the benefits
of including rangeland exceed the
disadvantages. We also seek comment
on how best to define rangeland, and
whether we can define rangeland in a
meaningful way such that sensitive
ecosystems that may generally be
described as rangeland can be protected
from cultivation for renewable fuel
feedstock production.
Furthermore, EPA solicits comment
on an alternative option that would
include rangeland as agricultural land,
but that would interpret the EISA
‘‘actively managed’’ criterion in the
renewable biomass definition (again,
discussed later in this section) to limit
the types of planted crops or crop
residues from specific parcels of land
that can qualify as renewable biomass
by reference to the type of management
(cropland, pastureland, or rangeland)
being practiced on the date EISA was
enacted. For example, if at some point
in the future corn or other row crops are
grown on land that was pastureland or
rangeland when EISA was enacted, such
row crops would not qualify as
renewable biomass under RFS2. This
approach could thus reduce the
incentives for pastureland and
rangeland owners to convert their land
to cropland. We believe that this
approach could have less environmental
harm than allowing unrestricted use of
qualifying rangeland for the production
of crops for renewable fuel production.
While our proposed implementation
approach and alternatives are presented
later in this section, it is important to
note here that the principal drawback to
this alternative option involves its
implementation and enforcement. This
approach would require that land types
(again, cropland, pastureland, or
rangeland) be identified as of the date of
EISA enactment in order to determine
which feedstocks grown on such land
would qualify as renewable biomass. In
practical terms, such an approach may
mean, for example, that a renewable fuel
producer would need to be able to
identify not only whether a given
shipment of corn was grown on
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
agricultural land cleared or cultivated
prior to enactment of EISA, but also that
the land was not previously pastureland
or rangeland that had been converted to
cropland after enactment of EISA. If it
was, it would not qualify as renewable
biomass. We are concerned that adding
this additional feedstock verification
criterion to those already contained in
this proposal could render the program
unworkable and unenforceable.
However, we invite comment on this
option, and specifically request
comment on how this option could be
implemented in a workable and
enforceable manner.
In keeping with the statutory
definition for renewable biomass, we
propose to include in our definition of
existing agricultural land the
requirement that the land was cleared or
cultivated prior to December 19, 2007,
and that, since December 19, 2007, it
has been continuously actively managed
(as agricultural land) or fallow, and
nonforested. We believe the language
‘‘cleared or cultivated at any time’’ prior
to December 19, 2007, describes most
cultivable land in the U.S., since so
much of the country’s native forests and
grasslands were cleared in the 17th,
18th, and 19th centuries, if not before,
for agriculture. We further believe that
land that was cropland, pastureland, or
CRP land on December 19, 2007, would
automatically satisfy this particular
criterion, and that therefore it is not of
significant concern from an
implementation or enforcement
perspective.
In the event that we were to include
rangeland as agricultural land under the
final RFS2 program, satisfying the
‘‘cleared or cultivated’’ criterion could
pose significant challenges. Some
rangeland has never been cleared or
cultivated, or may have been cleared or
cultivated prior to December 19, 2007,
but no evidence exists to confirm this.
Therefore, we could not assume that it
would necessarily meet the ‘‘cleared or
cultivated’’ criterion. For instance,
grasslands in the Midwest and West that
during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s had
been used for cultivation could meet
this criterion, but other western
grasslands and prairies used for cattle
grazing may not. We seek comment on
how best to verify that rangeland to be
used for renewable fuel feedstock
production was cleared or cultivated at
some point prior to December 2007. We
also seek comment on whether the
challenge associated with applying this
criterion to rangeland is sufficient
(alone or combined with the concerns
raised earlier about the inclusion of
rangeland in the definition of
agricultural land) to exclude rangeland
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
from the final definition of agricultural
land.
We believe that the more restrictive,
and therefore more important, criteria is
whether agricultural land is actively
managed or fallow, and nonforested, per
the statutory language. We propose to
interpret the phrase ‘‘that is actively
managed or fallow, and nonforested’’ as
meaning that land must have been
actively managed or fallow, and
nonforested, on December 19, 2007, and
continuously thereafter in order to
qualify for renewable biomass
production. We believe this
interpretation of the legislative language
is reasonable and appropriate for the
following reason. The EISA language
uses the present tense (‘‘is actively
managed * * *’’) rather than the past
tense to describe qualifying agricultural
land. We interpret this language to mean
that at the time the planted crops or
crop residue are harvested (i.e., now or
at some time in the future), the land
from which they come must be actively
managed or fallow, and nonforested.
However, assuming that the land was
cleared or cultivated at some point in
time, then any land converted to
agricultural land after December 19,
2007, and used to produce crops or crop
residue would inherently meet the
definition of ‘‘is actively managed or
fallow, and nonforested,’’ and the EISA
land restriction for planted crops and
crop residue would have little meaning
(except in cases where it could be
established that the land in question
had never been cleared or cultivated).
We believe that in order for this
provision to have meaning, we must
require that agricultural land remain
‘‘continuously’’ either actively managed
or fallow, and nonforested, since
December 19, 2007. In this way, the
upper bound on acreage that qualifies
for planted crop and crop residue
production under RFS2 would be
limited to existing agricultural land—
cropland, pastureland, or CRP land—as
of December 19, 2007, and the phrase
‘‘is actively managed or fallow, and
nonforested’’ would be interpreted in a
meaningful way.
We propose that ‘‘actively managed’’
would mean managed for a
predetermined outcome as evidenced by
any of the following: sales records for
planted crops, crop residue, or
livestock; purchasing records for land
treatments such as fertilizer, weed
control, or reseeding; a written
management plan for agricultural
purposes; documentation of
participation in an agricultural program
sponsored by a Federal, state or local
government agency; or documentation
of land management in accordance with
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
an agricultural certification program.
Examples of government programs or
product certification programs that
would indicate active agricultural land
management include USDA’s certified
organic program or the Federal Crop
Insurance program.
We realize that it may be difficult to
conclude that certain land has been
actively managed continuously since
December 2007 based solely on the
existence of receipts for fertilizer or
seed. However, we have included sales
and purchasing records in the list of
written documentation that could be
used to indicate active management due
to the fact that there may be qualifying
land that is not registered with any
formal agricultural program, for which
the owner does not receive government
benefits, and for which no written
management plan exists (or existed as of
December 2007). We believe this may be
the case especially for pastureland from
which no crops are harvested or sold.
Other evidence that could be used
regarding the consistent management of
pastureland since December 2007 are
records associated with the sale of
livestock that grazed on the land. We
seek comment on our proposal to
include relevant records of sales and
purchasing as adequate documentation
to prove that land was actively managed
since December 2007 and whether there
may be other records, such as tax or
insurance records, which could satisfy
this requirement more effectively.
The term ‘‘fallow’’ is generally used to
describe cultivated land taken out of
production for a finite period of time.
We believe it may be argued that fallow
land is actively managed land because
there is a clear purpose or goal for
taking the land out of production for a
period of time (e.g., to conserve soil
moisture). Nonetheless, because the
EISA language clearly identifies a
difference between actively managed
agricultural land and fallow agricultural
land, we propose to define fallow to
mean agricultural land that is
intentionally left idle to regenerate for
future agricultural purposes, with no
seeding or planting, harvesting,
mowing, or treatment during the fallow
period. While fallow agricultural land is
characterized by a lack of activity on the
land, we believe that the decision to let
land lie fallow is made deliberately and
intentionally by a land owner or farmer
such that there should be
documentation of such intent. We seek
comment on this assumption and on
whether there are other means of
verifying whether land was fallow,
particularly as of December 2007. We
also seek comment on whether we
should specify in the regulations a time
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24933
period after which land that is not
actively managed for agricultural
purposes should be considered to have
been abandoned for agriculture (and not
eligible for renewable biomass
production under RFS2), as opposed to
being left fallow. If specifying such a
time limit is appropriate, we seek
comment on what the time period
should be, and if there should be a
distinction between allowable fallow
periods for different types of
agricultural land.
Finally, in order to define the term
‘‘nonforested,’’ we first propose to
define the term ‘‘forestland’’ as
generally undeveloped land covering a
minimum area of 1 acre upon which the
predominant vegetative cover is trees,
including land that formerly had such
tree cover and that will be regenerated.
We are also proposing that forestland
would not include tree plantations.
Under this proposal, ‘‘nonforested’’ land
would be land that is not forestland. We
believe this definition is sufficient to
make distinctions between forestland
and land that is considered nonforested
in the field. However, we seek comment
on whether we should incorporate into
our definition of forestland more
quantitative descriptors, such as a
minimum percentage of canopy cover or
minimum or maximum tree height, to
help clarify what would be considered
forestland. For example, the NRI
definition of forestland includes a
minimum of twenty-five percent canopy
cover. We also seek comment on
whether the one-acre minimum size
designation is appropriate.
ii. Planted Trees and Tree Residue
The definition of renewable biomass
in EISA includes planted trees and tree
residue from actively managed tree
plantations on non-federal land cleared
at any time prior to December 19, 2007,
including land belonging to an Indian
tribe or an Indian individual, that is
held in trust by the United States or
subject to a restriction against alienation
imposed by the United States. We
propose to define the term ‘‘planted
trees’’ to include not only trees that
were established by human intervention
such as planting saplings and artificial
seeding, but also trees established from
natural seeding by mature trees left
undisturbed for such a purpose. We
understand that, depending on the
particular conditions at a plantation,
certain trees in a stand may be
harvested, while others are maintained,
for the express purpose of naturally
regenerating new trees. We believe that
trees established in such a fashion, and
which meet the conditions for planted
trees in every other way, should not be
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24934
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
excluded from qualifying as renewable
biomass under RFS2.
Rather than using the term ‘‘tree
residue,’’ we propose to use the term
‘‘slash’’ in our regulations as a more
descriptive, but otherwise synonymous,
term. According to the Dictionary of
Forestry (1998, p. 168), slash is ‘‘the
residue, e.g., treetops and branches, left
on the ground after logging or
accumulating as a result of a storm, fire,
girdling, or delimbing.’’ We believe that
this substitution will simplify our
regulations, since paragraph (iv) of the
EISA definition of renewable biomass
also uses the term ‘‘slash.’’ Furthermore,
the term ‘‘slash’’ is a common term that
has a specific meaning to industry. As
noted earlier, we have attempted to
define terms in RFS2 using existing and
commonly understood definitions to the
extent possible. The term ‘‘slash’’ is
more descriptive than ‘‘tree residue,’’
and yet in practice means the same
thing, so we are proposing to use it
rather than ‘‘tree residue.’’ We also
propose to clarify that slash can include
tree bark and can be the result of any
natural disaster, including flooding.
In concert with our proposed
definition for ‘‘planted trees,’’ we
propose to define a ‘‘tree plantation’’ as
a stand of no fewer than 100 planted
trees of similar age and comprising one
or two tree species, or an area managed
for growth of such trees covering a
minimum of 1 acre. Given that only
trees from a tree plantation may be used
as renewable biomass under RFS2, we
believe that the definition should be
clear and easily applied in the field. We
recognize that this proposed definition
is more specific than the Dictionary of
Forestry’s definition of ‘‘tree
plantation,’’ which is ‘‘a stand
composed primarily of trees established
by planting or artificial seeding.’’ We
seek comment on all aspects of our
proposed definition of tree plantation.
We also propose to apply the same
management restrictions on tree
plantations as on agricultural land and
to interpret the EISA language as
requiring that to qualify for renewable
biomass production under RFS2, a tree
plantation must have been cleared at
any time prior to December 19, 2007,
and continuously actively managed
since December 19, 2007. Similar to our
proposal for actively managed
agricultural land, we propose to define
the term ‘‘actively managed’’ in the
context of tree plantations as managed
for a predetermined outcome as
evidenced by any of the following: Sales
records for planted trees or slash;
purchasing records for seeds, seedlings,
or other nursery stock; a written
management plan for silvicultural
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
purposes; documentation of
participation in a silvicultural program
sponsored by a Federal, state or local
government agency; or documentation
of land management in accordance with
an agricultural or silvicultural product
certification program. Silvicultural
programs such as those of the Forest
Stewardship Council, the Sustainable
Forestry Initiative, the American Tree
Farm System, or USDA are examples of
the types of programs that could
indicate actively managed tree
plantations.
iii. Slash and Pre-Commercial
Thinnings
The EISA definition of renewable
biomass includes slash and precommercial thinnings from non-federal
forestlands, including forestlands
belonging to an Indian tribe or an Indian
individual, that are held in trust by the
United States or subject to a restriction
against alienation imposed by the
United States. It excludes slash and precommercial thinnings from forests or
forestlands that are ecological
communities with a global or State
ranking of critically imperiled,
imperiled, or rare pursuant to a State
Natural Heritage Program, old growth
forest, or late successional forest.
As described in Sec. III.B.4.a.i of this
preamble, our proposed definition of
‘‘forestland’’ is generally undeveloped
land covering a minimum area of 1 acre
upon which the primary vegetative
species are trees, including land that
formerly had such tree cover and that
will be regenerated. Also as noted in
Sec. III.B.4.a.ii of this preamble, we
propose to adopt the definition of slash
listed in the Dictionary of Forestry. As
for ‘‘pre-commercial thinnings,’’ the
Dictionary of Forestry defines the act of
such thinning as ‘‘the removal of trees
not for immediate financial return but to
reduce stocking to concentrate growth
on the more desirable trees.’’ 18 Because
what may now be considered precommercial may eventually be saleable
as renewable fuel feedstock, we propose
not to include any reference to
‘‘financial return’’ in our definition, but
rather to define pre-commercial
thinnings as those trees removed from a
stand of trees in order to reduce
stocking to concentrate growth on more
desirable trees. We propose to include
diseased trees in the definition of precommercial thinnings due to the fact
that they can threaten the integrity of an
otherwise healthy stand of trees, and
their removal can be viewed as reducing
stocking to promote the growth of more
18 Helms, John, ed. ‘‘The Dictionary of Forestry.’’
Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters, 2003.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
desirable trees. We seek comment on
whether our definition of precommercial thinnings should include a
maximum diameter and, if so, what the
appropriate maximum diameter should
be.
We understand that the State Natural
Heritage Programs referred to in EISA
are those comprising a network
associated with NatureServe, a nonprofit conservation and research
organization. The network includes
local programs in each of the 50 United
States, other U.S. territories and regions
including the Navajo Nation and
Tennessee Valley Authority, eleven
Canadian provinces and territories, and
eleven Latin American countries.
Individual Natural Heritage Programs
collect, analyze, and distribute scientific
information about the biological
diversity found within their
jurisdictions. As part of their activities,
these programs survey and apply
NatureServe’s rankings, such as
critically imperiled (S1), imperiled (S2),
and rare (S3) to species and ecological
communities within their respective
borders. NatureServe meanwhile uses
data gathered by these Natural Heritage
Programs to apply its global rankings,
such as critically imperiled (G1),
imperiled (G2), or vulnerable (the
equivalent of the term ‘‘rare,’’ or G3), to
species and ecological communities
found in multiple States or territories.
We propose to prohibit slash and precommercial thinnings from all forest
ecological communities with global or
State rankings of critically imperiled,
imperiled, or vulnerable (‘‘rare’’ in the
case of State rankings) from being used
for renewable fuel for which RINs may
be generated under RFS2. We seek
comment on our interpretation that the
statutory language implies including
global rankings determined by
NatureServe, including the ranking of
vulnerable (G3), in the land restrictions
under RFS2 since State Natural Heritage
Programs, which were explicitly
referenced in EISA, do not establish
global rankings.
The various state-level Natural
Heritage Programs in the U.S. and
abroad differ in organizational
affiliation, with some operated as
agencies of state or provincial
government and others residing within
universities or non-profit organizations.
According to the NatureServe Web site,
‘‘consistent standards for collecting and
managing data allow information from
different programs to be shared and
combined regionally, nationally, and
internationally. The nearly 800 staff
from across the network are experts in
their fields, and include some of the
most knowledgeable field biologists and
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
conservation planners in their regions.’’
Different Natural Heritage Programs
have different processes for initiating
and performing surveys of ecological
communities. In many cases, the
programs respond to requests for
environmental reviews or surveys from
parties interested in specific locations,
oftentimes for a fee. They do not make
available for public consumption
detailed information on the location of
a ranked ecological community in some
cases to protect the communities
themselves and in other cases to protect
private property interests. Additionally,
the datasets maintained by different
Natural Heritage Programs may not
completely represent all of the
vulnerable ecological communities in
their respective States or territories
simply due to the fact that surveys have
not been performed for all areas.
NatureServe, however, interacts with
each of the State Natural Heritage
Programs to update their central
database to include each State program’s
ecological community rankings. We
propose to use data compiled by
NatureServe and published in a special
report to identify ‘‘ecologically sensitive
forestland.’’ The report would list all
forest ecological communities in the
U.S. with a global ranking of G1, G2, or
G3, or with a State ranking of S1, S2, or
S3, and would include descriptions of
the key geographic and biologic
attributes of the referenced ecological
community. The document would be
incorporated by reference into the
definition of renewable biomass in the
final RFS2 regulations, and the effect
would be to identify specific ecological
communities from which slash and precommercial thinnings could not be used
as feedstock for the production of
renewable fuel that would qualify for
RINs under RFS2. In the future, it may
be necessary to update this list as
appropriate through notice and
comment rulemaking.
We will place a draft version of this
document in the docket for the
proposed rule as soon as it is available.
EPA solicits comment both on this
general incorporation-by-reference
approach and on each individual listing
in the document. We also seek comment
on whether EPA should include in the
document forest ecological communities
outside of the 50 United States (such as
in Canada or Latin American countries)
that have natural heritage rankings of
G1, G2, or G3 or S1, S2, or S3. In
addition, we request comment on other
ways that EPA may be able to provide
the protections that Congress intended
for important ecological communities
with state-level rankings pursuant to a
State Natural Heritage Program.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
To complete the definition of
‘‘ecologically sensitive forestland,’’ we
propose to include old growth and late
successional forestland which is
characterized by trees at least 200 years
old.19 We seek comment on this
definition, including the proposed 200year tree age, on whether we should
specify a process for determining when
a forest is ‘‘characterized by’’ trees of
this or another age, and on other ways
to identify old growth or late
successional forestland.
iv. Biomass Obtained From Certain
Areas at Risk From Wildfire
The EISA definition of renewable
biomass includes biomass obtained from
the immediate vicinity of buildings and
other areas regularly occupied by
people, or of public infrastructure, at
risk from wildfire. We propose to clarify
in the regulations that ‘‘biomass’’ is
organic matter that is available on a
renewable or recurring basis, and that it
must be obtained from within 200 feet
of buildings, campgrounds, and other
areas regularly occupied by people, or of
public infrastructure, such as utility
corridors, bridges, and roadways, in
areas at risk of wildfire. We propose to
define ‘‘areas at risk of wildfire’’ as areas
located within—or within one mile of—
forestland, tree plantations, or any other
generally undeveloped tract of land that
is at least one acre in size with
substantial vegetative cover.
It is our understanding that 100 to 200
feet is the minimum distance
recommended for clearing trees and
brush away from homes and other
property in certain wildfire-prone areas,
depending on slope and vegetation.20
We propose that under RFS2, the term
‘‘immediate vicinity’’ would mean
within 200 feet of a given structure or
area, but we seek comment on the
appropriateness of limiting the distance
to within 100 feet.
19 Old-growth forest is defined in the Dictionary
of Forestry as ‘‘the (usually) late successional stage
of forest development. Note: Old-growth forests are
defined in many ways; generally, structural
characteristics used to describe old-growth forests
include (a) live trees: Number and minimum size
of both seral and climax dominants, (b) canopy
conditions: Commonly including multilayering, (c)
snags: Minimum number of specific size, and (d)
down logs and coarse woody debris: Minimum
tonnage and numbers of pieces of specific size.
Note: Old-growth forests generally contain trees that
are large for their species and site and sometimes
decadent (overmature) with broken tops, often a
variety of trees sizes, large snags and logs, and a
developed and often patchy understory * * *.’’
20 See Cohen, Jack. ‘‘Reducing the Wildland Fire
Threat to Homes: Where and How Much?’’ USDA
Forest Service Gen.Tech.Rep. PSW–GTR–173. 1999.
See also U.S. Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Web site https://www.fema.gov/
hazard/wildfire/index.shtm.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24935
A great deal of work has been done to
identify communities and areas on the
landscape in the vicinity of public lands
that are at risk of wildfire by States in
cooperation and consultation with the
U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, and other federal, State,
and local agencies and tribes. In order
to take advantage of this work, we seek
comment on two possible
implementation alternatives. The first
alternative would incorporate into our
definition of ‘‘areas at risk of wildfire’’
any communities identified as
‘‘communities at risk’’ through a process
defined within the ‘‘Field Guidance—
Identifying and Prioritizing
Communities at Risk’’ (National
Association of State Foresters, June
2003) and covered by a community
wildfire protection plan (CWPP)
developed in accordance with
‘‘Preparing a Community Wildfire
Protection Plan—A Handbook for
Wildland-Urban Interface
Communities’’ (Society of American
Foresters, March 2004) and certified by
a State Forester or equivalent. We
believe that it may make sense to
include communities with CWPPs in
the definition of ‘‘areas at risk of
wildfire’’ since they represent specific
areas around the U.S. that are identified
and agreed upon through a public
process that includes local and state
representatives, federal agencies, and
stakeholders. Additionally, CWPP
guidelines indicate that normally three
entities must mutually agree to the
contents of the CWPPs: The applicable
local government, the local fire
department or departments, and the
state entity responsible for forest
management (State Forester or
equivalent). As of June 2008, there were
roughly 52,000 total ‘‘communities at
risk’’ and 5,000 ‘‘communities at risk’’
covered by a CWPP.
We seek comment on incorporating by
reference into the final RFS2 regulations
a list of ‘‘communities at risk’’ with an
approved CWPP. Similar to the
document proposed for Natural Heritage
Rankings, this document would be
incorporated by reference into the
definition of ‘‘areas at risk of wildfire’’
in the final RFS2 regulations. Because
this list does not currently exist, EPA
would be required to seek data from
each State in order to assemble the
document. The effect of this
incorporation by reference would be to
identify specific areas in the U.S. at risk
of wildfire and from which biomass
obtained from the immediate vicinity of
buildings and other areas regularly
occupied by people, or of public
infrastructure, could be easily identified
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24936
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
and documented as renewable biomass.
In the future, it may be necessary to
update this list as appropriate through
notice and comment rulemaking.
The second implementation approach
on which we seek comment would
incorporate into our definition of ‘‘areas
at risk of wildfire’’ any areas identified
as wildland urban interface (WUI) land,
or land in which houses meet wildland
vegetation or are mixed with vegetation.
The concept of the WUI was established
as part of the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 108–148) which
provided a means for prioritizing,
planning, and executing hazardous fuels
reduction projects on federal lands.
SILVIS Lab, in the Department of Forest
Ecology and Management and the
University of Wisconsin, Madison, has,
with funding provided by the U.S.
Forest Service, mapped WUI lands
based on data from the 2000 U.S.
Census and U.S. Geological Survey
National Land Cover Data.21 We seek
comment on whether and how best to
make use of this WUI map and data to
help implement the land restrictions for
biomass obtained from areas at risk of
wildfire under RFS2.
b. Issues Related to Implementation and
Enforceability
Incorporating the new definition of
renewable biomass into the RFS2
program raises issues that we did not
have to consider when designing the
RFS1 program. Under RFS1, the source
of a renewable fuel feedstock was not a
central concern, and it was a relatively
straightforward matter to require all fuel
made from specified renewable
feedstocks to be assigned RINs.
However, with the terms ‘‘renewable
fuel’’ and ‘‘renewable biomass’’ being
defined differently under EISA, we must
consider potential issues related to
implementation and enforcement to
ensure that renewable fuel for which
RINs are generated is produced from
qualifying renewable biomass.
Our proposed approach to the
treatment of renewable biomass under
RFS2 is intended to define the
conditions under which RINs can be
generated as well as the conditions
under which renewable fuel can be
produced or imported without RINs.
Both of these areas are described in
more detail below.
i. Ensuring That RINs Are Generated
Only for Fuels Made From Renewable
Biomass
The effect of adding EISA’s definition
of renewable biomass to the RFS
21 See https://silvis.forest.wisc.edu/projects/
US_WUI_2000.asp.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
program is to ensure that renewable
fuels are only allowed to participate in
the program if the feedstocks from
which they were made come from
certain types of land. In the context of
our regulatory program, this means that
RINs could only be generated if it can
be established that the feedstock from
which the fuel was made came from
these types of lands. Otherwise, no RINs
could be generated to represent the
renewable fuel produced or imported.
We have considered the possibility
that land restrictions contained within
the definition of renewable biomass may
not, in practice, result in a significant
change in agricultural practices. For
example, a farmer wishing to expand his
production by cutting forested land
could grow feedstock for renewable fuel
on his existing agricultural land and
move production for food, animal feed,
and fiber production to newly cultivated
land. While the EISA language is fairly
clear about what lands may be used for
harvesting renewable fuel feedstocks, it
does not specifically address the
potential for switching non-feedstock
crops to new lands. Our proposed
options recognize the potential for this
behavior but do not attempt to prohibit
it as we believe doing so would be
beyond our mandate under EISA. EPA
believes that Congress would have
specifically directed EPA to regulate
this practice if they intended EPA to do
so.
Another major issue we have
considered is the treatment of
domestically produced renewable fuel
feedstocks versus imported feedstocks
and imported renewable fuel, since the
new EISA language does not distinguish
between domestic renewable fuel
feedstocks and renewable fuel and
feedstocks that come from abroad.
Under RFS1, RINs must be generated for
imported renewable fuel by the
renewable fuel importer. Foreign
renewable fuel producers may not
participate as producers in the program
(i.e., may not generate RINs for their
fuel) unless they produce cellulosic
biomass or waste-derived ethanol and
register with EPA. Because RFS1 does
not define renewable fuel by its source,
assigning RINs to imported renewable
fuel under RFS1 is a straightforward
responsibility of the importer.
However, under RFS2, ensuring that
the feedstock used to produce imported
renewable fuel meets the definition of
renewable biomass presents additional
challenges to designing a program that
can apply to both domestic and
imported renewable fuel. The options
contained in today’s proposal attempt to
address this additional constraint, as
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
discussed in Section III.B.4.d of this
preamble.
ii. Ensuring That RINs Are Generated for
All Qualifying Renewable Fuel
Under RFS1, virtually all renewable
fuel is required to be assigned a RIN by
the producer or importer. This
requirement was developed and
finalized in the RFS1 rulemaking in
order to address stakeholder concerns,
particularly from obligated parties, that
the number of available RINs should
reflect the total volume of renewable
fuel used in the transportation sector in
the U.S. and facilitate program
compliance. The only circumstances
under which a batch of fuel is not
assigned a RIN in RFS1 is if the
feedstock used to produce the fuel is not
among those listed in the regulatory
definition of renewable fuel at
§ 80.1101(d), the producer or importer
of the fuel produces or imports less than
10,000 gallons per year, or the fuel is
produced and used for off-road or other
non-motor vehicle purposes. As a result,
we believe that almost all renewable
fuel produced or imported into the U.S.
is assigned RINs under the RFS1
program, and thus the number of RINs
available to obligated parties represents
as accurately as possible the volume of
renewable fuel being used in the U.S.
transportation sector.
EISA has dramatically increased the
mandated volumes of renewable fuel
that obligated parties must ensure are
produced and used in the U.S. At the
same time, EISA makes it more difficult
for renewable fuel producers to
demonstrate that they have fuel that
qualifies for RIN generation by
restricting qualifying renewable fuel to
that made from ‘‘renewable biomass,’’
defined to include restrictions on the
types of land from which feedstocks
may be harvested, as discussed in this
section. The inclusion of such land
restrictions under RFS2 may mean that,
in some situations, a renewable fuel
producer would prefer to forgo the
benefits of RIN generation to avoid the
cost and difficulty of ensuring that its
feedstocks qualify for RIN generation. If
a sufficient number of renewable fuel
producers acted in this way, it could
lead to a situation in which not all
qualifying fuel is assigned RINs, thus
resulting in a short RIN market that
could force obligated parties into noncompliance. Another possible outcome
would be that the demand for and price
of RINs would increase significantly,
making compliance by obligated parties
more costly and difficult than necessary
and raising prices for consumers.
In order to avoid situations in which
obligated parties cannot comply with
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
their annual RVOs and the volume
mandates in EISA are not met, or
instances where the requirements are
met but at an inflated price, we believe
that our proposal should ensure that
RINs are generated for all fuel made
from feedstock that meets the definition
of renewable biomass and which meets
the GHG emissions reduction thresholds
set out in EISA. This would require
eliminating any incentive for renewable
fuel producers to avoid ascertaining
where their feedstocks come from. As
described in Section III.B.4.d below, we
propose to require a demonstration of
the type of land used to produce any
feedstock used in the production of
renewable fuel, regardless of whether
RINs are generated or not, and to require
that RINs be generated for all qualifying
fuel.
However, we also seek comment on
an alternative approach wherein a
renewable fuel producer would not be
required to make any demonstration
with regard to the origin of feedstocks
used in fuel production if the fuel
producer were not generating RINs. In
this situation, we would rely on the
price of RINs in the market to encourage
renewable fuel producers to generate
RINs where possible. This approach
would have the advantage of lessening
the regulatory burden for renewable fuel
producers using feedstock that is not
renewable biomass, and would
generally simplify the regulations
relating to implementation of the
renewable biomass definition. The
disadvantage to this approach, as
discussed above, would be the increased
potential for a RIN shortage caused by
renewable fuel producers choosing not
to generate RINs for qualifying
renewable fuel and a concurrent
increase in the price of RINs that do
exist. Under such circumstances, it is
likely that some obligated parties could
not acquire sufficient RINs for
compliance purposes, while others
could comply but at an inflated cost.
A further step that we could take to
streamline not just the implementation
of the renewable biomass definition, but
also the tracking and trading of RINs,
would be to remove the restriction
established under the RFS1 rule
requiring that RINs be assigned to
batches of renewable fuel and
transferred with those batches. Instead,
renewable fuel producers could sell
RINs (with a K code of 2 rather than 1)
separately from volumes of renewable
fuel. While this alternative approach
could potentially place obligated parties
at greater risk of market manipulation
by renewable fuel producers, it could
also provide a greater incentive for
producers to demonstrate that the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
renewable biomass definition has been
met for their feedstocks. That is, by
having the flexibility to sell RINs
independent from volume, producers
could potentially command higher
prices for those RINs. This would make
RINS more valuable to them, and
provide an incentive to generate as
many RINs as possible. As a result,
producers would be motivated to
demonstrate that their feedstocks meet
the renewable biomass definition.
However, this approach could also
increase compliance costs for obligated
parties. For further discussion of this
approach, see Section III.H.4.
c. Review of Existing Programs
i. USDA Programs
To inform our approach for designing
an implementation scheme for the
renewable biomass land restrictions
under RFS2, we reviewed a number of
programs and models that track, certify,
or verify agricultural and silvicultural
products or land use in the U.S. and
abroad. First we looked at several
existing programs administered by
USDA that involve data collection from
agricultural land owners, farmers, and
forest owners. However, while USDA
obtains and maintains valuable data
from agricultural land owners,
producers, and forest owners for
assessing the status of agricultural land,
forest land, and other types of land that
could be used for renewable fuel
feedstock production, Section 1619 of
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) and
policies of certain USDA agencies
significantly limit EPA’s ability to
access such data in a timely and
meaningful way. Given that agricultural
land owners, producers, and forest
owners already report a great deal of
information to USDA, having access to
such information could enable EPA to
avoid having to require duplicative
reporting or recordkeeping and thereby
minimize any burden that RFS2 may
place on parties in the renewable fuel
feedstock supply chain, from feedstock
producer to renewable fuel producer,
while still allowing us to ensure that the
land restrictions on renewable biomass
production are adhered to. We request
comment on how EPA could acquire the
type of information submitted by parties
such as agricultural land owners,
producers, and forest owners to USDA
agencies in order to aid in administering
RFS2. Having access to such
information could be valuable to EPA in
informing our enforcement actions.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24937
ii. Third-Party Programs
To inform our options for how we
might verify and track renewable
biomass, we also explored nongovernmental, third-party verification
programs used for certifying and
tracking agricultural and forest products
from point of origin to point of use both
within the U.S. and outside the U.S. The
United Kingdom and the EU are looking
to such third-party verification
programs to implement the
sustainability provisions of their
biofuels programs. There is no thirdparty organization that certifies
agricultural land, managed tree
plantations, and forests; rather, each
generally focuses on one area. Due to
this constraint, we examined third party
organizations that certify specific types
of biomass from croplands and
organizations that certify forest lands.
We examined third-party
organizations that focus on a particular
type of feedstock used for renewable
fuel production, including the
Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil and
the Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy
Production. These initiatives have
outlined traceable certification programs
for industry to follow. Two other
cooperative organizations whose
primary concern is renewable fuel
production from biomass are the
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels
(RSB) and the Better Sugarcane
Initiative (BSI). At present, the RSB and
BSI are still in their developmental
stages and do not have fully developed
certification processes.
We also examined the work of the
international Soy Working Group,
comprised of representatives from
industry, the Brazilian government, and
international non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), which recently
announced a one-year extension of a
moratorium on the use of soy harvested
from recently deforested lands in the
Brazilian Amazon. This moratorium is
the result of a negotiated voluntary
agreement through which companies
that purchase Brazilian soy work with
their suppliers to ensure that they
source their soy from farms cultivated
prior to August 2006. The Brazilian
Association of Vegetable Oil Industries
(ABIOVE) and Brazil’s National
Association of Grain Exporters (ANEC)
have used aerial photography to identify
whether any newly deforested areas
were used to grow soy, and Greenpeace,
one of the NGOs involved in the
agreement, uses satellite imagery and
aerial photography to perform spot
checks for enforcement purposes.
Another new example of a renewable
fuel feedstock verification system is the
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24938
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Verified Sustainable Ethanol initiative,
which established a series of criteria for
ethanol produced in Brazil and sold to
Swedish ethanol importer SEKAB. The
Brazilian sugarcane ethanol industry
trade association, UNICA, its member
companies, and SEKAB established the
criteria to promote environmental and
social sustainability of sugarcane
ethanol exported to Sweden. The
agreement is between companies, and it
relies on a third-party auditor to inspect
Brazilian feedstock and ethanol
production facilities to verify
compliance with the criteria.
We also examined third-party
organizations that specialize in
certifying sustainable forest lands. The
Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN),
through the Rainforest Alliance,
provides comprehensive certification of
wooded areas used for commercial
development through sustainable
processes in the United States and Latin
American countries. The SAN certifies
approximately 10 million acres of land
worldwide, with minimal agricultural
land certified in the U.S.22
We examined the certification process
of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
because of their international
recognition for certifying sustainable
forests and their recordkeeping
requirement for ‘‘chain of supply’’
certification for products. The FSC
certifies 22 million acres of land in the
U.S. according to certification standards
designed for nine separate regions
within the U.S., and it provides an
example for chain-of-custody and
product segregation requirements.23
Finally, we examined the American
Tree Farm program and Sustainable
Forestry Initiative (SFI).
The criteria used to certify
participants through third-party
verification systems are overall more
comprehensive and generally more
stringent than the land restrictions
contained within the definition of
renewable biomass. However, three
issues emerged through our
investigation of these existing thirdparty verification systems that would
make it difficult to adopt or incorporate
any one of them into our regulations for
the land restriction provisions under
EISA. First, as previously noted, many
of these third-party certifiers are limited
in the scope of products that they
certify. Second, the acreage of
agricultural land or actively managed
tree plantations certified through third
22 Forest acreage taken from USDA Economic
Research Service, Major uses of Land in the United
States, 2002, Economic Information Bulletin No.
(EIB–14), May 2006.
23 FSC certified acreage taken from FSC–US,
Prospectus, 2005.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
parties in the U.S. covers only a small
portion of the total available land and
forests estimated to qualify for
renewable biomass production under
the EISA definition. Third, none of the
existing third-party systems had
definitions or criteria that perfectly
matched the land use definitions and
restrictions contained in the EISA
definition of renewable biomass. Thus,
we have determined that at this time we
cannot rely on any existing third-party
verification program solely to
implement the land restrictions on
renewable biomass under RFS2. We
believe there is potential benefit in
utilizing third-party verification
programs if these issues can be
addressed, and in the following section
we offer one possible scenario as an
implementation alternative.
Nonetheless, we seek comment on our
conclusion that there are currently no
appropriate third-party verification
systems for renewable biomass that
could be adopted under RFS2. We
further seek comment on whether any
existing program or combination of
programs would be able to meet the
definitions and adopt the land
restriction criteria proposed for RFS2 to
assist industry in meeting their
obligations under this proposed
program.
d. Approaches for Domestic Renewable
Fuel
Consistent with RFS1, renewable fuel
producers would be responsible for
generating RINs under RFS2. In order to
make a determination whether or not
their fuel is eligible for RINs, renewable
fuel producers would need to have at
least basic information about the origin
of their feedstock. The following
approaches for implementing the land
restrictions on renewable biomass
contained in EISA illustrate the variety
of ways that renewable fuel feedstocks
could be handled under RFS2. These
options are presented singly, but we
seek comment on how they might be
combined to create the most
appropriate, practical, and enforceable
implementation scheme for renewable
biomass under RFS2.
One approach for ensuring that
producers generate RINs properly would
be for EPA to require that renewable
fuel producers obtain documentation
about their feedstocks from their
feedstock supplier(s) and take the
measures necessary to ensure that they
know the source of their feedstocks and
can demonstrate to EPA that they have
complied with the EISA definition of
renewable biomass. Under this
approach, EPA would require renewable
fuel producers who generate RINs to
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
certify on their renewable fuel
production reports that the feedstock
used for each renewable fuel batch
meets the definition of renewable
biomass. We would require renewable
fuel producers to maintain sufficient
records to support these claims.
Specifically, renewable fuel producers
who use planted crops or crop residue
from existing agricultural land, or who
use planted trees or slash from actively
managed tree plantations, would be
required to have copies of their
feedstock producers’ written records
that serve as evidence of land being
actively managed (or fallow, in the case
of agricultural land) since December
2007, such as sales records for planted
crops or trees, livestock, crop residue, or
slash; a written management plan for
agricultural or silvicultural purposes; or,
documentation of participation in an
agricultural or silvicultural program
sponsored by a Federal, state or local
government agency. In the case of all
other biomass, we would require
renewable fuel producers to have, at a
minimum, written certification from
their feedstock supplier that the
feedstock qualifies as renewable
biomass. We seek comment on whether
we should also require renewable fuel
producers that use slash and precommercial thinnings from non-federal
forestland and biomass from areas at
risk of wildfire to maintain additional
records to support the claim that these
feedstocks meet the definition of
renewable biomass. These records could
include sworn statements from licensed
or registered foresters, contracts for tree
or slash removal or documentation of
participation in a fire mitigation
program. We seek comment on other
methods of verifying renewable fuel
producers’ claims that feedstocks
qualify for these categories of renewable
biomass. A review of such records
would become part of the producer’s
annual attest engagement, the annual
audit of their records by an independent
third party (see Section IV.A for a full
discussion of attest engagement
requirements).
A renewable fuel producer would
only be permitted to produce and sell
renewable fuel without RINs if he
demonstrates that the feedstocks used to
produce his fuel do not meet the
definition of renewable biomass. This
approach would ensure that renewable
fuel producers could not avoid the
generation of RINs simply by failing to
make a demonstration regarding the
land used to produce their feedstocks.
Thus, renewable fuel producers would
be required to keep records of their
feedstock source(s), regardless of
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
whether RINs were generated or not. At
a minimum, renewable fuel producers
who do not generate RINs would need
to have certification from their feedstock
supplier that their feedstock does not
meet the definition of renewable
biomass. In the event that some portion
of a load of feedstock does meet the
definition of renewable biomass and
some portion does not, the renewable
fuel producer would need to maintain
documentation from their supplier that
states the percentage of each portion.
All of these records would be included
as part of the renewable fuel producer’s
annual attest engagement. The
renewable fuel producer would also
indicate on his renewable fuel
production report that he did not
generate RINs for fuel made from
feedstock that did not meet the
definition of renewable biomass.
Some stakeholders have expressed
concern about EPA specifying the
records that a renewable fuel producer
must obtain from their feedstock
supplier. We therefore seek comment on
an approach that would require
renewable fuel producers to certify on
their renewable fuel production reports
that their feedstock either met or did not
meet the definition of renewable
biomass and would require producers to
maintain sufficient records to support
their claims, but would stop short of
specifying what those records would
have to include. We anticipate that a
large portion of feedstocks that qualify
as renewable biomass will be obtained
from existing agricultural land or
actively managed tree plantations, for
which, by definition, documentation
already exists. We believe that, in most
other cases, feedstock producers will
have or will be able to create other
forms of documentation that could be
provided to renewable fuel producers in
order to provide adequate assurance that
the feedstock in question meets the
definition of renewable biomass. As
described above, there are many existing
programs, such as those administered by
USDA and independent third-party
certifiers, that could be useful to verify
that feedstock from certain land
qualifies as renewable biomass.
We anticipate that these selfcertification approaches would result in
renewable fuel producers amending
their contracts and altering their supply
chain interactions to satisfy their need
for documented assurance and proof
about their feedstock’s origins.
Enforcement under either of these
approaches would rely in part on EPA’s
review of renewable fuel production
reports and attest engagements of
renewable fuel producers’ records. EPA
would also consult other data sources,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
including any data made available by
USDA, and could conduct site visits or
inspections of feedstock producers’ and
suppliers’ facilities. We seek comment
on the feasibility and practical
limitations of EPA working with
publicly available USDA data to keep
track of significant land use changes in
the U.S. and around the world and to
note general increases in feedstock
supplier productivity that might signal
cultivation of new agricultural land for
renewable fuel feedstock production.
Either of these approaches would
easily fold into existing and newly
proposed registration, recordkeeping,
reporting, and attest engagement
procedures. They would also place the
burden of implementation and
enforcement on renewable fuel
producers rather than bringing feedstock
producers and suppliers directly under
EPA regulation. In this way, they would
minimize the number of regulated
parties under RFS2. They would also
allow, to varying degree, the renewable
fuel industry to determine the most
efficient means of verifying and tracking
feedstocks from the point of production
to the point of consumption, thereby
minimizing any additional cost and
administrative burden created by the
EISA definition of renewable biomass.
Another alternative would be for EPA
to establish a chain-of-custody tracking
system from feedstock producer to
renewable fuel producer through which
renewable fuel producers would obtain
information regarding the lands where
their feedstocks were produced. This
information would accompany each
transfer of custody of the feedstock until
the feedstock reaches the renewable fuel
producer. Renewable fuel feedstock
producers, suppliers and handlers
would not have any reporting
obligations. EPA would, however,
require all feedstock producers,
suppliers, and handlers to maintain as
records these chain-of-custody
documents for all biomass intended to
be used as a renewable fuel feedstock.
Renewable fuel producers would also be
required to maintain these chain-ofcustody tracking documents in their
records and would have to include them
as part of their records presented during
their annual attest engagement.
An additional alternative would be for
EPA to require renewable fuel producers
to set up and administer a quality
assurance program that would create an
additional level of rigor in the
implementation scheme for the EISA
land restrictions on renewable biomass.
The quality assurance program could
include (1) an unannounced
independent third party inspection of
the renewable feedstock producer’s
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24939
facility at least once per quarter or once
every 15 deliveries, whichever is more
frequent, (2) an unannounced
independent third party inspection of
each intermediary facility that stores
renewable fuel feedstock received by the
renewable fuel producer at least once
per quarter, and (3) on each occasion
when the independent third party
inspection reveals noncompliance, the
renewable fuel producer must (a)
conduct an investigation to determine
the proper number of RINs that should
have been generated for a volume of fuel
and either generate or retire an equal
number of RINs, depending on whether
the fuel’s feedstock did or did not meet
the definition of renewable biomass, (b)
conduct a root cause analysis of the
violation, and (c) refuse to accept or
process feedstock from the renewable
fuel feedstock producer unless or until
the feedstock producer takes
appropriate corrective action to prevent
future violations.
This alternative could provide a
partial affirmative defense either for
renewable producers that illegally
generate RINs for fuel made from
feedstocks that do not qualify as
renewable biomass or for renewable fuel
producers who do not generate enough
RINs for fuel made from feedstocks that
do qualify as renewable biomass. In
either case, the producers must
demonstrate that the violation was
caused by a feedstock producer or
supplier and not themselves; that the
commercial documents (e.g., bills of
lading) received with the feedstock
indicated that the feedstock either met
(in the case that RINs were generated
illegally) or did not meet (in the case
that an inadequate number of RINs were
generated) the land restrictions for
renewable biomass, and that they met
EPA’s quality assurance program
requirements. A renewable fuel
producer that generates RINs for fuel
made from a feedstock that does not
meet the definition of renewable
biomass, but that qualifies for the partial
affirmative defense, would still have to
retire a number of RINs equal to the
illegally generated RINs. Likewise, a
renewable fuel producer that does not
generate sufficient RINs for fuel made
from a feedstock that does meet the
definition of renewable biomass, but
that qualifies for the partial affirmative
defense, would have to generate enough
RINs to make up the difference.
However, in neither case would they be
subject to civil penalties.
As yet another alternative approach,
EPA could bring together renewable fuel
producers and renewable fuel feedstock
producers and suppliers to develop an
industry-wide quality assurance
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24940
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
program for the renewable fuel
production supply chain, following the
model of the successful Reformulated
Gasoline Survey Association. We
believe that this alternative could be
less costly than if each individual
renewable fuel producer were to create
their own quality assurance program,
and it would add a quality assurance
element to RFS2 while creating the
possibility for a partial affirmative
defense for renewable fuel producers
and feedstock producers and suppliers.
The program would be carried out by
an independent surveyor funded by
industry and consist of a nationwide
verification program for renewable fuel
producers and renewable feedstock
producers and handlers designed to
provide independent oversight of the
feedstock designations and handling
processes that are required to determine
if a feedstock meets the definition of
renewable biomass. Under this
alternative, a renewable fuel producer
and its renewable feedstock suppliers
and handlers would have to participate
in the funding of an organization which
arranges to have an independent
surveyor conduct a program of
compliance surveys. Compliance
surveys would be carried out by an
independent surveyor pursuant to a
detailed survey plan submitted to EPA
for approval by November 1 of the year
preceding the year in which the
alternative quality assurance sampling
and testing program would be
implemented. The survey plan would
include a methodology for determining
when the survey samples would be
collected, the locations of the surveys,
the number of inspections to be
included in the survey, and any other
elements that EPA determines are
necessary to achieve the same level of
quality assurance as the requirement
included in the RFS2 regulations at the
time.
Under this alternative, the
independent surveyor would be
required to visit renewable feedstock
producers and suppliers to determine if
they are properly designating their
product and adhering to adequate chain
of custody requirements. This
nationwide sampling program would be
designed to ensure even coverage of
renewable feedstock producers and
suppliers. The surveyor would generate
and report the results of the surveys to
EPA each calendar quarter. In addition,
where the survey finds improper
designations or handling, the liable
parties would be responsible for
identifying and addressing the root
cause of the violation to prevent future
violations. When a violation is detected,
the renewable fuel producer that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
participates in the consortium would be
deemed to have met the quality
assurance criteria for a partial
affirmative defense. If the renewable
fuel producer met the other applicable
criteria, he would have to take
corrective action to retire or generate the
appropriate number of RINs depending
on the violation, but he would not be
subject to civil penalties.
Some stakeholders have suggested
that EPA take advantage of existing
satellite and aerial imagery and
mapping software and tools to
implement the renewable biomass
provisions of EISA. One way to do so
would be for EPA to develop a
renewable fuel mapping Web site to
assist regulated parties in meeting their
obligation to identify the location of
land where renewable fuel feedstocks
are produced. Such a Web site could
include an interactive map that would
allow renewable feedstock producers to
trace the boundaries of their property
and create an electronic file with
information regarding the land where
their renewable fuel feedstocks were
produced, such as a code that identifies
the plot of land. This would allow the
feedstock producer to provide
information, such as a standard land ID
code, on all bills of lading or other
commercial documents that identify the
type and quantity of feedstock being
delivered to the renewable fuel
producer. Renewable fuel producers
could then make a determination
regarding whether or not the renewable
fuel feedstock that they use meets the
definition of renewable biomass, and is
therefore eligible or not for RIN
generation.
Feedstock producers would not
necessarily be required to use this
Internet-based tool to identify the
location where renewable fuel
feedstocks are produced, since many
feedstock producers already participate
in various government or insurance
programs that have required them to
map the location of their fields. But the
map would enable renewable fuel
producers to verify the accuracy of these
descriptions and report these locations
to EPA using the interactive mapping
tool on EPA’s Web site. EPA specifically
solicits comment on the practicability of
constructing an accurate map from
existing data sources.
As noted above, EPA recognizes that
land restrictions contained within the
definition of renewable biomass may
not, in practice, result in a significant
change in agricultural practices. EPA
also recognizes that the implementation
options described in this proposal could
impose costs and constraints on existing
storage, transportation, and delivery
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
systems for feedstocks, in particular for
corn and soybeans in the U.S. We
therefore seek comment on a
stakeholder suggestion to establish a
baseline level of production of biomass
feedstocks such that reporting and
recordkeeping requirements would be
triggered only when the baseline
production levels of feedstocks used for
biofuels were exceeded. Such an
approach would avoid imposing a new
recordkeeping burden on the industry as
long as biofuels demand is met with
existing feedstock production. We seek
comment on this alternative, including
how to set the baseline production
levels and information on appropriate
data sources in the U.S. and in other
countries that produce feedstocks that
could be used for renewable fuel
production, and on how to track
whether the feedstock use for biofuels
production has exceeded baseline
production levels. We also solicit
comment on whether this approach
could be applied to all types of
feedstocks on which EISA places land
restrictions, or if it would only be
appropriate for traditional agricultural
crops such as corn, soybeans, and
sugarcane for which historical acreage
data exists both domestically and
internationally.
EPA acknowledges that under this
alternative, while there could be a net
increase in lands being cultivated for a
particular crop, we would presume that
increases in cultivation would be used
to meet non-biofuels related feedstock
demand. We also acknowledge that such
an approach would be difficult to
enforce because data that could indicate
that baseline production levels were
exceeded in a given year would likely
be delayed by many months, such that
the recordkeeping requirements for
renewable fuel producers would also be
delayed. During the interim period,
renewable fuel producers would have
generated RINs for fuel that did not
qualify for credit under the program,
and any remedial steps to invalidate
such RINs after the fact could be costly
and burdensome to all parties in the
supply chain. Nonetheless, we seek
comment on the approach as described
above.
We seek comment on all of these
approaches and what combination of
these approaches would be the most
appropriate, enforceable, and practical
for ensuring that the land restrictions on
renewable biomass contained in EISA
are implemented under RFS2. We also
seek comment on whether there are
other possible approaches that would be
superior to those we have described
above. We also note that we intend to
monitor RIN generation and the trends
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
in renewable fuel feedstock sources as
RFS2 implementation gets underway,
and that we may make changes to the
approach we adopt in the final RFS2
regulations if renewable fuel feedstock
production conditions change or if new,
better renewable biomass verification
tools become available.
e. Approaches for Foreign Renewable
Fuel
EISA creates unique challenges
related to the implementation and
enforcement of the definition of
renewable biomass for foreign-produced
renewable fuel. In order to address these
issues, we propose to require foreign
producers of renewable fuel who export
to the U.S. to meet the same compliance
obligations as domestic renewable fuel
producers. These obligations would
include facility registration and
submittal of independent engineering
reviews (described in Section III.C
below), and reporting, recordkeeping,
and attest engagement requirements.
They would also include the same
obligations that domestic producers
have for verifying that their feedstock
meets the definition of renewable
biomass as described above, such as
certifying on each renewable fuel
production report that their renewable
fuel feedstock meets the definition of
renewable biomass and working with
their feedstock supplier(s) to ensure that
they receive and maintain accurate and
sufficient documentation in their
records to support their claims. As
under the RFS1 program for producers
of cellulosic fuel, the foreign producer
would be required to comply with
additional requirements designed to
ensure that enforcement of the
regulations at the foreign production
facility would not be compromised. For
instance, foreign producers would be
required to designate renewable fuel
intended for export to the U.S. as such
and segregate the volume until it
reaches the U.S. and post a bond to
ensure that penalties can be assessed in
the event of a violation. Moreover, as a
regulated party under the RFS2
program, foreign producers would have
to allow for potential visits by EPA
enforcement personnel to review the
completeness and accuracy of records
and registration information.
We propose that a foreign renewable
fuel producer, like a domestic
renewable fuel producer, could only
produce and sell renewable fuel for
export to the U.S. without RINs if he
demonstrated that the land used to
produce his feedstocks did not meet the
definition of renewable biomass. This
approach would ensure that foreign
renewable fuel producers could not
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
avoid the generation of RINs for fuel
shipped to the U.S. simply by failing to
make any demonstration regarding the
land used to produce their feedstocks.
Thus, foreign renewable fuel producers
that export their product to the U.S.
would be required to keep records of the
type of land used to produce their
feedstock regardless of whether RINs are
generated or not. Section III.D.2.b
outlines more specifically our proposed
requirements for foreign renewable fuel
producers.
Importers will likely have less
knowledge than a foreign renewable fuel
producer would about the point of
origin of their fuel’s feedstock and
whether it meets the definition of
renewable biomass. Therefore, we are
proposing that in the event that a batch
of foreign-produced renewable fuel does
not have RINs accompanying it, an
importer must obtain documentation
from its producer that states whether or
not the definition of renewable biomass
was met by the fuel’s feedstock. With
such documentation, the importer
would be required to generate RINs (if
the definition of renewable biomass is
met) or would be prohibited from doing
so (if the definition is not met) prior to
introducing the fuel into commerce in
the U.S. Without such documentation,
the fuel would not be permitted for
importation. Section III.D.2.c outlines
our proposed requirements for
importers more fully.
We seek comment on whether and to
what extent the approaches for ensuring
compliance with the EISA’s land
restrictions by foreign renewable fuel
producers could or should differ from
the proposed approach for domestic
renewable fuel producers. In light of the
challenges associated with enforcing the
EISA’s land restrictions in foreign
countries, we believe that it may be
appropriate to require foreign renewable
fuel producers to use an alternative
method of demonstrating compliance
with these requirements. We seek
comment on whether foreign renewable
producers exporting product to the U.S.
should have to comply with any of the
alternatives described for domestic
renewable fuel producers under this
section. For example, we seek comment
on whether a foreign renewable fuel
producer should have to demonstrate
that it had a contract in place with its
renewable feedstock producer that
required designation and chain of
custody and handling methods similar
to one of the alternatives for domestic
renewable fuel producers discussed
above. We also seek comment on
whether foreign renewable fuel
producers that export product to the
U.S. should have to provide EPA with
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24941
the location of land from which they
will or have acquired feedstocks, along
with historical satellite or aerial imagery
demonstrating that feedstocks from
these lands meet the definition of
renewable biomass. We seek comment
on whether foreign renewable fuel
producers should also be subject to the
same quality assurance requirements
relating to their feedstock sources as
domestic renewable fuel producers, and
whether they should have the same
option to use an approved survey
consortium in lieu of implementing
their own individual quality assurance
programs.
We also seek comment on an
alternative that would provide foreign
renewable fuel producers an option of
participating in RFS2 (in a manner
consistent with our main proposal), or
not participating at all. If they elected
not to participate in RFS2, they could
export renewable fuel to the United
States without RINs, and without
providing any documentation as to
whether or not the fuel was made with
renewable biomass. However, they
would also have to meet requirements
for segregating their fuel from renewable
fuel for which RINs were generated, and
the importer of their fuel would be
required to track it to ensure that the
fuel remains segregated in the U.S. and
is not used by a domestic company for
illegal RIN generation. This alternative
would provide foreign renewable fuel
producers an option not available to
domestic renewable fuel producers, who
in all cases would be required to
document whether or not their
feedstock met the definition of
renewable biomass, and who would be
required to generate RINs for their
product if it was. As discussed in
Section III.B.4.b.ii of this preamble, EPA
believes that in order for obligated
parties to meet the increasing annual
volume requirements under RFS2, all
qualifying renewable fuel will need to
have RINs generated for it. Nonetheless,
this alternative recognizes the potential
difficulty of applying renewable
biomass verification procedures in the
international context, and provides an
exemption process that EPA expects
would only be used by relatively small
producers for whom the burden of
participating in the RFS2 program
would outweigh the benefits, and whose
total production volume would be
negligible.
C. Expanded Registration Process for
Producers and Importers
In order to implement and enforce the
new restrictions on qualifying
renewable fuel under RFS2, we are
proposing that the registration process
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24942
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
for renewable fuel producers and
importers be revised. Under the existing
RFS1 program, all producers and
importers of renewable fuel who
produce or import more than 10,000
gallons of fuel annually must register
with EPA’s fuels program prior to
generating RINs. Renewable fuel
producer and importer registration
under the existing RFS program consists
of filling out two forms: 3520–20A
(Fuels Programs Company/Entity
Registration), which requires basic
contact information for the company
and basic business activity information
(e.g., for an ethanol producer, they need
to indicate that they are a RIN
generator), and 3520–20B (Gasoline
Programs Facility Registration) or 3520–
20B1 (Diesel Programs Facility
Registration), which requires basic
contact information for each facility
owned by the producer or importer.
More detailed information on the
renewable fuel production facility, such
as production capacity and process,
feedstocks, and products is not required
for most producers or importers to
generate RINs under RFS1 (producers of
cellulosic biomass ethanol and wastederived ethanol are the exception to
this).
Due to the revised definitions of
renewable fuel under EISA, as well as
other changes, we believe it necessary to
expand the registration process for
renewable fuel producers and importers
in order to implement the new program
effectively. Specifically, generating and
assigning a certain category of RIN to a
volume of fuel is dependent on whether
the feedstock used to produce the fuel
meets the definition of renewable
biomass, whether the lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions of the fuel
meets a certain GHG reduction
threshold and, in some cases, whether
the renewable fuel production facility is
considered to be grandfathered into the
program. Unless we require producers,
including foreign producers, and
importers to provide us with
information on their feedstocks,
facilities, and products, we cannot
adequately implement or enforce the
program or have confidence that
producers and importers are properly
categorizing their fuel and generating
RINs. In particular, our proposed
approach for ensuring that the GHG
emission reduction thresholds for each
category of renewable fuel are met will
require producers and importers to
determine the proper category
assignment for their fuel based on a
combination of their feedstock,
production processes, and products (see
Section III.D.2 for the proposed list).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Such information, therefore, is central to
program implementation. Therefore, we
are proposing new registration
requirements for all domestic renewable
fuel producers, importers, and foreign
renewable fuel producers. We also plan
on integrating registration procedures
with the new EPA Moderated
Transaction System, discussed in detail
in Section IV.E of this preamble. We
encourage those affected by the
proposed registration requirements to
review the document entitled ‘‘Proposed
Information Collection Request (ICR) for
the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2)
Program—EPA ICR 2333.01,’’ and an
Addendum to the proposed ICR, which
have been placed in the public docket
and to provide comments to us
regarding the burdens associated with
the proposed registration requirements.
1. Domestic Renewable Fuel Producers
The most significant proposed
changes to the current registration
system pertain to the information that a
producer will need to provide EPA prior
to generating RINs. As noted above, we
are proposing that producers provide
information about their products,
feedstocks, and facilities in order to be
registered for the RFS2 program.
Information contained in a producer’s
registration would be used to verify the
validity of RINs generated and their
proper categorization as either cellulosic
biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced
biofuel, or other renewable fuel.
With respect to products, we are
interested in the types of renewable fuel
and co-products that a facility is capable
of producing. With respect to
feedstocks, we believe it is necessary to
have on file a list of all the different
feedstocks that a renewable fuel
producer’s facility is capable of
converting into renewable fuel. For
example, if a renewable fuel producer
produces fuel from both cellulosic
material, such as corn stover, and noncellulosic material, such as corn starch,
the producer may be eligible to generate
RINs in two different categories
(cellulosic biofuel and renewable fuel).
This producer’s registration information
would be required to list both of these
feedstocks before we would allow two
different categories of RINs to be
generated.
With respect to the producer’s
facilities, we are proposing two types of
information that would need to be
reported to the Agency. First, we believe
it is important to have information on
file that describes each facility’s fuel
production processes (e.g., wet mill, dry
mill, thermochemical, etc.), and
thermal/process energy source(s).
Second, in order to determine what
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
production volumes would be
grandfathered and thus deemed to be in
compliance with the 20% GHG
threshold, we would require evidence
and certification of the facility’s
qualification under the definition of
‘‘commence construction’’ as well as
information necessary to establish it’s
renewable fuel baseline volume per the
proposal outlined in Section III.B.3 of
this preamble.
Under the existing RFS1 program,
producers of cellulosic biomass and
waste-derived ethanol are required to
have an annual engineering review of
their production records performed by
an independent third party who is
licensed Professional Engineer (P.E.)
who works in the chemical engineering
field. This independent third party need
not be based in the United States, but
must hold a P.E. Each review must be
kept on file by both the producer and
the engineer for five years. The
independent third party must include
documentation of its qualifications as
part of the engineering review. Foreign
producers of cellulosic biomass and
waste-derived ethanol are also required
to have an engineering review of their
facilities, with a report submitted to
EPA that describes in detail the physical
plant and its operation. These
requirements helps ensure that
producers who claim to be producing
such fuel, which earns 2.5 RINs per
gallon rather than 1.0 RIN per gallon for
corn-based ethanol under RFS1, are in
fact doing so.
We believe that the requirement for an
on-site engineering review is an
effective implementation tool and
propose to adopt the requirement under
RFS2, with the following changes. First,
we propose expanding the applicability
of the requirement to all renewable fuel
producers due to the variability of
production facilities, the increase in the
number of categories of renewable fuels,
and the importance of generating RINs
in the correct category. Second, we
propose that every renewable fuel
producer must have the on-site
engineering review of their facility
performed in conjunction with his or
her initial registration for the new RFS
program in order to establish the proper
basis for RIN generation, and every three
years thereafter to verify that the fuel
pathways established in their initial
registration are still applicable. These
requirements would apply unless the
renewable fuel producer updates its
facility registration information to
qualify for a new RIN category (i.e., D
code), in which case the review would
need to be performed within 60 days of
the registration update. Finally, we
propose that producers be required to
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
submit a copy of their independent
engineering review to EPA rather than
simply maintaining it in their records.
We believe that this extra step is
necessary for verification and
enforcement purposes.
In addition to the new registration
requirements for all renewable fuel
producers who produce greater than
10,000 gallons of product each year, we
seek comment on whether to require
renewable fuel producers and importers
in the U.S. who produce or import less
than 10,000 gallons per year to register
basic information about their company
and facility (or facilities) with EPA,
similar to information currently
required of renewable fuel producers
under RFS1. This information would
complement information submitted to
EPA under the Fuels and Fuel Additives
Registration System (FFARS) program to
help ensure that EPA has a complete
record of renewable fuel production and
importation in the U.S.
2. Foreign Renewable Fuel Producers
Under the current RFS program,
foreign renewable fuel producers of
cellulosic biomass ethanol and wastederived ethanol may apply to EPA to
generate RINs for their own fuel. This
allows a foreign producer of this
renewable fuel to obtain the same
benefits of higher credit value as
domestic producers of this category of
renewable fuel. Under the RFS1
regulations, the foreign fuel producer
must meet a variety of requirements
established to make the program
effective and enforceable with respect to
a foreign producer. These requirements
mirror a number of similar fuel
provisions that apply to foreign refiners
in other fuels programs. For RFS2, we
propose that foreign producers of
renewable fuel must meet the same
requirements as domestic producers,
including registering information about
their feedstocks, facilities, and products,
as well as submitting an on-site
independent engineering review of their
facilities at the time of registration for
the program and every three years
thereafter. These requirements would
apply to all foreign renewable fuel
producers who export their products to
the U.S., whether or not they qualify to
generate RINs for their fuel. They would
also be subject to the variety of
enforcement related provisions that
apply under RFS1 to foreign producers
of cellulosic biomass or waste derived
ethanol.
As discussed in Section III.C.1, the
existing RFS1 program requires that the
independent engineering review be
conducted by an independent third
party who is a licensed P.E. who works
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
in the chemical engineering field. This
P.E. need not be based in the United
States. The independent third party
must include documentation of its
qualifications as part of the engineering
review.
Since implementation of RFS1 we
have received questions about engineers
who are licensed by other countries that
may have equivalent licensing
requirements to those associated with
the P.E. designation in the United
States. The existing RFS1 program does
not permit independent third party
review by a party who is not a licensed
P.E. We invite comment on whether or
not we should permit independent third
parties who are based in—and licensed
by—foreign countries and who work in
the chemical engineering field to
demonstrate the foreign equivalency of
a P.E. license.
We also seek comment on requiring
foreign renewable fuel producers to
provide EPA with the location of land
from which they will acquire
feedstocks, along with historical
satellite or aerial imagery demonstrating
that the lands from which they acquire
feedstock are eligible under the
definition of renewable biomass (see
Section III.B.4 for a full discussion of
our proposed and alternative
approaches for foreign renewable fuel
producers to verify their feedstocks
meet the definition of ‘‘renewable
biomass’’).
3. Renewable Fuel Importers
A renewable fuel importer is required
under RFS1 to register basic information
about their company with EPA prior to
generating RINs. Under the proposed
new RFS2 program, we are proposing
that only in limited cases can importers
generate RINs for imported fuel that
they receive without RINs. In any case,
whether they receive fuel with or
without RINs, an importer must rely on
his supplier, a foreign renewable fuel
producer, to provide documentation to
support any claims for their decision to
generate or not to generate RINs. An
importer may have an agreement with a
foreign renewable fuel producer for the
importer to generate RINs if the foreign
producer has not done so already.
However, the foreign renewable fuel
producer must be registered with EPA
as noted above. Section III.D.2.c
describes our proposed RIN generating
restrictions and requirements for
importers under RFS2.
4. Process and Timing
We intend to make forms for
expanded registration for renewable fuel
producers and importers available
electronically, with paper registration
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24943
only in exceptional cases. We propose
that registration forms will have to be
submitted by January 1, 2010 (the
proposed effective date of the final RFS2
regulations), or 60 days prior to a
producer producing or importer
importing any renewable fuel,
whichever dates comes later. If a
producer changes to a feedstock that is
not listed in his registration information
on file with EPA but the feedstock will
not incur a change of RIN category for
the fuel (i.e., a change in the appropriate
D code), then we propose that the
producer must update his registration
information within seven (7) days of the
change. However, if a producer’s
feedstock, facility (including industrial
processes or thermal energy source), or
products undergo changes that would
qualify his renewable fuel for a new RIN
category (and thus a new D code), then
we propose that such an update would
need to be submitted at least 60 days
prior to the change, followed by
submittal of a complete on-site
independent engineering review of the
producer’s facility also within 60 days
of the change.
D. Generation of RINs
Under RFS2, each RIN would
continue to be generated by the
producer or importer of the renewable
fuel, as in the RFS1 program. In order
to determine the number of RINs that
must be generated and assigned to a
batch of renewable fuel, the actual
volume of the batch of renewable fuel
must be multiplied by the appropriate
Equivalence Value. The producer or
importer must also determine the
appropriate D code to assign to the RIN
to identify which of the four standards
the RIN can be used to meet. This
section describes these two aspects of
the generation of RINs. We propose that
other aspects of the generation of RINs,
such as the definition of a batch and
temperature standardization, as well as
the assignment of RINs to batches,
should remain unchanged from the
RFS1 requirements.
1. Equivalence Values
For RFS1, we interpreted CAA section
211(o) as allowing us to develop
Equivalence Values representing the
number of gallons that can be claimed
for compliance purposes for every
physical gallon of renewable fuel. We
described how the use of Equivalence
Values adjusted for renewable content
and based on energy content in
comparison to the energy content of
ethanol was consistent with
Congressional intent to treat different
renewable fuels differently in different
circumstances, and to provide
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24944
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
incentives for use of renewable fuels in
certain circumstances, as evidenced by
the specific circumstances addressed by
Congress. This included the direction
that EPA establish ‘‘appropriate’’ credit
values in certain circumstances, as well
as provisions in the statute providing for
different credit values to be assigned to
the same volume of different types of
renewable fuels (e.g., cellulosic and
waste-derived fuels). We also noted that
the use of Equivalence Values based on
energy content was an appropriate
measure of the extent to which a
renewable fuel would replace or reduce
the quantity of petroleum or other fossil
fuel present in a fuel mixture. The result
was an Equivalence Value for ethanol of
1.0, for butanol of 1.3, for biodiesel
(mono alkyl ester) of 1.5, and for nonester renewable diesel of 1.7. EPA stated
that these provisions indicated that
Congress did not intend to limit the RFS
program solely to a straight volume
measurement of gallons. EPA also noted
that the use of Equivalence Values
would not interfere with meeting the
overall volume goals specified by
Congress, given the various provisions
that make achievement of the specified
volumes imprecise. See 72 FR 23918–
23920, and 71 FR 55570–55571.
EISA has not changed certain of the
statutory provisions we looked to for
support under RFS1 in establishing
Equivalence Values based on relative
volumetric energy content in
comparison to ethanol. For instance,
CAA 211(o) continues to give EPA the
authority to determine an ‘‘appropriate’’
credit for biodiesel, and also directs
EPA to determine the ‘‘appropriate’’
amount of credit for renewable fuel use
in excess of the required volumes.
However, EISA made a number of
other changes to CAA section 211(o)
that impact our consideration of
Equivalence Values in the context of the
RFS2 program. For instance, EISA
eliminated the 2.5-to-1 credit for
cellulosic biomass ethanol and wastederived ethanol and replaced this
provision with large mandated volumes
of cellulosic biofuel and advanced
biofuels. Under the RFS1 program, an
Equivalence Value of 2.5 applies to
these types of ethanol through the end
of 2012. Under the new RFS2 program,
these types of ethanol would have an
Equivalence Value of 1.0, consistent
with all other forms of ethanol.
EISA also expanded the program to
include four separate categories of
renewable fuel (cellulosic biofuel,
biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel,
and total renewable fuel) and included
GHG thresholds in the definitions of
each category. Each of these categories
of renewable fuel has its own volume
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
requirement, and thus there will exist a
guaranteed market for each. As a result
there may no longer be a need for
additional incentives for certain fuels in
the form of Equivalence Values greater
than 1.0. In addition, the use of an
energy-based approach to Equivalence
Values raises some questions, discussed
below, concerning the impact of such
Equivalence Values on the biomassbased diesel volume requirement and in
the initial years on the advanced biofuel
volume requirement. Overall EPA
believes that the statute continues to be
ambiguous on this issue, and we are
therefore co-proposing and seeking
comment on two options for
Equivalence Values:
1. Equivalence Values would be based
on the energy content and renewable
content of each renewable fuel in
comparison to denatured ethanol,
consistent with the approach under
RFS1.
2. All liquid renewable fuels would be
counted strictly on the basis of their
measured volumes, and the Equivalence
Values for all renewable fuels would be
1.0 (essentially, Equivalence Values
would no longer apply).
While these two different approaches
to volume would have an impact on the
market values of renewable fuels with
different energy contents as explained
more fully below, the overall impact on
the program would likely be small since
we are projecting that the overwhelming
majority of renewable fuels will be
ethanol (see further discussion in
Section V.A.2).
Under either option, non-liquid
renewable fuels such as biogas and
renewable electricity would continue to
be valued based on the energy contained
in one gallon of denatured ethanol. In
the RFS1 final rulemaking, we specified
that 77,550 Btu of biogas be counted as
the equivalent of 1 gallon of renewable
fuel with an assigned Equivalence Value
of 1.0. We propose to maintain this
approach to non-liquid renewable fuels
under the RFS2 program under either
approach to Equivalence Values, but
with a small modification to make the
ethanol energy content more accurate.
The energy content of denatured ethanol
was specified as 77,550 Btu/gal under
RFS1, but a more accurate value would
be 77,930 Btu/gal. Thus we propose to
use 77,930 Btu to convert biogas and
renewable electricity into volumes of
renewable fuel under RFS2.
Under the second option in which all
liquid renewable fuels would be
counted strictly on the basis of their
measured volumes, we would need to
determine how to treat the small
amount of denaturant in ethanol and the
nonrenewable portion of biodiesel.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Under RFS1, Equivalence Values were
determined from a formula that
included measures of both volumetric
energy content and renewable content.
The renewable content was intended to
take into account the portion, if any, of
a renewable fuel that originated from a
fossil fuel feedstock. EISA eliminated
the statutory language on which the
inclusion of renewable content was
based, and instead restricts renewable
fuels that are valid under the RFS2
program to those produced from
renewable biomass. In the case of fuels
produced from both renewable and
nonrenewable feedstocks, we have
interpreted this to mean only that
portion of the volume attributable to the
renewable feedstocks (see further
discussion in Section III.D.4 below).
However, we do not believe that this
approach is appropriate for the
denaturant in ethanol and the small
amount of non-renewable methanol
used in the production of biodiesel,
since Congress clearly intended that
ethanol and biodiesel be included as a
renewable fuel, and they are only used
as a fuel under these circumstances. We
therefore propose to treat the denaturant
in ethanol and the nonrenewable
portion of biodiesel as de minimus and
thus count them as part of the
renewable fuel volume under an
approach to Equivalence Values in
which all liquid renewable fuels would
be counted strictly on the basis of their
measured volumes. As a result, under
this co-proposed approach we are
proposing that the full formula used to
calculate Equivalence Values under
RFS1 be eliminated from the regulations
and that the Equivalence Value for all
renewable fuels be specified as 1.0.
Nevertheless, we seek comment on this
approach.
Although there are several reasons for
a straight volume approach as discussed
above, there are also several reasons to
maintain the ethanol-equivalent energy
content approach to Equivalence Values
of RFS1. For instance, in our
discussions with stakeholders, some
have argued that the existence of four
standards is not a sufficient reason to
eliminate the use of energy-based
Equivalence Values for RFS2. The four
categories are defined in such a way that
a variety of different types of renewable
fuel could qualify for each category,
such that no single specific type of
renewable fuel will have a guaranteed
market. For example, the cellulosic
biofuel requirement could be met with
both cellulosic ethanol or cellulosic
diesel. As a result, the existence of four
standards under RFS2 may not obviate
the value of standardizing for energy
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
content, which provides a level playing
field under RFS1 for various types of
renewable fuels based on energy
content.
More importantly, they argue that a
straight volume approach would be
likely to create a disincentive for the
development of new renewable fuels
that have a higher energy content than
ethanol in the same way as the current
ethanol tax credit structure. For a given
mass of feedstock, the volume of
renewable fuel that can be produced is
roughly inversely proportional to its
energy content. For instance, one ton of
biomass could be gasified and converted
to syngas, which could then be
catalytically reformed into either 90
gallons of ethanol (and other alcohols)
or 50 gallons of diesel fuel (and
naphtha).24 If RINs were assigned on a
straight volume basis, the producer
could maximize the number of RINs he
is able to generate and sell by producing
ethanol instead of diesel. Thus, even if
the market would otherwise lean
towards demanding greater volumes of
diesel, the greater RIN value for
producing ethanol may favor its
production instead. However, if the
energy-based Equivalence Values were
maintained, the producer could assign
1.7 RINs to each gallon of diesel made
from biomass in comparison to 1.0 RIN
to each gallon of ethanol from biomass,
and the total number of RINs generated
would be essentially the same for the
diesel as it would be for the ethanol.
The use of energy-based Equivalence
Values could thus provide a level
playing field in terms of the RFS
program’s incentives to produce
different types of renewable fuel from
the available feedstocks. The market
would then be free to choose the most
appropriate renewable fuels without any
bias imposed by the RFS regulations,
and the costs imposed on different types
of renewable fuel through the
assignment of RINs would be more
evenly aligned with the ability of those
fuels to power vehicles and engines, and
displace fossil fuel-based gasoline or
diesel.
Moreover, the technologies for
producing more energy-dense fuels such
as cellulosic diesel are still in the early
stages of development and may benefit
from not having to overcome the
disincentive in the form of the same
Equivalence Value based on straight
volume. Given the projected tightness in
the distillate market and relative excess
supply in the gasoline market in the
24 Another example would be a fermentation
process in which one ton of cellulose could be used
to produce either 70 gallons of ethanol or 55 gallons
of butanol.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
coming years, allowing the market to
choose freely may be important to
overall fuel supply. In the extreme, the
cellulosic biofuel standard could then
be met by roughly 10 billion gallons of
a cellulosic diesel fuel instead of the 16
billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol
assumed for the impacts analysis of this
proposal. The same amount of
petroleum energy would be displaced,
but by different physical volumes.
As discussed above, there are no
provisions in EISA that explicitly
instruct the Agency to change from the
approach to Equivalence Values
adopted in RFS1. However, there is a
question of how to address the biomassbased diesel requirement under such an
approach. In that context, it does appear
that Congress intended the required
volumes of biomass-based diesel to be
treated as diesel volumes rather than
ethanol-equivalent volumes. Therefore
EPA proposes that, for the biomassbased diesel volume mandate under an
ethanol-equivalent energy content
approach to Equivalence Values, the
compliance calculations would be
structured such that this requirement is
treated in effect as a straight volumebased requirement.25
In addition, it is also clear that
Congress established the advanced
biofuel standard in EISA to begin to take
affect in 2009. However, if we maintain
the ethanol-equivalent energy content
approach for RFS2, and biodiesel
continues to have an Equivalence Value
of 1.5, then from 2009–2012 the
combination of the biomass-based diesel
standard and the cellulosic biofuel
standard will meet or exceed the
advanced biofuel standard. Unless we
were to waive a portion of either the
biomass-based diesel standard or the
cellulosic biofuel standard, the
advanced biofuel standard would not
25 The proposed regulations and the ensuing
discussion in Sections III and IV of this proposal
reflect straight volume approach, however, the
impacts analysis of the program are calculated
using volumes based on ethanol-equivalent energy
content. Were we to maintain the energy content
approach to Equivalence Values, then we believe
the biomass-based diesel standard should be treated
in effect as a biodiesel volume, reflecting the nature
of this standard, while the other three standards
would be treated as ethanol-equivalent volumes. In
order to effectuate this, we are considering two
approaches. Under either approach all RINs would
be generated based on ethanol-equivalent volume,
including biomass-based diesel RINs. Under one
approach, we would propose that the biomassbased diesel standard also be expressed as an
ethanol-equivalent volume (e.g., 1.5 billion ethanolequivalent gallons in 2012). Another approach
would be to have the standard expressed as a
volume of biomass-based diesel, and to require the
biomass-based diesel RINs be adjusted back to a
volume basis, with this adjustment just for purposes
of the biomass-based diesel standard but not for
purposes of the other fuels mandates. Either
approach would have the same result.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24945
have an independent effect until 2013.
While EPA recognizes this, EPA
believes that the long term benefits of an
energy based Equivalence Value may be
significantly greater than any temporary
diminishment in the real world impact
of the advanced biofuel mandate.
In recognition of the competing
perspectives, we request comment on
both co-proposed approaches to the
Equivalence Values: (1) Retaining the
energy-based approach of the RFS1
program, and (2) a straight volume
approach measured in liquid gallons of
renewable fuel.
2. Fuel Pathways and Assignment of D
Codes
As described in Section III.A, we
propose that RINs under RFS2 would
continue to have the same number of
digits and code definitions as under
RFS1. The one change would be that,
while the D code would continue to
identify the standard to which the RIN
could be applied, it would be modified
to have four values corresponding to the
four different renewable fuel categories
defined in EISA. These four D code
values and the corresponding categories
are shown in Table III.A–1.
In order to generate RINs for
renewable fuel that meets the various
eligibility requirements (see Section
III.B), a producer or importer must know
which D code to assign to those RINs.
We propose that a producer or importer
would determine the appropriate D code
using a lookup table in the regulations.
The lookup table would list various
combinations of fuel type, production
process, and feedstock, and the
producer or importer would choose the
appropriate combination representing
the fuel he is producing and for which
he is generating RINs. Parties generating
RINs would be required to use the D
code specified in the lookup table and
would not be permitted to use a D code
representing a broader renewable fuel
category. For example, a party whose
fuel qualified as biomass-based diesel
could not choose to categorize that fuel
as advanced biofuel or general
renewable fuel.
This section describes our proposed
approach to the assignment of D codes
to RINs for domestic producers, foreign
producers, and importers of renewable
fuel. Subsequent sections address the
generation of RINs in special
circumstances, such as when a
production facility has multiple
applicable combinations of feedstock,
fuel type, and production process
within a calendar year, production
facilities that co-process renewable
biomass and fossil fuels, and production
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24946
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
facilities for which the lookup table
does not provide an applicable D code.
a. Domestic Producers
For domestic producers, the lookup
table would identify individual fuel
‘‘pathways’’ comprised of unique
combinations of the type of renewable
fuel being produced, the feedstock used
to produce the renewable fuel, and a
description of the production process.
Each pathway would be assigned to one
of the four specific D codes on the basis
of the revised renewable fuel definitions
provided in EISA and our assessment of
the GHG lifecycle performance for that
pathway. A description of the lifecycle
assessment of each fuel pathway and the
process we used for determining the
associated D code can be found in
Section VI. Note that the subsequent
generation of RINs would also require as
a prerequisite that the feedstocks used
to make the renewable fuel meet the
definition of ‘‘renewable biomass’’ as
described in Section III.B.4, including
applicable land use restrictions.
Moreover, a domestic producer could
not introduce renewable fuel into
commerce without generating RINs
unless he had records demonstrating
that the feedstocks used to produce the
fuel did not meet the definition of
renewable biomass. See Section
III.B.4.b.ii for further discussion of this
issue.
Through our assessment of the
lifecycle GHG impacts of different
pathways and the application of the
EISA definitions for each of the four
categories of renewable fuel, including
the GHG thresholds, we have
determined that all four categories
would have pathways that could be
used to meet the Act’s volume
requirements. For example, ethanol
made from corn stover or switchgrass in
an enzymatic hydrolysis process would
count as cellulosic biofuel. Biodiesel
made from waste grease could count as
biomass-based diesel. Ethanol made
from sugarcane sugar may count as
advanced biofuel depending on the
results of the lifecycle assessment
conducted for the final rule and a
determination about whether the GHG
threshold for advanced biofuel should
be adjusted downward. Finally, under
an assumed 100-year timeframe and 2%
discount rate for GHG emissions
impacts, a variety of pathways would
count as generic renewable fuel under
the RFS2 program, including ethanol
made from corn starch in a facility
powered by biomass combustion and
biodiesel made from soybean oil. The
complete list of pathways that would be
valid under our proposed RFS program
is provided in the regulations at
§ 80.1426(d), based upon an assumed
100-year timeframe and 2% discount
rate for GHG emission impacts.
Domestic producers would choose the
appropriate D code from the lookup
table in the regulations based on the fuel
pathway that describes their facility.
The fuel pathway must be specified by
the producer in the registration process
as described in Section III.C. If there
were changes to a domestic producer’s
facility or feedstock such that their fuel
would require a D code that was
different from any D code(s) which their
existing registration information already
allowed, the producer would be
required to revise its registration
information with EPA 30 days prior to
changing the applicable D code it uses
to generate RINs. Situations in which
multiple fuel pathways could apply to
a single facility are addressed in Section
III.D.3 below.
For producers for whom none of the
defined fuel pathways in the lookup
table would apply, we propose two
possible treatments. First, such
producers may be able to generate RINs
through our proposed system of default
D codes as described in Section III.D.5
below. Second, if a producer meets the
criteria for grandfathered status as
described in Section III.B.3 and his fuel
meets the definition of renewable fuel as
described in Section III.B.1, he could
continue to generate RINs for his fuel
but would use a D code of 4 for those
RINs generated under the grandfathering
provisions. If a producer was not
covered by either of these two
treatments, we propose that he would
not be permitted to generate RINs for his
product until the lookup table in the
regulations was modified to include a
pathway applicable to his operations.
A diesel fuel product produced from
cellulosic feedstocks that meets the 60%
GHG threshold could qualify as either
cellulosic biofuel or biomass-based
diesel. As a result, we are proposing that
the producer of such ‘‘cellulosic diesel’’
be given the choice of whether to
categorize his product as either
cellulosic biofuel or biomass-based
diesel. This would allow the producer
to market his product and the associated
RINs on the basis of market demand.
However, we request comment on an
alternative approach as shown in Table
III.D.2.a–1 in which an additional D
code would be defined to represent
cellulosic diesel and an obligated party
would be given the choice of using
cellulosic diesel RINs either to meet his
or her RVO for cellulosic biofuel or for
biomass-based diesel.
TABLE III.D.2.a–1—ALTERNATIVE D CODE DEFINITIONS TO ACCOMMODATE CELLULOSIC DIESEL
D value
Meaning under RFS1
1 ......................................................
2 ......................................................
Cellulosic biomass ethanol ........................................
Any renewable fuel that is not cellulosic biomass
ethanol.
Not applicable ............................................................
Not applicable ............................................................
Not applicable ............................................................
3 ......................................................
4 ......................................................
5 ......................................................
Under this alternative, producers of
cellulosic diesel would assign a D code
of 3 to their product rather than being
given a choice of whether to assign a D
code of 1 or 2. Any obligated party that
acquired a RIN with a D code of 3 could
apply that RIN to either its cellulosic
biofuel or biomass-based diesel
obligation, but not both. The advantage
of this alternative approach is that it
reflects the full compliance value for the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Meaning under RFS2
Cellulosic biofuel.
Biomass-based diesel.
Cellulosic biofuel or biomass-based diesel.
Advanced biofuel.
Renewable fuel.
product, and hence its potential value to
an obligated party. The obligated party
is then given the ability to make a
choice about how to treat cellulosic
diesel based on the market price and
availability of RINs with D codes of 1
and 2. We request comment on this
alternative approach to the designation
of D codes for cellulosic diesel.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
b. Foreign Producers
Under RFS1, foreign producers have
the option of generating RINs for the
renewable fuel that they export to the
U.S. if they want to designate their fuel
as cellulosic biomass ethanol or wastederived ethanol, and thereby take
advantage of the additional 1.5 credit
value afforded by the 2.5 Equivalence
Value for such products. In order to
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
ensure that EPA has the ability to
enforce the regulations relating to the
generation of RINs from such foreign
ethanol producers, the RFS1 regulations
require them to post a bond and submit
to third-party engineering reviews of
their production process. If a foreign
producer does not generate RINs for the
renewable fuel that it exports to the
U.S., the U.S. importer is responsible for
generating the RINs associated with the
imported renewable fuel.
EISA creates unique challenges in the
implementation and enforcement of the
renewable fuel standards for imported
renewable fuel. Unlike our other fuels
programs, EPA cannot determine
whether a particular shipment of
renewable fuel is eligible to generate
RINs under the new program by testing
the fuel itself. Instead, information
regarding the feedstock that was used to
produce renewable fuel and the process
by which it was produced is vital to
determining the proper renewable fuel
category and RIN type for the imported
fuel. It is for these reasons that we
required foreign producers of cellulosic
biomass ethanol or waste-derived
ethanol under RFS1 to take additional
steps to ensure the validity of the RINs
they generate.
For RFS2 we are proposing a similar
approach to that taken under RFS1, but
with a number of modifications to
account for the changes that EISA makes
to the definition of renewable fuel.
Thus, we propose that foreign producers
would have the option of generating
RINs for any renewable fuel (not just the
cellulosic biofuel category) that they
export to the U.S. If the foreign producer
did not generate RINs, the importer
would be required to generate RINs for
the imported renewable fuel. Our
proposed importer provisions are
covered in more detail in Section
III.D.2.c below.
In general, we propose that foreign
producers of renewable fuel who intend
to export their fuel to the U.S. would
use the same process as domestic
producers to generate RINs, namely the
lookup table to identify the appropriate
D code as a function of fuel type,
production process, and feedstock. They
would be required to be registered with
the EPA as a producer under the RFS2
program and would be subject to the
same recordkeeping, reporting, and
attest engagement requirements as
domestic producers, including those
provisions associated with ensuring that
the feedstocks they use meet the
definition of renewable biomass. They
would also be required to submit to
third-party engineering reviews of their
production process and use of
feedstocks, just as domestic producers
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
are. As under the RFS1 program, the
foreign producer would also be required
to comply with additional requirements
designed to ensure that enforcement of
the regulations at the foreign production
facility would not be compromised. For
instance, foreign producers would be
required to designate renewable fuel
intended for export to the U.S. as such
and segregate the volume until it
reaches the U.S. in order to ensure that
RINs are only generated for volumes
imported into the U.S. Foreign
producers would also be required to
post a bond to ensure that penalties can
be assessed in the event of a violation.
Moreover, as a regulated party under the
RFS2 program, foreign producers must
allow for potential visits by EPA
enforcement personnel to review the
completeness and accuracy of records
and registration information. Noncompliance with any of these
requirements could be grounds for
refusing to allow renewable fuel from
such a foreign producer to be imported
into the U.S.
For RFS2, we are proposing a number
of additional provisions to address
foreign companies that produce
renewable fuel for export to the United
States, but that do not generate their
own RINs for that renewable fuel. These
provisions are intended to account for
the greater difficulties in verifying the
validity of RINs for imported renewable
fuel when the importer is generating the
RINs, given that the importer would
generally not have direct knowledge of
the feedstocks used to produce the
renewable fuel, the land used to grow
those feedstocks, or the fuel production
process. We believe that these
additional provisions would be
necessary to ensure that RINs
representing imported renewable fuel
and used by obligated parties have been
generated appropriately.
As described more fully in Section
III.D.2.c below, importers would only be
allowed to import renewable fuel from
registered foreign producers and would
be required to generate RINs for all
imported renewable fuel that has not
been assigned RINs by the foreign
producer. Like domestic and foreign
producers who generate RINs, the
importer must be able to determine if
the renewable biomass definition has
been met before generating RINs. The
importer must also have enough
information about the production
process and feedstock to be able to use
the lookup table to identify the
appropriate D code to include in the
RINs he generates. Since the foreign
producer is the only party who can
provide this information, we believe
that it would be appropriate to require
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24947
the foreign producer of any renewable
fuel exported to the U.S. to provide this
information to the U.S. importer before
the renewable fuel enters U.S.
commerce even if the foreign producer
is not generating RINs himself.
Moreover, the foreign producer should
be liable for the accuracy of this
information just as if he were the party
generating RINs. Therefore, in order to
ensure that RINs are valid regardless of
who generates them, we propose that all
the provisions described above that
would be applicable to a foreign
producer who generates RINs would
also apply to a foreign producer who
does not generate RINs but still exports
renewable fuel to the U.S. This would
include registration with the EPA under
the RFS2 program, being subject to all
the recordkeeping, reporting, and attest
engagement requirements, and posting a
bond. The only exception would be that
the foreign producer would not be
required to segregate a specific volume
between the foreign producer’s facility
and the import facility if the foreign
producer is not generating RINs, since
the importer would be the primary party
responsible for measuring the volume
before generating RINs.
Although we are proposing that RINs
for imported renewable fuel could be
generated by either the importer or the
foreign producer, it is possible that this
could result in difficulty in verifying
that only one set of RINs has been
generated for a given volume of
renewable fuel. One possible solution
would be to require a foreign producer
to make a decision regarding RIN
generation that would apply for an
entire calendar year. Under this
approach, a foreign producer would be
required to either generate RINs for all
the renewable fuel that he exports to the
U.S within a calendar year, or to
generate no RINs for the renewable fuel
that he exports to the U.S within a
calendar year. While we are not
proposing this approach it today’s
action, we request comment on it.
As described in Section III.B.4.b.ii, we
are proposing that domestic producers
could only introduce renewable fuel
into commerce without generating RINs
if they demonstrate that feedstocks used
to produce the fuel did not meet the
definition of renewable biomass. Thus it
would not be sufficient for a domestic
producer to simply fail to make a
demonstration that the renewable
biomass definition had been met, and
thereby avoid generation of RINs. We
propose that a similar approach would
be applied to imported renewable fuel.
As a result, all renewable fuel that
would be imported into the U.S. would
be required to come with
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24948
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
documentation regarding the status of
the feedstock’s compliance with the
renewable biomass definition. In the
case of documentation indicating that
the renewable biomass definition had
been met, the importer would be
required to generate RINs. In the case of
documentation indicating that the
renewable biomass definition had not
been met, the importer would be
prohibited from generating RINs but
could still import the renewable fuel
into the U.S. Renewable fuel that was
not accompanied by any documentation
regarding the status of the feedstock’s
compliance with the renewable biomass
definition could not be imported into
the U.S.
Our proposed approach to foreign
producers is consistent with the
approach we propose taking for
domestic producers, in that the
producer is responsible for ensuring that
RINs generated for renewable fuel used
in the U.S. are valid and categorized
appropriately. While our proposed
approach to foreign producers of
renewable fuel under RFS2 would
require additional actions in
comparison to their general
requirements under RFS1, we believe
these provisions would be necessary to
ensure that the volume mandates shown
in Table II.A.1–1 are met, given the new
definitions for renewable fuel and
renewable biomass in EISA. We request
comment on our proposed approach to
foreign producers.
c. Importers
Under RFS1, importers who import
more than 10,000 gallons in a calendar
year must generate RINs for all imported
renewable fuel based on its type, except
for cases in which the foreign producer
generated RINs for cellulosic biomass
ethanol or waste-derived ethanol. Due to
the new definitions of renewable fuel
and renewable biomass in EISA,
importers could no longer generate RINs
under RFS2 on the basis of fuel type
alone. Instead, they must be able to
determine whether or not the renewable
biomass definition has been met for the
renewable fuel they intend to import,
and they must also have sufficient
information about the feedstock and
process used to make the renewable fuel
to allow them to identify the
appropriate D code from the lookup
table for use in the RINs they generate.
As described in Section III.D.2.b above,
we are proposing that in order for an
importer to import renewable fuel into
the U.S., the foreign producer would
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
have to provide this information to the
importer.
Under today’s proposal, importers
would be able to import renewable fuels
only under one of the following
scenarios:
1. The importer receives RINs
generated by the registered foreign
producer when he imports a volume of
renewable fuel.
2. The imported renewable fuel is not
accompanied by RINs generated by the
registered foreign producer, and the
foreign producer provides the importer
with:
—A demonstration that the renewable
biomass definition has been met for
the volume of renewable fuel being
imported.
—Information about the feedstock and
production process used to produce
the renewable fuel.
In this case, the importer would be
required to generate RINs for the
imported renewable fuel before
introducing it into commerce in the
contiguous 48 states or Hawaii.
3. The imported renewable fuel is not
accompanied by RINs generated by the
registered foreign producer, and the
foreign producer provides the importer
with a demonstration that the renewable
biomass definition has not been met for
the volume of renewable fuel being
imported. See further discussion of this
issue in Section III.B.4.b.ii. The
importer would be prohibited from
generating RINs for the imported
volume, but could still introduce the
renewable fuel into commerce.
If none of these scenarios applied, the
importer would be prohibited from
importing renewable fuel. Our proposed
approach to imported fuels would apply
to both neat renewable fuel and
renewable fuels blended into gasoline or
diesel.
As described in Section III.B.4.e, we
also seek comment on an alternative
approach to imported renewable fuel in
which foreign renewable fuel producers
would have the option of not
participating in RFS2 but still export
renewable fuel to the U.S. Under this
alternative approach, foreign producers
would have to meet requirements for
segregating their fuel from renewable
fuel for which RINs were generated, and
the importer of their fuel would be
required to track it to ensure that the
fuel remains segregated in the U.S. and
is not used by a domestic company for
illegal RIN generation.
While it is important that all RINs be
based on accurate information about the
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
feedstocks and production process used
to produce the renewable fuel, it may
not be necessary to place the burden
upon importers for acquiring this
information before they generate RINs.
Instead, an alternative approach would
prohibit importers from generating any
RINs, and instead require foreign
producers to generate RINs for all
renewable fuel that they export to the
U.S. We recognize that this would be a
significant change from RFS1, and thus
we are not proposing it. However, since
it would place the same responsibilities
on foreign producers as domestic
producers, we request comment on it.
3. Facilities With Multiple Applicable
Pathways
If a given facility’s operations can be
fully represented by a single pathway,
then a single D code taken from the
lookup table will be applicable to all
RINs generated at or imported into that
facility. However, we recognize that this
will not always be the case. Some
facilities use multiple feedstocks at the
same time, or switch between different
feedstocks over the course of a year. A
facility may be modified to produce the
same fuel but with a different process,
or may be modified to produce a
different type of fuel. Any of these
situations could result in multiple
pathways being applicable to a facility,
and thus there may be more than one D
code used for various RINs generated at
the facility.
If more than one pathway applies to
a facility within a compliance period,
no special steps would need to be taken
if the D codes were the same for all the
applicable pathways. In this case, all
RINs generated at the facility would
have the same D code. As for all other
producers, the producer with multiple
applicable pathways would describe its
feedstock(s), fuel type(s), and
production process(es) in its annual
report to the Agency so that we could
verify that the D code used was
appropriate.
However, if more than one pathway
applies to a facility within a compliance
period and these pathways have been
assigned different D codes, then the
producer must determine which D
codes to use when generating RINs.
There are a number of different ways
that this could occur, and our proposed
approach to designating D codes for
RINs in these cases is described in Table
III.D.3–1.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
24949
TABLE III.D.3–1—PROPOSED APPROACH TO ASSIGNING MULTIPLE D CODES FOR MULTIPLE APPLICABLE PATHWAYS
Case
Description
Proposed approach
1 ..............................................................
The pathway applicable to a facility changes on a
specific date, such that one single pathway applies before the date and another single pathway applies on and after the date.
One facility produces two or more different types
of renewable fuel at the same time.
The applicable D code used in generating RINs
must change on the date that the fuel produced changes pathways.
2 ..............................................................
3 ..............................................................
One facility uses two or more different feedstocks
at the same time to produce a single type of
renewable fuel.
In general, we are not aware of a
scenario in which a facility uses two
different processes in parallel to convert
a single type of feedstock into a single
type of renewable fuel. Therefore, we
have not created a case in Table III.D.3–
1 to address it. However, we know that
some corn-ethanol facilities may dry
only a portion of their distiller’s grains
and leave the remainder wet. Using the
lifecycle with an assumed 100 year
timeframe and 2% discount rate for
GHG emission impacts, the treatment of
the distiller’s grains could impact the
determination of whether the 20% GHG
threshold for renewable fuel has been
met, a corn-ethanol facility that dries
some portion of its distiller’s grains
would need to implement additional
technologies in order to qualify to
generate RINs for all the ethanol it
produces (if the facility has not been
grandfathered). The lifecycle analyses
The volumes of the different types of renewable
fuel should be measured separately, with different D codes applied to the separate volumes.
For any given batch of renewable fuel, the producer should assign the applicable D codes
using a ratio (explained below) defined by the
amount of each type of feedstock used.
conducted for this proposal only
examined cases in which a corn-ethanol
facility dried 100% of its distiller’s
grains or left 100% of its distiller’s
grains wet. As a result, a corn-ethanol
facility that dried only a portion of its
distiller’s grain would be treated as if it
dried 100% of its grains, and would
thus need to implement additional
GHG-reducing technologies as described
in the lookup table in order to qualify
to generate RINs. This is reflected in the
list of required production technologies
in the lookup table at § 80.1426(d) for
facilities that dry any portion of their
distiller’s grains. In practice, depending
on the selection of other technologies, it
may be possible for a facility using some
combination of dry and wet distiller’s
grains to meet the 20% GHG threshold.
Therefore we request comment on
whether a selection of pathways should
be included in the lookup table that
represent corn-ethanol facilities that dry
only a portion of their distiller’s grains.
We also request comment on whether
RINs could be assigned to only a portion
of the facility’s ethanol in cases wherein
only a portion of the distiller’s grains
are dried.
We propose that the cases listed in
Table III.D.3–1 be treated as
hierarchical, with Case 2 only being
used to address a facility’s
circumstances if Case 1 is not
applicable, and Case 3 only being used
to address a facility’s circumstances if
Case 2 is not applicable. We believe that
this approach covers all likely cases in
which multiple applicable pathways
may apply to a renewable fuel producer.
Some examples in which Case 2 or 3
would apply are provided in Table
III.D.3–2.
TABLE III.D.3–2—EXAMPLES OF FACILITIES WITH MULTIPLE PATHWAYS
Applicable
case
Example
Facility makes both diesel and naphtha (a gasoline blendstock)
from gasified biomass in a Fischer-Tropsch process.
2
Facility produces ethanol from corn starch and corn cobs/husks
Facility makes both ethanol and butanol through two different
processes using corn starch.
3
2
Facility makes ethanol through an enzymatic hydrolysis process
using both switchgrass and corn stover.
3
A facility where two or more different
types of feedstock were used to produce
a single fuel (such as Case 3 in Table
III.D.3–1) would be required to generate
two or more separate batch-RINs 26 for a
single volume of renewable fuel, and
these separate batch-RINs would have
26 Batch-RINs and gallon-RINs are defined in the
RFS1 regulations at 40 CFR 80.1101(o).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Reasoning
The production of two types of renewable fuel from the same
feedstock and process makes it highly likely that the two
pathways would be assigned the same D code. If LCA determined that this was not the case, the volumes of diesel and
naphtha can be measured separately and assigned separate
batch-RINs with different D codes.
There is only one fuel produced, so Case 2 cannot apply.
Case 2 is the default since there are two separate fuels produced. However, Case 3 would not apply regardless because
there is only one feedstock.
There is only one fuel produced, so Case 2 cannot apply.
different D codes. The D codes would be
chosen on the basis of the different
pathways as defined in the lookup table
in § 80.1426(d). The number of gallonRINs that would be included in each of
the batch-RINs would depend on the
relative amount of the different types of
feedstocks used by the facility. We
propose to use the useable energy
content of the feedstocks to determine
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
how many gallon-RINs should be
assigned to each D code. Our proposed
calculations are given in the regulations
at § 80.1126(d)(5).
In determining the useable energy
content of the feedstocks, we propose to
take into account several elements to
ensure that the number of gallon-RINs
associated with each D code is
appropriate. For instance, we propose
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24950
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
that only that portion of a feedstock
which is expected to be converted into
renewable fuel by the facility should be
counted in the calculation. For example,
a biochemical cellulosic ethanol
conversion process that could not
convert the lignin into ethanol would
not include the lignin portion of the
biomass in the calculation. This
approach would also take into account
the conversion efficiency of the facility.
We propose that the producer of the
renewable fuel would be required to
designate this fraction for the feedstocks
processed by his facility and to include
this information as part of its reporting
requirements.
We are also proposing to use the
energy content of the feedstocks instead
of their mass since we believe that their
relative energy contents are more
closely related than their mass to the
energy in the renewable fuel. Producers
would be required to designate the
energy content (in Btu/lb) of the portion
of each of their feedstocks which is
converted into fuel. We request
comment on whether producers would
determine these values independently
for their own feedstocks, or whether a
standard set of such values should be
developed and incorporated into the
regulations for use by all renewable fuel
producers. If we did specify a standard
set of energy content values, we request
comment on what those values should
be and/or the most appropriate sources
for determining those values.
Some components in the calculation
of the useable energy content of
feedstocks are unlikely to vary
significantly for a particular type of
feedstock. This would include that
portion of a feedstock which is expected
to be converted into renewable fuel by
the facility, and the relative amount of
energy in the two feedstocks. For these
factors, we propose that one set of
values be determined by the producer
and applied to all renewable fuel
production within a calendar year. The
values could be reassessed annually and
adjusted as necessary.
Although we are proposing annual
determinations of the portion of a
feedstock which is expected to be
converted into renewable fuel by the
facility and the relative amount of
energy in the two feedstocks, we are
proposing daily determinations of the
total mass of each type of feedstocks
used by the facility. This approach
would take into account the fact that the
relative amount of the different
feedstocks used could vary frequently,
and thus the determination of the total
useable energy content of the feedstocks
would be unique to the renewable fuel
produced each day. We believe that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
renewable fuel producers would have
ready access to information about total
feedstock mass used each day, such that
the timely generation of RINs should not
be unduly affected. We request
comment on the effort and time
involved in collecting information on
feedstock mass and translating this
information on a daily basis into RINs
assigned to volumes of renewable fuel.
In order to generate RINs when the
processing of two or more different
feedstocks in the same facility results in
two or more different applicable D
codes but a single renewable fuel, the
producer would continue to determine
the total number of gallon-RINs that
must be generated for and assigned to a
given volume of renewable fuel using
the process established under RFS1. In
short, the total volume of the renewable
fuel would be multiplied by its
Equivalence Value. However, the
feedstock’s useable energy content
would be used to divide the resulting
number of gallon-RINs into two or more
groups, each corresponding to a
different D code. Two, three, or more
separate batch-RINs could then be
generated and assigned to the single
volume of renewable fuel. The sum of
all gallon-RINs from the different batchRINs would be equal to the total number
of gallon-RINs that must be generated to
represent the volume of renewable fuel.
As described in Section III.J, we
propose that in their reports, producers
of renewable fuel be required to submit
information on the feedstocks they used,
their production processes, and the type
of fuel(s) they produced during the
compliance period. This would apply to
both domestic producers and foreign
producers who export any renewable
fuel to the U.S. We would use this
information to verify that the D codes
used in generating RINs were
appropriate.
4. Facilities That Co-Process Renewable
Biomass and Fossil Fuels
We expect situations to arise in which
a producer uses a renewable feedstock
simultaneously with a fossil fuel
feedstock, producing a single fuel that is
only partially renewable. For instance,
biomass might be cofired with coal in a
coal-to-liquids (CTL) process that uses
Fischer-Tropsch chemistry to make
diesel fuel, biomass and waste plastics
might be fed simultaneously into a
catalytic or gasification process to make
diesel fuel, or vegetable oils could be
fed to a hydrotreater along with
petroleum to produce a diesel fuel. In
these cases, the diesel fuel would be
only partially renewable. We propose
that RINs must be generated in such
cases, but in such a way that the number
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of gallon-RINs corresponds only to the
renewable portion of the fuel.
Under RFS1, we created a provision
to address the co-processing of
‘‘renewable crudes’’ along with
petroleum feedstocks to produce a
gasoline or diesel fuel that is partially
renewable. See 40 CFR 80.1126(d)(6).
However, this provision would not
apply in cases where either the
renewable feedstock or the fossil fuel
feedstock is a gas (e.g., biogas, natural
gas) or a solid (e.g. biomass, coal).
Therefore, we propose to eliminate the
existing provision applicable only to
liquid feedstocks and replace it with a
more comprehensive approach that
could apply to liquid, solid, or gaseous
feedstocks and any type of conversion
process. Our proposed approach would
be similar to the treatment of renewable
fuels with multiple D codes as described
in Section III.D.3 above. Thus, the
producer would determine the
renewable fuel volume that would be
assigned RINs based on the amount of
energy in the renewable feedstock
relative to the amount of energy in the
fossil feedstock. Just as two different
batch-RINs would be generated for a
single volume of renewable fuel
produced from two different renewable
feedstocks, only one batch-RIN would
be generated for a single volume of
renewable fuel produced from both a
renewable feedstock and a fossil
feedstock, and this one batch-RIN would
be based on the contribution that the
renewable feedstock makes to the
volume of renewable fuel. See
§ 80.1426(d)(6) for our proposed
calculations under these circumstances.
For facilities that co-process
renewable biomass and fossil fuels to
produce a single fuel that is partially
renewable, we propose to use the
relative energy in the feedstocks to
determine the number of gallon-RINs
that should be generated. As shown in
the regulations at § 80.1426(d)(6), the
calculation of the relative energy
contents would include factors that take
into account the conversion efficiency
of the plant, and as a result, potentially
different reaction rates and byproduct
formation for the various feedstocks
would be accounted for. The relative
energy content of the feedstocks would
be used to adjust the basic calculation
of the number of gallon-RINs downward
from that calculated on the basis of fuel
volume alone. The D code that would be
assigned to the RINs would be drawn
from the lookup table in the regulations
as if the feedstock was entirely
renewable biomass. Thus, for instance,
a coal-to-liquids plant that co-processes
some cellulosic biomass to make diesel
fuel would be treated as a plant that
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
produces only cellulosic diesel for
purposes of identifying the appropriate
D code.
One drawback of our proposed
approach is that it does nothing to
address lifecycle GHG emissions
associated with the portion of the fuel
that comes from the fossil fuel
feedstock. While the lifecycle GHG
thresholds under RFS2 are specific to
fuels made from renewable biomass,
allowing a fuel producer to generate
RINs for the co-processing of renewable
biomass with fossil fuels might provide
a greater incentive for production of
transportation fuels from processes that
have high lifecycle GHGs. In such cases,
the GHG benefits of the renewable fuel
may be overwhelmed by the GHG
increases of the fossil fuel. This is of
particular concern for CTL processes
which generally produce higher
lifecycle GHG emissions per unit of
transportation fuel produced than
traditional refinery processes that use
petroleum. Under our proposed
approach to the treatment of coprocessing of renewable biomass and
fossil fuels, incentives would be
provided for renewable fuels with lower
lifecycle GHG emissions, but there will
be little disincentive for production of
high GHG-emitting fuels made from
fossil fuels.
As an alternative to our proposed
approach, we could treat fuels produced
through co-processing of renewable
biomass and fossil fuel feedstocks in an
aggregate fashion rather than focusing
only on the renewable portion of those
fuels. In this approach, we would
require the whole fuel produced at coprocessing facilities to meet the lifecycle
GHG thresholds under RFS2. If, for
instance, a diesel fuel produced from
co-processing renewable biomass and
coal in a Fischer-Tropsch process were
determined to not meet the 20% GHG
threshold, no RINs could be generated
even though the renewable portion of
the diesel fuel might meet the 20% GHG
threshold. However, this alternative
approach would require a lifecycle
analysis that is specific to the relative
amounts of renewable biomass and
fossil fuel feedstock being used at a
particular facility, which would in turn
require a facility-specific lifecycle GHG
model. As described in Section II.A.3,
this is beyond the capabilities of our
current modeling tools. Moreover, this
alternative approach could have
undesirable effects on facilities that
produce renewable fuel from multiple
renewable feedstocks. For instance, if a
facility produced ethanol from both
corn starch and corn stover and the
lifecycle GHG assessment was
conducted for this specific facility as a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
whole, it might not meet the 60% GHG
threshold for cellulosic biofuel. As a
result, the portion of the ethanol
produced from corn stover could not be
counted as cellulosic biofuel but would
instead count only as renewable fuel,
even though our lifecycle analyses have
determined that ethanol from corn
stover does meet the 60% GHG
threshold. Nevertheless, we seek
comment on this alternative approach.
As another alternative to using the
relative energy in the feedstocks to
determine the number of gallon-RINs
that should be generated, we could
allow renewable fuel producers to use
an accepted test method to directly
measure the fraction of the fuel which
originates with biomass rather than a
fossil fuel feedstock. For instance,
ASTM test method D–6866 can be used
to determine the renewable content of
gasoline. However, such a test method
could not distinguish between fuel
made from feedstocks that meet the
definition of renewable biomass, and
other biomass feedstocks which do not
meet the definition of renewable
biomass. We request comment on the
use of ASTM D–6866 or equivalent test
methods to determine the number of
RINs generated when multiple
feedstocks are used simultaneously to
make a fuel.
5. Treatment of Fuels Without an
Applicable D Code
Among all fuels covered by our
proposed RFS2 program, we have
identified a number of specific
‘‘pathways’’ of fuels, defined by fuel
type, feedstock, and various production
process characteristics. This list
includes fuels that either already exist
in the marketplace or are expected to
exist sometime during the next decade,
and for which we had sufficient
information to conduct a lifecycle
analysis of the GHG emissions. As
described in III.D.2, we have assigned
each pathway a D code corresponding to
the four categories of renewable fuel
defined in EISA.
Despite our efforts to explicitly
address the existing or possible
pathways in our proposed program, it is
expected that a fuel, process, or
feedstock will arise that is a renewable
fuel meeting the RFS definitions, and
yet is not among the fuels we explicitly
identified in the regulations as a RINgenerating fuel. This could occur for an
entirely new fuel type, a known fuel
produced from a new feedstock, or a
known fuel produced through a unique
production process. In such cases, the
fuel may meet our definition of
renewable fuel covered under our
program, but would not have been
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24951
assigned the appropriate D code in the
regulations. To address some of these
fuel pathways, we are proposing the use
of default D codes.27
Under our proposed approach, the
producer would be required to register
under the RFS program and provide
information about their facility as
described in Section III.C. The producer
will also be required to provide any
information necessary for EPA to
perform a proper lifecycle analysis.
Additionally, the company would need
to register their renewable fuel under
title 40 CFR part 79 as a motor vehicle
fuel. If EPA determines, based on the
company’s registration, that they are not
producing renewable fuel, the company
will not be able to generate RINs.
In order to generate RINs, the
producer of renewable fuel would apply
through our registration system to use
the D code that best represents his
combination of fuel type, feedstock, and
production process. If the producer’s
combination of fuel type and feedstock,
but not production process, is
represented in an already defined
pathway combination of fuels,
processes, or feedstocks, the producer
would use the highest numerical D code
applicable to the fuel and feedstock
combination. For example, if a fuel and
feedstock spans the D Codes 3 and 4
then the producer would use 4 until the
regulations were updated. The producer
then would generate RINs using the D
code 4, until EPA could perform a
lifecycle analysis and issue a change to
the regulations to reflect the new
pathway. If the producer is making a
new fuel or using a new feedstock that
producer will still need to apply, but
would be unable to generate RINs until
the regulations were updated with the
new pathway.
Since certain combinations of fuel,
production process, and feedstock have
been determined through our lifecycle
analysis to not meet the minimum 20%
GHG threshold, they would be ineligible
to generate RINs and EPA would not
allow producers using those processes
to generate RINs using a default D code.
To effectuate this, we propose to
provide a statement in the regulations of
pathways that are prohibited from using
a default D code. For example, if a
producer is producing ethanol from
cornstarch in a process that uses coal or
natural gas for process heat, then
regardless of other elements of the
production process the producer may
not use a default D code, but must
register and provide information
27 Additional default requirements applicable to
importers of renewable fuels are discussed in
Section III.D.2.c.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24952
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
necessary to conduct a lifecycle
analysis.
EPA will not conduct a rulemaking
every year to adjust the regulations for
new fuels, processes, or feedstocks. EPA
will periodically update the regulations
as necessary under CAA section
211(o)(4) and may take the opportunity
to update the list of fuel pathways.
Companies are encouraged to work with
EPA early to provide information about
fuels, processes, or feedstocks not in the
regulations so that we can do a proper
lifecycle analysis before these fuels,
processes, or feedstocks are
commercially viable. EPA is proposing
that if the regulations are not updated
with in 5 years of receipt of the
application and the application is not
rejected in that time then the producer
will no longer be able to generate RINs
using a default D code until the
regulations are updated.
6. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
One element of the production
process that may enable renewable fuel
producers to greatly improve their GHG
emissions is carbon capture and storage
(CCS). CCS involves the process of
capturing CO2 from an industrial or
energy-related source, transporting it to
a suitable storage site, and isolating it
from the atmosphere for long periods of
time. While we are not proposing a
specific pathway in today’s NPRM that
would allow a renewable fuel producer
to use CCS to demonstrate compliance
with the GHG thresholds, we believe
that CCS could be an effective method
for significantly reducing the GHG
emissions associated with renewable
fuel production.
Although there are several possible
approaches for long-term storage of CO2,
this section will only address geologic
storage as a means to reduce CO2
emissions from renewable fuel
production facilities. This method
entails injecting CO2 deep underground
and monitoring to ensure long-term
isolation from the atmosphere. The
remainder of this section describes the
efforts to establish regulatory
requirements for CCS, and the further
work that needs to be done before
allowing the use of CCS as an element
in pathways eligible for generating RINs
under the RFS2 program.
Although there is limited experience
with integrated CCS systems in the US,
where CO2 is captured, transported and
injected for long-term storage, there are
commercial CCS projects operating
today and several DOE pilot projects
underway to further demonstrate CCS in
a variety of industrial sectors and
geological settings. The EPA has been
working closely with DOE to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
collectively ensure that governmental
research programs address the range of
potential environmental risks associated
with CCS and that appropriate
regulatory frameworks are in place to
manage risks.28
The EPA has experience regulating
underground injection of various fluids
and believes that well selected,
designed, and managed sites can
sequester CO2 for long periods of time.
The Safe Drinking Water Act’s (SDWA)
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program has been successfully
regulating tens of thousands of injection
wells for over 35 years. The UIC
program’s siting, well construction, and
monitoring and testing requirements are
keys to ensuring that injected fluids
remain in the geologic rock formations
specifically targeted for injection.
In March 2007, the EPA issued UIC
permitting guidelines for pilot geologic
sequestration projects in order to ensure
that these projects could move forward
under an appropriate regulatory
framework. Subsequently, on July 25,
2008, EPA issued a proposed
rulemaking that would address
commercial-scale projects and establish
the regulatory requirements for
underground injection of CO2 for the
purpose of geologic storage (73 FR
43492). These proposed regulations
include permitting requirements,
criteria for establishing and maintaining
the mechanical integrity of wells,
minimum criteria for siting, injection
well construction and operating
requirements, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, etc. While these
regulations cover many operational
aspects of underground injection and
monitoring geologic sequestration sites,
their purpose is to protect underground
sources of drinking water. The SDWA
does not provide authority to develop
regulations for all areas related to CCS,
including capture and transport of CO2
and accounting or certification for GHG
emissions reductions. The UIC
requirements will not replace or
supersede other statutory or regulatory
requirements for protection of human
health and the environment. Thus,
parties that implemented CCS would
still need to obtain all necessary permits
from appropriate State and Federal
authorities under the Clean Air Act or
any other applicable statutes and
regulations.
Specific areas that would need to be
addressed before allowing the
renewable fuel producers to benefit
28 More information on the EPA’s UIC Program
and ongoing research into CCS issues is available
at: https://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/
wells_sequestration.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
from CCS in meeting GHG thresholds
include: the means through which the
CO2 would be captured from the
renewable fuel production facility, the
minimum fraction that must be
captured, appropriate means for
transporting to the injection site, and
appropriate monitoring procedures to
ensure long-term storage of CO2. We
believe the CO2 that would be most
readily available for capture in an
ethanol production facility would be
that which is produced during the
fermentation process, not CO2 that is
generated during the combustion of
fossil fuels for process energy, since CO2
from the fermentation process provides
a more concentrated stream that is more
amenable to capture. However, we
request comment on the efficacy of
capturing CO2 from the combustion of
fossil fuels for process heat.
A mechanism for accounting for
potential leakage of captured CO2
during transport to the storage site or
after injection has occurred would also
be required. The renewable fuel
producer would be responsible for
tracking any leaks that occur after CO2
capture. We request comment on the
type and level of surface and/or
subsurface monitoring that would be
required to demonstrate long-term
storage of CO2. We also request
comment on whether additional
monitoring and reporting requirements
would be appropriate. For example,
whether there should be a requirement
for the monitoring and reporting of CO2
volumes captured, transported, injected
and stored, as well as any fugitive
emissions released. We seek comment
on the appropriateness of establishing a
performance standard for CO2 leakage
during transport, injection, and/or
geologic storage, and any data that
might be available to help develop such
a performance standard.
Finally, in order to generate RINs, the
renewable fuel producer would have to,
at minimum, demonstrate that a
sufficient amount of CO2 was
sequestered to reach the appropriate
lifecycle GHG threshold. We expect that
the regulations would need to specify
the minimum fraction of CO2 emitted
that must be captured and stored in
order for a renewable fuel producer to
qualify for generating RINs. We request
comment on whether this approach is
appropriate.
E. Applicable Standards
CAA section 211(o)(3) describes how
the applicable standards are to be
calculated. The only changes made to
this provision by EISA are substituting
‘‘transportation fuel’’ for gasoline, and
reflecting the expanded number of years
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
and additional renewable fuel categories
added by Congress in CAA 211(o)(2). In
general the form of the standard will not
change under RFS2. The renewable fuel
standards will continue to be expressed
as a volume percentage, and will be
used by each refiner, blender or
importer to determine their renewable
volume obligations. The applicable
percentages are set so that if each
regulated party meets the percentages,
then the amount of renewable fuel,
cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel,
and advanced biofuel used will meet the
volumes specified in Table II.A.1–1.29
The new renewable fuel standards
would be based on both gasoline and
diesel volumes as opposed to only
gasoline. Under CAA section 211(o)(3),
EPA must determine the refiners,
blenders and importers who are subject
to the standard. We propose that the
standard would apply to refiners,
blenders and importers of diesel in
addition to gasoline, for both highway
and nonroad uses. As described more
fully in Section III.F.3, we are proposing
at this time that other producers of
transportation fuel, such as producers of
natural gas, propane, and electricity
from fossil fuels, would not be subject
to the standard. Since the standard
would apply to refiners, blenders and
importers of gasoline and diesel, these
are also the transportation fuels that
would be used to determine the annual
volume obligation of the refiner, blender
or importer.
The projected volumes of gasoline
and diesel used to calculate the
standards would continue to be
provided by EIA’s Short-Term Energy
Outlook (STEO). The standards
applicable to a given calendar year
would be published by November 30 of
the previous year. The renewable fuel
standards would also continue to take
into account various adjustments. For
instance, gasoline and diesel volumes
would be adjusted to account for the
required renewable fuel volumes, and
gasoline and diesel volumes produced
by small refineries and small refiners
would continue to be exempt through
2010.
While the calculation methodology
for determination of standards would
not change, there would be four separate
standards under the new RFS2 program,
corresponding to the four separate
volume requirements shown in Table
29 Actual volumes can vary from the amounts
required in the statute. For instance, lower volumes
may result if the statutorily required volumes are
adjusted downward according to the waiver
provisions in CAA 211(o)(7)(D). Also, higher or
lower volumes may result depending on the actual
consumption of gasoline and diesel in comparison
to the projected volumes used to set the standards.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
II.A.1–1. The specific formulas we
propose using to calculate the
renewable fuel standards are described
below in Section III.E.1.
In order for an obligated party to
demonstrate compliance, the percentage
standards would 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 would
continue to be referred to as its
Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO).
Since there would be four separate
standards under the RFS2 program,
there would likewise be four separate
RVOs applicable to each refiner,
importer, or other obligated party.
However, all RVOs would be
determined in the same way as
described in the current regulations at
§ 80.1107, with the exception that each
standard would apply to the sum of all
gasoline and diesel produced or
imported as opposed to just the gasoline
volume. The formulas we propose using
to calculate the RVOs under the RFS2
program are described in Section III.G.1.
1. Calculation of Standards
a. How Would the Standards Be
Calculated?
Table II.A.1–1 shows the required
overall volumes of four types of
renewable fuel specified in EISA. The
four separate renewable fuel standards
would be based primarily on (1) the 49state 30 gasoline and diesel consumption
volumes projected by EIA, and (2) the
total volume of renewable fuels required
by EISA for the coming year. Each
renewable fuel standard will be
expressed as a volume percentage of
combined gasoline and diesel sold or
introduced into commerce in the U.S.,
and will be used by each obligated party
to determine its renewable volume
obligation.
While we are proposing that the
standards be based on the sum of all
gasoline and diesel, an alternative
would split the standards between those
that would be specific to gasoline and
those that would be specific to diesel.
To accomplish this, it would be
necessary to project the fraction of the
volumes shown in Table II.A.1–1 for
cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and
total renewable fuel that would
represent gasoline-displacing renewable
fuel, and apply this portion of the
required volumes to gasoline (by
definition the biomass-based diesel
standard would have no component
30 Hawaii opted-in to the original RFS program;
that opt-in is carried forward to the proposed new
program.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24953
relevant to gasoline). The remaining
portion would apply to diesel. The
result would be seven standards instead
of four. This approach to setting
standards would more readily align the
RFS obligations with the relative
amounts of gasoline and diesel
produced or imported by each obligated
party. For instance, a refiner that
produced only diesel fuel would have
no obligations under the RFS program
for renewable fuels that are used to
displace gasoline. However, this
alternative approach relies on
projections of the relative amounts of
gasoline-displacing and dieseldisplacing renewable fuels that would
need to be updated every year. While
such projections would be available
through our proposed Production
Outlook Reports (see Section III.K), we
nevertheless believe that such an
approach would unnecessarily
complicate the program, and thus we
are not proposing it. However, we
request comment on it.
In determining the applicable
percentages for a calendar year, EISA
requires EPA to adjust the standard to
prevent the imposition of redundant
obligations on any person and to
account for renewable fuel use 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 standards
will in fact result in the volumes shown
in Table II.A.1–1, we must make several
adjustments to what otherwise would be
a simple calculation.
As stated, the renewable fuel
standards for a given year are basically
the ratio of the amount of each type of
renewable fuel specified in EISA for that
year to the projected 49-state nonrenewable combined gasoline and diesel
volume for that year. While the required
amount of total renewable fuel for a
given year is provided by EISA, the Act
requires EPA to use an EIA estimate of
the amount of gasoline and diesel that
will be sold or introduced into
commerce for that year to determine the
percentage standards. The levels of the
percentage standards would be reduced
if Alaska or a U.S. territory chooses to
participate in the RFS2 program, as
gasoline and diesel produced in or
imported into that state or territory
would then be subject to the standard.
As mentioned above, we are
proposing that EIA’s STEO continue to
be the source for projected gasoline, and
now diesel, consumption estimates.
These volumes include renewable fuel
use. In order to achieve the volumes of
renewable fuels specified in EISA, the
gasoline and diesel volumes used to
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
determine the standard must be the nonrenewable portion of the gasoline and
diesel pools. In order to get total nonrenewable gasoline and diesel volumes,
we must subtract the total renewable
fuel volume from the total gasoline and
diesel volume. As with RFS1, 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 STEO.
CAA section 211(o) exempts small
refineries 31 from the RFS requirements
until the 2011 compliance period. In
RFS1, we extended this exemption to
the few remaining small refiners not
already exempted.32 Since EPA
proposes that small refineries and small
refiners continue to be exempt from the
program until 2011 under the new RFS2
regulations, EPA will exclude their
gasoline and diesel volumes from the
overall non-renewable gasoline and
diesel volumes used to determine the
applicable percentages until 2011. EPA
believes this is appropriate because the
percentage standards need to be based
on the gasoline and diesel subject to the
renewable volume obligations, to
achieve the overall required volumes of
renewable fuel. Because the total small
refinery and small refiner gasoline
production volume is expected to be
fairly constant compared to total U.S.
transportation fuel production, we are
proposing to estimate small refinery and
small refiner gasoline and diesel
volumes using a constant percentage of
national consumption, as we did in
RFS1. Using information from gasoline
batch reports submitted to EPA for 2006,
EIA data, and input from the California
Air Resources Board regarding
California small refiners, we estimate
that small refinery volumes constitute
11.9% of the gasoline pool, and 15.2%
of the diesel pool.
CAA section 211(o) 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
RFS2 program. Accounting for this
volume of renewable fuel would reduce
the total volume of renewable fuel use
required of others, and thus
directionally would reduce the
percentage standard. However, as we
discussed in RFS1, 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, is
expected to be very small. In fact, these
volumes would not significantly change
the resulting percentage standards.
Whatever renewable fuels small
refineries and small refiners blend will
be reflected as RINs available in the
market; thus there is no need for a
separate accounting of their renewable
fuel use in the equations used to
determine the standards. We thus are
proposing, as for RFS1, that this value
be zero.
Just as with their corresponding
gasoline and diesel volumes, renewable
fuels used in Alaska or U.S. territories
are not included in the renewable fuel
volumes that are subtracted from the
total gasoline and diesel volume
estimates. Section 211(o) of the Clean
Air Act requires that the renewable fuel
be consumed in the contiguous 48
states, and any other state or territory
that opts in to the program (Hawaii has
subsequently opted in). However,
because renewable fuel produced in
Alaska or a U.S. territory is unlikely to
be transported to the contiguous 48
states or to Hawaii, including their
renewable fuel volumes in the
calculation of the standard would not
serve the purpose intended by section
211(o) of the Clean Air Act of ensuring
that the statutorily required renewable
fuel volumes are consumed in the 48
contiguous states and any state or
territory that opts in.
In summary, we are proposing that
the total projected non-renewable
gasoline and diesel volumes from which
the annual standards are calculated be
based on EIA projections of gasoline and
diesel consumption in the contiguous
48 states and Hawaii, adjusted by
constant percentages of 11.9% and
15.2% in 2010 to account for small
refinery/refiner gasoline and diesel
volumes, respectively, and with built-in
correction factors to be used when and
if Alaska or a territory opt-in to the
program. If actual gasoline and diesel
consumption were to exceed the EIA
projections, the result would be that
renewable fuel volumes would exceed
the statutory volumes. Conversely, if
actual gasoline and diesel consumption
was less than the EIA projection for a
given year, actual renewable fuel
volumes could be lower than the
statutory volumes depending on market
conditions. Additional special
considerations in establishing the
annual cellulosic biofuel standard are
discussed below in Section III.E.1.c.
The following formulas will be used
to calculate the percentage standards:
RFVCB, i
RFVBBD, i
( Gi − RGi ) + ( GSi − RGSi ) − GEi + ( Di − RDi ) + ( DSi − RDSi ) − DEi
Std AB, i = 100% ×
RFVAB, i
( Gi − RGi ) + ( GSi − RGSi ) − GEi + ( Di − RDi ) + ( DSi − RDSi ) − DEi
Std RF, i = 100% ×
( Gi − RGi ) + ( GSi − RGSi ) − GEi + ( Di − RDi ) + ( DSi − RDSi ) − DEi
RFVRF, i
31 Under section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act,
small refineries are those with 75,000 bbl/day or
less average aggregate daily crude oil throughput.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
32 See
PO 00000
Section IV.B.2.
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
EN26MY09.002
Std BBD, i = 100% ×
EN26MY09.003
( Gi − RGi ) + ( GSi − RGSi ) − GEi + ( Di − RDi ) + ( DSi − RDSi ) − DEi
EN26MY09.001
Std CB, i = 100% ×
EN26MY09.000
24954
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Where
StdCB,i = The cellulosic biofuel standard for
year i, in percent
StdBBD,i = The biomass-based diesel standard
for year i, in percent
StdAB,i = The advanced biofuel standard for
year i, in percent
StdRF,i = The renewable fuel standard for year
i, in percent
RFVCB,i = Annual volume of cellulosic
biofuel required by section 211(o)(2)(B)
of the Clean Air Act for year i, in gallons
RFVBBD,i = Annual volume of biomass-based
diesel required by section 211(o)(2)(B) of
the Clean Air Act for year i, in gallons
RFVAB,i = Annual volume of advanced
biofuel required by section 211(o)(2)(B)
of the Clean Air Act for year i, in gallons
RFVRF,i = Annual volume of renewable fuel
required by section 211(o)(2)(B) of the
Clean Air Act for year i, in gallons
Gi = Amount of gasoline projected to be used
in the 48 contiguous states and Hawaii,
in year i, in gallons*
Di = Amount of diesel projected to be used
in the 48 contiguous states and Hawaii,
in year i, in gallons
RGi = Amount of renewable fuel blended into
gasoline that is projected to be consumed
in the 48 contiguous states and Hawaii,
in year i, in gallons
RDi = Amount of renewable fuel blended into
diesel that is projected to be consumed
in the 48 contiguous states and Hawaii,
in year i, in gallons
GSi = Amount of gasoline projected to be
used in Alaska or a U.S. territory in year
i if the state or territory opts in, in
gallons*
RGSi = Amount of renewable fuel blended
into gasoline that is projected to be
consumed in Alaska or a U.S. territory in
year i if the state or territory opts in, in
gallons
DSi = Amount of diesel projected to be used
in Alaska or a U.S. territory in year i if
the state or territory opts in, in gallons*
RDSi = Amount of renewable fuel blended
into diesel that is projected to be
consumed in Alaska or a U.S. territory in
year i if the state or territory opts in, in
gallons
GEi = The amount of gasoline projected to be
produced by exempt small refineries and
small refiners in year i, in gallons, in any
year they are exempt per §§ 80.1441 and
80.1442, respectively. Equivalent to
0.119 * (Gi ¥ RGi).
DEi = The amount of diesel projected to be
produced by exempt small refineries and
small refiners in year i, in gallons, in any
year they are exempt per §§ 80.1441 and
80.1442, respectively. Equivalent to
0.152 * (Di ¥ RDi).
* Note that these terms for projected
volumes of gasoline and diesel use include
gasoline and diesel that has been blended
with renewable fuel.
b. Proposed Standards for 2010
In today’s NPRM we are proposing the
specific standards that would apply to
all obligated parties in calendar year
2010. We will consider comments
received on these standards as part of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
the comment period associated with
today’s NPRM, and we intend to issue
a Federal Register notice by November
30, 2009 setting the applicable
standards for 2010. While we are not
proposing standards for 2011 and
beyond, we present our current
projections of these standards in the
next section.
Under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i),
EPA is required to make a determination
each year regarding whether the
required volumes of cellulosic biofuel
for the following year can be produced.
For any calendar year for which the
projected volume of cellulosic biofuel
production is less than the minimum
required volume, the projected volume
becomes the basis for the cellulosic
biofuel standard. In such a case, the
statute also indicates that EPA may also
lower the required volumes for
advanced biofuel and total renewable
fuel.
Based on information available to
date, we believe that there are sufficient
plans underway to build plants capable
of producing 0.1 billion gallons of
cellulosic biofuel in 2010, the minimum
volume of cellulosic biofuel required by
EISA for 2010. Our April 2009 industry
assessment concludes that there could
be seven small commercial-scale plants
online in 2010 (as well as a series of
pilot and demonstration plants) capable
of producing just over 100 million
gallons of cellulosic biofuel. And since
the majority of this production (73%) is
projected to be cellulosic diesel, the
ethanol-equivalent complaince volume
could be closer to 145 million gallons.
While it is possible that some of these
plants could be delayed or a portion of
the projected production may not meet
the definition of ‘‘cellulosic biofuel’’
(due to mixed feedstocks), it is also
possible that other plans could proceed
ahead of their current schedules. For
more on the 2010 cellulosic biofuel
production assessment, refer to Section
1.5.3.4 of the DRIA
On the basis of this information, we
are not proposing that any portion of the
cellulosic biofuel requirement for 2010
be waived. Therefore, we are proposing
that the volumes shown in Table II.A.1–
1 be used as the basis for the applicable
standards for 2010. As described more
fully in Section III.E.2 below, we are
also proposing that the 2010 standard
for biomass-based diesel be based on the
combined required volumes for 2009
and 2010, or a total of 1.15 billion
gallons. The proposed standards for
2010 are shown in Table III.E.1.b–1.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24955
TABLE III.E.1.b–1—PROPOSED
STANDARDS FOR 2010
[Percent]
Cellulosic biofuel ...............................
Biomass-based diesel ......................
Advanced biofuel ..............................
Renewable fuel .................................
0.06
0.71
0.59
8.01
As described more fully in Section
III.E.1.d below, we are proposing that
the RFS2 program take effect on January
1, 2010, but we are also taking comment
on an effective date later than January
1, 2010, including January 1, 2011 and
a mid-2010 effective date. If the RFS2
program became effective mid-2010, the
RFS1 program would apply during the
first part of 2010 and the RFS2 program
would apply for the remainder of the
year. We request comment on whether
the four proposed standards shown in
Table III.E.1.b–1 would apply only to
gasoline and diesel produced or
imported after the RFS2 effective date or
should apply to all gasoline and diesel
produced in 2010. We also request
comment on whether a single standard
for total renewable fuel should apply
under RFS1 regulations for the first part
of 2010.
c. Projected Standards for Other Years
As discussed above, we intend to set
the percentage standards for each
upcoming year based on the most recent
EIA projections, and using the other
sources of information as noted above.
We would publish the standard in the
Federal Register by November 30 of the
preceding year. The standards would be
used to determine the renewable
volume obligations based on an
obligated party’s total gasoline and
diesel production or import volume in
a calendar year, January 1 through
December 31. An obligated party will
calculate its Renewable Volume
Obligations (discussed in Section
III.G.1) using the annual standards.
For illustrative purposes, we have
estimated the standards for 2011 and
later based on current information using
the formulas discussed above, and
assuming no modifications to the
annual volumes required.33 These
values are listed below in Table III.E.1.c1. The required renewable fuel volumes
specified in EISA are shown in Table
II.A.1–1. The projected gasoline, diesel
and renewable fuels volumes were
determined from EIA’s energy
projections. Variables related to Alaska
or territory opt-ins were set to zero since
we do not have any information related
33 ‘‘Calculation of the Renewable Fuel Standard
for Gasoline and Diesel,’’ memo to the docket from
Christine Brunner, ASD, OTAQ, EPA, April 2009.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24956
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
to their participation at this time. No
adjustment was made for small refiner
or small refinery volumes since their
exemption is assumed to end at the end
of the 2010 compliance period.
TABLE III.E.1.c–1—PROJECTED STANDARDS UNDER RFS2
[percent]
Cellulosic
biofuel
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
0.15
0.31
0.61
1.07
1.83
2.58
3.34
4.25
5.19
6.47
8.40
10.07
Biomassbased
diesel
0.49
0.61
0.61a
0.61a
0.61a
0.61a
0.61a
0.61a
0.61a
0.62a
0.62a
0.63a
Advanced
biofuel
0.83
1.22
1.68
2.28
3.35
4.40
5.46
6.68
7.95
9.25
11.21
13.21
Renewable
fuel
8.60
9.31
10.09
11.05
12.48
13.49
14.56
15.80
17.11
18.50
20.54
22.65
a These projected standards represent the minimum volume of 1.0 billion gallons required by EISA. The actual volume used to set the standard
would be determined by EPA through a future rulemaking.
d. Alternative Effective Date
Although we are proposing that the
RFS2 regulatory program begin on
January 1, 2010 which, depending on
timing for the final rule, would allow
approximately two months from the
anticipated issuance of the rule to its
implementation, we seek comment on
whether an effective date later than
January 1, 2010 would be necessary. If
the RFS2 program was not made
effective on January 1, 2010, the most
straightforward alternative start date
would be January 1, 2011. Delaying to
2011 would provide regulated parties
additional lead time and would allow
all the new requirements and standards
to go into effect at the beginning of an
annual compliance period. However,
delaying to 2011 would also mean that
demonstrating compliance with the
separate requirements for biomass-based
diesel, cellulosic biofuel, and advanced
biofuel mandates would not go into
effect until 2011. The total renewable
fuel mandate in EISA may be able to be
implemented with the RFS1 regulations
until such time as the RFS2 regulations
become effective. However, under the
RFS1 regulations, this entire standard
would be for conventional biofuels and
would be applied to gasoline producers
and importers only. There would be no
obligation with respect to diesel fuel
producers and importers, resulting in a
numerically larger standard that would
apply to gasoline producers only and
which could compel them to market a
larger proportion of ethanol as E85 to
acquire sufficient RINs for compliance.
One possible way to address this issue
would be to reduce the 2010 total
renewable fuel standard proportionately
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
to reflect the application of the standard
only to gasoline producers. However, it
does not appear that EPA has statutory
authority, or discretion under the RFS1
regulations, to modify the total
renewable fuel mandate in this manner.
As discussed below in Section III.E.2,
any delay beyond January 1, 2010 also
has implications for our proposed
treatment of the biomass-based diesel
volumes required for 2009. EPA invites
comment on whether RFS2
implementation should be delayed to
January 1, 2011 and, if so, the manner
in which the EISA-mandated RFS
program should be implemented prior
to that date.
Another alternative would be to delay
the effective date of the RFS2 program
to some time after January 1, 2010 but
before January 1, 2011. This alternative
would raise the same issues described
above (regarding the option of a delay
until January 1, 2011) for that portion of
2010 during which RFS2 was not
effective. It would also raise additional
transition and implementation issues.
For instance, we would need to
determine whether diesel fuel producers
and importers carry a total renewable
fuel obligation calculated on the basis of
their production for all of 2010 or just
the production period in 2010 during
which the RFS2 regulations are
effective. We would also need to
determine whether the 2010 cellulosic
biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and
advanced biofuel standards applicable
under RFS2 should apply to production
of gasoline and diesel for all of 2010 or
just the production that occurred after
the RFS2 regulations were effective If
the latter, EPA would need to determine
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the extent to which RFS1 RINs
generated in the first part of 2010 could
be used to satisfy RFS2 obligations,
given that some 2010 RINs would be
generated under the RFS1 requirements
while other 2010 RINs would be
generated under RFS2 requirements. To
accomplish this, RINs generated under
the RFS2 requirements would need to
be distinguished from RINs generated
under RFS1 requirements through the
RINs’ D codes. Section III.A provides a
more detailed description of this
alternative approach to the assignment
of D codes under the RFS2 program. For
additional discussion of how RFS1 RINs
would be treated in the transition to the
RFS2 program, see our proposed
transition approach described in Section
III.G.3.
We are requesting comment on all
issues related to the option of an RFS2
start date sometime after January 1,
2010, including the need for such a
delayed start, the level of the standards,
treatment of diesel producers and
importers, whether the standards for
advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel and
biomass-based diesel should apply to
the entire 2010 production or just the
production that would occur after the
RFS2 effective date, treatment of the
2009 and/or 2010 biomass-based diesel
standard, and the extent to which RFS1
RINs should be valid to show
compliance with RFS2 standards.
2. Treatment of Biomass-Based Diesel in
2009 and 2010
We are proposing to make the RFS2
program required through EISA effective
on January 1, 2010. The RFS2 program
would include an expansion to four
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
separate standards, changes to the RIN
system, changes to renewable fuel
definitions, the introduction of lifecycle
GHG reduction thresholds, and the
expansion of obligated parties to
include producers and importers of
diesel and nonroad fuel. However, EISA
requires promulgation of the final RFS2
regulations within one year of
enactment and presumes full
implementation by January 1, 2009.
Moreover, EISA specifies new volume
requirements for biomass-based diesel,
advanced biofuel, and total renewable
fuel for 2009. As described in Section
II.A.5, it is not possible to have the full
RFS2 program implemented by January
1, 2009. As a result, we must consider
how to treat these separate volume
requirements for 2009.
a. Proposed Shift in Biomass-Based
Diesel Requirement From 2009 to 2010
The statutory language in EISA does
not indicate that the existing RFS1
regulations cease to apply on January 1,
2009. Rather, it directs us to ‘‘revise the
regulations’’ to ensure that the required
volumes of renewable fuel are contained
in transportation fuel. As a result, until
the RFS1 regulations are changed
through a notice and comment
rulemaking process, they will remain in
effect. If the full RFS2 program goes into
effect on January 1, 2010, then the
existing RFS1 regulations will continue
to apply in 2009.
Under RFS1, we set the applicable
standard each November for the
following compliance period using the
required volume of renewable fuel
specified in the Clean Air Act, gasoline
volume projections from EIA, and the
formula provided in the regulations at
§ 80.1105(d). Since final RFS2
regulations will not be promulgated by
the end of 2008, this RFS1 standardsetting process will apply to the 2009
compliance period as well. However,
EISA modifies the Clean Air Act to
increase the required volume of total
renewable fuel for 2009 from 6.1 to 11.1
billion gallons, and thus the applicable
standard for 2009, published in
November of 2008,34 reflects this higher
volume. This will ensure that the total
renewable fuel requirement under EISA
for 2009 is implemented.
While the total renewable fuel volume
of 11.1 billion gallons will be required
in 2009, the existing RFS1 regulations
do not provide a mechanism for
requiring the 0.5 billion gallons of
biomass-based diesel or the 0.6 billion
gallons of advanced biofuel required by
EISA for 2009. Below we describe our
proposed approach for biomass-based
34 See
73 FR 70643.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
diesel. With regard to advanced biofuel,
we believe that it is not necessary to
implement a separate requirement for
the 0.6 billion gallons. Due to the nested
nature of the volume requirements, the
0.5 billion gallon requirement for
biomass-based diesel would count
towards meeting the advanced biofuel
requirement, leaving just 0.1 billion
gallons that we believe will be supplied
through imports of sugar-based ethanol
even without a specific mandate for
advanced biofuel.
We believe that the deficit carryover
provision provides a conceptual
mechanism for ensuring that the volume
of biomass-based diesel that is required
by EISA for 2009 is actually consumed.
As described in the RFS1 final rule, the
statute permits obligated parties to carry
a deficit of any size from one
compliance period to the next, so long
as a deficit is not carried over two years
in a row.35 In theory this would allow
any and all obligated parties to defer
compliance with any or all of the 2009
standards until 2010. Based on the
precedent set by this statutory
provision, we propose that the
compliance demonstration for the 2009
biomass-based diesel requirement be
extended to 2010. We believe this
approach would provide a reasonable
transition for biomass-based diesel,
given our inability to issue regulations
before the beginning of the 2009
calendar year. Our proposed approach
would implement the 2009 and 2010
biomass-based diesel volume
requirements in a way that ensures that
these two years worth of biomass-based
diesel would be used, while providing
reasonable lead time for obligated
parties. It would avoid a transition that
fails to have any requirements related to
the 2009 biomass-based diesel volume,
and instead would require the use of the
2009 volume but would achieve this by
extending the compliance period by one
year. We believe this is a reasonable
exercise of our authority under section
211(o)(2) to issue regulations that ensure
that the volumes for 2009 are ultimately
used, even though we are unable to
issue final regulations prior to the 2009
compliance year. In addition, it is a
practical approach that provides
obligated parties with appropriate lead
time.
To implement our proposed
approach, the 2009 requirement of 0.5
billion gallons of biomass-based diesel
would be combined with the 2010
requirement of 0.65 billion gallons for a
total adjusted 2010 requirement of 1.15
billion gallons of biomass-based diesel.
The net effect is that obligated parties
35 See
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
72 FR 23935.
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24957
can demonstrate compliance with both
the 2009 and 2010 biomass-based diesel
requirements in 2010, consistent with
what the deficit carryover provision
would have allowed had we been able
to implement the full RFS2 program by
January 1, 2009.
Furthermore, we propose to allow all
2009 biodiesel and renewable diesel
RINs, identifiable through an RR code of
15 or 17 respectively, to be valid for
showing compliance with the adjusted
2010 biomass-based diesel standard of
1.15 billion gallons. This use of
previous year RINs for current year
compliance would be consistent with
our approach to any other standard for
any other year and consistent with the
flexibility available to any obligated
party that carried a deficit from one year
to the next. Moreover, it allows an
obligated party to acquire sufficient
biodiesel and renewable diesel RINs
during 2009 to comply with the 0.5
billion gallons requirement, even
though their compliance demonstration
would not occur until the 2010
compliance period.
While we recognize that RINs
generated in 2009 under RFS1
regulations will differ from those
generated in 2010 under RFS2
regulations in terms of the purpose of
the D code and the other criteria for
establishing the eligibility of renewable
fuel, we believe that the use of 2009
RINs for compliance with the 2010
adjusted standard is appropriate. It is
also consistent with CAA section
211(o)(5), which provides that validly
generated credits may be used to show
compliance for 12 months. The program
transition issue of RINs generated under
RFS1 but used to meet standards under
RFS2 is discussed in more detail in
Section III.G.3 below.
Rather than reducing the 2009 volume
requirement for total renewable fuel by
0.5 billion gallons of biomass-based
diesel and increasing the 2010 volume
requirements for advanced biofuel and
total renewable fuel by the same
amount, we are proposing that the only
standard that would be adjusted would
be that for biomass-based diesel in 2010.
This approach would minimize the
changes to the annual RFS volume
requirements and thus would more
directly implement the requirements of
the statute. However, this approach
would also require that we allow 2009
biodiesel and renewable diesel RINs to
be used for compliance purposes for
both the 2009 total renewable fuel
standard as well as the 2010 adjusted
biomass-based diesel standard, but not
for the 2010 advanced biofuel or total
renewable fuel standards. We have
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24958
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
identified two possible options for
accomplishing this.
i. First Option for Treatment of 2009
Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel RINs
In the first option, an obligated party
would add up the 2009 biodiesel and
renewable diesel RINs that he used for
2009 compliance with the RFS1
standard for renewable fuel, and reduce
his 2010 biomass-based diesel
obligation by this amount. Any
remaining 2010 biomass-based diesel
obligation would need to be covered
with either 2009 biodiesel and
renewable diesel RINs that were not
used for compliance with the renewable
fuel standard in 2009, or 2010 biomassbased diesel RINs. This is the option we
are proposing in today’s notice.
The primary drawback of our
proposed option is that 2009 biodiesel
and renewable diesel RINs used to
demonstrate compliance with the 2009
renewable fuel standard could not be
traded to any other party for use in
complying with the 2010 biomass-based
diesel standard. Thus, for instance, if a
refiner acquired many 2009 biodiesel
and renewable diesel RINs and used
them for compliance with the 2009
renewable fuel standard, and if the
number of these 2009 RINs was more
than he needed to comply with his 2010
biomass-based diesel obligation, he
could not trade the excess to another
party. These excess RINs could never be
applied to the adjusted 2010 biomassbased diesel standard by any party, and
as a result the actual demand for
biomass-based diesel could exceed 1.15
bill gal. We believe that obligated
parties could avoid this outcome by
planning ahead to use no more 2009
biodiesel and renewable diesel RINs for
2009 compliance with the renewable
fuel standard than they would need for
2010 compliance with the adjusted
biomass-based diesel standard.
Moreover, this option could provide
obligated parties with sufficient
incentive to collect 0.5 billion gallons
worth of biodiesel and renewable diesel
RINs in 2009 without significant
changes to the program’s requirements.
ii. Second Option for Treatment of 2009
Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel RINs
Under the second option, biodiesel
and renewable diesel RINs generated in
2009 would be allowed to be used for
compliance purposes in both 2009 and
2010. To enable this option, for the
specific and limited case of biodiesel
and renewable diesel RINs generated in
2009, we would modify the regulatory
prohibition at § 80.1127(a)(3) limiting
the use of RINs for compliance
demonstrations to a single compliance
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
year to allow 2009 biodiesel and
renewable diesel RINs to be used for
compliance purposes in two different
years. This change would allow all 2009
biodiesel and renewable diesel RINs to
be used to meet the adjusted biomassbased diesel standard in 2010 regardless
of whether they were also used to meet
the total renewable fuel standard in
2009. We would also need to lift the
20% rollover cap that would otherwise
limit the use of 2009 RINs in 2010, and
instead allow any number of 2009
biodiesel and renewable diesel RINs to
be used to meet the 2010 biomass-based
diesel standard.
This option would also require that
we implement additional RIN tracking
procedures. Under the current RFS1
regulations, RINs used for compliance
demonstrations are removed from the
RIN market, while under this alternative
approach biodiesel and renewable
diesel RINs could continue to be valid
for compliance purposes vis a vis the
adjusted 2010 biomass-based diesel
standard even if they were already used
for compliance with the renewable fuel
standard in 2009. The regulations would
need to be changed to allow this, and
both EPA’s and industry’s IT systems
would need to be modified to allow for
this temporary change.
Due to the additional complexities
associated with this option, we are not
proposing it. Nevertheless, we request
comment on it, as it would more
explicitly reflect two separate
obligations for calendar year 2009: An
RFS1 obligation for total renewable fuel,
and an obligation for biomass-based
diesel that starts during 2009 with
compliance required by the end of 2010
for a volume that covers both 2009 and
2010. We also request comment on
whether under this option we should
allow 2009 biodiesel and renewable
diesel RINs to continue to be bought and
sold after 2009 if they are used to
demonstrate compliance with the 2009
total renewable fuel standard.
b. Proposed Treatment of Deficit
Carryovers and Valid RIN Life For
Adjusted 2010 Biomass-Based Diesel
Requirement
Although our proposed transition
approach is conceptually similar to the
statutory deficit carryover provision, the
regulatory requirements would not
explicitly treat the movement of the 0.5
billion gallons biomass-based diesel
requirement from 2009 to 2010 as a
deficit carryover. In the absence of any
modifications to the deficit carryover
provisions, then, an obligated party that
did not fully comply with the 2010
biomass-based diesel requirement of
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1.15 billion gallons could carry a deficit
of any amount into 2011.
If we had been able to implement the
2009 biomass-based diesel volume
requirement of 0.5 billion gallons in
calendar year 2009, the 2010 biomassbased diesel standard would have been
based on 0.65 billion gallons. In this
case, the maximum volume of biomassbased diesel that could have been
carried into 2011 as a deficit would
have been 0.65 billion gallons. In the
context of our proposed approach to the
treatment of biomass-based diesel in
2009 and 2010, we believe that it would
be inappropriate to allow the full 1.15
billion gallons to be carried into 2011 as
a deficit. Therefore, we are proposing
that obligated parties be prohibited from
carrying over a deficit into 2011 larger
than 0.65 bill gal. In practice, this would
mean that deficit carryovers from 2010
into 2011 for biomass-based diesel
could not exceed 57% of an obligated
party’s 2010 RVO.
Similarly, the combination of the 0.5
billion gallons biomass-based diesel
requirement from 2009 with the 2010
volume raises the question of whether
2008 biodiesel or renewable diesel RINs
could be used for compliance in 2010
with the adjusted biomass-based diesel
standard. Without a change to the
regulations, this practice would not be
allowed because RINs are only valid for
compliances purposes for the year
generated or the year after. However, if
we had been able to implement the full
RFS2 program for the 2009 compliance
year, 2008 biodiesel and renewable
diesel RINs would be valid for
compliance with the 0.5 billion gallons
biomass-based diesel requirement.
Therefore, we are proposing to modify
the regulations to allow excess 2008
biodiesel and renewable diesel RINs to
be used for compliance purposes in
2009 or 2010. We request comment on
this proposal.
We also propose that the 20% rollover
cap would continue to apply in all years
as described in more detail in Section
IV.D. However, we are proposing an
additional constraint in the application
of this cap to the biomass-based diesel
obligation in the 2010 compliance year.
If the 2009 biomass-based diesel volume
requirement of 0.5 billion gallons could
have been required in 2009, the use of
excess 2008 biodiesel and renewable
diesel RINs would have been limited to
20% of the 2009 requirement, or a
maximum of 0.1 billion gallons. Since
we are proposing to require that the
2009 and 2010 biomass-based diesel
requirements be combined for a total of
1.15 billion gallons, we propose that the
maximum allowable portion that could
be derived from 2008 biomass-based
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
diesel RINs would be 0.1 billion gallons.
This would represent 8.7% of the 2010
obligation (0.1⁄1.15). In addition to this
limit on the use of 2008 RINs for 2010
compliance that is unique to this option,
the 20% rollover cap would continue to
apply to the use of all previous-year
RINs used for compliance purposes in
2010. Thus, the total number of all 2008
and 2009 RINs that could be used to
meet the 2010 biomass-based diesel
obligation would continue to be capped
at 20%. We request comment on this
approach.
Finally, we are proposing to allow
2009 RINs that are retired because they
are ultimately used for nonroad or home
heating oil purposes to be valid for
compliance with the 2010 RFS standard.
Currently, under RFS1, RINs associated
with renewable fuel that is not
ultimately used as motor vehicle fuel
must be retired. In contrast, under EISA,
renewable fuel used for nonroad
purposes, except for use in industrial
boilers or ocean-going vessels, is
considered transportation fuel, and is
eligible for the RFS program. We are
proposing that 2009 RINs generated for
renewable fuel that is ultimately used
for nonroad or home heating oil
purposes continue to be retired by the
appropriate party pursuant to
80.1129(e). However, we are proposing
that those retired 2009 nonroad or home
heating oil RINs be eligible for
reinstatement by the retiring party in
2010. These reinstated RINs may be
used by that party to demonstrate
compliance with a 2010 RVO, or for sale
to other parties who would then use the
RINs for compliance purposes. While
we anticipate that this proposed
provision would be utilized largely for
biodiesel RINs that were retired by
parties that sold them for use as
nonroad fuel or home heating oil, we
propose that the provision apply to all
RINs. We request comment on this
proposed approach.
c. Alternative Approach to Treatment of
Biomass-Based Diesel in 2009 and 2010
Under our proposed approach, the 0.5
billion gallon requirement for biomassbased diesel in 2009 would be added to
the 0.65 billion gallon requirement for
2010, and the total volume of 1.15
billion gallons would be used as the
basis of a single adjusted standard
applicable to obligated parties in 2010.
The compliance demonstration for this
single standard would need to be made
by February 28, 2011. As an alternative,
we could establish two separate
biomass-based diesel standards for
which compliance must be
demonstrated by February 28, 2011. One
of these standards would be based on
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
0.65 billion gallons and would represent
the applicable biomass-based diesel
standard for 2010. The other standard
would be based on 0.5 billion gallons
and would represent the applicable
biomass-based diesel standard for 2009.
In essence, the standard based on 0.5
billion gallons would be for the 2009
calendar year even though we would
extend its compliance demonstration
until February 28, 2011.
In this alternative, only excess 2008 or
2009 biodiesel and renewable diesel
RINs could be used to comply with the
standard based on 0.5 billion gallons.
Excess 2009 biodiesel or renewable
diesel RINs and 2010 biomass-based
diesel RINs could be used to comply
with the standard based on 0.65 billion
gallons. The 20% rollover cap would
apply to both standards. As a result, this
alternative approach would effectively
implement the 2009 biomass-based
diesel standard in calendar year 2009,
and thus it may come closer to the
statute’s requirements than our
proposed approach. Moreover, the
existing provisions for the valid life of
RINs and deficit carryover would not
need modification as they would under
our proposed approach.
However, this alternative would
arguably provide less than appropriate
lead time for meeting the 0.5 billion
gallon obligation, as it would require
obligated parties to begin acquiring
sufficient 2008 and 2009 biodiesel and
renewable diesel RINs starting in
January of 2009 even though our final
rulemaking is not expected to be issued
until the fall of 2009. There are two
reasons that this lead time might
nevertheless be considered appropriate.
First, obligated parties could wait until
the final rule is published to begin
acquiring 2008 and 2009 biodiesel and
renewable diesel RINs. Moreover, they
would not need to demonstrate
compliance with the 0.5 billion gallons
standard until February 28, 2011,
providing ample time to locate and
acquire sufficient RINs. Second, the
deficit carryover provisions would
allow obligated parties to treat the
separate 0.5 and 0.65 billion gallon
requirements as a single requirement
that must be met in total by February 28,
2011. In this sense, this alternative is
similar to our proposed approach. We
request comment on this alternative
approach.
d. Treatment of Biomass-Based Diesel
Under an RFS2 Effective Date Other
Than January 1, 2010
The above discussion assumes that
the RFS2 program is effective on
January 1, 2010. If the program effective
date is delayed, similar issues arise
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24959
regarding whether EISA volume
mandates for fuel categories with no
mandates under RFS1 are lost, or should
be recaptured through a delayed
compliance demonstration in the first
year of the RFS2 program. For a delay
beyond January 1, 2010, the issues relate
to cellulosic biofuel and advanced
biofuel in addition to biomass-based
diesel.
For instance, our proposed approach
to biomass-based diesel effectively
makes the one-year deficit carryover a
necessary element of compliance for
2010, and maintains the two-year valid
life of RINs. However, if the effective
date of RFS2 were delayed to January 1,
2011, we could not take the same
approach. By requiring compliance
demonstrations to be made in 2011 for
the required biomass-based diesel
volumes mandated for 2009, 2010, and
2011, we would be effectively requiring
a 2-year deficit carryover and a threeyear valid life of RINs, contrary to the
statutory limitations. As an alternative,
one possible approach would be to only
sum the required biomass-based diesel
volumes for 2010 and 2011 and require
compliance demonstrations at the end
of 2011.
If the RFS2 program became effective
in mid-2010, we would also need to
determine the appropriate level of the
biomass-based diesel standard, and
whether it would apply to gasoline and
diesel volumes produced only after the
RFS2 effective date, or all gasoline and
diesel volumes produced in 2010.
EPA invites comment on whether and
how it should recapture these volume
mandates under different start-date
scenarios.
F. Fuels That Are Subject to the
Standards
Under RFS1, producers and importers
of gasoline are obligated parties subject
to the standards. Any party that
produces or imports only diesel fuel is
not subject to the standards. EISA
changes this provision by expanding the
RFS program in general to include
transportation fuel. As discussed above,
however, section 211(o)(3) continues to
require EPA to determine which
refiners, blenders, and importers are
treated as subject to the standard. As
described further in Section III.G below,
we are proposing that the sum of all
highway and nonroad gasoline and
diesel fuel produced or imported within
a calendar year be the basis on which
the RVOs are calculated. This section
provides our proposed definition of
gasoline and diesel for the purposes of
the RFS program.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24960
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
1. Gasoline
As with the RFS1 program, the
volume of gasoline used in calculating
the RVO under RFS2 would continue to
include all finished gasoline
(reformulated gasoline (RFG) and
conventional gasoline (CG)) produced or
imported for use in the contiguous
United States or Hawaii, as well as 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 designed for downstream
oxygenate blending (e.g., sub-octane
conventional gasoline), called ‘‘CBOB.’’
The volume of any other unfinished
gasoline or blendstock, such as butane
or naphtha produced in a refinery,
would not be included in the obligated
volume, except where the blendstock is
combined with other blendstock or
gasoline to produce finished gasoline,
RBOB, or CBOB. 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 blender’s
renewable fuels obligation. 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. For purposes of this
preamble, the various gasoline products
described above that we are proposing
to include in a party’s obligated volume
would collectively be called ‘‘gasoline.’’
Also consistent with the RFS1
program, we propose to continue to
exclude any volume of renewable fuel
contained in gasoline from the volume
of gasoline used to determine the
renewable fuels obligations. 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
location. Thus, for example, any ethanol
added to RBOB or CBOB at a refinery’s
rack or terminal downstream from the
refinery or importer would be excluded
from the volume of gasoline used by the
refiner or importer to determine the
obligation. This is consistent with how
the standard itself is calculated—EPA
determines the applicable percentage by
comparing the overall projected volume
of gasoline used to the overall
renewable fuel volume that is specified
in EPAct, and EPA excludes ethanol and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
other renewable fuels that blended into
the gasoline in determining the overall
projected volume of gasoline. When an
obligated party determines their RVO by
applying the applicable percentage to
the amount of gasoline they produce or
import, it is consistent to also exclude
ethanol and other renewable fuel blends
from the calculation of the volume of
gasoline produced.
As with the RFS1 program, we are
proposing that Gasoline Treated as
Blendstock (GTAB) would continue to
be treated as a blendstock under the
RFS2 program, and thus would not
count towards a party’s renewable fuel
obligation. Where the GTAB is blended
with other blendstock (other than
renewable fuel) to produce gasoline, the
total volume of the gasoline blend,
including the GTAB, would be included
in the volume of gasoline used to
determine the renewable fuel obligation.
Where GTAB is blended with renewable
fuel to produce gasoline, only the GTAB
volume would be included in the
volume of gasoline used to determine
the renewable fuel obligation. Where the
GTAB is blended with finished gasoline,
only the GTAB volume would be
included in the volume of gasoline used
to determine the renewable fuel
obligation.
2. Diesel
As discussed above in Section II.A.4,
EISA expanded the RFS program to
include transportation fuels other than
gasoline, and we are proposing that both
highway and nonroad diesel be used in
calculating a party’s RVO. We are
proposing that any party that produces
or imports petroleum-based diesel fuel
that is designated as motor vehicle,
nonroad, locomotive, and marine diesel
fuel (MVNRLM) (or any subcategory of
MVNRLM) would be required to include
the volume of that diesel fuel in the
determination of its RVO under the
RFS2 rule. We are proposing that diesel
fuel would include any distillate fuel
that meets the definition of MVNRLM
diesel fuel as it has already been defined
in the regulations at § 80.2(qqq),
including any subcategories such as MV
(motor vehicle diesel produced for use
in highway diesel engines and vehicles),
NRLM (diesel produced for use in
nonroad, locomotive, and marine diesel
engines and equipment/vessels), NR
(diesel produced for use in nonroad
engines and equipment), and LM (diesel
produced for use in locomotives and
marine diesel engines and vessels).36
36 EPA’s diesel fuel regulations use the term
‘‘nonroad’’ to designate one large category of landbased off-highway engines and vehicles,
recognizing that locomotive and marine engines
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
We are proposing that transportation
fuels meeting the definition of
MVNRLM would be used to calculate
the RVOs, and refiners, blenders, or
importers of MVNRLM would be treated
as obligated parties. As such, diesel fuel
that is designated as heating oil, jet fuel,
or any designation other than MVNRLM
or a subcategory of MVNRLM, would
not be subject to the applicable
percentage standard and would not be
used to calculate the RVOs.37
We are also requesting comment on
the idea that any diesel fuel not meeting
these requirements, such as distillate or
residual fuel intended solely for use in
ocean-going vessels, would not be used
to calculate the RVOs. As discussed
above in Section II.A.4, EISA specifies
that ‘‘transportation fuels’’ do not
include fuels for use in ocean-going
vessels. We are interpreting the term
‘‘ocean-going vessel’’ to mean those
vessels that are powered by Category 3
(C3) marine engines and that use
residual fuel or operate internationally;
we request comment on this
interpretation. As such, we are
requesting comment on the concept that
fuel intended solely for use in oceangoing vessels, or that an obligated party
can verify as having been used in an
ocean-going vessel, would be excluded
from the renewable fuel standards.
Further, we are also requesting
comment on whether fuel used on such
vessels with C2 engines should also be
excluded from the renewable fuel
standards, and how such an exemption
should be phrased.
3. Other Transportation Fuels
As discussed further in Section III.J.3,
below, we propose that transportation
fuels other than gasoline or MVNRLM
diesel fuel (natural gas, propane, and
electricity) would not be used to
calculate the RVOs of any obligated
party. We believe this is a reasonable
way to implement the obligations of
211(o)(3) because the volumes are small
and the producers cannot readily
differentiate the small transport portion
from the large non-transport portion (in
fact, the producer may have no
knowledge of its use in transport); we
will reconsider this approach if and
when these volumes grow. At the same
time, it is clear that other fuels can meet
the definition of ‘‘transportation fuel,’’
and we are proposing that under certain
and vessels are also nonroad engines and vehicles
under EPAct’s definition of nonroad. Except where
noted, the discussion of nonroad in reference to
transportation fuel includes the entire category
covered by EPAct’s definition of nonroad.
37 See 40 CFR 80.598(a) for the kinds of fuel types
used by refiners or importers in designating their
diesel fuel.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24961
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
circumstances, producers or generators
of such other transportation fuels may
generate RINs as a producer or importer
of a renewable fuel. See Section III.B.1.a
for further discussion of other RINgenerating fuels.
G. Renewable Volume Obligations
(RVOs)
Under the current RFS program, each
obligated party must determine its RVO
based on the applicable percentage
standard and its annual gasoline
volume. The RVO represents the volume
of renewable fuel that the obligated
party must ensure is used in the U.S. in
a given calendar year. Obligated parties
must meet their RVO through the
accumulation of RINs which represent
the amount of renewable fuel used as
motor vehicle fuel that is sold or
introduced into commerce within the
U.S. Each gallon-RIN would count as
one gallon of renewable fuel for
compliance purposes.
We propose to maintain this approach
to compliance under the RFS2 program.
One primary difference between the
current and new RFS programs in terms
of demonstrating compliance would be
that each obligated party would now
have four RVOs instead of one (through
2012) or two (starting in 2013) under the
RFS1 program. Also, as discussed
above, RVOs would be calculated based
on production or importation of both
gasoline and diesel fuels, rather than
gasoline alone.
By acquiring RINs and applying them
to their RVOs, obligated parties are
effectively causing the renewable fuel
represented by the RINs to be consumed
as transportation fuel in highway or
nonroad vehicles or engines. Obligated
parties would not be required to
physically blend the renewable fuel into
gasoline or diesel fuel themselves. The
accumulation of RINs would continue to
be the means through which each
obligated party shows compliance with
its RVOs and thus with the renewable
fuel standards.
If an obligated party acquires more
RINs than it needs to meet its RVOs,
then in general it could retain the excess
RINs for use in complying with its RVOs
in the following year or transfer the
excess RINs to another party. If,
alternatively, an obligated party has not
acquired sufficient RINs to meet its
RVOs, then under certain conditions it
could carry a deficit into the next year.
This section describes our proposed
approach to the calculation of RVOs
under RFS2 and the RINs that would be
valid for demonstrating compliance
with those RVOs. This includes a
description of the special treatment that
must be applied to 2009 RINs used for
compliance purposes in 2010, since
RINs generated in 2009 under RFS1
would not be exactly the same as those
generated in 2010 under RFS2. We also
describe an alternative approach to the
identification of obligated parties that
would place the obligations under RFS2
on only finished gasoline and diesel
rather than on certain blendstocks and
unfinished fuels as well. The
implication of this would be that the
final blender of the gasoline or diesel
would be the obligated parties rather
than producers of blendstocks and
unfinished fuels.
1. Determination of RVOs
Corresponding to the Four Standards
In order for an obligated party to
demonstrate compliance, the percentage
standards described in Section III.E.1
which are applicable to all obligated
parties must be converted into the
volumes of renewable fuel each
obligated party is required to satisfy.
These volumes of renewable fuel are the
volumes for which the obligated party is
responsible under the RFS program, and
are referred to here as its RVO. Under
RFS2, each obligated party would need
to acquire sufficient RINs each year to
meet each of the four RVOs
corresponding to the four renewable
fuel standards.
The calculation of the RVOs under
RFS2 would follow the same format as
the existing formulas in the regulations
at § 80.1107(a), with one modification.
The standards for a particular
compliance year would be multiplied by
the sum of the gasoline and diesel
volume produced or imported by an
obligated party in that year rather than
only the gasoline volume as under the
current program.38 To the degree that an
obligated party did not demonstrate full
compliance with its RVOs for the
previous year, the shortfall would be
included as a deficit carryover in the
calculation. CAA section 211(o)(5) 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
for any of the four standards. They
could, however, occur as frequently as
every other year for a given obligated
party.
Note that a party that produces only
diesel fuel would have an obligation for
all four standards even though he would
not have the opportunity to blend
ethanol into his own gasoline. Likewise,
a party that produces only gasoline will
have an obligation for all four standards
even though he would not have an
opportunity to blend biomass-based
diesel into his own diesel fuel.
Although these circumstances might
imply that the four standards should be
further subdivided into gasoline-specific
and diesel-specific standards, we do not
believe that this would be appropriate
as described in Section III.E.1. Instead,
since the obligations are met through
the use of RINs, compliance with the
standards does not require an obligated
party to blend renewable fuel into their
own or anyone else’s gasoline or diesel
fuel.
2. RINs Eligible To Meet Each RVO
Under RFS1, all RINs had the same
compliance value and thus it did not
matter what the RR or D code was for
a given RIN when using that RIN to
meet the total renewable fuel standard.
In contrast, under RFS2 only RINs with
specified D codes could be used to meet
each of the four standards.
As described in Section II.A.1, the
volume requirements in EISA are
generally nested within one another, so
that the advanced biofuel requirement
includes fuel that meets either the
cellulosic biofuel or the biomass-based
diesel requirements, and the total
renewable fuel requirement includes
fuel that meets the advanced biofuel
requirement. As a result, the RINs that
can be used to meet the four standards
are likewise nested. Using the proposed
D codes defined in Table III.A–1, the
RINs that could be used to meet each of
the four standards are shown in Table
III.G.2–1.
TABLE III.G.2–1—RINS THAT CAN BE USED TO MEET EACH STANDARD
Standard
Obligation
Cellulosic biofuel ..............................................................................................................................
RVOCB .......................
38 As discussed above, the diesel fuel that is used
to calculate the RVO is any diesel designated as
MVNRLM or a subcategory of MVNRLM.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Allowable D codes
1.
24962
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.G.2–1—RINS THAT CAN BE USED TO MEET EACH STANDARD—Continued
Standard
Obligation
Biomass-based diesel ......................................................................................................................
Advanced biofuel .............................................................................................................................
Renewable fuel ................................................................................................................................
RVOBBD .....................
RVOAB .......................
RVORF .......................
The nested nature of the four
standards also means that we must
allow the same RIN to be used to meet
more than one standard in the same
year. Thus, for instance, a RIN with a D
code of 1 could be used to meet three
of the four standards, while a RIN with
a D code of 3 could be used to meet both
the advanced biofuel and total
renewable fuel standards. However, we
propose continuing to prohibit the use
of a single RIN for compliance purposes
in more than one year or by more than
one party.39
3. Treatment of RFS1 RINs Under RFS2
As described in Section II.A, we are
proposing a number of changes to the
RFS program as a result of the
requirements in EISA. These changes
would go into effect on January 1, 2010
and, among other things, would affect
the conditions under which RINs are
generated and their applicability to each
of the four standards. As a result, RINs
generated in 2010 under RFS2 will not
be exactly the same as RINs generated
in 2009 under RFS1. Given the valid
RIN life that allows a RIN to be used in
the year generated or the year after, we
must address circumstances in which
excess 2009 RINs are used for
compliance purposes in 2010. We must
also address deficit carryovers from
2009 to 2010, since the total renewable
fuel standards in these two years will be
defined differently.
a. Use of 2009 RINs in 2010
In 2009, the RFS1 regulations will
continue to apply and thus producers
will not be required to demonstrate that
their renewable fuel is made from
renewable biomass as defined by EISA,
nor that their combination of fuel type,
feedstock, and process meets the GHG
thresholds specified in EISA. Moreover,
there is no practical way to determine
after the fact if RINs generated in 2009
meet any of these criteria. However, we
believe that the vast majority of RINs
generated in 2009 would in fact meet
the RFS2 requirements. First, while
39 Note that we are proposing an exception to this
general prohibition for the specific and limited case
of excess 2008 and 2009 biodiesel and renewable
diesel RINs used to demonstrate compliance with
both the 2009 total renewable fuel standard and the
2010 biomass-based diesel standard. See Section
III.E.2.a.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
ethanol made from corn must meet a
20% GHG threshold under RFS2 if
produced by a facility that commenced
construction after December 19, 2007,
facilities that were already built or had
commenced construction as of
December 19, 2007 are exempt from this
requirement. Essentially all ethanol
produced in 2009 will meet the
prerequisites for this exemption.
Second, it is unlikely that renewable
fuels produced in 2009 will have been
made from feedstocks grown on
agricultural land that had not been
cleared or cultivated prior to December
19, 2007. In the intervening time period,
it is much more likely that the
additional feedstocks needed for
renewable fuel production would come
from existing cropland or cropland that
has lain fallow for some time. Finally,
the text of section 211(o)(5) states that
a ‘‘credit generated under this paragraph
shall be valid to show compliance for
the 12 months as of the date of
generation,’’ and EISA did not change
this provision and did not specify any
particular transition protocol to follow.
A straightforward interpretation of this
provision is to allow 2009 RINs to be
valid to show compliance for 2010
obligations.
Since there will be separate standards
for cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based
diesel in 2010, RINs generated in 2009
that could be used to meet either of
these two 2010 standards should meet
the GHG thresholds of 60% and 50%,
respectively. While we will not have a
mechanism in place to determine if
these thresholds have been met for RINs
generated in 2009, and there are
indications from our assessment of
lifecycle GHG performance that at least
some renewable fuels produced in 2009
would not meet these thresholds,
nevertheless any shortfall in GHG
performance for this one transition year
is unlikely to have a significant impact
on long-term GHG benefits of the
program. Based on our belief that it is
critical to the smooth operation of the
program that excess 2009 RINs be
allowed to be used for compliance
purposes in 2010, we are proposing that
RINs generated in 2009 to represent
cellulosic biomass ethanol whose GHG
performance has not been verified
would still be valid for use for 2010
compliance purposes for the cellulosic
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Allowable D codes
2.
1, 2, and 3.
1, 2, 3, and 4.
biofuel standard. Likewise, we are
proposing that RINs generated in 2009
to represent biodiesel and renewable
diesel whose GHG performance has not
been verified would still be valid for use
for 2010 compliance purposes for the
biomass-based diesel standard. We
request comment on this approach.
We propose to use information
contained in the RR and D codes of
RFS1 RINs to determine how those RINs
should be treated under RFS2. The RR
code is used to identify the Equivalence
Value of each renewable fuel, and under
RFS1 these Equivalence Values are
unique to specific types of renewable
fuel. For instance, biodiesel (mono alkyl
ester) has an Equivalence Value of 1.5,
and non-ester renewable diesel has an
Equivalence Value of 1.7, and both of
these fuels may be valid for meeting the
biomass-based diesel standard under
RFS2. Likewise, RINs generated for
cellulosic biomass ethanol in 2009 must
be identified with a D code of 1, and
these fuels may be valid for meeting the
cellulosic biofuel standard under RFS2.
Our proposed treatment of 2009 RINs in
2010 is shown in Table III.G.3.a–1.
TABLE III.G.3.a–1—PROPOSED TREATMENT OF EXCESS 2009 RINS IN
2010
Excess 2009 RINs
Treatment in 2010
RFS1 RINs with RR
code of 15 or 17.
Equivalent to RFS2
RINs with D code
of 2.
Equivalent to RFS2
RINs with D code
of 1.
Equivalent to RFS2
RINs with D code
of 4.
RFS1 RINs with D
code of 1.
All other RFS1 RINs ..
Although we have discussed the issue
of RFS1 RINs being used for RFS2
purposes in the context of our proposal
that the RFS2 program be effective on
January 1, 2010, we would expect a
similar treatment of RFS1 RINs for RFS2
compliance purposes if the RFS2
effective date is delayed. In that case
RFS1 RINs generated in 2010 would be
available to show compliance for both
the 2010 and 2011 compliance years, in
a manner similar to that described
above.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
b. Deficit Carryovers From the RFS1
Program to RFS2
If the RFS2 program goes into effect
on January 1, 2010, the calculation of
RVOs in 2009 under the existing
regulations will be somewhat different
than the calculation of RVOs in 2010
under RFS2. In particular, 2009 RVOs
will be based upon gasoline production
only, while 2010 RVOs would be based
on volumes of gasoline and diesel. As a
result, 2010 compliance demonstrations
that include a deficit carried over from
2009 will combine obligations
calculated on two different bases.
We do not believe that deficits carried
over from 2009 to 2010 would
undermine the goals of the program in
requiring specific volumes of renewable
fuel to be used each year. Although
RVOs in 2009 and 2010 would be
calculated differently, obligated parties
must acquire sufficient RINs in 2010 to
cover any deficit carried over from 2009
in addition to that portion of their 2010
obligation which is based on their 2010
gasoline and diesel production. As a
result, the 2009 nationwide volume
requirement of 11.1 billion gallons of
renewable fuel will be consumed over
the two year period concluding at the
end of 2010. Thus, we are not proposing
special treatment for deficits carried
over from 2009 to 2010.
We propose that a deficit carried over
from 2009 to 2010 would only affect a
party’s total renewable fuel obligation in
2010 (RVORF,i as discussed in Section
III.G.1), as the 2009 obligation is for
total renewable fuel use, not a
subcategory. The RVOs for cellulosic
biofuel, biomass-based diesel, or
advanced biofuel would not be affected,
as they do not have parallel obligations
in 2009 under RFS1.
If the RFS2 start date is delayed to be
later than January 1, 2010, we expect
that the same principles described
above would apply for any deficit
calculated under the RFS1 program and
carried forward to RFS2.
4. Alternative Approach to Designation
of Obligated Parties
Under RFS1, obligated parties who
are subject to the standard are those that
produce or import finished gasoline
(RFG and conventional) or unfinished
gasoline that becomes finished gasoline
upon the addition of an oxygenate
blended downstream from the refinery
or importer. Unfinished gasoline
includes reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending
(RBOB), and conventional gasoline
blendstock designed for downstream
oxygenate blending (CBOB) which is
generally sub-octane conventional
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
gasoline. The volume of any other
unfinished gasoline or blendstock, such
as butane, is not included in the volume
used to determine the RVO, except
where the blendstock is combined with
other blendstock or finished gasoline to
produce finished gasoline, RBOB, or
CBOB. Thus, parties downstream of a
refinery or importer are only obligated
parties to the degree that they use nonrenewable blendstocks to make finished
gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB.
The approach we took for RFS1 was
based on our expectation at that time
that there would be an excess of RINs
at low cost, and our belief that the
ability of RINs to be traded freely
between any parties once separated
from renewable fuel would provide
ample opportunity for parties who were
in need of RINs to acquire them from
parties who had excess. We also pointed
out that the designation of ethanol
blenders as obligated parties would
have greatly expanded the number of
regulated parties and increased the
complexity of the RFS program beyond
that which was necessary to carry out
the renewable fuels mandate under CAA
section 211(o).
Following the new requirements
under EISA, the required volumes of
renewable fuel will be increasing
significantly above the levels required
under RFS1. These higher volumes are
already resulting in changes in the
demand for RINs and operation of the
RIN market. First, obligated parties who
have excess RINs are increasingly opting
to retain rather than sell them to ensure
they have a sufficient number for the
next year’s compliance. Second, since
all gasoline is expected to contain
ethanol by 2013, few blenders would be
able to avoid taking ownership of RINs
by that time under the existing
definition of obligated party. As a result,
by 2013 essentially every blender would
be a regulated party who is subject to
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, and thus the additional
burden of demonstrating compliance
with the standard could be small. Third,
major integrated refiners who operate
gasoline marketing operations have
direct access to RINs for ethanol
blended into their gasoline, while
refiners whose operations are focused
primarily on producing refined products
do not have such direct access to RINs.
The result is that in some cases there are
significant disparities between obligated
parties in terms of opportunities to
acquire RINs. If those that have excess
RINs are reluctant to sell them, those
who are seeking RINs may be forced to
market a disproportionate share of E85
in order to gain access to the RINs they
need for compliance. If obligated parties
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24963
seeking RINs cannot acquire a sufficient
number, they can only carry a deficit
into the following year, after which they
would be in noncompliance if they
could not acquire sufficient RINs. The
result might be a much higher price for
RINs (and fuel) in the marketplace than
would be expected under a more liquid
market.
Given the change in circumstances
brought about through EISA, it may be
appropriate to consider a change in the
way that obligated parties are defined to
more evenly align a party’s access to
RINs with that party’s obligations under
the RFS2 program. The most
straightforward approach would be to
eliminate RBOB and CBOB from the list
of fuels that are subject to the standard,
such that a party’s RVO would be based
only on the non-renewable volume of
finished gasoline or diesel that he
produces or imports. Parties that blend
ethanol into RBOB and CBOB to make
finished gasoline would thus be
obligated parties, and their RVOs would
be based upon the volume of RBOB and
CBOB prior to ethanol blending.
Traditional refiners that convert crude
oil into transportation fuels would only
have an RVO to the degree that they
produced finished gasoline or diesel,
with all RBOB and CBOB sold to
another party being excluded from the
calculation of their RVO.
Since essentially all gasoline is
expected to be E10 within the next few
years (see discussion in Section V.D.2
below), this approach would effectively
shift the obligation for all gasoline from
refiners and importers to ethanol
blenders (who in many cases are still
the refiners). However, this approach by
itself would maintain the obligation for
diesel on refiners and importers. Thus,
a variation of this approach would be to
move the obligations for all gasoline and
diesel downstream to parties who
supply finished transportation fuels to
retail outlets or to wholesale purchaserconsumer facilities. This variation
would have the additional effect of more
closely aligning obligations and access
to RINs for parties that blend biodiesel
and renewable diesel into petroleumbased diesel.
We are not proposing to eliminate
RBOB and CBOB from the list of fuels
that are subject to the standard in
today’s notice since it would result in a
significant change in the number of
obligated parties and the movement of
RINs. Many parties that are not
obligated under the current RFS
program would become obligated, and
would be forced to implement new
systems for determining and reporting
compliance. Nevertheless, it would have
certain advantages. Currently, blenders
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24964
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
that are not obligated parties are
profiting from the sale of RINs they
acquire through splash blending of
ethanol. By eliminating RBOB and
CBOB from the list of obligated fuels,
these blenders would become directly
responsible for ensuring that the volume
requirements of the RFS program are
met, and the cost of meeting the
standard would be more evenly
distributed among parties that blend
renewable fuel into gasoline. With
obligations placed more closely to the
points in the distribution system where
RINs are made available, the overall
market prices for RINs may be lowered
and consequently the cost of the
program to consumers may be reduced.
While eliminating the categories of
RBOB and CBOB from the list of
obligated fuels would result in a
significant change in the distribution of
obligations among transportation fuel
producers, it could help to ensure that
the RIN market functions as we
originally intended. As a result, RINs
would more directly be made available
to the parties that need them for
compliance. This is similar to the goal
of the direct transfer approach to RIN
distribution as described in the
proposed rulemaking for the RFS1
program and presented again in Section
III.H.4 below. We request comment on
the degree to which access to RINs is a
concern among current obligated
parties. Since either the elimination of
RBOB and CBOB from the list of
obligated fuels or the direct transfer
approach to RIN distribution could both
accomplish the same goal, we request
comment on which one would be more
appropriate, if any.
We have also considered a number of
alternative approaches that could be
used to help ensure that obligated
parties can demonstrate compliance. For
instance, one alternative approach
would leave our proposed definitions
for obligated parties in place, but would
add a regulatory requirement that any
party who blends ethanol into RBOB or
CBOB must transfer the RINs associated
with the ethanol to the original
producer of the RBOB or CBOB.
However, we believe that such an
approach would be both inappropriate
and difficult to implement. RBOB and
CBOB is often transferred between
multiple parties prior to ethanol
blending. As a result, a regulatory
requirement for RIN transfers back to
the original producer would necessitate
an additional tracking requirement for
RBOB and CBOB so that the blender
would know the identity of the original
producer. It would also be difficult to
ensure that RINs representing the
specific category of renewable fuel
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
blended were transferred to the
producer of the RBOB or CBOB, given
the fungible nature of RINs assigned to
batches of renewable fuel. For these
reasons, we do not believe that this
alternative approach would be
appropriate.
In another alternative approach, some
RINs that expire without being used for
compliance by an obligated party could
be used to reduce the nationwide
volume of renewable fuel required in
the following year. We would only
reduce the required volume of
renewable fuel to the degree that
sufficient RINs had been generated to
permit all obligated parties to
demonstrate compliance, but some
obligated parties nevertheless could not
acquire a sufficient number of RINs.
Moreover, only RINs that were expiring
would be used to reduce the nationwide
volume for the next year. This
alternative approach would ensure that
the volumes required in the statute
would actually be produced and would
prevent the hoarding of RINs from
driving up demand for renewable fuel.
However, it would also reduce the
impact of the valid life limit for RINs.
We could lower the 20% rollover cap
applicable to the use of previous-year
RINs to a lower value, such as 10%.
This approach would provide a greater
incentive for obligated parties with
excess RINs to sell them but would
further restrict a potentially useful
means of managing an obligated party’s
risk. As described in Section IV.D, we
are not proposing any changes in the
20% rollover cap in today’s notice.
However, we request comment on it.
Finally, another change to the
program that would not change the
definition of obligated parties, but could
help address the disparity of access to
RINs among obligated parties, would be
to remove the requirement developed
under RFS1 that RINs be transferred
with renewable fuel volume by the
renewable fuel producers and importers.
This alternative is discussed further in
Section III.H.4 below.
H. Separation of RINs
We propose that most of the RFS1
provisions regarding the separation of
RINs from volumes of renewable fuel be
retained for RFS2. However, the
modifications in EISA will require a
number of changes, primarily to the
treatment of RINs associated with
nonroad renewable fuel and renewable
fuels used in heating oil and jet fuel.
Our approach to the separation of RINs
by exporters must also be modified to
account for the fact that there would be
four categories of renewable fuel under
RFS2.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1. Nonroad
Under RFS1, RINs associated with
renewable fuels used in nonroad
vehicles and engines downstream of the
renewable fuel producer are required to
be retired by the party who owns the
renewable fuel at the time of blending.
This provision derived from the EPAct
definition of renewable fuel which was
limited to fuel used to replace fossil fuel
used in a motor vehicle. EISA however
expands the definition of renewable
fuel, and ties it to the definition of
transportation fuel, which is defined as
any ‘‘fuel for use in motor vehicles,
motor vehicle engines, nonroad
vehicles, or nonroad engines (except for
ocean-going vessels). To implement
these changes, the proposed RFS2
program eliminates the RFS1 RIN
retirement requirement for renewable
fuels used in nonroad applications, with
the exception of RINs associated with
renewable fuels used in ocean-going
vessels.
2. Heating Oil and Jet Fuel
EISA defined ‘additional renewable
fuel’ as ‘‘fuel that is produced from
renewable biomass and that is used to
replace or reduce the quantity of fossil
fuel present in home heating oil or jet
fuel.’’ 40 While we are proposing that
fossil-based heating oil and jet fuel
would not be included in the fuel used
by a refiner or importer to calculate
their RVO, we are proposing that
renewable fuels used as or in heating oil
and jet fuel may generate RINs for credit
purposes. Thus, the RINs of a renewable
fuel, such as biodiesel, that is blended
into heating oil continue to be valid. See
also discussion in Section III.B.1.e.
3. Exporters
Under RFS1, exporters are assigned
an RVO representing the volume of
renewable fuel that has been exported,
and they are required to separate all
RINs that have been assigned to fuel that
is exported. Since there is only one
standard, there is only one possible
RVO applicable to exporters.
Under RFS2, there are four possible
RVOs corresponding to the four
categories of renewable fuel (cellulosic
biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced
biofuel, total renewable fuel). However,
given the fungible nature of the RIN
system and the fact that an assigned RIN
transferred with a volume of renewable
fuel may not be the same RIN that was
originally generated to represent that
volume, there is no way for an exporter
to determine from an assigned RIN
which of the four categories applies to
40 EISA, Title II, Subtitle A–Renewable Fuel
Standard, Section 201.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
an exported volume. In order to
determine its RVOs, the only
information available to the exporter is
the type of renewable fuel that he is
exporting.
For RFS2, we are proposing that
exporters use the fuel type and its
associated volume to determine his
applicable RVO. To accomplish this, an
exporter must know which of the four
renewable fuel categories applies to a
given type of renewable fuel. We are
proposing that all biodiesel (mono alkyl
esters) and renewable diesel would be
categorized as biomass-based diesel (D
code of 4), and that exported volumes of
these two fuels would be used to
determine the exporter’s RVO for
biomass-based diesel. For all other types
of renewable fuel, the most likely
category for most of the phase-in period
of the RFS2 program is general
renewable fuel, and as a result we
propose that all other types of
renewable fuel be used to determine the
exporter’s RVO for total renewable fuel.
Our proposed approach is provided at
§ 80.1430. We recognize that by 2022
the required volume of cellulosic
biofuel will exceed the required volume
of general renewable fuel that is in
excess of the advanced biofuel
requirements. Thus we request
comment on requiring all or some
portion of renewable fuels other than
biodiesel and renewable diesel to be
categorized as cellulosic biofuel in 2022
and beyond.
An alternative approach could be
required that would more closely
estimate the amount of exported
renewable fuels that fall into the four
categories defined by EISA. In this
alternative, the total nationwide
volumes required in each year (see
Table II.A.1–1) would be used to
apportion specific types of renewable
fuel into each of the four categories. For
example, exported ethanol may have
originally been produced from cellulose
to meet the cellulosic biofuel
requirement, from corn to meet the total
renewable fuel requirement, or may
have been imported as advanced
biofuel. If ethanol were exported, we
could divide the exported volume into
three RVOs for cellulosic biofuel,
advanced biofuel, and total renewable
fuel using the same proportions
represented by the national volume
requirements for that year. However, we
believe that this alternative approach
would add considerable complexity to
the compliance determinations for
exporters without necessarily adding
more precision. Given the expected
small volumes of exported renewable
fuel, this added complexity does not
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
seem warranted at this time.
Nevertheless, we request comment on it.
4. Alternative Approaches to RIN
Transfers
In the NPRM for the RFS1
rulemaking, we presented a variety of
approaches to the transfer of RINs,
ultimately requiring that RINs generated
by renewable fuel producers and
importers must be assigned to batches of
renewable fuel and transfered along
with those batches. However, given the
higher volumes required under RFS2
and the resulting expansion in the
number of regulated parties, we believe
that two of the alternative approaches to
RIN transfers should be considered for
RFS2. Our proposal for an EPAmoderated RIN trading system (EMTS)
may also support the implementation of
one of these approaches.
In one of the alternative approaches,
we would entirely remove the
restriction established under the RFS1
rule requiring that RINs be assigned to
batches of renewable fuel and
transferred with those batches. Instead,
renewable fuel producers could sell
RINs (with a K code of 2 rather than 1)
separately from volumes of renewable
fuel to any party. This approach could
significantly streamline the tracking and
trading of RINs. For instance, there
would no longer be a need for K-codes
and restrictions on separation of RINs,
there would only be a single RIN market
rather than two (one for RINs assigned
to volume and another for separated
RINs), there would be no need for
volume/RIN balance calculations at the
end of each quarter, and there would be
no need for restrictions on the number
of RINs that can be transfered with each
gallon of renewable fuel. As described
more fully in Section III.B.4.b.ii, this
approach could also provide a greater
incentive for producers to demonstrate
that the renewable biomass definition
has been met for their feedstocks. As
discussed in Section III.G.4, this
approch could help level the playing
field among obligated parties for access
to RINs regardless of whether they
market a substantial volume of gasoline
or not. However, as discussed in the
RFS1 rulemaking, this approach could
also place obligated parties at greater
risk of market manipulation by
renewable fuel producers.
In order to address some of the
concerns raised about allowing
producers and importers to separate
RINs from their volume, in the NPRM
for the RFS1 rulemaking we also
presented an alternative concept for RIN
distribution in which producers and
importers of renewable fuels would be
required to transfer the RIN, but only to
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24965
an obligated party (see 71 FR 55591).
This ’’direct transfer’’ approach would
require renewable fuel producers to
transfer RINs with renewable fuel for all
transactions with obligated parties, and
sell all other RINs directly to obligated
parties on a quarterly basis for any
renewable fuel volumes that were not
sold directly to obligated parties. Only
renewable fuel producers, importers,
and obligated parties would be allowed
to own RINs, and only obligated parties
could take ownership of RINs from
producers and importers. This approach
would spare marketers and distributors
of renewable fuel from the burdens
associated with transferring RINs with
batches, and thus would eliminate the
tracking, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that would continue to be
applicable to them if RINs are
transferred through the distribution
system as required under the RFS1
program.
Under the direct transfer alternative,
the renewable fuel producer or importer
would be required to transfer the RINs
associated with his renewable fuel to an
obligated party who purchases the
renewable fuel. The RINs associated
with any renewable fuel that is not
directly transferred to an obligated party
would not be transferred with the fuel
as required under the RFS1 program.
Instead, the renewable fuel producer or
importer would be required to sell the
RINs directly to an obligated party. Any
RINs not sold in this way would be
required to be offered for sale to all
obligated parties through a public
auction. This could be through an EPA
moderated trading system, an existing
internet auction web site, or through
another auction mechanism
implemented by a renewable fuel
producer.
Although we believe that the direct
transfer approach has merit, many of the
concerns laid out in the RFS1 NPRM
remain valid today. In particular, the
auctions would need to be regulated in
some way to ensure that RIN generators
could not withhold RINs from the
market by such means as failing to
adequately advertise the time and
location of an auction, by setting the
selling price too high, by specifying a
minimum number of bids before selling,
by conducting auctions infrequently, by
having unduly short bidding windows,
etc. We seek comment on how we could
regulate such auctions to ensure that
obligated parties could acquire
sufficient RINs for compliance purposes
in a timely manner.
Our proposed EPA-moderated RIN
trading system (see Section IV.E) could
help to make the direct transfer
approach feasible. By creating accounts
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24966
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
in a centralized system within which all
RIN transfers between parties would be
made, it may be more straightforward
for obligated parties to identify available
RINs owned by producers and
importers, and to bid on those RINs.
Therefore, while we are not proposing
the direct transfer approach in today’s
action, we nevertheless request
comment on it.
5. Neat Renewable Fuel and Renewable
Fuel Blends Designated as
Transportation Fuel, Home Heating Oil,
or Jet Fuel
Under RFS1, RINs must, with limited
exceptions, be separated by an obligated
party taking ownership of the renewable
fuel, or by a party that blends renewable
fuel with gasoline or diesel. In addition,
a party that designates neat renewable
fuel as motor vehicle fuel may separate
RINs associated with that fuel if the fuel
is in fact used in that manner without
further blending. For purposes of the
RFS program, ‘‘neat renewable fuel’’ is
defined in 80.1101(p) as ‘‘a renewable
fuel to which only de minimis amounts
of conventional gasoline or diesel have
been added.’’ One exception to these
provisions is that biodiesel blends in
which diesel constitutes less than 20
volume percent are ineligible for RIN
separation by a blender. As noted in the
preamble to the final RFS1 regulations,
EPA understands that in the vast
majority of cases, biodiesel is blended
with diesel in concentrations of 80
volume percent or less.
However, in order to account for
situations in which biodiesel blends of
81 percent or greater may be used as
motor vehicle fuel without ever having
been owned by an obligated party, EPA
is proposing to change the applicability
of the RIN separation provisions for
RFS2. EPA is proposing that
80.1429(b)(4) allow for separation of
RINs for neat renewable fuel or blends
of renewable fuel and or diesel fuel that
the party designates as transportation
fuel, home heating oil, or jet fuel,
provided the neat renewable fuel or
blend is used in the designated form,
without further blending, as
transportation fuel, home heating oil, or
jet fuel. As in RFS1, those parties that
blend renewable fuel with gasoline or
diesel fuel (in a blend containing less
than 80 percent biodiesel would in all
cases be required to separate RINs
pursuant 80.1429(b)(2).
Thus, for example, under these
proposed regulations, if a party intends
to separate RINs from a volume of B85,
the party must designate the blend for
use as transportation fuel, home heating
oil, or jet fuel and the blend must be
used in its designated form without
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
further blending. The party would also
be required maintain records of this
designation pursuant to 80.1451(b)(5).
Finally, the party would be required to
comply with the proposed PTD
requirements in 80.1453(a)(5)(iv), which
serve to notify downstream parties that
the volume of fuel has been designated
for use as transportation fuel, home
heating oil, or jet fuel, and must be used
in that designated form without further
blending. Parties could separate RINs at
the time they complied with the
designation and PTD requirements, and
would not need to physically track
ultimate fuel use.
EPA requests comment on this
proposed approach to RIN separation.
Additionally, EPA requests comment on
an alternative approach to modifying
the current program for separation of
RINs. Under this second approach,
80.1429(b)(2) and (b)(5)would be
eliminated as redundant, and
80.1429(b)(4) would be broadened to
require separation of RINs for all neat
renewable fuels and all blends of
renewable fuels with either gasoline or
diesel, when a party designates such
fuel as transportation fuel, home heating
oil or jet fuel, and the fuel is in fact used
in accordance with that designation
without further blending. The party
would be required to maintain records
that verify the ultimate use of the fuel
as transportation, home heating, or jet
fuel. Additionally, there would be a
PTD requirement to inform downstream
parties that the fuel has been designated
as transportation, home heating, or jet
fuel and may not be further blended.
This proposed approach would
eliminate the need for parties to
distinguish for purposes of separating
RINs between fuels that are neat or
blended or, for biodiesel, between
blends of E80 and below or E81 and
above.
I. Treatment of Cellulosic Biofuel
1. Cellulosic Biofuel Standard
EISA requires in section 202(e) that
the Administrator set the cellulosic
biofuel standard each November for the
next year based on the lesser of the
volume specified in the Act or the
projected volume of cellulosic biofuel
production for that year. In the event
that the projected volume is less than
the amount required in the Act, EPA
may also reduce the applicable volume
of the advanced biofuels requirement by
the same or a lesser volume. We intend
to examine EIA’s projected volumes and
other available data including the
production outlook reports proposed in
Section III.K to be submitted to the EPA
to decide the appropriate standard for
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the following year. The outlook reports
from all renewable fuel producers
would assist EPA in determining what
the cellulosic biofuel standard should
be and if the advanced biofuel standard
should be adjusted. For years where
EPA determines that the projected
volume of cellulosic biofuels is not
sufficient to meet the levels in EISA we
will consider the availability of other
advanced biofuels in deciding whether
to lower the advanced biofuel standard
as well.
2. EPA Cellulosic Allowances for
Cellulosic Biofuel
Whenever EPA sets the cellulosic
biofuel standard at a level lower than
that required in EISA, EPA is required
to provide a number of cellulosic credits
for sale that is no more than the volume
used to set the standard. Congress also
specified the price for such credits:
adjusted for inflation, they must be
offered at the price of the higher of 25
cents per gallon or the amount by which
$3.00 per gallon exceeds the average
wholesale price of a gallon of gasoline
in the United States. The inflation
adjustment will be for years after 2008.
We propose that the inflation
adjustment would be based on the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI–U) for All Items
expenditure category as provided by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.41
Congress afforded the Agency
considerable flexibility in implementing
the system of cellulosic biofuel credits.
EISA states EPA; ‘‘shall include such
provisions, including limiting the
credits’ uses and useful life, as the
Administrator deems appropriate to
assist market liquidity and
transparency, to provide appropriate
certainty for regulated entities and
renewable fuel producers, and to limit
any potential misuse of cellulosic
biofuel credits to reduce the use of other
renewable fuels, and for such other
purposes as the Administrator
determines will help achieve the goals
of this subsection.’’
Though EISA gives EPA broad
flexibility, we believe the best way to
accomplish the goals of providing
certainty to both the cellulosic biofuel
industry and the obligated parties is to
propose credits with few degrees of
freedom. We believe this would prevent
speculation in the market and provide
certainty for investments in real
cellulosic biofuels.
Specifically, we propose that the
credits would be called allowances so
41 See U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), Consumer Price Index Web site at:
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
that there is no confusion with RINs,
such allowances would only be
available for the current compliance
year for which we have waived some
portion of the cellulosic biofuel
standard, they would only be available
to obligated parties, and they would be
nontransferable and nonrefundable.
Further, we propose that obligated
parties would only be able to purchase
allowances up to the level of their
cellulosic biofuel RVO less the number
of cellulosic biofuel RINs that they own.
This would help ensure that every party
that needs to meet the cellulosic biofuel
standard will have equal access to the
allowances. A company would also then
only use an allowance to meet its total
renewable and advanced biofuel
standards if it used the allowance for
the cellulosic biofuel standard. We
believe that if a company can only
purchase as many allowances as it
needs to meet its cellulosic biofuel
obligation, it can not hinder another
obligated party from meeting the
standard and therefore every company
that needs to meet the standard will
have equal access to the allowances in
the event that they do not acquire
sufficient cellulosic biofuel RINs. If we
were to allow a company to purchase
more allowances than they needed,
another company may not be able to
meet the standard which we believe was
not the intent of Congress.
We also propose that these allowances
would be offered in a generic format
rather than a serialized format, like
RINs. Allowances would be purchased
from the EPA at the time that an
obligated party submits its annual
compliance demonstration to the EPA
and establishes that it owns insufficient
cellulosic biofuel RINs to meet its
cellulosic biofuel RVO. A company
owning cellulosic biofuel RINs and
cellulosic allowances may use both
types of credits if desired to meet their
RVOs, but unlike RINs they would not
be able to carry allowances over to the
next calendar year.
Congress refers to allowances as
‘‘cellulosic biofuel credits,’’ with no
indication that the ‘‘credits’’ should be
given any less role in meeting a party’s
obligations under the CAA section
211(o) than would the purchase and use
of a cellulosic biofuel RIN that reflects
actual production and use of cellulosic
biofuel. Because cellulosic biofuel RINs
can be used to meet the advanced
biofuel and total renewable fuel
standards in addition to the cellulosic
biofuel standard, we propose that
cellulosic biofuel allowances also be
available for use in meeting those three
standards.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
We propose that the wholesale price
of gasoline will be based on the average
monthly bulk (refinery gate) price of
gasoline using data from the most recent
twelve months of data from EIA’s
annual cellulosic ethanol forecast each
October.42 Thus we will set the
allowance price for the following year
each November along with the
cellulosic biofuel standard for the
following year. We seek comment on
using the average monthly rack
(terminal) price for the same period and
changing the allowance price as often as
quarterly. Though EISA allows EPA to
change the price as often as quarterly we
believe this will lead to speculation
which may introduce more uncertainty
for the obligated parties and the
cellulosic biofuel industry.
3. Potential Adverse Impacts of
Allowances
While the credit provisions of section
202(e) of EISA ensure that there is a
predictable upper limit to the price that
cellulosic biofuel producers can charge
for a gallon of cellulosic biofuel and its
assigned RIN, there may be
circumstances in which this provision
has other unintended impacts. For
instance, if we made all cellulosic
allowances available to any obligated
party, one obligated party could
purchase more allowances than he
needs to meet his cellulosic biofuel RVO
and then sell the remaining allowances
at an inflated price to other obligated
parties. Thus, we are proposing that
each obligated party could only
purchase allowances from the EPA up to
the level of their cellulosic biofuel RVO.
However, even with this restriction an
obligated party could still purchase both
cellulosic biofuel volume with its
assigned RINs sufficient to meet its
cellulosic biofuel RVO, and also
purchase allowances from the EPA. In
this case, the obligated party would
effectively be using allowances as a
replacement for corn ethanol rather than
cellulosic biofuel. To prevent this, we
are proposing an additional restriction:
an obligated party could only purchase
allowances from the EPA to the degree
that it establishes it owns insufficient
cellulosic biofuel RINs to meet its
cellulosic biofuel RVO. This approach
forces obligated parties to apply all their
cellulosic biofuel RINs to their
cellulosic biofuel RVO before appying
any allowances to their cellulosic
biofuel RVO.
42 More information on wholesale gasoline prices
can be found on the Department of Energy’s (DOE),
Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Web site
at: https://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/
pet_pri_allmg_d_nus_PBS_cpgal_m.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24967
However, even with these proposed
restrictions on the purchase and
application of allowances, the statutory
provision may not operate as intended.
For instance, if the combination of
cellulosic biofuel volume price and RIN
price is low compared to that for cornethanol, a small number of obligated
parties could purchase more cellulosic
biofuel than they need to meet their
cellulosic biofuel RVOs and could use
the additional cellulosic biofuel RINs to
meet their advanced biofuel and total
renewable fuel RVOs. Other obligated
parties would then have no access to
cellulosic biofuel volume nor cellulosic
biofuel RINs, and would be forced to
purchase allowances from the EPA. This
situation would have the net effect of
allowances replacing imported
sugarcane ethanol and/or corn-ethanol
rather than cellulosic biofuel.
Moreover, under certain conditions it
may be possible for the market price of
corn-ethanol RINs to be significantly
higher than the market price of
cellulosic biofuel RINs, as the latter is
limited in the market by the price of
EPA-generated allowances according to
the statutory formula described in
Section III.I.2 above. Under some
conditions, this could result in a
competitive disadvantage for cellulosic
biofuel in comparison to corn ethanol.
For instance, if gasoline prices at the
pump are significantly higher than
ethanol production costs, while at the
same time corn-ethanol production
costs are lower than cellulosic ethanol
production costs, profit margins for
corn-ethanol producers would be larger
than for cellulosic ethanol producers.
Under these conditions, while obligated
parties may still purchase cellulosic
ethanol volume and its associated RIN
rather than allowances, cellulosic
ethanol producers would realize lower
profits than corn-ethanol producers due
to the upper limit placed on the price
of cellulosic biofuel RINs through the
pricing formula for allowances. For a
newly forming and growing cellulosic
biofuel industry, this competitive
disadvantage could make it more
difficult for investors to secure funding
for new projects, threatening the ability
of the industry to reach the statutorily
mandated volumes.
We have not established the
likelihood that these circumstances
would arise in practice, and we request
comment on the specific market
conditions that could lead to them.
Nevertheless, we have explored a
variety of ways that we could modify
the RFS program structure to mitigate
these potential negative outcomes. For
instance, as mentioned in Section III.I.2
above, we are proposing that each
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24968
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
cellulosic allowance could be used to
meet an obligated party’s RVOs for
cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and
total renewable fuel. However, we could
restrict the applicability of allowances
to only the cellulosic biofuel RVO. This
approach could help ensure that
demand for imported sugarcane ethanol
and corn ethanol does not fall in the
event that a small number of obligated
parties purchase all available cellulosic
biofuel volume, compelling the
remaining obligated parties to purchase
allowances. However, this approach
could also have the effect of making the
advanced biofuel and total renewable
fuel standards more stringent. This
could occur as obligated parties are
forced to buy additional imported
sugarcane ethanol and corn ethanol to
make up for the fact that the allowances
they purchase from the EPA would not
apply to the advanced biofuel and total
renewable fuel standards.
As a variation to this approach, while
still restricting the applicability of
allowances to only the cellulosic biofuel
RVO, we could similarly make
cellulosic biofuel RINs applicable to
only the cellulosic biofuel RVO. This
approach would ensure that the
compliance value of both cellulosic
biofuel RINs and allowances is the
same, but would necessarily result in an
increase in the effective stringency of
the advanced biofuel and total
renewable fuel standards.
Finally, we could institute a ‘‘dual
RIN’’ approach to cellulosic biofuel that
has the potential to address some of the
shortcomings of the previous
approaches. In this approach, both
cellulosic biofuel RINs (with a D code
of 1) and allowances could only be
applied to an obligated party’s cellulosic
biofuel RVO, but producers of cellulosic
biofuel would also generate an
additional RIN representing advanced
biofuel (with a D code of 3). The
producer would only be required to
transfer the advanced biofuel RIN with
a batch of cellulosic biofuel, and could
retain the cellulosic biofuel RIN for
separate sale to any party.43 The
cellulosic biofuel and its attached
advanced biofuel RIN would then
compete directly with other advanced
biofuel and its attached advanced
biofuel RIN, while the separate
cellulosic biofuel RIN would have an
independent market value that would be
effectively limited by the pricing
formula for allowances as described in
Section III.I.2. However, this approach
would be a more significant deviation
43 The cellulosic biofuel RIN would be a
separated RIN with a K code of 2 immediately upon
generation.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
from the RIN generation and transfer
program structure that was developed
cooperatively with stakeholders during
RFS1. It would provide cellulosic
biofuel producers with significantly
more control over the sale and price of
cellulosic biofuel RINs, which was one
of the primary concerns of obligated
parties during the development of RFS1.
Due to the drawbacks of each of these
potential changes to the RFS program
structure, we are not proposing any of
them in today’s NPRM. However, we
request comment on whether any of
them, or alternatives, could address the
adverse situations described above. We
also request comment on the degree to
which the adverse situations are likely
to occur, and the degree of severity of
the negative impacts that could result.
J. Changes to Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements
1. Recordkeeping
As with the existing renewable fuel
standard program, recordkeeping under
this proposed program will support the
enforcement of the use of RINs for
compliance purposes. As with the
existing renewable fuels program, we
are proposing that parties be afforded
significant freedom with regard to the
form that product transfer documents
(PTDs) take. We propose to permit the
use of product codes as long as they are
understood by all parties. We propose
that product codes may not be used for
transfers to truck carriers or to retailers
or wholesale purchaser-consumers. We
propose that parties must keep copies of
all PTDs they generate and receive, as
well as copies of all reports submitted
to EPA and all records related to the
sale, purchase, brokering or transfer or
RINs, for five (5) years. We also propose
that parties must also keep copies of
records that relate to flexibilities, as
described in Section IV.A. through C. of
this preamble. Such flexibilities are
related to attest engagements, the
upward delegation of RIN-separating
responsibilities, and various small
business oriented provisions. Upon
request, parties would be responsible for
providing their records to the
Administrator or the Administrator’s
authorized representative. We would
reserve the right to request to receive
documents in a format that we can read
and use.
In Section IV.E. of this preamble, we
propose an EPA-Moderated Trading
System for RINs. If adopted, the new
system would allow for real-time
reporting of RIN generation (i.e., batch
reports by producers and importers) and
RIN transactions.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2. Reporting
Under the existing renewable fuels
program, obligated parties, exporters of
renewable fuel, producers and importers
of renewable fuels, and any party who
owns RINs must report appropriate
information to EPA on a quarterly and/
or annual basis. We are proposing a
change in the schedule for submission
of producers’ and importers’ batch
reports, and for the submission of RIN
transaction reports. This proposed
change in schedule, which is discussed
in great detail in Section IV.E. of this
preamble, is effective for 2010 only. We
are proposing that, for 2010, these
reports (which were submitted quarterly
under RFS1) be submitted monthly
rather than quarterly. The reason for
proposing monthly reporting for 2010 is
to minimize difficulties associated with
invalid RINs, while the EPA-Moderated
Trading System is still under
development. As described in detail in
IV.E. we intend to have an EPAModerated Trading System fully
operational by 2011. At the time that
system becomes fully operational, all
batch and RIN transactional reporting
would be submitted in real time. The
following deadlines would apply to
‘‘real time,’ monthly, quarterly, and
annual reports.
‘‘Real time’’ reports within the EPAModerating Trading System would be
submitted within three (3) business days
of a reportable event (e.g. generation of
a RIN, a transaction occurring involving
a RIN). Real time reporting would apply
to batch reports submitted by producers
and importers who generate RINs and to
to RIN transaction reports submitted in
2011 and future years.
Monthly reports would be submitted
according to the following schedule:
TABLE III.J.2–1—MONTHLY
REPORTING SCHEDULE
Month covered by
report
January .....................
February ....................
March ........................
April ...........................
May ...........................
June ..........................
July ............................
August .......................
September .................
October .....................
November ..................
December ..................
Due date for report
February 28.
March 31.
April 30.
May 31.
June 30.
July 31.
August 31.
September 30.
October 31.
November 30.
December 31.
January 31.
The monthly reporting schedule
would apply to batch reports submitted
by producers and importers who
generate RINs and to RIN transaction
reports submitted for 2010 only.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Quarterly reports would be submitted
on the following schedule:
TABLE III.J.–2—QUARTERLY
REPORTING SCHEDULE
Quarter covered by
report
January–March ..............
April–June .....................
July–September ............
October–December .......
Due date for
report
May 31.
August 31.
November 30.
February 28.
Quarterly reports include summary
reports related to RIN activities.
Annual reports (covering January
through December) would continue to
be due on February 28. Annual reports
include compliance demonstrations by
obligated parties.
Under this proposed rule, the
universe of reporting parties would
grow, but we propose similar reporting
to existing reporting. We believe that the
proposed EPA-Moderating Trading
System will make reporting easier for
most parties. Existing reporting forms
and instructions are posted at https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/
rfsforms.htm. You may wish to refer to
these existing forms in preparing your
comments on this proposal.
Simplified, secure reporting is
currently available through our Central
Data Exchange (CDX). CDX permits us
to accept reports that are electronically
signed and certified by the submitter in
a secure and robustly encrypted fashion.
Using CDX eliminates the need for wet
ink signatures and reduces the reporting
burden on regulated parties. It is our
intention to continue to encourage the
use of CDX for reporting under this
proposed program as well.
Due to the criteria that renewable fuel
producers and importers must meet in
order to generate RINs under RFS2, and
due to the fact that renewable fuel
producers and importers must have
documentation about whether their
feedstock(s) meets the definition of
‘‘renewable biomass,’’ we propose
several changes to the RFS1 RIN
generation report. We propose to make
the report a more general report on
renewable fuel production in order to
capture information on all batches of
renewable fuel, whether or not RINs are
generated for them. All renewable fuel
producers and importers above 10,000
gallons per year would report to EPA on
each batch of their fuel and indicate
whether or not RINs are generated for
the batch. If RINs are generated, the
producer or importer would be required
to certify that his feedstock meets the
definition of ‘‘renewable biomass.’’ If
RINs are not generated, the producer or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
importer would be required to state the
reason for not generating RINs, such as
they have documentation that states that
their feedstock did not meet the
definition of ‘‘renewable biomass,’’ or
the fuel pathway used to produce the
fuel was such that the fuel did not
qualify for any D code (see Section
III.B.4.b for a discussion about
demonstrating whether or not feedstock
meets the definition of ‘‘renewable
biomass’’). For each batch of renewable
fuel produced, we also propose to
require information about the types and
volumes of feedstock used and the types
and volumes of co-products produced,
as well as information about the process
or processes used. This information is
necessary to confirm that the producer
or importer assigned the appropriate D
code to their fuel and that the D code
was consistent with their registration
information.
Two minor additions are being
incorporated into the RIN transaction
report. First, for reports of RINs assigned
to a volume of renewable fuel, we are
asking that the volume of renewable fuel
be reported. Additionally, we propose
that RIN price information be submitted
for transactions involving both
separated RINs and RINs assigned to a
renewable volume. This information is
not collected under RFS1, but we
believe this information has great
programmatic value to EPA because it
may help us to anticipate and
appropriately react to market
disruptions and other compliance
challenges, will be beneficial when
setting future renewable standards, and
will provide additional insight into the
market when assessing potential
waivers. We anticipate that having
current market information such as total
number of RINs produced and RINs
available in the separated market is
incomplete. Missing is our ability to
assess the general health and direction
of the market and overall liquidity of
RINs. Tracking price trend information
will allow us to identify market
inefficiencies and perceptions of RIN
supply. When price information is
combined with information from the
production outlook reports, we will be
better able to judge realistic
expectations of renewable production
and be in a better position when setting
and justifying future renewable
standards or pursuing relief through
waiver provisions. Also, we believe the
addition of price information will be
highly beneficial to regulated parties.
With price information being noted on
transaction reports, buyers and sellers
will have an additional and immediate
reference when confirming transactions.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24969
Additionally, we believe that highly
summarized price information (e.g., the
average price of RINs traded) should be
available to regulated parties, as well,
and may help them to anticipate and
avoid market disruptions.
We also propose to make minor
changes to compliance reports related to
the identification of types of RINs.
Please refer to Section III.B. of this
preamble for a discussion of types of
renewable fuels. Also, please refer to
Section III.A. for a discussion of
proposed changes to RINs.
Under our proposed EPA-Moderated
Trading System described in Section
IV.E. of this preamble, then there would
be a change in reporting burden on
regulated parties that affects the
frequency of reporting and the number
of reports. Instead of quarterly and/or
annual contact with EPA, there would
be real time contact—i.e., as batches of
renewable fuel are generated or as RINs
are transacted. However, we believe that
any burden is offset by the advantage of
having a simplified system for RIN
management that will promote the
integrity of RINs and will remove
‘‘guesswork’’ now associated with RIN
management. As things are now, a
regulated party may experience
frustration and incur expense in trying
to track down and correct errors. Once
an error is made, it propagates
throughout the distribution system with
each transfer from party to party. By
having EPA moderate RIN management,
we believe that errors would be
minimized and regulated parties would
be freed of the greater burden to attempt
to track down and correct errors they
may have made. Implementation of the
EPA-Moderated Trading System would
correspond to real-time reporting of the
type of information contained in the
following two quarterly reports: The
Renewable Fuel Production Report,
known as the RIN Generation Report or
‘‘batch report’’ under RFS1 (Report
Form Template RFS0400), and the RIN
Transaction Report (Report Form
Template RFS0200), starting in 2011.
For 2010, we are proposing that the type
of information contained in these two
forms be submitted monthly. These and
other reports and instructions related to
the existing renewable fuel standard
program (RFS1) are posted at https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/
rfsforms.htm.
3. Additional Requirements for
Producers of Renewable Natural Gas,
Electricity, and Propane
In addition to the general reporting
requirement listed above, we are
proposing an additional item of
reporting for producers of renewable
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24970
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
natural gas, electricity, and propane
who choose to generate and assign RINs.
While producers of renewable natural
gas, electricity, and propane who
generate and assign RINs would be
responsible for filing the same reports as
other producers of RIN-generating
renewable fuels, we propose that
additional reporting for these producers
be required to support the actual use of
their products in the transportation
sector. We believe that one simple way
to achieve this may be to add a
requirement that producers of
renewable natural gas, electricity, and
propane add the name of the purchaser
(e.g., the name of the wholesale
purchaser-consumer (WPC) or fleet) to
their quarterly RIN generation reports
and then maintain appropriate records
that further identify the purchaser and
the details of the transaction. We are not
proposing that a purchaser who is either
a WPC or an end user would have to
register under this scenario, unless that
party engages in other activities
requiring registration under this
program.
K. Production Outlook Reports
We are also proposing additional
reporting—annual production outlook
reports that would be required of all
domestic renewable fuel producers,
foreign renewable fuel producers who
register to generate RINs, and importers
of covered renewable fuels starting in
2010. These production outlook reports
would be similar to the pre-compliance
reports required under the Highway and
Nonroad Diesel programs. These reports
would contain information about
existing and planned production
capacity, long-range plans, and
feedstocks and production processes to
be used at each production facility. For
expanded production capacity that is
planned or underway at each existing
facility, or new production facilities that
are planned or underway, the progress
reports would require information on:
(1) Strategic planning; (2) Planning and
front-end engineering; (3) Detailed
engineering and permitting; (4)
Procurement and Construction; and (5)
Commissioning and startup. These five
project phases are described in EPA’s
June 2002 Highway Diesel Progress
Review report (EPA document number
EPA420–R–02–016, located at:
www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd2007/
420r02016.pdf).
The full list of requirements for the
proposed production outlook reports is
provided in the proposed regulations at
§ 80.1449. The information submitted in
the reports would be used to evaluate
the progress that the industry is making
towards the renewable fuels volume
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
goals mandated by EISA and to set the
annual cellulosic biofuel, advanced
biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and total
renewable fuel standards (see Section
II.A.7 of this preamble). We are
proposing that the annual production
outlook reports be due annually by
February 28, beginning in 2010 and
continuing through 2022, and we are
proposing that each annual report must
provide projected information through
calendar year 2022.
EPA currently receives data on
projected flexible-fuel vehicle (FFV)
sales and conversions from vehicle
manufacturers; however, we do not have
information on renewable fuels in the
distribution system. Thus, EPA is also
considering whether to require the
annual submission of data to facilitate
our evaluation of the ability of the
distribution system to deliver the
projected volumes of biofuels to
petroleum terminals that are needed to
meet the RFS2 standards. We request
comment on the extent to which such
information is already publicly available
or can be purchased from a proprietary
source. We further request comment on
the extent to which such publicly
available or purchasable data would be
sufficient for EPA to make its
determination. To the extent that
additional data might be needed, we
request comment on the parties that
should be required to report to EPA and
what data should be required. For
example, would it be appropriate to
require terminal operators to report to
EPA annually on their ability to receive,
store, and blend biofuels into
petroleum-based fuels? We believe that
publicly available information on E85
refueling facilities is sufficient for us to
make a determination about the
adequacy of such facilities to support
the projected volumes of E85 that would
be used to satisfy the RFS2 standards.
We request comment on the proposed
requirement of annual production
outlook reports, and all other aspects
mentioned above (e.g., reporting
requirements, reporting dates, etc.).
L. What Acts Are Prohibited and Who Is
Liable for Violations?
The prohibition and liability
provisions applicable to the proposed
RFS2 program would be similar to those
of the RFS1 program and other gasoline
programs. The proposed rule identifies
certain prohibited acts, such as a failure
to acquire sufficient RINs to meet a
party’s RVOs, producing or importing a
renewable fuel that is not assigned a
proper RIN category (or D Code),
improperly assigning RINs to renewable
fuel that was not produced with
renewable biomass, failing to assign
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
RINs to qualifying fuel, or creating or
transferring invalid RINs. 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
qualifying 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.
In addition, any person who is subject
to an affirmative requirement under this
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 (PTD) 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.
EPAct 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).
Accordingly, under the proposed rule,
any person who violates any prohibition
or requirement of the RFS2 program
may be subject to civil penalties of
$32,500 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, the regulations
would prohibit any party from creating
or transferring invalid RINs. These
invalid RIN provisions apply regardless
of the good faith belief of a party that
the RINs are valid. These enforcement
provisions are necessary to ensure the
RFS2 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.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
In this situation, the obligated party that
used the invalid RINs would be required
to deduct any invalid RINs from its
compliance calculations. Obligated
parties 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
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.
We request comment on the need for
additional prohibition and liability
provisions specific to the proposed RFS
2 program.
IV. What Other Program Changes Have
We Considered?
In addition to the regulatory changes
we are proposing today in response to
EISA that are designed to implement the
provisions of RFS2, there are a number
of other changes to the RFS program
that we are considering. These changes
would be designed to increase
flexibility, simplify compliance, or
address RIN transfer issues that have
arisen since the start of the RFS1
program. We have also investigated
impacts on small businesses and are
proposing approaches designed to
address the impacts of the program on
them.
A. Attest Engagements
The purpose of an attest engagement
is to receive third party verification of
information reported to EPA. An attest
engagement, which is similar to a
financial audit, is conducted by a
Certified Public Accountant (CPA) or
Certified Independent Auditor (CIA)
following agreed-upon procedures.
Under the RFS1 program, an attest
engagement must be conducted
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
annually. We propose to apply the same
provision to this proposed RFS2 rule.
However, we seek comment on whether
there should be any flexibility
provisions for those who own a small
number of RINs and what level of
flexibility might be appropriate (e.g.,
allowing those who own a small number
of RINs to submit an attest engagement
every two years, rather than every year).
B. Small Refinery and Small Refiner
Flexibilities
1. Small Refinery Temporary Exemption
CAA section 211(o)(8), enacted as part
of EPAct, provides a temporary
exemption to small refineries (those
refineries with a crude throughput of no
more than 75,000 barrels of crude per
day, as defined in section 211(o)(1)(K))
through December 31, 2010.44
Accordingly, the RFS1 program
regulations exempt gasoline produced
by small refineries from the renewable
fuels standard (unless the exemption
was waived), see 40 CFR 80.1141. EISA
did not alter the small refinery
exemption in any way. Therefore, we
intend to retain this small refinery
temporary exemption in the RFS2
program without change. Further, as
discussed below in Section IV.B.2.c, we
are proposing to continue one of the
hardship provisions for small refineries
provided at 40 CFR 80.1141(e).
2. Small Refiner Flexibilities
As mentioned above, EPAct granted a
temporary exemption from the RFS
program to small refineries through
December 31, 2010. In the RFS1 final
rule, we exercised our discretion under
section 211(o)(3)(B) and extended this
temporary exemption to the few
remaining small refiners that met the
Small Business Administration’s (SBA)
definition of a small business (1,500
employees or less company-wide) but
did not meet the Congressional small
refinery definition as noted above.
As explained in the discussion of our
compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act below in Section XII.C
and in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis in Chapter 7 of the draft RIA,
we considered the impacts of today’s
proposed regulations on small
businesses. Most of our analysis of small
business impacts was performed as a
part of the work of the Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel,
or ‘‘the Panel’’) convened by EPA,
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA). The Final Report of the
44 Small refineries are also allowed to waive this
exemption.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24971
Panel is available in the docket for this
proposed rule. For the SBREFA process,
we conducted outreach, fact-finding,
and analysis of the potential impacts of
our regulations on small businesses.
During the SBREFA process, small
refiners informed us that they would
need to rely heavily on RINs and/or
make capital improvements to comply
with the RFS2 requirements. These
refiners raised concerns about the RIN
program itself, uncertainty (with the
required renewable fuel volumes, RIN
availability, and cost), and the desire for
a RIN system review access to RINs, and
the difficulty in raising capital and
competing for engineering resources to
make capital improvements.
During the Panel process, EPA raised
a concern regarding provisions for small
refiners in the RFS2 rule; and this rule
presents a very different issue than the
small refinery versus small refiner
concept from RFS1. This issue deals
with whether or not EPA has the
authority to provide a subset of small
refineries (those that are operated by
small refiners) with an extension of time
that would be different from, and more
than, the temporary exemption specified
by Congress in section 211(o)(9) for
small refineries (temporary exemption
through December 31, 2010, with the
potential for extensions of the
exemption beyond this date if certain
criteria are met.). In other words, the
temporary exemption specified by
Congress provided relief for those small
refiners that are covered by the small
refinery provision; EPA believes that
providing these refiners with an
additional exemption different from that
provided by section 211(o)(9) may be
inconsistent with the intent of Congress.
Congress spoke directly to the relief that
EPA may provide for small refineries,
including those small refineries
operated by small refiners, and limited
it to a blanket exemption through
December 31, 2010, with additional
extensions if the criteria specified by
Congress were met.
The Panel recommended that EPA
consider the issues raised by the SERs
and discussions had by the Panel itself,
and that EPA should consider
comments on flexibility alternatives that
would help to mitigate negative impacts
on small businesses to the extent
allowable by the Clean Air Act. A
summary of further recommendations of
the Panel are discussed in Section XII.C
of this preamble, and a full discussion
of the regulatory alternatives discussed
and recommended by the Panel can be
found in the SBREFA Final Panel
Report.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24972
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
a. Extension of Existing RFS1
Temporary Exemption
As previously stated, the RFS1
program regulations provide small
refiners who operate small refineries, as
well as those small refiners who do not
operate small refineries, with a
temporary exemption from the
standards through December 31, 2010.
Small refiner SERs suggested that an
additional temporary exemption for the
RFS2 program would be beneficial to
them in meeting the RFS2 standards;
and the Panel recommended that EPA
propose a delay in the effective date of
the standards until 2014 for small
entities, to the maximum extent allowed
by the statute.
We have evaluated an additional
temporary exemption for small refiners
for the required RFS2 standards, and we
have also evaluated such an exemption
with respect to our concerns about our
authority to provide an extension of the
temporary exemption for small
refineries that is different from that
provided in CAA section 211(o)(9). As
a result, we believe that the limitations
of the statute do not necessarily allow
us the discretion to provide an
exemption for small refiners only (i.e.,
small refiners but not small refineries)
beyond that provided in section
211(o)(9). However, it is important to
recognize that the 211(o)(9) small
refinery provision does allow for
extensions beyond December 31, 2010,
with two separate provisions addressing
extensions beyond 2010. These
provisions are discussed below in
Section IV.B.2.c.
Therefore, we are proposing to
continue the temporary exemption
finalized in RFS1—through December
31, 2010—for small refineries and all
qualified small refiners. We also request
comment on the interpretation of our
authority under the CAA and the
appropriateness of providing an
extension to small refiners only beyond
that authorized by section 211(o)(9).
b. Program Review
During the SBREFA process, the small
refiner SERs also requested that EPA
perform an annual program review, to
begin one year before small refiners are
required to comply with the program.
We have slight concerns that such a
review could lead to some redundancy
since EPA is required to publish a
notice of the applicable RFS standards
in the Federal Register annually, and
this annual process will inevitably
include an evaluation of the projected
availability of renewable fuels.
Nevertheless, some Panel members
commented that they believe a program
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
review could be beneficial to small
entities in providing them some insight
to the RFS program’s progress and
alleviate some uncertainty regarding the
RIN system. As we will be publishing a
Federal Register notice annually, the
Panel recommended that we include an
update of RIN system progress (e.g., RIN
trading, publicly-available information
RIN availability, etc.) in this annual
notice.
We propose to include elements of
RIN system progress—such as RIN
trading and availability—in the annual
Federal Register RFS2 standards notice.
We also invite comment on additional
elements to include in this review.
c. Extensions of the Temporary
Exemption Based on Disproportionate
Economic Hardship
As noted above, there are two
provisions in section 211(o)(9) that
allow for an extension of the temporary
exemption beyond December 31, 2010.
One involves a study by the Department
of Energy (DOE) concerning whether
compliance with the renewable fuel
requirements would impose
disproportionate economic hardship on
small refineries, and would grant an
extension of at least two years for a
small refinery that DOE determines
would be subject to such
disproportionate hardship. Another
provision authorizes EPA to grant an
extension for a small refinery based
upon disproportionate economic
hardship, on a case-by-case basis.
We believe that these avenues of relief
can and should be fully explored by
small refiners who are covered by the
small refinery provision. In addition, we
believe that it is appropriate to consider
allowing petitions to EPA for an
extension of the temporary exemption
based on disproportionate economic
hardship for those small refiners who
are not covered by the small refinery
provision (again, per our discretion
under section 211(o)(3)(B)); this would
ensure that all small refiners have the
same relief available to them as small
refineries do. Thus, we are proposing a
hardship provision for small refineries
in the RFS2 program, that any small
refinery may apply for a case-by-case
hardship at any time on the basis of
disproportionate economic hardship per
CAA section 211(o)(9)(B). While EISA
stated (per section 211(o)(9)(A)(ii)(I))
that the small refinery temporary
exemption shall be extended for at least
two years for any small refinery that the
DOE small refinery study determines
would face disproportionate economic
hardship in meeting the requirements of
the RFS2 program, we are not proposing
this hardship provision given the
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
outcome of the DOE small refinery
study (as discussed below).
In the small refinery study, ‘‘EPACT
2005 Section 1501 Small Refineries
Exemption Study’’, DOE’s finding was
that there is no reason to believe that
any small refinery would be
disproportionately harmed by inclusion
in the proposed RFS2 program. This
finding was based on the fact that there
appeared to be no shortage of RINs
available under RFS1, and EISA has
provided flexibility through waiver
authority (per section 211(o)(7)).
Further, in the case of the cellulosic
biofuel standard, cellulosic biofuel
allowances can be provided from EPA at
prices established in EISA (see proposed
regulation section 80.1455). DOE thus
determined that no small refinery would
be subject to disproportionate economic
hardship under the proposed RFS2
program, and that the small refinery
exemption should not be extended
beyond December 31, 2010. DOE noted
in the study that, if circumstances were
to change and/or the RIN market were
to become non-competitive or illiquid,
individual small refineries have the
ability to petition EPA for an extension
of their small refinery exemption (as
proposed at draft regulation section
80.1441). We note that the findings of
DOE’s small refinery study, and a
consideration of EPA’s ongoing review
of the functioning of the RIN market,
could factor into the basis for approval
of such a hardship request.
We are also proposing a case-by-case
hardship provision for those small
refiners that do not operate small
refineries, at draft regulation section
80.1442(h), using our discretion under
CAA section 211(o)(3)(B). This proposed
provision would allow those small
refiners that do not operate small
refineries to apply for the same kind of
extension as a small refinery. In
evaluating applications for this
proposed hardship provision, it was
recommended by the SBAR Panel that
EPA take into consideration information
gathered from annual reports and RIN
system progress updates.
d. Phase-in
The small refiner SERs suggested that
a phase-in of the obligations applicable
to small refiners would be beneficial for
compliance, such that small refiners
would comply by gradually meeting the
standards on an incremental basis over
a period of time, after which point they
would comply fully with the RFS2
standards, however we have concerns
about our authority under the statute to
allow for such a phase-in of the
standards. CAA section 211(o)(3)(B)
states that the renewable fuel obligation
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
shall ‘‘consist of a single applicable
percentage that applies to all categories
of persons specified’’ as obligated
parties. This kind of phase-in approach
would result in different applicable
percentages being applied to different
obligated parties. Further, as discussed
above, such a phase-in approach would
provide more relief to small refineries
operated by small refiners than that
provided under the small refinery
provision. We do not believe that we
can use our discretion under the statute
to allow for such a provision; however
we invite comment on the concept of a
phase-in provision for all small refiners.
e. RIN-Related Flexibilities
The small refiner SERs requested that
the proposed rule contain provisions for
small refiners related to the RIN system,
such as flexibilities in the RIN rollover
cap percentage and allowing all small
refiners to use RINs interchangeably.
Currently in the RFS program, up to
20% of a previous year’s RINs may be
‘‘rolled over’’ and used for compliance
in the following year. A provision to
allow for flexibilities in the rollover cap
could include a higher RIN rollover cap
for small refiners for some period of
time or for at least some of the four
standards. While the rollover cap is the
means through which we are
implementing the limited credit lifetime
provisions in section 211(o) of the CAA,
and therefore cannot simply be
eliminated, the magnitude of the cap
can be modified to some extent. Thus,
there could be an opportunity to
provide appropriate flexibility in this
area. However, given the results of the
DOE small refinery study, we do not
believe it would be appropriate to
propose a change to the RIN rollover cap
for small refiners today. However, we
request comment on the concept of
increasing the RIN rollover cap
percentage for small refiners. We also
request comment on an appropriate
level of that percentage. For example,
would a rollover cap of 50% for small
refiners be appropriate? Or, would an
intermediate value between 20% and
50%, such as 35%, be more
appropriate?
The Panel recommended that we take
comment on allowing RINs to be used
interchangeably for small refiners, but
not propose this concept because under
this approach small refiners would
arguably be subject to a different
applicable percentage than other
obligated parties. However, this concept
fails to require the four different
standards mandated by Congress (e.g.,
conventional biofuel could not be used
instead of cellulosic biofuel or biomassbased diesel), and is not consistent with
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act.
Thus, we are not proposing this
provision in this action, however we
invite comment on such an approach for
small refiners.
C. Other Flexibilities
1. Upward Delegation of RIN-Separating
Responsibilities
Since the start of the RFS1 program
on September 1, 2007, there have been
a number of instances in which a party
who receives RINs with a volume of
renewable fuel is required to either
separate or retire those RINs, but views
the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements under the RFS program as
an unnecessary burden. Such
circumstances typically might involve a
renewable fuel blender, a party that uses
renewable fuel in its neat form, or a
party that uses renewable fuel in a nonhighway application and is therefore
required to retire the RINs (under RFS1)
associated with the volume. In some of
these cases, the affected party may
purchase and/or use only small volumes
of renewable fuel and, absent the RFS
program, would be subject to few if any
other EPA regulations governing fuels.
This situation will become more
prevalent with the RFS2 program, as
EISA added diesel fuel to the RFS
program. With the RFS1 rule, small
blenders (generally farmers and other
parties that use nonroad diesel fuel)
blending small amounts of biodiesel
were not covered under the rule as
EPAct mandated renewable fuel
blending for highway use only. EISA
mandates certain amounts of renewable
fuels to be blended into transportation
fuels—which includes nonroad diesel
fuel. Thus, parties that were not
regulated under the RFS1 rule who only
blend a small amount of renewable fuel
(and, as mentioned above, are generally
not subject to many of the EPA fuels
regulations) would now be regulated by
the program.
Consequently, we believe it may be
appropriate, and thus we are proposing
today, to permit blenders who only
blend a small amount of renewable fuel
to allow the party directly upstream to
separate RINs on their behalf. Such a
provision would be consistent with the
fact that the RFS1 program already
allows marketers of renewable fuels to
assign more RINs to some of their sold
product and no RINs to the rest of their
sold product. We believe that this
provision would eliminate undue
burden on small parties who would
otherwise not be regulated by this
program. We are proposing that this
provision apply to small blenders who
blend and trade less than 125,000 total
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24973
gallons of renewable fuel per year. We
also request comment on whether or not
this threshold is appropriate.
We envision that such a provision
would be available to any blender who
must separate RINs from a volume of
renewable fuel under § 80.1429(b)(2).
We also request comment on
appropriate documentation to authorize
this upward delegation. This could be
something such as a document given to
the supplier identifying the RIN
separation that the supplier would
perform. The document could include
sufficient information to precisely
identify the conditions of the
authorization, such as the volume of
renewable fuel in question and the
number of RINs assigned to that volume.
By necessity the document would need
to be signed by both parties, and copies
retained as records by both parties,
since the supplier would then be
responsible for these actions. The
supplier would then be allowed to
retain ownership of RINs assigned to a
volume of renewable fuel when that
volume is transferred, under the
condition that the RINs be separated or
retired concurrently with the transfer of
the volume. We are proposing an annual
authorization that would apply to all
volumes of renewable fuel transferred
between two parties for a given year
(i.e., the two parties would enter into a
contract stating that the supplier has
RIN-separation responsibilities for all
transferred volumes).
We are proposing this provision
solely for the case of blenders who
blend and trade less than 125,000 total
gallons of renewable fuel per year. A
company that blends 100,000 gallons
and trades 100,000 gallons would not be
able to use this provision. However, we
request comment on whether
authorization to delegate RIN-separation
responsibilities should also be allowed
for other parties as well.
2. Small Producer Exemption
Under the RFS1 program, parties who
produce or import less than 10,000
gallons of renewable fuel in a year are
not required to generate RINs for that
volume, and are not required to register
with the EPA if they do not take
ownership of RINs generated by other
parties. We propose to maintain this
exemption under the RFS2 rule.
However, we request comment on
whether the 10,000 gallon threshold
should be higher given that the total
volume of renewable fuel mandated by
EISA is considerably higher than that
required by the RFS1 program, or
conversely whether it should be lower
given that the biomass-based diesel
standard is considerably lower than the
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24974
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
mandated volume for total renewable
fuel.
D. 20% Rollover Cap
EISA does not change the language in
CAA section 211(o)(5) stating that
renewable fuel credits must be valid for
showing compliance for 12 months as of
the date of generation. As discussed in
the RFS1 final rulemaking, we
interpreted the statute such that credits
would 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, obligated parties determine
compliance shortly after the end of the
year, and credits would be identified at
that time. In the context of our RINbased program, we have accomplished
the statute’s objective 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 for the following year.
RINs not used for compliance purposes
in the year in which they were
generated will by definition be in excess
of the RINs needed by obligated parties
in that year, making excess RINs
equivalent to the credits referred to in
section 211(o)(5). Excess RINs are valid
for compliance purposes in the year
following the one in which they initially
came into existence. RINs not used
within their valid life will thereafter
cease to be valid for compliance
purposes.
In the RFS1 final rulemaking, we also
discussed the potential ‘‘rollover’’ of
excess RINs over multiple years. 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 excess
RINs generated in one year could be
used to show compliance in the next
year, leading to the generation of new
excess RINs in the next year, causing the
total number of excess RINs in the
market to accumulate over multiple
years despite the limit on RIN life. The
rollover issue could in some
circumstances undermine the ability of
a limit on credit life to guarantee an
ongoing market for renewable fuels.
To implement the Act’s restriction on
the life of credits and address the
rollover issue, the RFS1 final
rulemaking implemented a 20% cap on
the amount of an obligated party’s RVO
that can be met using previous-year
RINs. Thus each obligated party is
required to use current-year RINs to
meet at least 80% of its RVO, with a
maximum of 20% being derived from
previous-year RINs. Any previous-year
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
RINs that an obligated party may have
that are in excess of the 20% cap can be
traded to other obligated parties that
need them. If the previous-year RINs in
excess of the 20% cap are not used by
any obligated party for compliance, they
will thereafter cease to be valid for
compliance purposes.
EISA does not modify the statutory
provisions regarding credit life, and the
volume changes by EISA also do not
change at least the possibility of large
rollovers of RINs for individual
obligated parties. Therefore, we propose
to maintain the regulatory requirement
for a 20% rollover cap under the new
RFS2 program. However, under RFS2
obligated parties will have four RVOs
instead of one. As a result, we are
proposing that the 20% rollover cap
would apply separately to all four
RVOs. We do not believe it would be
appropriate to apply the rollover cap to
only the RVO representing total
renewable fuel, leaving the other three
RVOs with no rollover cap. Doing so
would allow all previous-year RINs
used for compliance to be those with a
D code of 4, and this in turn would
allow an obligated party to meet one of
the nested standards, such as that for
biomass-based diesel, using more than
20% previous-year RINs. This could
result in significant rollover of RINs
with a D code of 2, representing
biomass-based diesel, and the valid life
of these RINs would have no meaning
in this case.
Some obligated parties have suggested
that the rollover cap should be raised to
a value higher than 20%, citing the need
for greater flexibility in the face of
significantly higher volume
requirements. However, we believe that
a higher value could create disruptions
in the RIN market as parties with excess
RINs would have a greater incentive to
hold onto them rather than sell them.
This would especially be a concern in
years where the volume of renewable
fuel available in the market is very close
to the RFS requirements. Nevertheless,
we request comment on whether the
20% rollover cap should be raised to a
higher value.
As described in Section III.G.4, some
parties have also suggested that the
rollover cap should be lowered to a
value lower than 20%, such as 10%. In
the event of concerns about the
availability of RINs, a lower rollover cap
would provide a greater incentive for
parties with excess RINs to sell them
rather than hold onto them. However, a
lower rollover cap would also reduce
flexibility for many obligated parties.
While we are not proposing it in today’s
notice, we request comment on it.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E. Concept for EPA Moderated
Transaction System
1. The Need for an EPA Moderated
Transaction System
In implementing RFS1, we found that
the 38-digit standardized RINs have
proven confusing to many parties in the
distribution chain. Parties have made
various errors in generating and using
RINs. For example, we have seen errors
wherein parties have transposed digits
within the RIN. We have seen parties
creating alphanumeric RINs, despite the
fact that RINs are supposed to consist of
all numbers. We have also seen
incorrect numbering of volume start and
end codes.
Once an error is made within a RIN,
the error propagates throughout the
distribution system. Correcting an error
can require significant time and
resources and involve many steps. Not
only must reports to EPA be corrected,
underlying records and reports
reflecting RIN transactions must also be
located and corrected to reflect
discovery of an error. Because reporting
related to RIN transactions under RFS1
is only on a quarterly basis, a RIN error
may exist for several months before
being discovered.
Incorrect RINs are invalid RINs. If
parties in the distribution system cannot
track down and correct the error made
by one of them in a timely manner, then
all downstream parties that trade the
invalid RIN will be in violation. Because
RINs are the basic unit of compliance
for the RFS1 program, it is important
that parties have confidence when
generating and using them.
All parties in the RFS1 and the
proposed RFS2 regulated community
use RINs. These parties include
producers of renewable fuels, obligated
parties, exporters, and other owners of
RINS, typically marketers of renewable
fuels and blenders. (Anyone can own
RINs, but those who do would be
subject to registration, recordkeeping,
reporting, and attest engagement
requirements described in this
preamble.). Currently under RFS1, all
RINs are used to comply with a single
standard, and in 2013 an additional
cellulosic standard would have been
added. Under this proposed rule, there
are four standards, and RINs must be
generated to identify four types of
renewable fuels: cellulosic biofuel,
biomass-based diesel, other advanced
biofuels, and other renewable fuels (e.g.,
corn ethanol). (For a more detailed
discussion of RINs, see Section III.A of
this preamble.) In the proposed EPA
Moderated Transaction System (EMTS),
the four types of RINs will be managed
through four types of account.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Based upon problems we observed
with the use of RINs under RFS1, and
considering that we will now have a
more complex system including four
standards instead of just one, we believe
that the best way to screen RINs and
conduct RIN-based transactions is
through EMTS.
This section describes the proposed
EMTS and options for implementing it.
By implementing EMTS, we believe that
we would be able to greatly reduce RINrelated errors and efficiently and
accurately manage the universe of RINs.
There are two aspects to our proposal
for EMTS. The first aspect focuses upon
creating four, generic types of RIN
account. The second aspect focuses
upon actually developing a ‘‘real time’’
environment for handling RIN trades.
2. How EMTS Would Work
EMTS would be a closed, EPAmanaged system that provides a
mechanism for screening RINs as well
as a structured environment for
conducting RIN transactions.
‘‘Screening’’ RINs will mean that parties
would have much greater confidence
that the RINs they handle are genuine.
Although screening cannot remove all
human error, we believe it can remove
most of it.
We propose that screening and
assignment of RINs be made at the
logical point, i.e., the point when RINs
are generated through production or
importation of renewable fuel. A
renewable producer would
electronically submit, in ‘‘real time,’’ a
batch report for the volume of
renewable fuel produced or imported, as
well as a list of the RINs generated and
assigned. EMTS would automatically
screen each batch and either reject the
RINs or permit them to pass into the
transaction system, into the RIN
generator’s account, as one of the four
types of RINs. Note that under RFS1,
RIN generation (batch) and RIN
transaction reports are submitted
quarterly. Batch reports are submitted
by producers and importers quarterly
and reflect how they generated and
assigned RINS to batches. RIN
transaction reports are submitted by all
parties who engage in RIN transactions,
including buying or selling RINs. Under
this proposed approach for RFS2, these
batch reports and RIN transaction
reports would be submitted monthly for
calendar year 2010. However, once
EMTS is implemented in calendar year
2011, these separate periodic reports
may no longer be necessary. Instead the
information would be submitted as RINs
are generated and assigned within
EMTS.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Under RFS1, the producer or importer
list RINs they generate and assign via
the batch report. EPA, in turn, uses the
batch report data to verify RINs
generated and transacted. The report is
submitted quarterly. Under RFS1, the
purpose of the RIN transaction report is
to document RIN transactions and to
document that RINs have been sold or
transferred from party to party in the
distribution system. This report is also
submitted quarterly. The RIN
transaction report includes the
following information in this report: its
name, its EPA company registration
number, and in some cases (where
compliance is on a facility basis), its
EPA facility identification number. For
the quarterly reporting period, the
reporting party indicates the transaction
type (RIN purchase, RIN sale, expired
RIN, or retired RIN), and the date of the
transaction. For a RIN purchase or sale,
the transaction report includes the
trading partner’s name and the trading
partner’s EPA company registration
number. There is also information that
may have to be submitted in the event
a reporting party must report a RIN that
has been retired (e.g., when a RIN has
become invalid due to the spillage of the
associated volume of renewable fuel).
As discussed above, the shortcoming of
these reports is that they are only
submitted quarterly. RIN errors that
affect compliance may not be
discovered for many months because of
the relative infrequency of reporting
transactions to EPA. EMTS will assume
the functionality of batch reporting and
transaction reporting used by regulated
parties, allowing EPA to better screen
RINs and reduce or eliminate generation
and transaction errors.
Under the RFS2 program, we are
proposing that batch reports submitted
by producers and importers and RIN
transaction reports be submitted
monthly rather than quarterly in the
first year of the program (i.e., calendar
year 2010). During 2010, we will be
finishing development and testing of the
EMTS. In order to minimize the
hardship that undiscovered, invalid
RINs may cause, we propose and seek
comment on increasing the frequency of
reporting and our own review of reports
in order to assist the regulated
community with compliance. As we
develop EMTS through calendar year
2010, we intend to invite and encourage
interested reporting parties to ‘‘opt in’’
to EMTS. This will serve a two-fold
purpose: regulated parties may opt to
gain familiarity EMTS before it becomes
fully operational and we may have
actual customers with which to test
EMTS prior to it becoming fully
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24975
operational. We believe that permitting
interested parties to ‘‘opt in’’ will result
in a better EMTS for all.
In the second year of the program (i.e.,
calendar year 2011 and forward), we
anticipate fully implementing the
proposed EMTS and receiving the data
contained in batch and RIN transaction
reports in relatively ‘‘real time’’ (i.e., as
transactions occur). We propose that
‘‘real time’’ be construed as within three
(3) business days of a reportable event
(e.g., generation and assignment of RINs,
transfer of RINs).
Parties who use EMTS would have to
register with EPA in accordance with
the proposed RFS2 registration program
described in Section III.C of this
preamble. They would also have to
create an account (i.e., register) via
EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX), as
we envision managing EMTS via CDX.
CDX is a secure and central portal
through which parties may submit
compliance reports. We propose that
parties must establish an account with
EMTS by October 1, 2010 or 60 days
prior to engaging in any transaction
involving RINs, whichever is later. As
discussed above, the actual items of
information covered by reporting under
RFS2 are nearly identical to those
reported under RFS1.
Once registration occurs with EMTS,
individual RIN accounts would be
established and the system would
manage the accounts for each individual
party. The RIN accounts would
correspond to the four broad types of
renewable fuel. RIN accounts would be
established for cellulosic biofuel,
biomass-based diesel, other advanced
biofuels, and other renewable fuels
(including corn ethanol). One big
advantage of RIN accounts is that the
system would make available generic
accounts for transactions involving RINs
of similar type. The unique
identification of the RIN would exist
within EMTS, but parties engaging in
RIN transactions would no longer have
to worry about incorrectly recording or
using 38-digit RIN numbers. As with
RFS1, there is no ‘‘good faith’’ provision
to RIN ownership. An underlying
principle of RIN ownership is still one
of ‘‘buyer beware’’ and RINs may be
prohibited from use at any time if they
are found to be invalid. Because of the
‘‘buyer beware’’ aspect, we intend to
offer the option for a buyer to accept or
reject RINs from specific RIN generators
or from classes of RIN generators. Also,
we propose to collect information about
the price associated with RINs traded.
This information is not collected under
RFS1, but we believe this information
has great programmatic value to EPA
because it may help us to anticipate and
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24976
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
appropriately react to market
disruptions and other compliance
challenges, assess and develop
responses to potential waivers, and
assist in setting future renewable
standards. We believe that highly
summarized price information (e.g., the
average price of RINs traded
nationwide) may be valuable to
regulated parties, as well, and may help
them to anticipate and avoid market
disruptions.
The following is an example of how
a RIN transaction might occur in the
proposed EMTS model:
1. Seller logs into EMTS and posts his
sale of 10,000 RINs to Buyer. For this
example, assume the RINs were
generated in 2008 and were assigned to
10,000 gallons of ‘‘other renewable fuel’’
(corn ethanol). Seller’s RIN account for
‘‘other renewable fuel’’ is automatically
reduced by 10,000 with the posting of
his sale to Buyer. Buyer receives
automatic notification of the pending
transaction.
2. Buyer logs into EMTS. She sees the
sale transaction pending. Assuming it is
correct, she accepts it. Upon her
acceptance, her RIN account for ‘‘other
renewable fuel’’ (corn ethanol) is
automatically increased by 10,000 2008
assigned RINs.
3. After Seller has posted his sale and
Buyer has accepted it, EMTS
automatically notifies both Buyer and
Seller that the transaction has been fully
completed.
Under EMTS as we are proposing it,
the seller would always have to initiate
any transaction. The seller’s account is
reduced when he posts his sale. The
buyer must acknowledge the sale in
order to have the RINs transferred to her
account. Transactions would always be
limited to available RINs. Notification
would automatically be sent to both the
buyer and the seller upon completion of
the transaction. EPA proposes to
consider any sale or transfer as complete
upon acknowledgement by the buyer.
We propose that RINs and the
parameters of RIN generation (e.g., year)
be considered public information. We
also propose that summary RIN price
information, such as average price of all
RINs in a broad geographic area (such as
a state, region, or nationwide) be
considered public information. This
summary price information would be
aggregated from transactions conducted
within EMTS, but would not be
identified with individual companies or
particular transactions that have
occurred. Because we believe
information about RIN pricing in
general will be useful to regulated
parties, we are proposing to make this
information available to them. We
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
propose that the actual transactions
between parties and that individual
company account information may be
claimed as confidential business
information (CBI) by the parties to that
transaction. EPA would treat any
information submitted that is covered
by a CBI claim in accordance with the
procedures at 40 CFR Part 2 and
applicable Agency policies and
guidelines for the handling of claimed
CBI.
3. Implementation of EMTS
We anticipate that implementing
EMTS will take until January 1, 2011,
although we are proposing that the
RFS2 program be effective on January 1,
2010. We anticipate that development of
EMTS will require significant time and
effort and that a delayed effective date
may permit better pre-testing with
interested regulated parties. We propose
to permit regulated parties who are
willing to participate in EMTS early to
voluntarily opt-in to the system before
January 1, 2011. The actual date for
these parties’ opt-in will depend upon
the actual timeline for development of
EMTS. We encourage comments from
interested parties as to how we might
best make use of the development
period and the proposed opportunity for
willing and interested parties to ‘‘opt
in’’ early.
Under our proposed scenario, for the
2010 compliance year, recordkeeping
and reporting would be analogous to
RFS1, although registration would be
enhanced in accordance with the
discussion in Section III.C of this
preamble and recordkeeping and
reporting would reflect the four types of
RIN described above. In order to avoid
propagation of RIN-related errors and to
prevent errors from going too long
without being detected, we believe it is
necessary to increase the frequency of
batch reporting and RIN transaction
reporting to monthly rather than
quarterly during 2010.
EPA will implement the EMTS during
the first year of the RFS2 program. RINs
generated under the RFS1 regulations
will continue to be traded and reported
using the current processes. RINs would
still have unique identifying
information, but EMTS will allow
transactions to take place on a generic
basis having the system track the
specific unique identifiers. We believe
that EMTS will virtually eliminate
errors related to tracking and using
individual RINs. Parties will be required
to submit RIN transactions by specifying
RIN year, RIN assignment, RIN fuel
type, and any other reporting
requirement specified by the
administrator.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Implementation of EMTS should save
considerable time and resources for both
industry and EPA. This is most evident
considering that the proposed system
virtually eliminates multiple sources of
administrative errors, resulting in a
reduction in costs and effort expended
to correct and regenerate product
transfer documents, documentation and
recordkeeping, and resubmitting reports
to EPA. We anticipate that a fully
functioning EMTS will result in fewer
reports and easier reporting for industry,
and fewer reports requiring processing
by EPA. Industry will need to spend less
time and effort verifying the validity of
the RINs they procure and allowing
them to procure them on the open
market with confidence. EPA will need
to spend less time tracking down the
responsible parties for invalid RINs.
This is possible because EMTS will
remove management of the 38-digit RIN
from the hands of the reporting
community. At the same time, EPA and
the reporting community will be
working with a standardized system,
reducing stresses and development costs
on IT systems.
In summary, the advantage to
implementing EMTS is that parties may
engage in RIN transactions with a high
degree of confidence. Errors would be
virtually eliminated. Everyone engaging
in RIN transactions would have a
simplified environment in which to
work which should minimize the level
of resources needed for implementation.
However, the one unavoidable
disadvantage that we foresee is that
parties would have to switch to a new
and different reporting system in the
second year of the RFS2 program. Some
errors may still occur in by parties who
continue to generate and use the 38digit RINs during 2010. As discussed
above, we propose to increase the
frequency of batch and RIN transaction
reporting to monthly for 2010, in order
that we may help parties discover errors
and correct them before they become
violations. We also propose to permit
parties to voluntarily ‘‘opt in’’ to using
EMTS while it is still in development in
order to ease the transition. We invite
comment from all interested parties as
to how we may best assist regulated
parties in transitioning from the ‘‘old’’
RFS1 method of handing RINs to the
‘‘new,’’ proposed RFS2 EMTS method
on January 1, 2011.
We also invite comment on whether,
in the event the RFS2 start date is
delayed, EPA should nevertheless allow
a one-year period during which use of
EMTS is optional, or if EPA should
begin the program at the inception of
the delayed RFS2 program if EMTS is
fully operational at that time.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24977
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
F. Retail Dispenser Labelling for
Gasoline With Greater Than 10 Percent
Ethanol
Fuel retailers expressed concern that
the magnitude of the price discount for
E85 relative to E10 that would be
necessary to facilitate sufficient use of
E85 would encourage widespread
misfueling of non-flex fuel vehicles.
Today’s proposal contains labeling
requirements for pumps that dispense
blends that contain greater than 10%
ethanol which state that the use in nonflex fuel vehicles is prohibited and may
cause damage to the vehicle.45 We
anticipate that the industry would also
conduct public information activities to
alert customers who may not have yet
become accustomed to seeing E85 at
retail to avoid using E85 in their nonflex-fuel vehicles. Uniquely colored/
labeled nozzle handles may also be
useful in helping to prevent accidental
cases of misfueling. We believe that in
most cases the warnings that the use of
E85 in non-flex fuel vehicles is illegal,
can damage the vehicle, and can void
vehicle manufacturer warranties may be
a sufficient disincentive to prevent
intentional misfueling. In cases where
intentional misfueling may occasionally
take place, the party is likely to
experience drivability problems and
thus would not repeat the act.
Today’s proposal does not contain
requirements that E85 refueling
hardware be configured to prevent the
introduction of E85 into non-flex-fuel
vehicles. It is unclear how such an
approach could be implemented to
allow the approximately 6 million flexfuel vehicles on the road today to
continue to be fueled with E85 without
modification to their filler neck
hardware.46 In any event, we do not
believe that unique E85 nozzles are
necessary.
We request comment on whether the
proposed labeling requirements and
voluntary measures such as those
described above would provide
sufficient warning to fuel retail
customers not to refuel non-flex-fuel
vehicles with E85. To the extent that
other measures to prevent misfueling
are thought to be necessary, comment is
requested on the specific nature of such
measures and the associated potential
costs and benefits. One additional
potential measure to prevent misfueling
would be for cards to be issued to flex
fuel vehicle owners and for all E85
dispensers to be equipped with card
readers that would allow E85 to be
dispensed only to card holders.
essentially a projection of renewable
fuel volumes without the enactment of
EISA. The control case is a projection of
the volumes and types of renewable fuel
that might be used to comply with the
EISA volume mandates. Both the
reference and control cases are
discussed in further detail below.
1. Reference Case
V. Assessment of Renewable Fuel
Production Capacity and Use
To assess the impacts of this rule,
there must be a clear understanding of
the kind of renewable fuels that could
be used, the types and locations of their
feedstocks, the fuel volumes that could
be produced by a given feedstock, and
any challenges associated with their
use. This section provides this
assessment of the potential feedstocks
and renewable fuels that may be used to
meet the Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA) and the rationale
behind our projections of various fuel
types to represent the control case for
analysis purposes. Definitional issues
regarding the four types of renewable
fuel required under EISA are discussed
in Section III.B of this preamble.
A. Summary of Projected Volumes
EISA mandates the use of increasing
volumes of renewable fuel. To assess the
impacts of this increase in renewable
fuel volume from business-as-usual
(what is likely to have occurred without
EISA), we have established a reference
and control case from which subsequent
analyses are based. The reference case is
Our reference case renewable fuel
volumes are based on the Energy
Information Administration’s (EIA)
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2007
reference case projections. The AEO
2007 presents long-term projections of
energy supply, demand, and prices
through 2030 based on results from
EIA’s National Energy Modeling System
(NEMS). EIA’s analysis focuses
primarily on a reference case (which we
use as our reference case), lower and
higher economic growth cases, and
lower and higher energy price cases.
AEO 2007 projections generally are
based on Federal, State, and local laws
and regulations in effect on or before
October 31, 2006.47 The potential
impacts of pending or proposed
legislation, regulations, and standards
are not reflected in the projections.
While AEO 2007 is not as up-to-date as
AEO 2008 (or the recently released AEO
2009), we chose to use AEO 2007
because AEO 2008 already includes the
impact of increased renewable fuel
volumes under EISA as well as fuel
economy improvements under CAFE,
whereas AEO 2007 did not. Table
V.A.1–1 summarizes the fuel types and
volumes for the years 2009–2022 as
taken from AEO 2007. For our air
quality analysis we also considered a
reference case assuming the mandated
renewable fuel volumes under the
Renewable Fuel Standard Program from
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct).
Refer to Section VII for further details.
TABLE V.A.1–1—AEO 2007 REFERENCE CASE PROJECTED RENEWABLE FUEL VOLUMES
[billion gallons]
Advanced biofuel
Non-advanced
biofuel
Cellulosic
biofuel
2009
2010
2011
2012
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
45 See
section 80.1469 in the proposed regulatory
text.
46 An E85 nozzle design and corresponding flexfuel vehicle filler design that would prevent the
introduction of E85 into non-flex-fuel vehicles
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Biomassbased diesela
Other advanced biofuel
Cellulosic
ethanol
Year
FAME
biodieselb
Imported
ethanol
0.07
0.12
0.19
0.25
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.33
while allowing flex fuel vehicles to be fueled with
E10 as well as E85 would also prevent the
introduction of E85 into current flex-fuel vehicles
since there is currently no difference in nozzle/filler
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
0.50
0.29
0.16
0.18
Corn
ethanol
9.44
10.49
10.69
10.81
Total
renewable
fuel
10.33
11.22
11.37
11.57
neck hardware between flex-fuel and non-flex-fuel
vehicles.
47 EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with
Projections to 2030. https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/
archive/aeo07/. Accessed February 2008.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24978
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.A.1–1—AEO 2007 REFERENCE CASE PROJECTED RENEWABLE FUEL VOLUMES—Continued
[billion gallons]
Advanced biofuel
Non-advanced
biofuel
Cellulosic
biofuel
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Biomassbased diesela
Other advanced biofuel
Cellulosic
ethanol
Year
FAME
biodieselb
Imported
ethanol
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.33
0.23
0.25
0.35
0.36
0.36
0.37
0.37
0.38
0.38
Total
renewable
fuel
Corn
ethanol
0.19
0.20
0.39
0.51
0.53
0.54
0.58
0.60
0.63
0.64
10.93
11.01
11.10
11.16
11.30
11.49
11.69
11.83
12.07
12.29
11.70
11.69
11.99
12.27
12.44
12.64
12.89
13.05
13.33
13.56
a Biomass-Based Diesel includes FAME biodiesel, cellulosic diesel, and non-co-processed renewable diesel. AEO 2007 only projects FAME
biodiesel volumes.
b Fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) biodiesel.
2. Control Case for Analyses
Our assessment of the renewable fuel
volumes required to meet EISA
necessitates establishing a primary set of
fuel types and volumes on which to
base our assessment of the impacts of
the new standards. EISA contains four
broad categories: cellulosic biofuel,
biomass-based diesel, total advanced
biofuel, and total renewable fuel. As
these categories could be met with a
wide variety of fuel choices, in order to
assess the impacts of the rule, we
projected a set of reasonable renewable
fuel volumes based on our
interpretation at the time we began our
analysis of likely fuels that could come
to market.
Although actual volumes and
feedstocks may be different, we believe
the projections made for our control
case are within the range of reasonable
predictions and allow for an assessment
of the potential impacts of the RFS2
standards. Table V.A.2–1 summarizes
the fuel types used for the control case
and their corresponding volumes for the
years 2009–2022.
TABLE V.A. 2–1—CONTROL CASE PROJECTED RENEWABLE FUEL VOLUMES
[billion gallons]
Advanced biofuel
Cellulosic
biofuel
Year
Cellulosic
ethanol
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
Biomass-based diesel a
FAME b
biodiesel
0.00
0.10
0.25
0.50
1.00
1.75
3.00
4.25
5.50
7.00
8.50
10.50
13.50
16.00
0.50
0.64
0.77
0.96
0.94
0.93
0.91
0.90
0.88
0.87
0.85
0.84
0.83
0.81
Other advanced biofuel
Non-coprocessed
renewable
diesel
Co-processed renewable
diesel
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.12
0.13
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.19
Non-Advanced
Biofuel
Total renewable fuel
Imported
ethanol
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.12
0.13
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.19
0.50
0.29
0.16
0.18
0.19
0.36
0.83
1.31
1.78
2.25
2.72
2.70
2.67
3.14
Corn
ethanol
9.85
11.55
12.29
12.94
13.75
14.40
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
10.85
12.60
13.53
14.66
16.00
17.58
19.92
21.66
23.40
25.38
27.37
29.36
32.34
35.33
a Biomass-Based
b Fatty
Diesel includes FAME biodiesel, cellulosic diesel, and non-co-processed renewable diesel.
acid methyl ester (FAME) biodiesel.
We needed to make this projection
soon after EISA was signed to allow
sufficient time to conduct our long leadtime analyses. As a result, we used the
same ethanol-equivalence basis for these
projections as was used in the RFS1
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
rulemaking. However, as described in
Section III.D.1, we are also co-proposing
that volumes of renewable fuel be
counted on a straight gallon-for-gallon
basis under RFS2, such that all
Equivalence Values would be 1.0. The
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
net effect of these two approaches to
Equivalence Values on projected
volumes is very small; instead of 36
billion gallons of renewable fuel in
2022, our control case includes 35.3
billion gallons. We do not believe that
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
this difference will substantively affect
the analyses that are based on our
projected control case volumes.
The following subsections detail our
rationale for projecting the amount and
type of fuels needed to meet EISA as
shown in Table V.A.2–1. For cellulosic
biofuel we have assumed that the entire
volume will be domestically produced
cellulosic ethanol. Biomass-based diesel
is assumed to be comprised of a
majority of fatty-acid methyl ester
(FAME) biodiesel and a smaller portion
of non-co-processed renewable diesel.
The portion of the advanced biofuel
category not met from cellulosic biofuel
and biomass-based diesel is assumed to
come mainly from imported (sugarcane)
ethanol with a smaller amount from coprocessed renewable diesel. The total
renewable fuel volume not required to
be comprised of advanced biofuels is
assumed to be met with corn ethanol.
In addition, the following subsections
also describe other fuels that have the
potential to contribute to meeting EISA,
but because of their uncertainty of use,
or because their use likely might be
negligible we have chosen to not assume
any use for our analysis. Examples of
these types of renewable fuels or
blendstocks include bio-butanol, biogas,
cellulosic diesel, cellulosic gasoline,
biofuel from algae, jatropha, or palm,
imported cellulosic ethanol, other
biomass-to-liquids (BTL), and other
alcohols or ethers. We intend to revisit
these assumptions for the final rule and
invite comment on whether these
renewable fuels or other potential fuels
which have not been included in our
analyses should be included.
a. Cellulosic Biofuel
As defined in EISA, cellulosic biofuel
means renewable fuel produced from
any cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin
that is derived from renewable biomass
and that has lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions, as determined by the
Administrator, that are at least 60% less
than the baseline lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions.
When many people think of cellulosic
biofuel, they immediately think of
cellulosic ethanol. However, cellulosic
biofuel could be comprised of other
alcohols, synthetic gasoline, synthetic
diesel fuel, and synthetic jet fuel,
propane, and biogas. Whether cellulosic
biofuel is ethanol will depend on a
number of factors, including production
costs, the form of tax subsidies, credit
programs, and issues associated with
blending the biofuel into the fuel pool.
It will also depend on the relative
demand for gasoline and diesel fuel. For
instance, European refineries are
undersupplying the European market
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
with diesel fuel and oversupplying it
with gasoline, and based on the recent
high diesel fuel price margins over
gasoline, it seems that the U.S. is falling
in line with Europe. Therefore, if the
U.S. trend is toward being relatively
oversupplied with gasoline, there could
be a price advantage towards producing
renewable fuels that displace diesel fuel
rather than a gasoline fuel replacement
like ethanol.
Current efforts in converting
cellulosic feedstocks into fuels focus on
biochemical and thermochemical
conversion processes. Biochemical
processes use live bacteria or isolated
enzymes, or acids, to break cellulose
down into fermentable sugars. The
advantage of using live bacteria or
enzymes is that simple carbon steel
could be used which helps to control
the capital costs. However, bacteria and
enzymes that break down cellulose are
generally specific to certain types of
cellulose, thus, the cellulosic biofuel
facility may have difficulty processing
different types of feedstocks.48 If live
bacteria are used, the bacteria could be
susceptible to contamination that could
force a plant shutdown. An example of
a company using enzymes to process
cellulose into ethanol is Iogen, which
has a demonstration plant in Canada.
On the other hand, biochemical
processes which rely on strong acids
will likely be less susceptible to
contamination issues, and could more
easily process mixed feedstocks. Thus,
strong acid biochemical cellulosic
ethanol plants could process MSW or a
variety of feedstocks which may be
available in areas where no single
feedstock dominates. The strong acids,
however, would likely require more
expensive metallurgy. A company
which is planning to use strong acids to
hydrolyze the cellulose is Blue Fire
Ethanol. Blue Fire is planning on
building a MSW plant in Southern
California. Once cellulose is reduced to
simple sugars, either strong acid or
enzymatic cellulosic ethanol plants
operate in a manner similar to a corn
ethanol plant. This consists of
fermenting sugars into ethanol and then
separating the ethanol from the water
that facilitated the fermentation step.
The thermochemical conversion
process is very different from the
biochemical process right from the
beginning. For the thermochemical
process, feedstocks are partially burned
with oxygen at a very high temperature
and converted into a synthesis gas
comprised of carbon monoxide and
hydrogen. The principal advantage of
the thermochemical process is that
48 This
PO 00000
is currently an area of intense research.
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24979
virtually any hydrocarbon material
could be processed as feedstock, as they
would all be converted to the synthesis
gas, even if they produce different
relative concentrations of carbon
monoxide and hydrogen. The synthesis
gas is typically converted to ethanol or
diesel by one of several different
processes.
Examples of companies currently
pursuing the thermochemical route to
selectively produce ethanol include
Range Ethanol and Coskata. Range
Ethanol is using a specially formulated
catalyst that will primarily produce
ethanol, but it will produce other higher
molecular weight alcohols as well
which would be recycled and mostly
converted to ethanol. Coskata, which is
being supported by General Motors, is
planning on using bacteria to convert
the synthesis gas to ethanol.
Another thermochemical plant could
employ a very similar gasification
reactor, but instead of producing
ethanol from syngas, a Fischer Tropsch
(F–T) reactor would be used to produce
a primarily diesel product, i.e.,
cellulosic diesel. The F–T reactor would
use a specially designed iron or cobalt
catalyst to convert the syngas to straight
chain hydrocarbon compounds of
varying lengths and molecular weights.
The heavier of these hydrocarbon
compounds are then hydrocracked to
produce a very high percentage of
valuable diesel fuel and naphtha
(gasoline type compounds). The F–T
diesel fuel produced from the F–T
process is very high in quality due to its
high cetane and essentially zero sulfur
level. While the naphtha produced from
the F–T process also contains
essentially zero sulfur, it is very low in
octane and thus is a poor gasoline
blendstock (although it could still be
desirable as a gasoline blendstock
because of all the high octane ethanol
being blended into gasoline). Cellulosic
naphtha is also valuable as a cracking
feedstock for producing various
petrochemical compounds. Since the F–
T diesel is of better quality than the
naphtha, the heavier hydrocarbon
compounds are selectively
hydrocracked to produce more diesel
over naphtha.
No commercial cellulosic diesel
plants currently exist in the U.S., nor
elsewhere in the world. Currently, there
is a cellulosic diesel pilot plant operated
by Choren in Germany and a
commercial sized plant in the planning
stages by Choren also in Germany.
Choren is planning to employ woody
materials and agricultural residue as
feedstocks. Choren specially developed
a three-stage gasification process for
dealing with the complexities of
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24980
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
biomass and has partnered with Shell
which has commercialized a F–T
reaction process. The Choren
commercial cellulosic diesel plant in
Germany is expected to begin operating
in 2010. Although coal-to-liquids (CTL)
plants rely on coal as their feedstock,
they are very similar to cellulosic diesel
plants in design and help to
demonstrate the feasibility of the
cellulosic diesel process. There are CTL
pilot plants which are operating today,
as well as a number of commercial CTL
plants operating today or in the
planning stages. Some of these plants
have experimented with or are being
planned for co-feeding biomass along
with the coal. A current list of proposed
cellulosic diesel and CTL plants is
provided in Chapter 1 of the DRIA.
In terms of production costs, at least
for the current state of technology,
neither the biochemical nor
thermochemical platforms (comparing
enzymatic biochemical processing to
ethanol and thermochemical processing
to cellulosic diesel) appear to have clear
advantages in capital costs or operating
costs.49 Other processing techniques, for
example, the syngas-to-ethanol process
used by Coskata, claim to be capable of
producing at even lower production
costs, but without any commercial
facilities operating today, it is hard to
predict how these other processing
techniques differ from our estimates of
what the production costs for cellulosic
biofuel facilities will be in the future
and which technology pathways will be
most economic. As such, both
enzymatic biochemical and
thermochemical technologies could be
key processing pathways for the
production of cellulosic biofuel.
The economic competitiveness of
cellulosic biofuels will also depend on
the extent of financial support from the
government. Under the Farm Bill of
2008, both cellulosic ethanol and
cellulosic diesel receive the same tax
subsidies ($1.01 per gallon each). The
tax subsidy, however, gives ethanol
producers a considerable advantage over
those producing cellulosic diesel due to
the feedstock quantity needed per gallon
produced (i.e., typically the higher the
energy content of the product, the more
feedstock that is required). On an energy
basis, cellulosic ethanol would receive
approximately $13/mmBtu while
cellulosic diesel would receive
approximately $8/mmBtu. In a similar
manner, if we were to finalize an
approach to the Equivalence Values for
49 Wright,
M. and Brown, R, ‘‘Comparative
Economics of Biorefineries Based on the
Biochemical and Thermochemical Platforms,’’
Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 1:49–56, 2007.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
generating RINs in which volume rather
than energy content is the basis, there
would be an advantage for the
production of cellulosic ethanol over
cellulosic diesel.
One large advantage that cellulosic
diesel has over ethanol is the ability for
the fuel to be blended easily into the
current distribution infrastructure at
sizeable volumes. There are currently
factors tending to limit the amount of
ethanol that can be blended into the fuel
pool (see Section V.D. for more
discussion). Thus, the production of
cellulosic diesel instead of cellulosic
ethanol could help increase
consumption of renewable fuels.
Thus, there is uncertainty as to which
mix of cellulosic biofuels will be
produced to fulfill the 16 Bgal mandate
by 2022. The latest release of AEO 2009,
for example, estimates a mixture of
cellulosic diesel and ethanol produced
for cellulosic biofuel. For assessing the
impacts of the RFS2 standards, we made
the simplifying assumption that
cellulosic biofuel would only consist of
ethanol, though market realities may
also result in cellulosic diesel and other
products. We are requesting comment
on the types of cellulosic biofuel that
should be accounted for in our analyses
and whether certain fuels are more
likely to come to fruition than others.
Cellulosic biofuel could also be
produced internationally. One example
of internationally produced cellulosic
biofuel is ethanol produced from
bagasse or straw from sugarcane
processing in Brazil. Currently, Brazil
burns bagasse to produce steam and
generate bioelectricity. However,
improving efficiencies over the coming
decade may allow an increasing portion
of bagasse to be allocated to other uses,
including cellulosic biofuel, as the
demand for bagasse for steam and
bioelectricity could remain relatively
constant.
One recent study assessed the
biomass feedstock potential for selected
countries outside the United States and
projected supply available for export or
for biofuel production.50 51 For the
study’s baseline projection in 2017, it
was estimated that approximately 21
billion ethanol-equivalent gallons could
be produced from cellulosic feedstocks
at $36/dry tonne or less. The majority
(∼80%) projected is from bagasse, with
the rest from forest products. Brazil was
projected to have the most potential for
cellulosic feedstock production from
50 Countries evaluated include Argentina, Brazil,
Canada, China, Colombia, India, Mexico, and CBI.
51 Kline, K. et al., ‘‘Biofuel Feedstock Assessment
for Selected Countries,’’ Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, February 2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
both bagasse and forest products. Other
countries include India, China, and
those belonging to the Caribbean Basin
Initiative (CBI), though much smaller
feedstock supplies are projected as
compared to Brazil. Although
international production of cellulosic
biofuel is possible, it is uncertain
whether this supply would be available
primarily to the U.S. or whether other
nations would consume the fuel
domestically. Therefore, for our
analyses we have chosen to assume that
all the cellulosic biofuel used to comply
with RFS2 would be produced
domestically.
b. Biomass-Based Diesel
Biomass-based diesel as defined in
EISA means renewable fuel that is
biodiesel as defined in section 312(f) of
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 with
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, as
determined by the Administrator, that
are at least 50% less than the baseline
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.
Biomass-based diesel can include fatty
acid methyl ester (FAME) biodiesel,
renewable diesel (RD) that has not been
co-processed with a petroleum
feedstock, as well as cellulosic diesel.
Although cellulosic diesel produced
through the Fischer-Tropsch (F–T)
process could potentially contribute to
the biomass-based diesel category, we
have assumed for our analyses that the
fuel and its corresponding feedstocks
(cellulosic biomass) are already
accounted for in the cellulosic biofuel
category discussed previously in
Section V.A.2.a.
FAME and RD processes can make
acceptable quality fuel from vegetable
oils, fats, and greases, and thus will
generally compete for the same
feedstock pool. For our analyses, we
have assumed that the volume
contribution from FAME biodiesel and
RD will be a function of the available
feedstock types. In our analysis we
assumed that virgin plant oils would be
preferentially processed by biodiesel
plants, while the majority of fats and
greases would be routed to RD
production.52 53 This is because the RD
process involves hydrotreating (or
thermal depolymerization), which is
more severe and uses multiple chemical
mechanisms to reform the fat molecules
into diesel range material. The FAME
52 Recent changes to federal tax subsidies and
market shifts may warrant changes to this
assumption. We will reevaluate the relative
production volumes of biodiesel and renewable
diesel for the FRM.
53 This analysis was conducted prior to the
completion of our lifecycle analysis discussed in
Section VI, and assumes the fuels will meet the
required GHG threshold.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
process, by contrast, relies on more
specific chemical mechanisms and
requires pre-treatment if the feedstocks
contain more than trace amounts of free
fatty acids or other contaminates which
are typical of recycled fats and greases.
In terms of volume availability of
feedstocks, supplies of fats and greases
are more limited than virgin vegetable
oils. As a result, our control case
assumes the majority of biomass-based
diesel volume is met using biodiesel
facilities processing vegetable oils, with
RD making up a smaller portion and
using solely fats and greases.
The RD production volume must be
further classified as co-processed or
non-co-processed, depending on
whether the renewable material was
mixed with petroleum during the
hydrotreating operations (more details
on this definition are in Section III.B.1).
EISA specifically forbids co-processed
RD from being counted as biomassbased diesel, but it can still count
toward the total advanced biofuel
requirement. What fraction of RD will
ultimately be co-processed is uncertain
at this time, since little or no
commercial production of RD is
currently underway, and little public
information is available about the
comparative economics and feasibility
of the two methods. We assumed in our
control case that half the material will
be non-co-processed and thus qualify as
biomass-based diesel. We invite
comment on whether RD production
will favor co-processing or non-coprocessing with a petroleum feedstock
in the future.
Perhaps the feedstock with the
greatest potential for providing large
volumes of oil for the production of
biomass-based diesel is microalgae.
Algae grown on land in photobioreactors or in open ponds could
potentially yield 15 to 50 times more oil
per acre than traditional oil crops such
as soy, rapeseed, or oil palm.
Additionally it can be cultivated on
marginal land with low nutrient inputs,
and thus does not suffer from the sheer
resource constraints that make other
biofuel feedstocks problematic at large
scale. However, several technical
hurdles do still exist. Specifically, more
efficient harvesting, dewatering and
lipid extraction methods are needed to
lower costs to a level competitive with
other biodiesel feedstocks (20–30% of
current costs). Until these hurdles are
overcome, it is unlikely that algae-based
biodiesel can be commercially
competitive with other biodiesel fuels.
Thus, for our control case we have
chosen not to include oil from algae as
a feedstock. Although the majority of
algae to biofuel companies are focusing
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
on producing algae oil for traditional
biodiesel production, several companies
are alternatively using algae for
producing ethanol or crude oil for
gasoline or diesel which could also help
contribute to the advanced biofuel
mandate.54 For more detail on algae as
a feedstock refer to Section 1.1 of the
DRIA.
Jatropha curcas, a shrub native to
Central America, is yet another possible
biofuel feedstock. The perennial yields
oil-rich seeds yearly, with oil yields per
acre up to 4 times that of soy and twice
that of rapeseed under optimal
conditions. It can grow on low-nutrient
lands, and is tolerant of drought.
However, jatropha yields under these
marginal conditions are hard to predict
because of insufficient commercial
experience; it is possible that jatropha
will have low yields in the sub-optimal
conditions where its cultivation would
be most advantageous. Furthermore,
jatropha seed harvesting is very labor
intensive, and little is known about the
crop’s sustainability impacts, its longterm yield, or the feasibility of
cultivation as a monoculture. It is
unlikely that jatropha can be cultivated
in the United States economically or
sustainably, and the possibility of
importing jatropha oil or biodiesel from
producing countries is very uncertain
because overseas cultivation efforts are
still underdeveloped and initial
volumes will likely be used
domestically. As a result, we have not
projected the use of jatropha as a
feedstock under our control case. For
more detail on the potential use of
jatropha refer to Section 1.1 of the DRIA.
c. Other Advanced Biofuel
As defined in EISA, advanced biofuel
means renewable fuel, other than
ethanol derived from corn starch, that
has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions,
as determined by the Administrator,
that are at least 50% less than baseline
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. As
described more fully in Section VI.D, we
are proposing that the GHG threshold
for advanced biofuels be adjusted to
44% or potentially as low as 40%
depending on the results from the
analyses that will be conducted for the
final rule. As defined in EISA, advanced
biofuel includes the cellulosic biofuel,
biomass-based diesel, and co-processed
renewable diesel categories that were
mentioned in Sections V.A.2.a and
V.A.2.b above. However, EISA requires
greater volumes of advanced biofuel
than just the volumes required of these
54 Algenol and Sapphire Energy, see https://
www.algenolbiofuels.com/ and https://
www.sapphireenergy.com/.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24981
fuels; see Table V.A.2–1. It is entirely
possible that greater volumes of
cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel,
and co-processed renewable diesel than
required by EISA could be produced in
the future. Our control case, however,
does not assume that cellulosic biofuel
and biomass-based diesel volumes will
exceed those required under EISA.55 As
a result, to meet the total advanced
biofuel volume required under EISA,
advanced biofuel types are needed other
than cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based
diesel, and co-processed renewable
diesel through 2022.
We have assumed for our control case
that the most likely source of advanced
fuel other than cellulosic biofuel,
biomass-based diesel, and co-processed
renewable diesel would be from
imported sugarcane ethanol.56 Our
assessment of international fuel ethanol
production and demand indicate that
anywhere from 3.8–4.2 Bgal of
sugarcane ethanol from Brazil could be
available for export by 2020/2022. If this
volume were to be made available to the
U.S., then there would be sufficient
volume to meet the advanced biofuel
standard. To calculate the amount of
imported ethanol needed to meet the
EISA standards, we took the difference
between the total advanced biofuel
category and cellulosic biofuel, biomassbased diesel, and co-processed
renewable diesel categories. The amount
of imported ethanol required by 2022 is
approximately 3.2 Bgal. We solicit
comment on our estimate of 3.2 Bgal
and whether or not it is reasonable to
assume that Brazil (or any other
country) could satisfy this demand.
Recent news indicates that there are
also plans for sugarcane ethanol to be
produced in the U.S in places where the
sugar subsidy does not apply. For
instance, sugarcane has been grown in
California’s Imperial Valley specifically
for the purpose of making ethanol and
using the cane’s biomass to generate
electricity to power the ethanol
distillery as well as export excess
electricity to the electric grid.57 There
are at least two projects being developed
at this time that could result in several
55 While cellulosic biofuel will not be limited by
feedstock availability, it likely will be limited by
the very aggressive ramp up in production volume
for an industry which is still being demonstrated on
the pilot scale and therefore is not yet commercially
viable. On the other hand, biomass-based diesel
derived from agricultural oils and animal fats are
faced with relatively high feedstock costs which
limit feedstock supply.
56 This analysis was conducted prior to the
completion of our lifecycle analysis discussed in
Section VI, and assumes the fuel will meet the
required GHG threshold.
57 Personal communication with Nathalie
Hoffman, Managing Member of California
Renewable Energies, LLC, August 27, 2008.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24982
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
hundred million gallons of ethanol
produced. The sugarcane is being grown
on marginal and existing cropland that
is unsuitable for food crops and will
replace forage crops like alfalfa,
Bermuda grass, Klein grass, etc.
Harvesting is expected to be fully
mechanized. Thus, there is potential for
these projects and perhaps others to
help contribute to the EISA biofuels
mandate. This could lower the volume
needed to be imported from Brazil.
Butanol is another potential motor
vehicle fuel which could be produced
from biomass and used in lieu of
ethanol to comply with the RFS2
standard. Production of butanol is being
pursued by a number of companies
including a partnership between BP and
Dupont. Other companies which have
expressed the intent to produce
biobutanol are Baer Biofuels and Gevo.
The near term technology being pursued
for producing butanol involves
fermentation of starch compounds,
although it can also be produced from
cellulose. Butanol has several inherent
advantages compared to ethanol. First, it
has higher energy density than ethanol
which would improve fuel economy
(mpg). Second, butanol is much less
water soluble which may allow the
butanol to be blended in at the refinery
and the resulting butanol-gasoline blend
then more easily shipped through
pipelines. This would reduce
distribution costs associated with
ethanol’s need to be shipped separately
from its gasoline blendstock and also
save on the blending costs incurred at
the terminal. Third, butanol can be
blended in higher concentrations than
10% which would likely allow butanol
to be blended with gasoline at high
enough concentrations to avoid the need
for most or all of high concentration
ethanol-gasoline blends, such as E85,
that require the use of fuel flexible
vehicles. For example, because of
butanol’s lower oxygen content, it can
be blended at 16% (by volume) to match
the oxygen concentration of ethanol
blended at 10% (by volume).58 Because
of butanol’s higher energy density,
when blending butanol at 16% by
volume, it is the renewable fuels
equivalent to blending ethanol at about
20 percent. Thus, butanol would enable
achieving most of the RFS2 standard by
blending a lower concentration of
renewable fuel than having to resort to
a sizable volume of E85 as in the case
of ethanol. As pointed out in Section
V.D., the need to blend ethanol as E85
provides some difficult challenges. The
use of butanol may be one means of
avoiding these blending difficulties.
At the same time, butanol has a
couple of less desirable aspects relative
to ethanol. First, butanol is lower in
octane compared to ethanol—ethanol
has a very high blending octane of
around 115, while butanol’s octane
ranges from 87 octane numbers for
normal butanol and 94 octane numbers
for isobutanol. Potential butanol
producers are likely to pursue
producing isobutanol over normal
butanol because of isobutanol’s higher
octane content. Higher octane is a
valuable attribute of any gasoline
blendstock because it helps to reduce
refining costs. A second negative
property of butanol is that it has a much
higher viscosity compared to either
gasoline or ethanol. High viscosity
makes a fuel harder to pump, and more
difficult to atomize in the combustion
chamber in an internal combustion
engine. The third downside to butanol
is that it is more expensive to produce
than ethanol, although the higher
production cost is partially offset by its
higher energy density.
Another potential source of renewable
transportation fuel is biomethane
refined from biogas. Biogas is a term
meaning a combustible mixture of
methane and other light gases derived
from biogenic sources. It can be
combusted directly in some
applications, but for use in highway
vehicles it is typically purified to
closely resemble fossil natural gas for
which the vehicles are typically
designed. The definition of biogas as
given in EISA is sufficiently broad to
cover combustible gases produced by
biological decomposition of organic
matter, as in a landfill or wastewater
treatment facility, as well as those
produced via thermochemical
decomposition of biomass.
Currently, the largest source of biogas
is landfill gas collection, where the
majority of fuel is combusted to generate
electricity, with a small portion being
upgraded to methane suitable for use in
heavy duty vehicle fleets. Current
literature suggests approximately 16
billion gasoline gallons equivalent of
biogas (referring to energy content)
could potentially be produced in the
long term, with about two thirds coming
from biomass gasification and about one
third coming from waste streams such
as landfills and human and animal
sewage digestion.59 60
58 To obtain EPA approval for butanol blends as
high as 16% by volume would require that the
butanol be blended with an approved corrosion
inhibitor.
59 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
estimate based on biomass portion available at $45–
$55/dry ton. Using POLYSYS Policy Analysis
System, Agricultural Policy Analysis Center,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Because the majority of the biogas
volume estimates assume biomass as a
feedstock, we have chosen not to
include this fuel in our analyses since
we are projecting most available
biomass will be used for cellulosic
liquid biofuel production in the long
term. The remaining biogas potentially
available from waste-related sources
would come from a large number of
small streams requiring purification and
connection to storage and/or
distribution facilities, which would
involve significant economic hurdles.
An additional and important source of
uncertainty is whether there would be a
sufficient number of vehicles configured
to consume these volumes of biogas.
Thus, we expect future biogas fuel
streams to continue to find nontransportation uses such as electrical
power generation or facility heating.
d. Other Renewable Fuel
The remaining portion of total
renewable fuel not met with advanced
biofuel is assumed to come from cornbased ethanol. EISA effectively sets a
limit for participation in the RFS
program of 15 Bgal of corn ethanol by
2022. It should be noted, however, that
there is no specific ‘‘corn-ethanol’’
mandated volume, and that any
advanced biofuel produced above and
beyond what is required for the
advanced biofuel requirements could
reduce the amount of corn ethanol
needed to meet the total renewable fuel
standard. This occurs in our projections
during the earlier years (2009–2014) in
which we project that some fuels could
compete favorably with corn ethanol
(e.g. biodiesel and imported ethanol).
Beginning around 2015, fuels qualifying
as advanced biofuels likely will be
devoted to meeting the increasingly
stringent volume mandates for advanced
biofuel. It is also worth noting that more
than 15 Bgal of corn ethanol could be
produced and RINs generated for that
volume under our proposed RFS2
regulations. However, obligated parties
would not be required to purchase more
than 15 Bgal worth of corn ethanol
RINs.
We are assuming for our analysis that
sufficient corn ethanol will be produced
to meet the 15 Bgal limit. However, this
assumes that in the future corn ethanol
production is not limited due to
environmental constraints, such as
water quantity issues (see Section 6.10
of the DRIA). This also assumes that in
University of Tennessee. https://www.agpolicy.org/
polysys.html. Accessed May 2008.
60 Milbrandt, A., ‘‘Geographic Perspective on the
Current Biomass Resource Availability in the
United States.’’ 70 pp., NREL Report No. TP–560–
39181, 2005.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
advanced technologies that could
improve the corn ethanol lifecycle GHG
estimates.
61 Based on total transportation ethanol reported
in EIA’s March 2009 Monthly Energy Review (Table
10.2) less imports (https://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/
pet/hist/mfeimus1a.htm).
62 For more information on how the phase-out of
MTBE helped spur ethanol production/
consumption, refer to Section V.D.1.
63 On October 22, 2004, President Bush signed
into law H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act
of 2004 (JOBS Bill), which created the Volumetric
Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC). The $0.51/gal
VEETC for ethanol blender replaced the former fuel
excise tax exemption, blender’s credit, and pure
ethanol fuel credit. However, the recently-enacted
2008 Farm Bill modifies the alcohol credit so that
corn ethanol gets a reduced credit of $0.45/gal and
cellulosic biofuel a credit of $1.01/gal effective
January 1, 2009.
64 On May 1, 2007, EPA published a final rule (72
FR 23900) implementing the Renewable Fuel
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
B. Renewable Fuel Production
1. Corn/Starch Ethanol
The majority of domestic biofuel
production currently comes from plants
processing corn and other similarlyprocessed grains in the Midwest.
However, there are a handful of plants
located outside the Corn Belt and a few
plants processing simple sugars from
food or beverage waste. In this section,
we will summarize the present state of
the corn/starch ethanol industry and
discuss how we expect things to change
in the future under the proposed RFS2
program.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
a. Historic/Current Production
The United States is currently the
largest ethanol producer in the world. In
2008, the U.S. produced almost nine
billion gallons of fuel ethanol for
domestic consumption, the majority of
which came from locally-grown corn.61
Although the U.S. ethanol industry has
been in existence since the 1970s, it has
rapidly expanded over the past few
years due to the phase-out of methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE),62 elevated
crude oil prices, state mandates and tax
incentives, the introduction of the
Federal Volume Ethanol Excise Tax
Credit (VEETC),63 and the
implementation of the existing RFS1
program.64 As shown in Figure V.B.1–1,
U.S. ethanol production has grown
exponentially over the past decade.
Standard (RFS) required by EPAct. The RFS
requires that 4.0 billion gallons of renewable fuel
be blended into gasoline/diesel by 2006, growing to
7.5 billion gallons by 2012.
65 Based on total transportation ethanol reported
in EIA’s March 2009 Monthly Energy Review (Table
10.2) less imports (https://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/
pet/hist/mfeimus1a.htm).
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
EP26MY09.004
the future either corn ethanol plants are
constructed or modified to meet the
20% GHG threshold, or that sufficient
corn ethanol production exists that is
grandfathered and not required to meet
the 20% threshold. Our current
projection is that up to 15 Bgal could be
grandfathered, but actual volumes will
be determined at the time of facility
registration. Refer to Section 1.5.1.4 of
the DRIA for more information. Since
our current lifecycle analysis estimates
that much of the current corn ethanol
would not meet the 20% GHG reduction
threshold required of non-grandfathered
facilities without facility upgrades, then
if actual grandfathered corn volumes are
less than 15 Bgal it may be necessary to
meet the volume mandate with other
renewable fuels or through the use of
24983
24984
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
As of April 1, 2009, there were 169
corn/starch ethanol plants operating in
the U.S. with a combined estimated
production capacity of 10.5 billion
gallons per year.66 This does not include
a number of ethanol plants that are
currently idled.67 The majority of
today’s ethanol (over 91% by volume) is
produced exclusively from corn.
Another 8% comes from a blend of corn
and/or similarly processed grains (milo,
wheat, or barley) and less than half a
percent is produced from cheese whey,
waste beverages, and sugars/starches
combined. A summary of U.S. ethanol
production by feedstock is presented in
Table V.B.1–1.
TABLE V.B.1–1—CURRENT CORN/STARCH ETHANOL PRODUCTION CAPACITY BY FEEDSTOCK
Plant feedstock
(Primary listed first)
Capacity
MGY
Percent of
capacity
Number of
plants
Percent of
plants
Corn a ...............................................................................................................................
Corn, Milo b ......................................................................................................................
Corn, Wheat .....................................................................................................................
Milo ..................................................................................................................................
Wheat, Milo ......................................................................................................................
Cheese Whey ..................................................................................................................
Waste Beverages c ..........................................................................................................
Waste Sugars & Starches d .............................................................................................
9,605
717
130
3
50
5
19
7
91.2
6.8
1.2
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.1
144
14
1
1
1
1
5
2
85.2
8.3
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
3.0
1.2
Total ..........................................................................................................................
10,535
100
169
100
a Includes one facility processing seed corn, two facilities also operating pilot-level cellulosic ethanol plants at these locations, and four facilities
planning on incorporating cellulosic feedstocks in the future.
b Includes one facility processing a small amount of molasses in addition to corn and milo.
c Includes two facilities processing brewery waste.
d Includes one facility processing potato waste that intends to add corn in the future.
As shown in Table V.B.1–1, of the 169
operating plants, 161 process corn and/
or other similarly processed grains. Of
these facilities, 150 utilize dry-milling
technologies and the remaining 11
plants rely on wet-milling processes.
Dry mill ethanol plants grind the entire
kernel and generally 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.
However, there are a growing number of
dry mill ethanol plants pursuing frontend fractionation or back-end extraction
to produce fuel-grade corn oil for the
biodiesel industry. There are also
additional plants pursuing cold starch
fermentation and other energy-saving
processing technologies. For more on
the dry-milling and wet-milling
processes as well as emerging advanced
technologies, refer to Section 1.4 of the
DRIA.
In contrast to dry mill plants, wet mill
facilities separate the kernel prior to
processing into its component parts
(germ, fiber, protein, and starch) and in
turn produce other co-products (usually
gluten feed, gluten meal, and food-grade
corn oil) in addition to DGS. Wet mill
plants are generally more costly to build
but are larger in size on average.68 As
such, 11.5% of the current grain ethanol
production comes from the 11
previously-mentioned wet mill
facilities. The remaining eight plants
which process cheese whey, waste
beverages or sugars/starches, operate
differently than their grain-based
counterparts. These small production
facilities do not require milling and
operate a simpler enzymatic
fermentation process.
Ethanol production is a relatively
resource-intensive process that requires
the use of water, electricity, and
steam.69 Steam needed to heat the
process is generally produced on-site or
by other dedicated boilers.70 The
ethanol industry relies primarily on
natural gas. Of today’s 169 ethanol
production facilities, 142 burn natural
gas 71 (exclusively), three burn a
combination of natural gas and biomass,
one recently started burning a
combination of natural gas, landfill
biogas and wood, and two burn a
combination of natural gas and syrup
from the process. In addition, 20 plants
burn coal as their primary fuel and one
burns a combination of coal and
biomass. Our research suggests that 25
plants currently utilize cogeneration or
combined heat and power (CHP)
technology, although others may exist.
CHP is a mechanism for improving
overall plant efficiency. Whether owned
by the ethanol facility, their local utility,
or a third party, CHP facilities produce
their own electricity and use the waste
heat from power production for process
steam, reducing the energy intensity of
ethanol production.72 A summary of the
energy sources and CHP technology
utilized by today’s ethanol plants is
found in Table V.B.1–2.
66 Our April 2009 corn/starch ethanol industry
characterization was based on a variety of sources
including: Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)
Ethanol Biorefinery Locations (updated March 31,
2009); Ethanol Producer Magazine (EPM) Producing
plant list (last modified on April 7, 2009), and
ethanol producer Web sites. The baseline does not
include ethanol plants whose primary business is
industrial or food-grade ethanol production nor
does it include plants that might be located in the
Virgin Islands or U.S. territories. Where applicable,
current/historic production levels have been used
in lieu of nameplate capacities to estimate
production capacity. The April 2009 information
presented in this section reflects our most recent
knowledge of the corn/starch ethanol industry.
However, for various NPRM impact analyses, an
earlier May 2008 industry assessment was used. For
more on this assessment, refer to Section 1.5.1.5 of
the DRIA.
67 In addition to idled plants, the assessment does
not include idled production capacity at facilities
that are currently operating at 50% or less than
their nameplate capacity.
68 According to our April 2009 corn ethanol plant
assessment, the average wet mill plant capacity was
111 million gallons per year—almost twice that of
the average dry mill plant capacity (62 million
gallons per year). For more on average plant sizes,
refer to Section 1.5.1.1 of the DRIA.
69 For more information on plant energy
requirements, refer to Section 1.5.1.3 of the DRIA.
70 We are also aware of a couple plants that pull
steam directly from a nearby utility.
71 Facilities were assumed to burn natural gas if
the plant boiler fuel was unspecified or unavailable
on the public domain.
72 For more on CHP technology, refer to Section
1.4.1.3 of the DRIA.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24985
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.B.1–2—CURRENT CORN/STARCH ETHANOL PRODUCTION CAPACITY BY ENERGY SOURCE
Capacity
MGY
Plant energy source (primary listed first)
Percent of
capacity
Number of
plants
Percent of
plants
CHP tech.
Coal a ........................................................................................................
Coal, Biomass ..........................................................................................
Natural Gas b ............................................................................................
Natural Gas, Biomass c ............................................................................
Natural Gas, Landfill Biogas, Wood ........................................................
Natural Gas, Syrup ..................................................................................
1,868
50
8,294
113
110
101
17.7
0.5
78.7
1.1
1.0
1.0
20
1
142
3
1
2
11.8
0.6
84.0
1.8
0.6
1.2
9
0
15
1
0
0
Total ..................................................................................................
10,535
100.0
169
100.0
25
a Includes
four plants that are permitted to burn biomass, tires, petroleum coke, and wood waste in addition to coal and one facility that intends
to transition to biomas in the future.
b Includes one facility that intends to switch to biomass, one facility that intends to burn thin stillage biogas, and two facilities that might switch
to coal in the future.
c Includes one facility processing bran in addition to natural gas.
Since the majority of ethanol is made
from corn, it is no surprise that most of
the plants are located in the Midwest
near the Corn Belt. Of today’s 169
ethanol production facilities, 151 are
located in the 15 states comprising
PADD 2. For a map of the Petroleum
Administration for Defense Districts or
PADDs, refer to Figure V.B.1–2.
As a region, PADD 2 accounts for 94%
(or almost 10 billion gallons) of today’s
estimated ethanol production capacity,
as shown in Table V.B.1–3. For more
information on today’s ethanol plants
and a detailed map of their locations,
refer to Section 1.5 of the DRIA.
TABLE V.B.1–3—CURRENT CORN/STARCH ETHANOL PRODUCTION CAPACITY BY PADD
Capacity
MGY
PADD
1
2
3
4
5
Number of
plants
Percent of
plants
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
150
9,900
194
160
131
1.4
94.0
1.8
1.5
1.2
3
151
3
7
5
1.8
89.3
1.8
4.1
3.0
Total ..........................................................................................................................
10,535
100.0
169
100.0
The U.S. ethanol industry is currently
comprised of a mixture of companyowned plants and locally-owned farmer
cooperatives (co-ops). The majority of
today’s ethanol production facilities are
company-owned, and on average these
plants are larger in size than farmerowned co-ops. Accordingly, companyowned plants account for more than
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
79% of today’s ethanol production
capacity.73 Furthermore, 30% of the
total domestic product comes from 38
plants owned by just three different
companies—POET Biorefining, Archer
Daniels Midland (ADM), and Valero
Renewables.74
73 Farmer-owned plant status derived from
Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), Ethanol
Biorefinery Locations (updated March 31, 2009).
For more on average plant sizes, refer to Section
1.5.1 of the DRIA.
74 Valero recently entered into the renewable
fuels business by acquiring five idled corn ethanol
plants and one construction site formerly owned by
VeraSun Energy Corporation. Valero has since
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
Continued
26MYP2
EP26MY09.005
PADD
PADD
PADD
PADD
PADD
Percent of
capacity
24986
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
b. Forecasted Production Under RFS2
As highlighted above, 10.5 billion
gallons of corn/starch ethanol plant
capacity was online as of April 1, 2009.
So even if no additional capacity was
added, U.S. ethanol production would
grow from 2008 to 2009, provided
facilities continue to operate at or above
today’s production levels. And despite
today’s temporary unfavorable market
conditions (i.e., low ethanol market
values), we expect the ethanol industry
will continue to expand in the future
under RFS2. Although there is not a set
corn ethanol standard, EISA allows for
15 billion gallons of the 36-billion
gallon renewable fuel standard to be met
by conventional biofuels. And we
expect that corn and other sugar or
starch-based ethanol will fulfill this
requirement. Furthermore, we project
that all new corn/starch ethanol plant
capacity brought online under RFS2
would either meet the conventional
biofuel GHG threshold requirement 75 or
meet the grandfathering requirement
(for more information, refer to Section
1.5.1.4 of the DRIA).
In addition to the 169 corn/starch
ethanol plants that are currently online
today, 36 plants are presently idled.
Some of these constructed facilities
(namely smaller ethanol plants) have
been idled for quite some time, whereas
other plants have just recently been put
into ‘‘hot idle’’ mode. A number of
ethanol producers (e.g., VeraSun) are
idling operations, putting projects on
hold, selling off plants, and even filing
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In addition,
we are aware of two facilities that are
currently operating at 50% or less than
their nameplate capacity. As crude oil
and gasoline prices rise again in the
future, corn ethanol production will
become more viable again and we
expect that these plants will resume
operations. At the time of our April
2009 ethanol industry assessment, there
were also 19 new ethanol plants under
construction in the U.S, and two plant
expansion projects underway. While
many of these projects are also on hold
due to the current economic conditions,
we expect these facilities will
eventually come online under the RFS2
program. A summary of the projected
industry growth is found in Table
V.B.1–4.76
TABLE V.B.1–4—POTENTIAL INDUSTRY EXPANSION UNDER RFS2
Growth in ethanol production
Plants
currently
online
Plant Capacity (MGY) ..........................................................
Total No. of Plants ...............................................................
a Includes
New
construction
projects
Idled plants/
capacity a
10,535
169
2,471
36
Expansion
projects
1,955
19
80
2
Total
15,042
226
the idled plant capacity of the two facilities that are currently operating at 50% or less than nameplate capacity.
While theoretically it only takes 12 to
18 months to build an ethanol plant,77
the rate at which new plant capacity
comes online will be dictated by market
conditions, which will in part be
influenced by the RFS2 requirements.
As mentioned above, today’s proposed
program will create a growing demand
for corn ethanol reaching 15 billion
gallons by 2015. However, it is possible
that market conditions could drive
demand even higher. Whether the
nation will overcomply with the corn
ethanol standard is uncertain and will
be determined by feedstock availability/
pricing, crude oil pricing, and the
relative ethanol/gasoline price
relationship. To measure the impacts of
the proposed RFS2 program, we
assumed that corn ethanol production
would not exceed 15 billion gallons. We
also assumed that all growth would
come from new plants or plant
expansion projects (in addition to idled
plants being brought back online).78
However, it is possible that some of the
growth could come from minor process
improvements (e.g., debottlenecking) at
existing facilities.
Once all the aforementioned projects
are complete, we project that there
would be 226 corn/starch ethanol plants
operating in the U.S. with a combined
production capacity of around 15 billion
gallons per year. Much like today’s
ethanol industry, the overwhelming
majority of new production capacity
(93% by volume) is expected to come
from corn-fed plants. Another 7% is
forecasted to come from plants
processing a blend of corn and other
grains, and a very small increase is
projected to come from idled cheese
whey and waste beverage plants coming
back online. A summary of the
forecasted ethanol production by
feedstock under the RFS2 program is
found in Table V.B.1–5.
TABLE V.B.1–5—PROJECTED RFS2 CORN/STARCH ETHANOL PRODUCTION CAPACITY BY FEEDSTOCK
Additional production
Plant feedstock (primary listed first)
Capacity
MGY
Corn a ...............................................................................................................................
Corn, Milo b ......................................................................................................................
Corn, Wheat .....................................................................................................................
Corn, Wheat, Milo ............................................................................................................
Milo ..................................................................................................................................
Wheat, Milo ......................................................................................................................
purchased two more idled VeraSun plants, but they
have not been brought back online yet.
75 The lifecycle assessment values which assume
a 2% discount rate over a 100-year timeframe.
76 Idled plants and construction projects based on
Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) Ethanol
Biorefinery Locations (updated March 31, 2009);
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Ethanol Producer Magazine (EPM) Not Producing
and Under Construction plant lists (last modified
on April 7, 2009), ethanol producer Web sites, and
follow-up correspondence with ethanol producers.
It is worth noting that for our industry assessment,
‘‘under construction’’ implies that more than just a
ground breaking ceremony has taken place.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Total RFS2 estimate
Number of
plants
4,197
185
8
110
0
0
49
3
1
2
0
0
Capacity
MGY
13,802
902
138
110
3
50
Number of
plants
193
17
2
2
1
1
77 For more information on plant build rates, refer
to Section 1.2.5 of the RIA.
78 For our NPRM impact analyses, we relied on
an earlier May 2008 industry assessment. For more
information, refer to Section 1.5.1.5 of the DRIA.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24987
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.B.1–5—PROJECTED RFS2 CORN/STARCH ETHANOL PRODUCTION CAPACITY BY FEEDSTOCK—Continued
Additional production
Plant feedstock (primary listed first)
Capacity
MGY
Total RFS2 estimate
Number of
plants
Capacity
MGY
Number of
plants
Cheese Whey ..................................................................................................................
Waste Beverages c ..........................................................................................................
Waste Sugars & Starches d .............................................................................................
3
4
0
1
1
0
8
23
7
2
6
2
Total ..........................................................................................................................
4,507
57
15,042
226
a Includes one facility processing seed corn, another facility processing small amounts of whey, two facilities also operating pilot-level cellulosic
ethanol plants at these locations, and four facilities planning on incorporating cellulosic feedstocks in the future.
b Includes one facility processing a small amount of molasses in addition to corn and milo.
c Includes two facilities processing brewery waste.
d Includes one facility processing potato waste that intends to add corn in the future.
Based on current industry plans, the
majority of additional corn/grain
ethanol production capacity (almost
84% by volume) is predicted to come
from new or expanded plants burning
natural gas.79 Additionally, we are
forecasting one new plant and a
reopening of another plant relying on
manure biogas. We are also predicting
expansions at three coal-fired ethanol
plants.80 Of the 55 new ethanol plants,
our research indicates that five would
utilize cogeneration, bringing the total
number of CHP facilities to 30. A
summary of the projected near-term
ethanol plant energy sources is found in
Table V.B.1–6.
TABLE V.B.1–6—PROJECTED NEAR-TERM CORN/STARCH ETHANOL PRODUCTION CAPACITY BY ENERGY SOURCE
Additional production
Plant energy source (primary listed first)
Capacity
MGY
Total RFS2 estimate
Number of
plants
Capacity
MGY
Number of
plants
CHP tech.
Coal a ........................................................................................................
Coal, Biomass ..........................................................................................
Manure Biogas .........................................................................................
Natural Gas b ............................................................................................
Natural Gas, Biomass c ............................................................................
Natural Gas, Landfill Biogas, Wood ........................................................
Natural Gas, Syrup ..................................................................................
610
0
134
3,763
0
0
0
2
0
2
53
0
0
0
2,478
50
134
12,056
113
110
101
22
1
2
195
3
1
2
11
0
0
18
1
0
0
Total ..................................................................................................
4,507
57
15,042
226
30
a Includes
six plants that are permitted to burn biomass, tires, petroleum coke, and wood waste in addition to coal and one facility that intends
to transition to biomass in the future.
b Includes one facility that intends to switch to biomass, one facility that intends to burn thin stillage biogas, and six facilities that might switch
to coal in the future.
c Includes one facility processing bran in addition to natural gas.
The information in Table V.B.1.6 is
based on short-term industry production
plans at the time of our April 1, 2009
plant assessment. However, we are
anticipating growth in advanced ethanol
production technologies under the
proposed RFS2 program. We project that
fuel prices will drive a large number of
corn ethanol plants to transition from
conventional boiler fuels to advanced
biomass-based feedstocks. We also
believe that fossil fuel/electricity prices
will drive a number of ethanol
producers to pursue CHP technology.
For more on our projected 2022
utilization of these technologies under
the RFS2 program, refer to Section
1.5.1.3 of the DRIA.
Under the proposed RFS2 program,
the majority of new ethanol production
is expected to originate from PADD 2,
close to where most of the corn is
grown. However, there are a number of
‘‘destination’’ ethanol plants being built
outside the Midwest in response to
production subsidies, E10/E85 retail
pump incentives, and state mandates. A
summary of the forecasted ethanol
production by PADD under the RFS2
program can be found in Table V.B.1–
7.
79 Facilities were assumed to burn natural gas if
the plant boiler fuel was unspecified or unavailable
on the public domain.
80 Two of the three coal-fired plant expansions
appear as new plants in Table V.B.1–6. This is
because two of the expansion projects consist of
adding dry milling plant capacity to an existing wet
mill plant. However, our interpretation is that these
facilities will rely on the same (potentially
expanded) coal-fired boilers for process steam.
Since all the aforementioned coal-fired ethanol
production facilities appear to have commenced
construction prior to December 19, 2007, we project
that the ethanol produced at these facilities will be
grandfathered under the proposed RFS2 rule. For
more on our grandfathered volume estimate, refer
to Section 1.5.1.4 of the DRIA.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24988
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.B.1–7—PROJECTED RFS2 CORN/STARCH ETHANOL PRODUCTION CAPACITY BY PADD
Additional production
PADD
PADD
PADD
PADD
PADD
PADD
1
2
3
4
5
Capacity
MGY
Total RFS2 Estimate
Number of
plants
Capacity
MGY
Number of
plants
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
178
3,566
350
50
363
3
43
4
1
6
328
13,466
544
210
494
6
194
7
8
11
Total ..........................................................................................................................
4,507
57
15,042
226
2. Cellulosic Biofuel
Ethanol currently dominates U.S.
biofuel production, and more
specifically, ethanol produced from
corn and other grains. However,
cellulosic feedstocks have the potential
to greatly expand domestic ethanol
production, both volumetrically and
geographically. It is also possible to
produce synthetic diesel fuel from
cellulosic feedstocks (also known as
‘‘cellulosic diesel’’) through a FischerTropsch gasification process or a
thermal depolymerization process. We
are also aware of one company using
live bacteria to break down biomass and
produce cellulosic diesel and other
petroleum replacements. Before widescale commercialization of cellulosic
biofuel can occur in today’s
marketplace, technical and logistical
barriers must be overcome. In addition
to today’s RFS2 program which sets
aggressive goals for all ethanol
production, the Department of Energy
(DOE) and other federal and state
agencies are helping to spur industry
growth.
a. Current Production/Plans
The cellulosic biofuel industry is
essentially in its infancy. With the
exception of a 20 million-gallon-per
year cellulosic diesel plant recently
opened by Cello Energy in Bay Minette,
AL, the majority of facilities in
operation today are small pilot- or
demonstration-level plants. Most of
these facilities operate intermittently
and produce insignificant volumes of
biofuel. Some researchers are focusing
on processing corn residues, e.g., corn
stover, cobs, and/or fiber. Some are
focusing on other agricultural residues
such as sugarcane bagasse, rice and
wheat straw. Others are looking at waste
products such as forestry residues,
citrus residues, pulp or paper mill
waste, municipal solid waste (MSW),
and construction and demolition (C&D)
debris. Dedicated energy crops
including switchgrass and poplar trees
are also being investigated.
Based on an April 2009 assessment of
information available on the public
domain, there are currently 25 pilotand demonstration-level (or smaller)
cellulosic ethanol plants operating in
the United States. However, only 9 of
these plants report measurable volumes
of ethanol production. In addition, we
are aware of one pilot-level cellulosic
diesel plant in addition to the
commercial-level Cello Energy plant.81
A summary of these 11 facilities totaling
just over 23 million gallons of annual
production capacity is provided in
Table V.B.2–1. The date listed in the
table indicates when the facility first
began operations. For more on the
existing cellulosic ethanol and diesel
plants, refer to Sections 1.5.3.1 and
1.5.3.3 of the DRIA.
TABLE V.B.2–1—EXISTING CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL PLANTS
Company or organization name
Prod
cap
(MGY)
Location
Feedstocks
York, NE .............
Fayetteville, AR ..
Phoenix, AZ ........
Livingston, AL .....
Rome, NY ...........
Scotland, SD .......
Jennings, LA .......
Jennings, LA .......
Upton, WY ..........
Wheat straw, corn stover, energy crops ........
MSW, wood waste, coal .................................
Paper waste (sorted MSW) ............................
Wood waste (sorted MSW) ............................
Wood chips .....................................................
Corn cobs & fiber ............................................
Sugarcane bagasse ........................................
Sugarcane bagasse, wood, energy cane .......
Wood waste (softwood) ..................................
Bay Minette, AL ..
Fort Stewart, GA
Wood chips, hay .............................................
Wood chips .....................................................
Est.
Op.
date
Conv.
tech. a
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.20
0.20
0.02
0.05
1.50
1.50
Sep-07
1998
2004
Dec-08
Feb-09
Jan-09
2006
Feb-09
2007
Bio.
Therm.
Bio.
Therm.
Bio.
Bio.
Bio.
Bio.
Bio.
20.00
0.01
Dec-08
Dec-08
CatDep.
Bact.
Cellulosic Ethanol
Abengoa Bioenergy Corporation b ...................
Bioengineering Resources, Inc. (BRI) .............
BPI & Universal Entech ...................................
Gulf Coast Energy ...........................................
Mascoma Corporation .....................................
POET Project Bell b .........................................
Verenium .........................................................
Verenium .........................................................
Western Biomass Energy LLC. (WBE) ...........
Cellulosic Diesel
Cello Energy ....................................................
Bell BioEnergy .................................................
Total Existing Production Capacity >23 MGY
a Bio
= biochemical pre-treatment, Therm = thermochemical conversion, CatDep = catalytic depolymerization, Bact = involves the use of live
bacteria to break down biomass for cellulosic diesel production.
b Cellulosic pilot plant is collocated with a corn ethanol plant.
81 Our April 2009 cellulosic ethanol industry
characterization was based on researching DOEand USDA-supported projects, plants referenced in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
HART’s Ethanol & Biodiesel News (through the
April 14, 2009 issue), plants included on the
Cellulosic Ethanol Site (https://www.thecesite.com/),
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and plants referenced on other biofuel industry
Web sites.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24989
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
To date, the majority of cellulosic
ethanol research has focused on
biochemical pre-treatment technologies,
i.e., the use of acids and/or enzymes to
break down cellulosic materials into
fermentable sugars. However, there are
a growing number of companies
investigating the thermochemical
pathway which involves gasification of
biomass into a synthesis gas or pyrolysis
of biomass into a bio-crude oil for
processing. Cellulosic diesel can also be
made from thermochemical as well as
other processes. Many companies are
also researching the potential of cofiring biomass to produce plant energy
in addition to biofuels. For more on
cellulosic biofuel processing
technologies, refer to Section 1.4.3 of
the DRIA.
In addition to the existing facilities in
Table V.B.2–1, our April 2009 industry
assessment suggests that there are
currently three cellulosic ethanol plants
under construction in the United States.
Like the existing plants, two are pilotlevel facilities that are still working
towards proving their conversion
technologies. However, Range Fuels, a
company that received $76 million from
DOE and an $80 loan guarantee from
USDA to build one of the first
commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol
plants in the U.S., is currently building
a 40 million gallon per year plant in
Soperton, GA.82 At this time, the
company is just working on the initial
10 million gallon per year phase. Bell
Bioenergy, a company that received $7.5
million in funding from the Department
of Defense to convert biomass into
cellulosic diesel using live bacteria, also
has six pilot plants under construction
in various locations through the
country. A summary of these nine
cellulosic biofuel plants, totaling over
10 million gallons of annual production
capacity, is presented in Table V.B.2–2.
As shown in Tables V.B.2–1 and
V.B.2–2, unlike corn ethanol
production, which is primarily located
in the Midwest near the Corn Belt,
cellulosic biofuel production is spread
throughout the country. The geographic
distribution of plants is due to the wide
variety and availability of cellulosic
feedstocks. Corn stover is found
primarily in the Midwest, while the
Pacific Northwest, the Northeast, and
the Southeast all have forestry residues.
Some southern states have access to
sugarcane bagasse and citrus waste
while MSW and C&D debris are
available in highly populated areas
throughout the country. For more
information on cellulosic feedstock
availability, refer to Section 1.1.2 of the
DRIA.
TABLE V.B.2–2—CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL PLANTS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Company plant name
Prod
cap
(MGY)
Location
Feedstocks
Coskata ............................................................
Madison, PA .......
DuPont Dansico Cellulosic Ethanol (DDCE) ...
Vonore, TN .........
MSW, natural gas, woodchips, bagasse,
switchgrass.
Corn cobs then switchgrass ...........................
Range Fuels b ..................................................
Soperton, GA ......
Wood waste, switchgrass ...............................
Fort
Fort
Fort
Fort
Fort
San
Cellulose
Cellulose
Cellulose
Cellulose
Cellulose
Cellulose
Est.
op.
date.
Conv.
tech. a
0.04
Jul–09
Therm.
0.25
10.00
Dec–
09
Dec–
09
Therm.
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
Bact.
Bact.
Bact.
Bact.
Bact.
Bact.
Cellulosic Ethanol
Bio.
Cellulosic Diesel
Bell
Bell
Bell
Bell
Bell
Bell
Bio-Energy
Bio-Energy
Bio-Energy
Bio-Energy
Bio-Energy
Bio-Energy
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
Lewis, WA ...
Drum, NY ....
AP Hill, VA ..
Bragg, NC ...
Benning, GA
Pedro, CA ...
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
Total Under Construction Production Capacity >10 MGY
a Bio
= biochemical pre-treatment, Therm = thermochemical conversion, Bact = involves the use of live bacteria to break down biomass for cellulosic diesel production.
b The first 10 MGY phase is currently under construction in Soperton, GA. Once this second 30 MGY phase is added, the plant will be capable
of producing 40 MGY of cellulosic ethanol.
Increased public interest, government
support, technological advancement,
and the recently-enacted EISA have
helped spur many plans for new
cellulosic biofuel plants. Although more
and more plants are being announced,
most are limited in size and contingent
upon technology breakthroughs and
efficiency improvements at the pilot or
demonstration level. Additionally,
because cellulosic biofuel production
has not yet been proven on the
commercial level, financing of these
projects has primarily been through
venture capital and similar funding
mechanisms, as opposed to
conventional bank loans.
Consequently, recently-announced
Federal grant and loan guarantee
programs may serve as a significant
asset to the cellulosic biofuel industry
in this area. In February 2007, DOE
announced that it would invest up to
$385 million in six commercial-scale
ethanol projects over the next four
years. Since the announcement, two of
the companies have forfeited their
funding. Iogen has decided to locate its
first commercial-scale plant in Canada
and Alico has discontinued plans to
produce ethanol all together. The four
remaining ‘‘pioneer’’ plants (including
Range Fuels) hold promise and could
very well be some of the first plants to
demonstrate the commercial-scale
viability of cellulosic ethanol
production. However, there is still more
to be learned at the pilot level. Although
technologies needed to convert
82 Range Fuels’ ultimate goal is to expand the
Soperton, GA facility to produce 100 million
gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24990
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
cellulosic feedstocks into ethanol (and
diesel) are becoming more and more
understood, there are still a number of
efficiency improvements that need to
occur before cellulosic biofuels can
compete in today’s marketplace.
In May 2007, DOE announced that it
would provide up to $200 million to
help fund small-scale cellulosic
biorefineries experimenting with novel
processing technologies that could later
be expanded to commercial production
facilities. Four recipients were
announced in January 2008 and three
more were announced in April 2008.
Three months later, DOE announced
that it would provide $40 million more
to help fund two additional small-scale
plants. Of the nine announced smallscale plants, seven were pursuing
cellulosic ethanol production (including
Verenium Corp.) and two are pursuing
cellulosic diesel production. However,
Lignol Innovations, recently suspended
plans to build a 2.5 million gallon per
year cellulosic ethanol plant in Grand
Junction, CO due to market uncertainty.
The Department of Energy has also
introduced a loan guarantee program to
help reduce risk and spur investment in
projects that employ new, clean energy
technologies. In October 2007, DOE
issued final regulations and invited 16
project sponsors who submitted preapplications to submit full applications
for loan guarantees. Of those who were
invited to participate, five were
pursuing cellulosic biofuel production.
However, only three companies appear
to still be eligible.83 Of the three
remaining companies, two are pursuing
cellulosic ethanol production (and are
also DOE grant recipients) and one is
pursuing cellulosic diesel production.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is
also providing an $80 million loan
guarantee to Range Fuels to help
support construction of its 40 milliongallon-per-year cellulosic ethanol plant
in Soperton, GA. For more on
information on Federal support for
biofuel production, refer to Section 1.5.3
of the DRIA.
In addition to the companies
receiving government funding, there are
a growing number of privately-funded
companies (including Cello Energy)
with plans to build more cellulosic
biofuel plants in the United States.
These facilities range in size from pilotand demonstration-level plants (similar
to those currently operational or under
construction), to small commercial
plants (similar to the four commercialscale plants receiving DOE funding), to
large commercial plants (similar in size
to an average corn ethanol plant). These
projects are also at various stages of
planning. According to our April 2009
industry assessment, 11 plants are
currently at advanced stages of planning
and likely to go online in the near
future. Along with those plants
currently operational or under
construction, we believe that these
facilities will enable the U.S. to meet the
100 million gallon cellulosic biofuel
standard in 2010. For a summary of the
plants and their respective projected
contributions, refer to Table V.B.2–3
below. For a greater discussion on these
and other cellulosic biofuel projects,
refer to Section 1.5.3.1 of the DRIA.
TABLE V.B.2–3—PROJECTED CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL PRODUCTION IN 2010
Company or organization name
Prod cap
(MGY)
Location
Est. op. date
Est. 2010
million
gallons
Est 2010
ETOHequiv.
million
gallons
Cellulosic Ethanol
BPI & Universal Entech ........................
POET Project Bell ................................
Abengoa Bioenergy Corporation ..........
Bioengineering Resources, Inc. (BRI) ..
Verenium ..............................................
Gulf Coast Energy ................................
Mascoma Corporation ..........................
Verenium ..............................................
Western Biomass Energy, LLC. (WBE)
Coskata ................................................
DuPont Dansico Cellulosic Ethanol
(DDCE).
Range Fuels .........................................
Ecofin/Alltech ........................................
Fulcrum Bioenergy ...............................
ICM Inc. ................................................
RSE Pulp & Chemical ..........................
ZeaChem ..............................................
ClearFuels Technology ........................
Southeast Renewable Fuels LLC ........
Phoenix, AZ .........................................
Scotland, SD .......................................
York, NE ..............................................
Fayetteville, AK ...................................
Jennings, LA ........................................
Livingston, AL ......................................
Rome, NY ............................................
Jennings, LA ........................................
Upton, WY ...........................................
Madison, PA ........................................
Vonore, TN ..........................................
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.20
0.20
1.50
1.50
0.04
0.25
Online .............................
Online .............................
Online .............................
Online .............................
Online .............................
Online .............................
Online .............................
Online .............................
Online .............................
Jul-09 ..............................
Dec-09 ............................
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.20
0.20
1.50
1.50
0.04
0.25
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.20
0.20
1.50
1.50
0.04
0.25
Soperton, GA .......................................
Springfield, KY .....................................
Storey County, NV ..............................
St. Joseph, MO ...................................
Old Town, ME .....................................
Boardman, OR ....................................
Kauai, HI ..............................................
Clewiston, FL .......................................
10.0
1.30
10.50
1.50
2.20
1.50
1.50
20.00
Dec-09 ............................
2010 ................................
2010 ................................
2010 ................................
2010 ................................
2010 ................................
End of 2010 ....................
End of 2010 ....................
10.0
0.65
5.25
0.75
1.10
0.75
0.38
5.00
10.0
0.65
5.25
0.75
1.10
0.75
0.38
5.00
Bay Minette, AL ...................................
Fort Stewart, GA .................................
Fort Lewis, WA ....................................
Fort Drum, NY .....................................
Fort AP Hill, VA ...................................
Fort Bragg, NC ....................................
Fort Benning, GA ................................
San Pedro, CA ....................................
20.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Online .............................
2008 ................................
2009 ................................
2009 ................................
2009 ................................
2009 ................................
2009 ................................
2009 ................................
20.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
32.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Cellulosic Diesel
Cello Energy .........................................
Bell Bio-Energy .....................................
Bell Bio-Energy .....................................
Bell Bio-Energy .....................................
Bell Bio-Energy .....................................
Bell Bio-Energy .....................................
Bell Bio-Energy .....................................
Bell Bio-Energy .....................................
83 Iogen and Alico have also forfeited a potential
loan guarantee from DOE.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24991
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.B.2–3—PROJECTED CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL PRODUCTION IN 2010—Continued
Company or organization name
Location
Cello Energy .........................................
Cello Energy .........................................
Cello Energy .........................................
Flambeau River Biofuels ......................
TBD (AL) .............................................
TBD (AL) .............................................
TBD (GA) .............................................
Park Falls, WI ......................................
50.00
50.00
50.00
6.00
Total 2010 Production Forecast ....
..............................................................
................
b. Federal/State Production Incentives
In addition to helping fund a series of
small-scale cellulosic biofuel plants, the
Department of Energy, along with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
is also helping to fund critical research
to help make cellulosic biofuel
production more commercially viable.
In March 2007, DOE awarded $23
million in grants to four companies and
one university to develop more efficient
microbes for ethanol refining. In June
2007, DOE and USDA awarded $8.3
million to 10 universities, laboratories,
and research centers to conduct
genomics research on woody plant
tissue for bioenergy. Later that same
month, DOE announced plans to spend
$375 million to build three bioenergy
research centers dedicated to
accelerating research and development
of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels.
The centers, which will each focus on
different feedstocks and biological
research challenges, will be located in
Oak Ridge, TN, Madison, WI, and
Berkeley, CA. In December 2007, DOE
awarded $7.7 million to one company,
one university, and two research centers
to demonstrate the thermochemical
conversion process of turning grasses,
stover, and other cellulosic materials
into biofuel. In February 2008, DOE
awarded another $33.8 million to three
companies and one research center to
support the development of
commercially-viable enzymes to support
cellulose hydrolysis, a critical step in
the biochemical breakdown of cellulosic
feedstocks. Finally, in March 2008, DOE
and USDA awarded $18 million to 18
universities and research institutes to
conduct research and development of
biomass-based products, biofuels,
bioenergy, and related processes. Since
2007, DOE has announced more than $1
billion and since 2006, USDA has
invested almost $600 million for the
research, development, and
demonstration of new biofuel
technology.
Numerous states are also offering
grants, tax incentives, and loan
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Est. 2010
million
gallons
Est 2010
ETOHequiv.
million
gallons
................................
................................
................................
................................
16.67
16.67
16.67
3.00
26.67
26.67
26.67
4.80
.........................................
100.74
144.57
Prod cap
(MGY)
Est. op. date
2010
2010
2010
2010
guarantees to help encourage biofuel
production. The majority of efforts are
centered on expanding ethanol
production, and more recently,
cellulosic ethanol production.84
According to a July 2008 assessment of
DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) Web site,85 33 states
currently offer some form of ethanol
production incentive. The incentives
range from support for ethanol
producers to support for research and
development companies to support for
feedstock suppliers. Kansas, Maryland,
and South Carolina each offer specific
incentives towards cellulosic ethanol
production. Kansas offers revenue
bonds through the Kansas Development
Finance Authority to help fund
construction or expansion of a cellulosic
ethanol plant. Additionally, these
newly-built or expanded facilities are
exempt from state property tax for 10
years. Maryland offers a credit towards
state income tax for 10% of cellulosic
ethanol research and development
expenses. They also have a $0.20 per
gallon production credit for cellulosic
ethanol. South Carolina gives a $0.30
per gallon production credit to
cellulosic ethanol producers that meet
certain requirements.
In addition to individual state
incentives, a group of states in the
Midwest have joined together to pursue
ethanol and other biofuel production
and usage goals as part of the Midwest
Energy Security and Climate
Stewardship Platform.86 As of June
2008, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, South
Dakota, and Wisconsin had all
committed to these goals which
emphasize energy independence
84 For
more on state-level biodiesel production
incentives, refer to Section 1.5.4 of the DRIA.
85 The database of ethanol incentives and laws by
state is available at: https://www.eere.energy.gov/
afdc/ethanol/incentives_laws.html.
86 Midwest Governors Association, ‘‘Energy
Security and Climate Stewardship Platform for the
Midwest 2007’’ (https://
www.midwesterngovernors.org/resolutions/
Platform.pdf)
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
through the growth of cellulosic ethanol
production and availability of E85. The
Platform goals are to produce cellulosic
ethanol on a commercial level by 2012
and to have E85 offered at one-third of
refueling stations by 2025. They also
want to reduce the energy intensity of
ethanol production and supply 50% of
their transportation fuel needs by
regionally produced biofuels by 2025.
Finally, the passage of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(also known as the ‘‘2008 Farm Bill’’) is
also helping to spur cellulosic ethanol
production and use.87 The 2008 Farm
Bill modified the existing $0.51 per
gallon alcohol blender credit to give
preference to ethanol and other biofuels
produced from cellulosic feedstocks.
Corn ethanol now receives a reduced
credit of $0.45/gal while cellulosic
biofuel earns a credit of $1.01/gal.88 The
2008 Farm Bill also has provisions that
enable USDA to assist with the
commercialization of second-generation
biofuels. Section 9003 authorizes loan
guarantees for the development,
construction and retrofitting of
commercial scale biorefineries. Section
9004 provides payments to biorefineries
to replace fossil fuels with renewable
biomass. Section 9005 provides
payments to producers to support and
ensure production of advanced biofuels.
And finally, Section 9008 provides
competitive grants, contracts and
financial assistance to enable eligible
entities to carry out research,
development, and demonstration of
biofuels and biomass-based based
products. For more information on the
Federal and state production incentives
outlined in this subsection, refer to
Section 1.5.3.2 of the DRIA.
c. Feedstock Availability
A wide variety of feedstocks can be
used for cellulosic ethanol production,
including: Agricultural residues,
87 The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (https://www.usda.gov/documents/
Bill_6124.pdf)
88 Refer to Part II, Subparts A and B (Sections
15321 and 15331).
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24992
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
forestry biomass, municipal solid waste,
construction and demolition waste, and
energy crops. These feedstocks are
much more difficult to convert into
ethanol than traditional starch/corn
crops or at least require new and
different processes because of the more
complex structure of cellulosic material.
One potential barrier to commercially
viable cellulosic biofuel production is
high feedstock cost. As such, fuel
producers will seek to acquire
inexpensive feedstocks in sufficient
quantities to lower their production
costs and the risk of feedstock supply
shortages. At least initially, the focus
will be on feedstocks that are readily
available, already produced or collected
for other reasons, and even waste
biomass which currently incurs a
disposal fee. Consequently, initial
volumes of cellulosic biofuels may
benefit from low-cost feedstocks.
However, to reach 16 Bgal will likely
require reliance on more expensive
feedstock sources purposely grown and
or harvested for conversion into
cellulosic biofuel.
To determine the likely cellulosic
feedstocks for production of 16 billion
gallons cellulosic biofuel by 2022, we
analyzed the data and results from
various sources. Sources include
agricultural modeling from the Forestry
Agriculture Sector Optimization Model
(FASOM) to establish the most
economical agriculture residues and
energy crops (see Section IX for more
details on the FASOM), consultation
with USDA–Forestry Sector experts for
forestry biomass supply curves, and
feedstock assessment estimates for
urban waste.89
An important assumption in our
analysis projecting which feedstocks
will be used for producing cellulosic
ethanol is that an excess of feedstock
would have to be available for
producing the biofuel. Banks are
anticipated to require excess feedstock
supply as a safety factor to ensure that
the plant will have adequate feedstock
available for the plant, despite any
feedstock emergency, such as a fire,
drought, infestation of pests etc. For our
analysis we assumed that twice the
feedstock of MSW, C&D waste, and
forest residue would have to be
available to justify the building of a
89 It
is important to note that our plant siting
analysis for cellulosic ethanol facilities used the
most current version of outputs from FASOM at the
time, which was from April 2008. Since then,
FASOM has been updated to reflect better
assumptions. Therefore, the version used for the
NPRM in Section IX on economic impacts is
slightly different than the one we used here. We do
not believe that the differences between the two
versions are enough to have a major impact on the
plant siting analysis.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
cellulosic ethanol plant. For corn stover,
we assumed 50% more feedstock than
necessary. We used a lower safety factor
for corn stover because it could be
possible to remove a larger percentage of
the corn stover in any given year
(usually only 50% or less of corn stover
is assumed to be sustainably removed in
any one year).90 As a result, our
projected cellulosic facilities only
consume a portion of the total supply of
feedstock available. After a cellulosic
facility is fully established and certain
risks are reduced, it is entirely possible
that the facility may choose to consume
excess feedstock in order to expand
production. In addition, more facilities
could potentially be built if financial
investors required less excess supply.
Since we are assessing the impact of
producing 16 Bgal of cellulosic biofuel
by 2022, this analysis does not project
the construction of more facilities or
more feedstocks consumed than
necessary.
Another assumption that we made is
that if multiple feedstocks are available
in an area, each would be used as
feedstocks for a prospective cellulosic
ethanol plant. For example, a particular
area might comprise a small or medium
sized city, some forest and some
agricultural land. We would include the
MSW and C&D wastes available from
the city along with the corn stover and
forest residue for projecting the
feedstock that would be processed by
the particular cellulosic ethanol plant.
The following subsections describe
the availability of various cellulosic
feedstocks and the estimated amounts
from each feedstock needed to meet the
EISA requirement of 16 Bgal of
cellulosic biofuel by 2022. Refer to
Section V.B.2.c.iv for the summarized
results of the types and volumes of
cellulosic feedstocks chosen based on
our analyses.
i Urban Waste
Cellulosic feedstocks available at the
lowest cost to the ethanol producer will
likely be chosen first. This suggests that
urban waste which is already being
gathered today and which incurs a fee
for its disposal may be among the first
to be used. Urban wood wastes are used
in a variety of ways. Most commonly,
wastes are ground into mulch, dumped
into land-fills, or incinerated with other
municipal solid waste (MSW) or
construction and demolition (C&D)
debris. Urban wood wastes include a
variety of wood resources such as wood90 The FASOM results do not take into
consideration these feedstock safety margins. Safety
margins were used, however, for the plant siting
analysis described in Section V.B.2.c.v.
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
based municipal solid waste and wood
debris from construction and
demolition.
MSW consists of paper, glass, metals,
plastics, wood, yard trimmings, food
scraps, rubber, leather, textiles, etc. The
portion of MSW containing cellulosic
material and typically the focus for
biofuel production is wood and yard
trimmings. In addition, paper, which
made up approximately 34% of the total
MSW generated in 2006, could
potentially be converted to cellulosic
biofuel.91 Food scraps could also be
converted to cellulosic biofuel,
however, it was noted by an industry
group that this feedstock could be more
difficult to convert to biofuel due to
challenges with separation, storage,
transport, and degradation of the
materials. Although recycling/recovery
rates are increasing over time, there
appears to still be a large fraction of
biogenic material that ends up unused
and in land-fills. C&D debris is typically
not available in wood waste
assessments, although some have
estimated this feedstock based on
population. In 1996, this was estimated
to be approximately 124 million metric
tons of C&D debris.92 Only a portion of
this, however, would be made of woody
material. Utilization of such feedstocks
could help generate energy or biofuels
for transportation. However, despite
various assessments on urban waste
resources, there is still a general lack of
reliable data on delivered prices, issues
of quality (potential for contamination),
and lack of understanding of potential
competition with other alternative uses
(e.g. recycling, burning for electricity).
We estimated that 42 million dry tons
of MSW (wood and yard trimmings &
paper) and C&D wood waste could be
available for producing biofuels after
factoring in several assumptions (e.g.
percent contamination, percent
recovered or combusted for other uses,
and percent moisture).93 94 We assumed
that approximately 25 million dry tons
(of the total 42 million dry tons) would
be used. However, many areas of the
U.S. (e.g. much of the Rocky Mountain
States) have such sparse resources that
a MSW and C&D cellulosic facility
would not likely be justifiable. We did
assume that in areas with other
91 EPA. Municipal Solid Waste Generation,
Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts
and Figures for 2006.
92 Fehrs, J., ‘‘Secondary Mill Residues and Urban
Wood Waste Quantities in the United States—Final
Report,’’ Northeast Regional Biomass Program
Washington, DC, December 1999.
93 Wiltsee, G., ‘‘Urban Wood Waste Resource
Assessment,’’ NREL/SR–570–25918, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, November 1998.
94 Biocycle, ‘‘The State of Garbage in America,’’
Vol. 47, No. 4, 2006, p. 26.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
cellulosic feedstocks (forest and
agricultural residue), that the MSW
would be used even if the MSW could
not justify the installation of a plant on
its own. Therefore, we have estimated
that urban waste could help contribute
to the production of approximately 2.2
billion gallons of ethanol.95 A more
detailed discussion on this analysis is
included in the DRIA Chapter 1.
Subsequent to initiating our analysis,
however, we realized that the revised
renewable biomass definition in the
statute may preclude the use of most
MSW. See Section III.B.4 for a
discussion of renewable biomass. When
the definition of renewable biomass is
finalized, it could preclude the use of
some of the lowest cost potential
feedstocks, including waste paper and
C&D waste, for use in producing
cellulosic biofuel for use toward the
RFS2 standard. If this is the case, then
our FRM analysis will be adjusted to
reflect this.
In addition to MSW and C&D waste
generated from normal day-to-day
activities, there is also potential for
renewable biomass to be generated from
natural disasters. This includes diseased
trees, other woody debris, and C&D
debris. For instance, Hurricane Katrina
was estimated to have damaged
approximately 320 million large trees.96
Katrina also generated over 100 million
tons of residential debris, not including
the commercial sector. The material
generated from these situations could
potentially be used to generate
cellulosic biofuel. While we
acknowledge this material could
provide a large source in the short-term,
natural disasters are highly variable,
making it hard to predict future volumes
that could be generated. We seek
comment on how to take into account
such estimates to be included in future
feedstock availability analyses.
ii. Agricultural and Forestry Residues
The next category of feedstocks
chosen will likely be those that are
readily produced but have not yet been
commercially collected. This includes
both agricultural and forestry residues.
Agricultural residues are expected to
play an important role early on in the
development of the cellulosic ethanol
industry due to the fact that they are
already being grown. Agricultural crop
residues are biomass that remains in the
field after the harvest of agricultural
crops. The most common residue types
include corn stover (the stalks, leaves,
95 Assuming 90 gal/dry ton ethanol conversion
yield for urban waste in 2022.
96 Chambers, J., ‘‘Hurricane Katrina’s Carbon
Footprint on U.S. Gulf Coast Forests’’ Science Vol.
318, 2007.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
and/or cobs), straw from wheat, rice,
barley, or oats, and bagasse from
sugarcane. The eight leading U.S. crops
produce more than 500 million tons of
residues each year, although only a
fraction can be used for fuel and/or
energy production due to sustainability
and conservation constraints.97 Crop
residues can be found all over the
United States, but are primarily
concentrated in the Midwest since corn
stover accounts for half of all available
agricultural residues.
Agricultural residues play an
important role in maintaining and
improving soil quality, protecting the
soil surface from water and wind
erosion, helping to maintain nutrient
levels, and protecting water quality.
Thus, collection and removal of
agricultural residues must take into
account concerns about the potential for
increased erosion, reduced crop
productivity, depletion of soil carbon
and nutrients, and water pollution.
Sustainable removal rates for
agricultural residues have been
estimated in various studies, many
showing tremendous variability due to
local differences in soil and erosion
conditions, soil type, landscape (slope),
tillage practices, crop rotation
managements, and the use of cover
crops. One of the most recent studies by
top experts in the field showed that
under current rotation and tillage
practices, about 30% of stover (about 59
million metric tons) produced in the
U.S. could be collected, taking into
consideration erosion, soil moisture
concerns, and nutrient replacement
costs.98 The same study showed that if
farmers chose to convert to no-till corn
management and total stover production
did not change, then approximately
50% of stover (100 million metric tons)
could be collected without causing
erosion to exceed the tolerable soil loss.
This study, however, did not consider
possible soil carbon loss which other
studies indicate may be a greater
constraint to environmentally
sustainable feedstock harvest than that
needed to control water and wind
erosion.99 Experts agree that additional
studies are needed to further evaluate
97 Elbehri, Aziz. USDA, ERS. ‘‘An Evaluation of
the Economics of Biomass Feedstocks: A Synthesis
of the Literature. Prepared for the Biomass Research
and Development Board,’’ 2007; Since 2007, a final
report has been released. Biomass Research and
Development Board, ‘‘The Economics of Biomass
Feedstocks in the United States: A Review of the
Literature,’’ October 2008.
98 Graham, R.L., ‘‘Current and Potential U.S. Corn
Stover Supplies,’’ American Society of Agronomy
99:1–11, 2007.
99 Wilhelm, W.W. et. al., ‘‘Corn Stover to Sustain
Soil Organic Carbon Further Constrains Biomass
Supply,’’ Agron. J. 99:1665–1667, 2007.
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24993
how soil carbon and other factors affect
sustainable removal rates. Despite
unclear guidelines for sustainable
removal rates due to the uncertainties
explained above, our agricultural
modeling analysis assumes that 0% of
stover is removable for conventional
tilled lands, 35% of stover is removable
for conservation tilled lands, and 50%
is removable for no-till lands. In general,
these removal guidelines are
appropriate only for the Midwest, where
the majority of corn is currently grown.
As already noted, removal rates will
vary within regions due to local
differences. Given the current
understanding of sustainable removal
rates, we believe that such assumptions
are reasonably justified. We invite
comment on these assumptions. Based
on our research we also note that
residue maintenance requirements for
the amount of biomass that must remain
on the land to ensure soil quality is
another approach for modeling
sustainable residue collection
quantities, therefore we also invite
comment on this approach. This
approach would likely be more accurate
for all landscapes as site specific
conditions such as soil type,
topography, etc. could be taken into
account. This would prevent site
specific soil erosion and soil quality
concerns that would inevitably exist
when using average values for residue
removal rates across all soils and
landscapes. At the time of our analyses
we had limited data on which to
accurately apply this approach and
therefore assumed the removal
guidelines based on tillage practices.
Refer to the Section 1.1 of the DRIA for
more discussion on sustainable removal
rates.
Some of the challenges of relying on
agricultural residues to produce biofuels
include the development of the
technology and infrastructure for the
harvesting of biomass crops. For
example, it may be possible to reduce
costs by harvesting the corn stover at the
same time that the corn is harvested, in
a single pass operation, as opposed to
two separate harvests. In addition,
because agricultural residues are usually
harvested only one time per year, but
cellulosic ethanol plants must receive
the feedstock throughout the year,
agricultural residues would likely need
to be stored at a secondary storage
facility. The transportation and storage
issues and costs associated with this
secondary storage will add additional
costs to using agricultural residue as
cellulosic plant feedstock. These
significant transportation and storage
issues need to be resolved and the
infrastructure built before agricultural
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24994
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
residues can supply a steady stream of
feedstock to the biorefinery. We discuss
these harvesting and storage challenges
in Section 1.3 of the DRIA.
Our agricultural modeling (FASOM)
suggests that corn stover will make up
the majority of agricultural residues
used by 2022 to meet the EISA
cellulosic biofuel standard
(approximately 83 million dry tons used
to produce 7.8 billion gallons of
cellulosic ethanol).100 Smaller
contributions are expected to come from
other crop residues, including bagasse
(1.2 Bgal ethanol) and sweet sorghum
pulp (0.1 Bgal ethanol).101 At the time
of this proposal, FASOM was able to
model agricultural residues but not
forestry biomass as potential feedstocks.
As a result, we relied on USDA–Forest
Service (FS) for information on the
forestry sector.
The U.S. has vast amounts of forest
resources that could potentially provide
feedstock for the production of
cellulosic biofuel. One of the major
sources of woody biomass could come
from logging residues. The U.S. timber
industry harvests over 235 million dry
tons annually and produces large
volumes of non-merchantable wood and
residues during the process.102 Logging
residues are produced in conventional
harvest operations, forest management
activities, and clearing operations. In
2004, these operations generated
approximately 67 million dry tons/year
of forest residues that were left
uncollected at harvest sites.103 Other
feedstocks include those from other
removal residues, thinnings from
timberland, and primary mill residues.
Harvesting of forestry residue and
other woody material can be conducted
throughout the year. Thus, unlike
agricultural residue which must be
moved to secondary storage, forest
material could be ‘‘stored on the
stump.’’ Avoiding the need for
secondary storage and the transportation
costs for moving the feedstock there
potentially provides a significant cost
advantage for forest residue over
agricultural residue. This could allow
forest residue to be transported from
100 Assuming 94 gal/dry ton ethanol conversion
yield for corn stover in 2022.
101 Bagasse is a byproduct of sugarcane crushing
and not technically an agricultural residue. Sweet
sorghum pulp is also a byproduct of sweet sorghum
processing. We have included it under this heading
for simplification due to sugarcane being an
agricultural feedstock.
102 Smith, W. Brad et. al., ‘‘Forest Resources of
the United States, 2002 General Technical Report
NC–241,’’ St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
Forest Service, North Central Research Station,
2004.
103 USDA–Forest Service. ‘‘Timber Products
Output Mapmaker Version 1.0.’’ 2004.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
further distances away from the
cellulosic plant compared to
agricultural residue at the same
feedstock price. Section 1.1 of the DRIA
further details some of challenges with
using forestry biomass as a feedstock.
EISA does not allow forestry material
from national forests and virgin forests
that could be used to produce biofuels
to count towards the renewable fuels
requirement under EISA. Therefore, we
required forestry residue estimates that
excluded such material. Most recently,
the USDA–FS provided forestry biomass
supply curves for various sources (i.e.,
logging residues, other removal
residues, thinnings from timberland,
etc.). This information suggested that a
total of 76 million dry tons of forest
material could be available for
producing biofuels (excluding forest
biomass material contained in national
forests as required under EISA).
However, much of the forest material is
in small pockets of forest which because
of its regional low density, could not
help to justify the establishment of a
cellulosic ethanol plant. After
conducting our feedstock availability
analysis, we estimated that
approximately 44 million dry tons of
forest material could be used, which
would make up approximately one
fourth, or 3.8 billion gallons, of the 16
billion gallons of cellulosic biofuel
required to meet EISA.
iii Dedicated Energy Crops
While urban waste, agricultural
residues, and forest residues will likely
be the first feedstocks used in the
production of cellulosic biofuel, there
may be limitations to their use due to
land availability and sustainable
removal rates. Energy crops which are
not yet grown commercially but have
the potential for high yields and a series
of environmental benefits could help
provide additional feedstocks in the
future. Dedicated energy crops are plant
species grown specifically as renewable
fuel feedstocks. Various perennial
plants have been researched as potential
dedicated feedstocks. These include
switchgrass, mixed prairie grasses,
hybrid poplar, miscanthus, and willow
trees.
Perennials have several benefits over
many major agricultural crops (the
majority of which are annual plants).
First, energy crops based on perennial
species are grown from roots or
rhizomes that remain in the soil after
harvests. This reduces annual field
preparation and fertilization costs.
Second, perennial crops in temperate
zones may also have significantly higher
total biomass yield per unit of land area
compared to annual species because of
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
higher rates of net photosynthetic CO2
fixation into sugars. Third, lower
fertilizer runoff, lower soil erosion, and
increased habitat diversity are also
attributes that make perennial crops
more attractive than annual crops.104
Finally, energy crops tend to store more
carbon in the soil compared to
agricultural crops such as corn.105
The introduction of dedicated energy
crops could present some potential
risks, however. Dedicated energy crops
for cellulosic biofuels can be non-native
to the region where their production is
proposed.106 As a result, these species
may potentially escape cultivation and
damage surrounding ecosystems.107 In
addition breeding and genetic
engineering to increase environmental
tolerance, increase harvestable biomass
production, and enhance energy
conversion may have unexpected
ecological consequences. To minimize
such risks, non-native species and nonwild-type native species (i.e. native
species after genetic modification)
should be introduced in a responsible
manner and evaluated carefully in order
to weigh the potential risks against the
benefits.
Currently, an energy crop receiving
much attention is switchgrass.
Switchgrass has many qualities that
make it a prime cellulosic feedstock
option. However, switchgrass and other
energy crops are not currently harvested
on a large scale. Switchgrass would
likely be grown on a 10-year crop
rotation basis, with harvest beginning in
year 1 or 2, depending on location.
Because switchgrass and other
dedicated energy crops would not be
harvested annually, there will be some
economic challenges in terms of price
forecasting and contracts. Accordingly,
10- to 15-year arrangements may be
needed to stabilize the market for energy
crops.108 Despite these challenges,
dedicated energy crops are still
projected to be needed in 2022 in order
to meet the aggressive goal of 16 Bgal of
104 DOE., ‘‘Breaking the Biological Barriers to
Cellulosic Ethanol: A Joint Research Agenda,’’ 2006.
105 Tolbert, V.R., et al., ‘‘Biomass Crop
Production: Benefits for Soil Quality and Carbon
Sequestration,’’ March 1999.
106 Lewandowski, I., J. M. O. Scurlock, E.
Lindvall, and M. Chistou, ‘‘The development and
current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as
energy crops in the U.S. and Europe,’’ Biomass
Bioenergy 25:335–361, 2003.
107 The Council for Agricultural Science and
Technology (CAST), ‘‘Biofuel Feedstocks: The Risk
of Future Invasions,’’ CAST Commentary
QTA2007–1. November 2007. Accessed at: https://
pdf.cast-science.org/websiteUploads/
publicationPDFs/Biofuels%20Commentary%20
Web%20version%20with%20color%20
%207927146.pdf
108 Zeman, N., ‘‘Feedstock: Potential Players,’’
Ethanol Producer Magazine, October 2006.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
cellulosic biofuel by 2022 as outlined in
EISA.
Since energy crops are not being
grown today to make fuels, their
production and use depends on the
development of a successful strategy.
One issue is that if they were to be
grown on farmland currently used to
grow crops, the growth of switchgrass
would have an opportunity cost
associated with the loss of agricultural
production. For this reason, energy
crops may instead be grown on more
marginal farm land such as fallow
farmland and farmland which has been
converted over to prairie grass. A study
by Stanford and the Carnegie Institution
found that 58 million hectares (145
million acres) of abandoned farmland
would potentially be available for
growing energy crops here in the U.S.109
However, they also concluded that this
land is marginal in quality and thus the
production per acre would be much
lower compared to prime farm land.
Additionally, a substantial amount of
this abandoned farm land is a part of the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
The CRP is the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s voluntary program that
was established by the Food Security
Act of 1985 to provide farmers with a
dependable source of income, reduce
erosion on unused farmland, and serve
to preserve wildlife and water
quality.110 A large portion of the 36
million acres in the CRP land is
currently planted with switchgrass and
mixed prairie grasses.111 However, the
2008 Farm Bill capped the number of
CRP acres at 32 million acres for 2010–
2012, and we expect that some of the
CRP acres that are not re-enrolled will
go into crop production. While it may
be possible to use some of the CRP acres
to produce biofuels from switchgrass
and prairie grass, the potential loss of
the wildlife habitat and water quality
benefits of CRP land would have to be
weighed against the potential use for
this land for growing energy crops. Also,
a significant portion of the CRP land is
wetlands and likely could not be used
for growing energy crops without
impacting water quality and wildlife.
In addition to estimating the extent
that agricultural residues might
contribute to cellulosic ethanol
109 Campbell, J.E. at al., ‘‘The global potential of
bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands,’’
Environ. Sci. Technology, 2008.
110 Charles, Dan; ‘‘The CRP: Paying Farmers not
to Farm,’’ National Public Radio, May 5, 2008.
111 Farm Service Agency, ‘‘Conservation Reserve
Program, Summary and Enrollment Statistics
FY2006,’’ May 2007.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
production, FASOM also estimated the
contribution that energy crops might
provide.112 FASOM covers all cropland
and pastureland in production in the 48
conterminous United States, however it
does not contain all categories of
grassland and rangeland captured in
USDA’s Major Land Use data sets.
Therefore, it is possible there is land
appropriate for growing dedicated
energy crops that is not currently
modeled in FASOM. Furthermore, we
constrained FASOM to be consistent
with the 2008 Farm Bill and assumed 32
million acres would stay in CRP.113
These constraints on land availability
may have contributed to the model
choosing a substantial amount of
agricultural residues mostly as corn
stover and a relatively small portion of
energy crops as being economically
viable feedstocks. The use of other
models, such as USDA’s Regional
Environment and Agriculture
Programming (REAP) model and
University of Tennessee’s POLYSYS
model, have shown that the use of
energy crops in order to meet EISA may
be more significant than our current
FASOM modeling results.114 As such,
we plan to revisit these land availability
assumptions in order to arrive at a more
consistent basis for the FRM. We request
comment on these assumptions, in
addition to all the cellulosic yield
assumptions that are contained in DRIA
Chapter 1.
iv. Summary of Cellulosic Feedstocks
for 2022
Table V.B.2–4 summarizes our
internal estimate of cellulosic feedstocks
and their corresponding volume
contribution to 16 billion gallons
cellulosic biofuel by 2022 for the
purposes of our impacts assessment.
112 Assuming 16 Bgal cellulosic biofuel total, 2.2
Bgal from Urban Waste, and 3.8 Bgal from Forestry
Biomass; 10 Bgal of cellulosic biofuel for ag
residues and/or energy crops would be needed.
113 Beside the economic incentive of a farmer
payment to keep land in CRP, local environmental
interests may also fight to maintain CRP land for
wildlife preservation. Also, we did not know what
portion of the CRP is wetlands which likely could
not support harvesting equipment.
114 Biomass Research and Development Initiative
(BR&DI), ‘‘Increasing Feedstock Production for
Biofuels: Economic Drivers, Environmental
Implications, and the Role of Research,’’ https://
www.brdisolutions.com December 2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24995
TABLE V.B.2–4—CELLULOSIC FEEDSTOCKS ASSUMED TO MEET EISA IN
2022
Feedstock
Volume
(Bgal)
Agricultural Residues ....................
Corn Stover ...........................
Sugarcane Bagasse ..............
Sweet Sorghum Pulp ............
Forestry Biomass ..........................
Urban Waste .................................
Dedicated
Energy
Crops
(Switchgrass) ............................
9.1
7.8
1.2
0.1
3.8
2.2
Total ...............................
16.0
0.9
v. Cellulosic Plant Siting
Future cellulosic biofuel plant siting
was based on the types of feedstocks
that would be most economical as
shown in Table V.B.2–4, above. As
cellulosic biofuel refineries will likely
be located close to biomass resources in
order to take advantage of lower
transportation costs, we’ve assessed the
potential areas in the U.S. that grow the
various feedstocks chosen. To do this,
we used data on harvested acres by
county for crops that are currently
grown today, such as corn stover and
sugarcane (for bagasse).115 In some
cases, crops are not currently grown, but
have the potential to replace other crops
or pastureland (e.g. dedicated energy
crops). We used the output from our
economic modeling (FASOM) to help us
determine which types of land are likely
to be replaced by newly grown crops.
For forestry biomass, USDA-Forestry
Service provided supply curve data by
county showing the available tons
produced. Urban waste (MSW wood,
paper, and C&D debris) was estimated to
be located near large population centers.
Using feedstock availability data by
county/city, we located potential
cellulosic sites across the U.S. that
could justify the construction of a
cellulosic plant facility. For more details
on this analysis, refer to Section 1.5 of
the DRIA. Table V.B.2–5 shows the
volume of cellulosic facilities by
feedstock by state projected for 2022.
The total volumes given in Table V.B.2–
5 match the total volumes given in
Table V.B.2–4 within a couple hundred
million gallons. As these differences are
relatively small, we believe the
cellulosic facilities sited are a good
estimate of potential locations.
115 NASS
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
database. https://www.nass.usda.gov/.
26MYP2
24996
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.B.2–5—PROJECTED CELLULOSIC ETHANOL VOLUMES BY STATE
[Million gallons in 2022]
Agricultural
residue
volume
Total
volume
State
Energy
crop
volume
Urban
waste
volume
Forestry
volume
Alabama .......................................................................................................
Arkansas ......................................................................................................
California ......................................................................................................
Colorado .......................................................................................................
Florida ..........................................................................................................
Georgia ........................................................................................................
Illinois ...........................................................................................................
Indiana .........................................................................................................
Iowa ..............................................................................................................
Kansas .........................................................................................................
Kentucky ......................................................................................................
Louisiana ......................................................................................................
Maine ...........................................................................................................
Michigan .......................................................................................................
Minnesota .....................................................................................................
Mississippi ....................................................................................................
Missouri ........................................................................................................
Montana .......................................................................................................
Nebraska ......................................................................................................
Nevada .........................................................................................................
New Hampshire ...........................................................................................
New York .....................................................................................................
North Carolina ..............................................................................................
Ohio ..............................................................................................................
Oklahoma .....................................................................................................
Oregon .........................................................................................................
Pennsylvania ................................................................................................
South Carolina .............................................................................................
South Dakota ...............................................................................................
Tennessee ...................................................................................................
Texas ...........................................................................................................
Virginia .........................................................................................................
Washington ..................................................................................................
West Virginia ................................................................................................
Wisconsin .....................................................................................................
532
298
450
28
421
437
1,525
1,109
1,697
310
70
1,001
191
505
876
214
654
92
956
17
171
72
315
598
793
244
42
213
434
97
576
197
175
149
581
0
0
0
0
390
0
1,270
948
1,635
250
70
590
0
283
750
0
504
0
851
0
0
0
0
410
0
0
0
0
350
0
300
0
0
0
432
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
777
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
101
0
140
0
221
28
31
67
198
101
32
29
0
103
2
171
50
22
78
9
31
17
29
72
98
156
0
44
42
57
6
19
131
95
17
0
43
392
298
229
0
0
370
58
60
30
32
0
308
189
51
76
192
72
83
75
0
107
0
217
32
16
200
0
156
78
78
145
102
158
48
106
Total Volume .........................................................................................
16,039
9,034
913
2,139
3,955
It is important to note, however, that
there are many more factors other than
feedstock availability to consider when
eventually siting a plant. We have not
taken into account, for example, water
constraints, availability of permits, and
sufficient personnel for specific
locations. As many of the corn stover
facilities are projected to be located
close to corn starch facilities, there is
the potential for competition for clean
water supplies. Therefore, as more and
more facilities draw on limited
resources, it may become apparent that
various locations are infeasible.
Nevertheless, our plant siting analysis
provides a reasonable approximation for
analysis purposes since it is not
intended to predict precisely where
actual plants will be located. Other
work is currently being done that will
help address some of these issues, but
at the time of this proposal, was not yet
available.116
As we are projecting the location of
cellulosic plants in 2022, it is important
to keep in mind the various
uncertainties in the analysis. For
example, future analyses could
determine better recommendations for
sustainable removal rates. In the case
where lower removal rates are
recommended, agricultural residues
may be more limited and could require
more growth in dedicated energy crops.
Also, the feedstocks could be processed
in the field to a liquid by a pyrolysis
process, facilitating the ability to ship
the preprocessed biomass to plants
located further away from the feedstock
source. Given the information we have
to date, we believe our projected
locations for cellulosic facilities
116 USDA, WGA, Bioenergy Strategic Assessment
project findings upcoming as noted in report WGA.
Transportation Fuels for the Future Biofuels: Part I.
2008.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
represent a reasonable forecast for
estimating the impacts of this rule.
3. Imported Ethanol
a. Historic World Ethanol Production
and Consumption
Although ethanol can be used for
multiple purposes (fuel, industrial, and
beverage), fuel ethanol is by far the
largest market, accounting for about
two-thirds of the total world ethanol
consumed. According to forecasts, fuel
ethanol might even exceed 80% of the
market share by the end of the
decade.117 In 2008, the top three fuel
ethanol producers were the U.S., Brazil,
and the European Union (EU),
producing 9.0, 6.5, and 0.7 billion
gallons, respectively.118 Other countries
that have produced ethanol include
117 F.O. Licht., ‘‘World Ethanol Markets: The
Outlook to 2015’’, 2006, pg. 21.
118 Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), ‘‘2007
World Fuel Ethanol Production,’’
https://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/#E,
March 31, 2009.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
China, Canada, Thailand, Colombia, and
India.
Consumption of fuel ethanol, like
production, is also dominated by the
United States and Brazil. The U.S.
dominates world fuel ethanol
consumption, with 9.6 billion gallons
consumed in 2008 (domestic production
plus imports).119 Brazil is second in
consumption, with about 4.9 billion
gallons projected to be consumed in
2007/2008.120 The EU is also a
significant consumer of ethanol;
however, consumption for the EU
countries was only approximately 0.7
billion gallons in 2007.121
b. Historic/Current Domestic Imports
Ethanol imports have traditionally
played a relatively small role in the U.S.
transportation fuel market due to
historically low crude prices and the
tariff on imported ethanol. While low
crude prices made it difficult for both
domestic and imported ethanol to
compete with gasoline, the addition of
the federal excise tax credit made it
possible for domestic ethanol to be
economically competitive.
Between 2000 and 2003, the total
volume of fuel ethanol imports into the
United States remained relatively stable
at 46–68 million gallons.122 During this
period of time, mostly Brazilian-based
ethanol entered the U.S. primarily
through the Caribbean Basin Initiative
(CBI) countries where it could avoid the
tariff. From 2004–2005, with rising
crude oil prices, most estimates show
U.S. fuel ethanol imports increased
slightly to 135–164 million gallons, or
about 4% of the total U.S. fuel ethanol
consumption (3.5 to 4.0 billion gallons).
The volume of imports rose
dramatically in 2006 to 654–720 million
gallons, or about 13% of the 2006 total
ethanol consumption of 5.4 billion
gallons. The largest volume of imports
in 2006 was from direct Brazilian
imports. This increase in ethanol
imports was mainly due to the
withdrawal of MTBE from the fuel pool
which increased the price of ethanol.
MTBE was used in gasoline to fulfill the
oxygenate requirements set by Congress
in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
EPAct further accelerated the
withdrawal of MTBE because gasoline
marketers were no longer required to
119 Ibid.
120 UNICA, ‘‘Sugarcane Industry in Brazil:
Ethanol Sugar, Bioelectricity’’ Brochure, 2008.
121 European Bioethanol Fuel Association (eBio),
‘‘The EU Market: Production and Consumption,’’
https://www.ebio.org/EUmarket.php, March 31,
2009.
122 Values given report USITC and RFA data,
however, EIA reports slightly lower numbers prior
to 2004.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
use an oxygenate and gasoline marketers
did not receive the MTBE liability
protection that they had petitioned for.
Refiners responded by removing MTBE
and replacing its use with ethanol. As
a result, the demand for ethanol
increased at unprecedented rates as
most refiners replaced MTBE with
ethanol. The dramatic increase in crude
oil costs at this time also made ethanol
more economical by comparison.
By the end of 2006, almost all MTBE
was phased out of gasoline. However,
crude oil prices remained high, allowing
ethanol imports to the U.S. to remain
economical in comparison to the past.
Although not as high as the volume of
ethanol imported in 2006, the U.S.
continued to import ethanol in 2007
(425–450 million gallons). In 2008, the
U.S. imported 519–556 million
gallons.123 As the data show, the
volume of imported ethanol can
fluctuate greatly. By looking at historical
import data it is difficult to project the
potential volume of future imports to
the U.S. Rather, it is necessary to assess
future import potential by analyzing the
major players for foreign biofuels
production and consumption.
c. Projected Domestic Imports
In our assessment of foreign ethanol
production and consumption, we
analyzed the following countries or
group of countries: Brazil, the EU,
Japan, India, and China. Our analyses
indicate that Brazil would likely be the
only nation able to supply any
meaningful amount of ethanol to the
U.S. in the future. Depending on
whether the mandates and goals of the
EU, Japan, India, and China are enacted
or met in the future, it is likely that this
group of countries would consume any
growth in their own production and be
net importers of ethanol, thus
competing with the U.S. for Brazilian
ethanol exports.
Brazil is expected to supply the
majority of future ethanol demand and
to expand their capacity for several
reasons. First, Brazil has over 30 years
experience in developing the research
and technologies for producing
sugarcane ethanol. As a result,
Brazilians have been able to improve
agricultural and conversion processes so
that sugarcane ethanol is currently the
least costly method for producing
biofuels. See Section VIII for further
discussion on the production costs for
sugarcane ethanol.
Second, it is believed that domestic
demand for ethanol in Brazil will begin
to slow as most of the national fleet of
vehicles will have transitioned to flex123 USITC
PO 00000
and EIA import data reported.
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24997
fuel within the next few years.124 Thus,
as domestic demand begins to level off,
some experts see a significant
possibility that exports will become
more relevant in market share terms.
Lastly, Brazil has large land areas for
potential expansion for sugarcane. A
study commissioned by the Brazilian
government produced an analysis in
which Brazil’s arable land was
evaluated for its suitability for cane.125
Setting aside areas protected by
environmental regulations and those
with a slope greater than 12% (those not
suitable for mechanized farming),
tripling ethanol production (a goal set
by the Brazilian government by 2020)
would require only an additional 14
million acres. This additional acreage
would only be about 2% of suitable land
for sugarcane production. Refer to
Section 1.5 of the DRIA for more details.
Although Brazil is in an excellent
position to help meet the growing global
demand for ethanol, several constraints
could limit the expansion of ethanol
production. As Brazil’s government has
adopted plans to meet global demand by
tripling production by 2020,126 this
would mean a total capacity of about
12.7 billion gallons, to be achieved
through a combination of efficiency
gains, greenfield projects, and
infrastructure expansions. Estimates for
the investment required tend to range
from $2 to $4 billion a year.127 In
addition, Brazil will need to improve its
current ethanol infrastructure (i.e.
improvements in power, transportation,
storage, distribution logistics, and
communications). It is estimated that
Brazil will need to invest $1 billion each
year for the next 15 years in
infrastructure to keep pace with
capacity expansion and export
demand.128 Refer to Section 1.5 of the
DRIA for further details on the
improvements needed for Brazil to
increase ethanol production capacity.
Due to uncertainties in the future
demand for ethanol domestically and
internationally as well as uncertainties
in the actual investments made in the
Brazilian ethanol industry, there
appears to be a wide range of Brazilian
production and domestic consumption
estimates. The most current and
complete estimates indicate that total
124 Agra FNP, ‘‘Sugar and Ethanol in Brazil: A
Study of the Brazilian Sugar Cane, Sugar and
Ethanol Industries,’’ 2007.
125 CGEE, ABDI, Unicamp, and NIPE, Scaling Up
the Ethanol Program in Brazil, n.d. as quoted in
Rothkopf, Garten, ‘‘A Blueprint for Green Energy in
the Americas,’’ 2006.
126 Rothkopf, Garten, ‘‘A Blueprint for Green
Energy in the Americas,’’ 2006.
127 Ibid.
128 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24998
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Brazilian ethanol exports will likely
reach 3.8–4.2 billion gallons by
2022.129 130 131 As this volume of ethanol
export is available to countries around
the world, only a portion of this will be
available exclusively to the United
States. If the balance of the EISA
advanced biofuel requirement not met
with cellulosic biofuel and biomassbased diesel were to be met with
imported sugarcane ethanol alone, it
would require 3.2 billion gallons (see
Table V.A.2–1), or approximately 80%
of total Brazilian ethanol export
estimates.
The amount of Brazilian ethanol
available for shipment to the U.S. will
be dependent on the biofuels mandates
and goals set by other foreign countries
(i.e., the EU, Japan, India, and China) in
addition to U.S. policies to promote the
use of renewable fuels. Our estimates
show that there could be a potential
demand for imported ethanol of 4.6–
14.6 billion gallons by 2020/2022 from
these countries. This is due to the fact
that some countries are unable to
produce large volumes of ethanol
because of land constraints or low
production capacity. As such, foreign
countries may have limited domestic
biofuel production capability and may
therefore require importation of biofuels
in order to meet their mandates and
goals. Refer to Section 1.5 of the DRIA
for further details. Therefore, if other
foreign country mandates and goals are
to be met, then Brazil may need to either
increase production much more than its
government projects or export less
ethanol to the U.S. This suggests that
the U.S. may be competing for Brazilian
ethanol exports if supplies are limited
in the future. For our analysis we
assumed that the U.S. would consume
the majority of Brazilian exports (i.e.
80% of export estimates in 2022). This
is aggressive, yet within the bounds of
reason, therefore, we have made this
simplifying assumption for the purposes
of further analysis. We seek comment on
the legitimacy of this assumption given
the ethanol export deals and
commitments that Brazil has made or
may potentially make with other nations
in the future.
129 EPE, ‘‘Plano Nacional de Energia 2030,’’
Presentation from Mauricio Tolmasquim, 2007.
130 UNICA, ‘‘Sugarcane Industry in Brazil:
Ethanol, Sugar, Bioelectricity,’’ 2008.
131 USEPA International Visitors Program Meeting
October 30, 2007, correspondence with Mr.
Rodrigues, Technical Director from UNICA Sao
Paulo Sugarcane Agro-industry Union, stated
approximately 3.7 billion gallons probable by 2017/
2020; Consistent with brochure ‘‘Sugarcane
Industry in Brazil: Ethanol Sugar, Bioelectricity’’
from UNICA (3.25 Bgal export in 2015 and 4.15
Bgal export in 2020).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Generally speaking, Brazilian ethanol
exporters will seek routes to countries
with the lowest transportation costs,
taxes, and tariffs. With respect to the
U.S., the most likely route is through the
Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI).132
Brazilian ethanol entering the U.S.
through the CBI countries is not
currently subject to the 54 cent
imported ethanol tariff and yet receives
the 45 cent ethanol blender tax subsidy.
Due to the economic incentive of
transporting ethanol through the CBI,
we expect the majority of the tariff rate
quota (TRQ) to be met or exceeded,
perhaps 90% or more. The TRQ is set
each year as 7% of the total domestic
ethanol consumed in the prior year. If
we assume that 90% of the TRQ is met
and that total domestic ethanol (corn
and cellulosic ethanol) consumed in the
prior year was 28.5 Bgal, then
approximately 1.8 Bgal of ethanol could
enter the U.S. through CBI countries.
The rest of the Brazilian ethanol exports
not entering the CBI will compete on the
open market with the rest of the world
demanding some portion of direct
Brazilian ethanol. We calculated the
amount of direct Brazilian ethanol
exports in 2022 to the U.S. as the total
imported ethanol required (3.14 billion
gallons) to meet the RFS2 volume
requirements subtracted by imported
ethanol from CBI countries (1.8 billion
gallons), or equal to 1.34 billion gallons.
In the past, companies have also
avoided the ethanol import tariff
through a duty drawback.133 The
drawback is a loophole in the tax rules
which allowed companies to import
ethanol and then receive a rebate on
taxes paid on the ethanol when jet fuel
is sold for export within three years.
The drawback considered ethanol and
jet fuel as similar commodities (finished
petroleum derivatives).134 135 Most
132 Other preferential trade agreements include
the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) which permits tariff-free ethanol imports
from Canada and Mexico and the Andean Trade
Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA)
which allows the countries of Columbia, Ecuador,
Bolivia, and Peru to import ethanol duty-free.
Currently, these countries export or produce
relatively small amounts of ethanol, and thus we
have not assumed that the U.S. will receive any
substantial amounts from these countries in the
future for our analyses.
133 Rapoza, Kenneth, ‘‘UPDATE: Tax Loophole
Helps US Import Ethanol ‘Duty Free’—ED&F,’’ INO
News, Dow Jones Newswires, March 2008. https://
news.ino.com/.
134 Peter Rhode, ‘‘Senate Finance May Take Up
Drawback Loophole As Part of Energy Bill,’’
EnergyWashington Week, April 18, 2007. As sited
in Yacobucci, Brent, ‘‘Ethanol Imports and the
Caribbean Basin Initiative,’’ CRS Report for
Congress, Order Code RS21930, Updated March 18,
2008.
135 Perkins, Jerry, ‘‘BRAZIL: Loophole Hurt U.S.
Ethanol Prices,’’ DesMoinesRegister.com, October
18, 2007.
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
recently, however, Senate
Representative Charles Grassley from
Iowa included a provision into the Farm
Bill of 2008 that ended such refunds.
The provision states that ‘‘any duty paid
under subheading 9901.00.50 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States on imports of ethyl
alcohol or a mixture of ethyl alcohol
may not be refunded if the exported
article upon which a drawback claim is
based does not contain ethyl alcohol or
a mixture of ethyl alcohol.’’ 136 The
provision is effective on or after October
1, 2008 and companies have until
October 1, 2010 to apply for a duty
drawback on prior transactions. With
the loophole closed, it is anticipated
that there may be less ethanol directly
exported from Brazil in the future.137
For our distribution and air quality
analyses, we had to make a
determination as to where the projected
imported ethanol would likely enter the
United States. To do so, we started by
looking at 2006 ethanol import data and
made assumptions as to which countries
would likely contribute to the CBI
ethanol volumes in Table V.B.3–1, and
to what extent.138 We estimated that, on
average, in future years, 30% would
come from Jamaica, 20% each would
come from El Salvador and Costa Rica,
and 15% each would originate from
Trinidad & Tobago and the Virgin
Islands. Even though to date there have
not been a lot of ethanol imports from
the Virgin Islands, we believe that they
could become a comparable importer to
Trinidad & Tobago in the future under
the proposed RFS2 program.
From there, we looked at 2006–2007
import data and estimated the general
destination of Brazilian ethanol and the
five contributing CBI countries’
domestic imports. Based on these
countries’ geographic locations and
import histories, we estimated that in
2022 about 75% of the ethanol would be
imported to the East and Gulf Coasts
and the remainder would go to the West
Coast and Hawaii. To estimate import
locations, we considered coastal port
cities that had received ethanol or
finished gasoline imports in 2006 and
distributed the ethanol accordingly
based on ethanol demand. For more
information on this analysis, refer to
Section 1.5 of the DRIA.
136 Public Law Version 6124 of the Farm Bill.
2008. https://www.usda.gov/documents/
Bill_6124.pdf.
137 Lundell, Drake, ‘‘Brazilian Ethanol Export
Surge to End; U.S. Customs Loophole Closed Oct.
1,’’ Ethanol and Biodiesel News, Issue 45,
November 4, 2008.
138 Source: EIA data on company-level imports
(https://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/
data_publications/company_level_imports/
cli_historical.html).
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
24999
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
4. Biodiesel & Renewable Diesel
Biodiesel and renewable diesel are
replacements for petroleum diesel that
are made from plant or animal fats.
Biodiesel consists of fatty acid methyl
esters (FAME) and can be used in lowconcentration blends in most types of
diesel engines and other combustion
equipment with no modifications. The
term renewable diesel covers fuels made
by hydrotreating plant or animal fats in
processes similar to those used in
refining petroleum. Renewable diesel is
chemically analogous to blendstocks
already used in petroleum diesel, thus
its use can be transparent and its blend
level essentially unlimited. The goal of
both biodiesel and renewable diesel
conversion processes is to change the
properties of a variety of feedstocks to
more closely match those of petroleum
diesel (such as its density, viscosity, and
energy content) for which the engines
and distribution system have been
designed. Both processes can produce
suitable fuels from biogenic sources,
though we believe some feedstocks lend
themselves better to one process or the
other. The definition of biodiesel given
in applicable regulations is sufficiently
broad to be inclusive of both fuels.139
However, the EISA stipulates that
renewable diesel that is co-processed
with petroleum diesel cannot be
counted as ‘‘biomass-based diesel’’ for
purposes of complying with its volume
mandates.140
In general, plant and animal oils are
valuable commodities with many uses
other than transportation fuel. Therefore
we expect the primary limiting factor in
the supply of both biodiesel and
renewable diesel to be feedstock
availability and price. Expansion of
their market volumes is dependent on
being able to compete on price with the
petroleum diesel they are displacing,
which will depend largely on
continuation of current subsidies and
other incentives.
Other biomass-based diesel fuel
plants are either already built or being
considered for construction. Cello
Energy has already started up a 20
million gallon per year catalytic
depolymerization plant that is
producing diesel fuel from cellulose and
other feedstocks, and Cello intends on
building several 50 million gallon per
year plants to be started up in 2010.
Also, numerous other companies are
planning on building biomass to liquids
(BTL) plants that produce diesel fuel
through the syngas and Fischer Tropsch
pathway. However, for our analysis for
this proposed rulemaking, we did not
project that biomass-based diesel fuel
would be produced from these
processes.
a. Historic and Projected Production
i. Biodiesel
As of September 2008, the aggregate
production capacity of biodiesel plants
in the U.S. was estimated at 2.6 billion
gallons per year across approximately
176 facilities.141 Biodiesel plants exist
in nearly all states, with the largest
density of plants in the Midwest and
Southeast where agricultural feedstocks
are most plentiful.
Table V.B.4–1 gives U.S. biodiesel
production capacity, sales, and capacity
utilization in recent years. The figures
suggest that the industry has grown out
of proportion with actual biodiesel
demand. Reasons for this include
various state incentives to build plants,
along with state and federal incentives
to blend biodiesel, which have given
rise to an optimistic industry outlook
over the past several years. Since the
cost of capital is relatively low for the
biodiesel production process (typically
four to six percent of the total per-gallon
cost), this industry developed a more
grassroots profile in comparison to the
ethanol industry, and, with median size
less than 10 million gallons/yr, consists
of a large number of small plants.142
These small plants, with relatively low
operating costs other than feedstock,
have generally been able to survive
producing below their nameplate
capacities.
TABLE V.B.4–1—U.S. BIODIESEL CAPACITY AND PRODUCTION VOLUMES
[Million gallons] 143
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Capacity
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
150
245
395
792
1,809
2,610
Production
21
36
115
241
499
700
Utilization
(percent)
14%
15
29
30
28
27
Some of this industry capacity may
not be dedicated specifically to fuel
production, instead being used to make
oleochemical feedstocks for further
conversion into products such as
surfactants, lubricants, and soaps. These
products do not show up in renewable
fuel sales figures.
In 2004–5, demand for biodiesel grew
rapidly, but the trend of increasing
capacity utilization was quickly
overwhelmed by additional plant starts.
Since then, high commodity prices
followed by reduced demand for
transportation fuel have caused
additional economic strain beyond the
overcapacity situation. According to a
survey conducted by Biodiesel
Magazine staff, more than 1 in 5 plants
were already idle or defunct as of late
2007 (though this likely varies by
139 See Section 1515 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005. More discussion of the definitions of
biodiesel and renewable diesel are given in the
preamble of the Renewable Fuel Standard
rulemaking, Section III.B.2, as published in the
Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 83, p. 23917.
140 For more detailed discussion of the definition
of coprocessing and its implications for compliance
with EISA, see Section III.B.1 of this preamble.
141 Figures here were taken from National
Biodiesel Board fact sheet dated September 29,
2008 (https://biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/
Producers%20Map%20-%20existing.pdf). This
information was current at the time these analyses
were being done. More recent data maintained by
Biodiesel Magazine suggests that by April 2009 the
industry had contracted to approximately 137
plants with aggregate capacity of 2.3 billion gal/yr
(see https://www.biodieselmagazine.com/plantlist.jsp).
142 Capital figures derived from USDA production
cost models. A publication describing USDA
modeling of biodiesel production costs can be
found in Bioresource Technology 97(2006) 671–8.
143 Capacity data taken from National Biodiesel
Board. Production figures taken from F.O. Licht
World Ethanol and Biofuels Report, vol. 6, no. 11,
p S271, except 2008, which is an estimate taken
from National Biodiesel Board (https://
www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/
Production_graph_slide.pdf).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25000
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
region).144 A significant portion of the
2007 and 2008 production was exported
to Europe or Asia where fuel prices and
additional tax subsidies on top of those
provided in the U.S. help cover
transportation overseas and offset high
feedstock costs. The Energy Information
Administration is beginning to collect
data on biodiesel imports and exports,
but reports are not expected until later
in 2009. Therefore precise figures are
not available on what fraction of
production was consumed domestically,
but sources familiar with the industry
suggest exports may have been as much
as 200 million gallons in 2007 and
likely more in 2008.145 We do not
account for any biodiesel exports in our
analysis, though there will be sufficient
plant capacity to produce material
beyond the volumes required in the
EISA should an export market exist.
To perform our distribution and
emission impacts analyses for this
proposal, it was necessary to forecast
the state of the biodiesel industry in the
timeframe of the fully-phased-in RFS. In
general, this consisted of reducing the
over-capacity to be much closer to the
amount demanded, which we assumed
to be equal to the requirement under the
EISA given uncertainties about
feedstock prices and changes in tax
incentives in the long term. This was
accomplished by considering as
screening factors the current production
and sales incentives in each state as
well as each plant’s primary feedstock
type and whether it was BQ–9000
certified.146 Going forward producers
will compete for feedstocks and markets
will consolidate. During this period the
number of operating plants is expected
to shrink, with surviving plants adding
feedstock segregation and pre-treatment
capabilities, giving them flexibility to
process any mix of feedstocks available
in their area. By the end of this period
we project a mix of large regional plants
and some smaller plants taking
advantage of local market niches, with
an overall average capacity utilization
around 80% for dedicated fuel plants.
Table V.B.4–2 summarizes this forecast.
See Section 1.5.4 of the DRIA for more
details.
chemical processes similar to those
employed in petroleum hydrotreating.
These processes remove oxygen and
saturate olefins, converting the
triglycerides and fatty acids into
paraffins. Renewable diesel typically
has higher cetane, lower nitrogen, and
lower aromatics than petroleum diesel
fuel, while also meeting stringent sulfur
standards.
In comparison to biodiesel, renewable
diesel has improved storage, stability,
and shipping properties as a result of
the oxygen and olefins in the feedstock
being removed. This allows renewable
diesel fuel to be shipped in existing
petroleum pipelines used for
transporting fuels, thus avoiding one
TABLE V.B.4–2—SUMMARY OF PRO- significant issue with distribution of
JECTED BIODIESEL INDUSTRY CHAR- biodiesel. For more on fuel distribution,
ACTERIZATION USED IN OUR ANAL- refer to Section V.C.
YSES 147
Considering that this industry is still
in development and that there are no
2008
2022
long-term projections of production
volume, we base our production
Total production capacity
on-line (million gal/yr) ....
2,610
1,050 estimates primarily on the potential
volume of feedstocks for this process, in
Number of operating
plants .............................
176
35 the context of recent industry project
Median plant size (million
announcements involving proven
gal/yr) ............................
5
30 technology. We project that
Total biodiesel production
approximately two-thirds of renewable
(million gal) ....................
700
810 diesel will be produced at existing
Average plant utilization ...
0.27
0.77
petroleum refineries, and half will be
co-processed with petroleum (thus
ii. Renewable Diesel
prohibiting it from counting as
Renewable diesel is a fuel (or
‘‘biomass-based diesel’’ under the
blendstock) produced from animal fats,
EISA). Tables V.B.4–3 and V.B.4–4
vegetable oils, and waste greases using
summarize these volumes.
TABLE V.B.4–3—PROJECTED RENEWABLE DIESEL VOLUMES BY PRODUCTION CATEGORY
[Million gallons in 2022]
Existing
facility
Co-processed with petroleum ..........................................................................................................................................
Not co-processed with petroleum ....................................................................................................................................
188
63
New facility
—
125
b. Feedstock Availability
The primary feedstock for domestic
biodiesel production has historically
been soybean oil, with other plant and
animal fats as well as recycled greases
making up a smaller but significant
portion of the biodiesel pool.
Agricultural commodity modeling we
have done for this proposal (see Section
IX.A) suggests that soybean oil
production will stay relatively flat in the
future, causing supplies to tighten and
prices to rise as demand increases for
biofuels and food uses worldwide. The
output of these models suggests that
domestic soy oil production could
support about 550 million gallons per
year in 2022. This material is most
likely to be processed by biodiesel
plants due to the large available
capacity of these facilities and their
proximity to soybean production.
Compared to other feedstocks, virgin
plant oils are more easily processed into
biofuel via simple transesterification
due to their homogeneity of
composition and lack of contaminants.
Another source of feedstock which
could provide increasing and significant
volume is oil extracted from corn or its
co-products in the dry mill ethanol
production process. Sometimes referred
to as corn fractionation or dry
separation, these processes get
additional products of value from the
dry milling process. This idea is not
144 Derived from figures published in Biodiesel
Magazine, May 2008, p. 39.
145 Staff-level communication with National
Biodiesel Board (April 2008).
146 Information on state incentives was taken from
U.S. Department of Energy Web site, accessed July
30, 2008, at https://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/
biodiesel_laws.html. Information on feedstock and
BQ–9000 status was taken from Biodiesel Board fact
sheet, accessed July 30, 2008, at https://
biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/
Producers%20Map%20-%20existing.pdf.
147 Industry data for 2008 taken from National
Biodiesel Board fact sheets at https://
www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/
producers_marketers/Producers%20MapExisting.pdf and https://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/
fuelfactsheets/Production_graph_slide.pdf (both
accessed April 27, 2009).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25001
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
new, as existing wet mill plants create
several product streams from their corn
input, including oil. Corn fractionation
can be seen as a way to get some of this
added value without incurring the larger
capital costs and potentially lower
ethanol yields associated with wet mill
plants. More detailed discussion of
these processes and how they affect the
co-product stream(s) can be found in
DRIA Section 1.4.1.3.
The corn oil process on which we
have chosen to focus for cost and
volume estimates in this proposal is one
that extracts oil from the thin stillage
after fermentation (the non-ethanol
liquid material that typically becomes
part of distillers’ grains with solubles).
We believe installation of this type of
equipment will be attractive to industry
because it can be added onto an existing
dry mill plant and does not impact
ethanol yields since it does not process
the corn prior to fermentation.
Depending on the configuration, such a
system can extract 20–50% of the oil
from the co-product streams, and
produces a distressed corn oil (nonfood-grade, with some free fatty acids
and/or oxidation by-products) product
stream which can be used as feedstock
by biodiesel facilities. Since it offers
another stream of revenue, we believe it
is reasonable to expect about 40% of
projected total ethanol production to
implement some type of oil extraction
process by 2022, generating
approximately 150 million gallons per
year of corn oil biofuel feedstock.148 We
expect this material to be processed in
biodiesel plants.
Rendered animal fats and reclaimed
cooking oils and greases are another
potentially significant source of
biodiesel feedstock. We estimate that
just two to four percent of biodiesel in
2007 was produced from waste cooking
oils and greases, though this number is
likely higher more recently.149 Tyson
Foods, in joint efforts with
ConocoPhilips and Syntroleum,
announced construction plans in 2008
for renewable diesel production
facilities to begin operating in 2010 and
producing up to 175 million gallons
annually (combined capacity). By the
end of our projection period, as much as
30% of rendered fats and waste grease
could be converted to biofuel while still
supporting production of pet food,
soaps and detergents, and other
oleochemicals.150 We request comment
from members of these industries on
any potential impacts of diversion of
rendered materials to biofuel.
Under this assumption, this material
could make approximately 500 million
gallons of biofuel (though we have not
chosen to allocate all of it in our
analyses here). We estimate this type of
material could be most economically
made into renewable diesel in the long
term, as that process does not have the
same sensitivities to free fatty acids and
other contaminates typically present in
waste greases as the biodiesel process;
however, some amount of this material
may continue to be processed in
biodiesel plants that have acid
pretreatment capabilities where it makes
economic sense. Recent market shifts
and changes in tax subsidies enacted
after analyses were done for this NPRM
have affected the relative economics of
using waste fats and greases for
biodiesel versus renewable diesel. We
will reevaluate our assumptions in the
FRM.
Our analysis of the countries with the
most potential to produce and consume
biodiesel in the future suggests that
supplies of finished biodiesel will be
tight, and prices of its feedstocks will
remain high. Supplies to the U.S. will
be limited by biofuel mandates and
targets of other countries, preferential
shipment of biodiesel to European and
Asian nations, and the speed at which
non-traditional crops such as jatropha
can be developed. Thus, we cannot at
this time project more than negligible
amounts of biodiesel or its feedstocks
being available for import into the U.S.
in the future. For more discussion of
international movement of biodiesel and
its feedstocks, refer to Section 1.1 of the
DRIA.
Table V.B.4–4 shows the projected
potential contribution of these sources
we have chosen to quantify. Other
potential, but less certain, sources for
biodiesel feedstocks include conversion
of some existing croplands used for
soybeans to higher-yielding oilseed
crops. Production of oil from algae
farms is also being investigated by a
number of companies and universities
as a source of biofuel feedstock. For
additional discussion of such sources,
refer to Section 1.1 of the DRIA.
TABLE V.B.4–4—ESTIMATED POTENTIAL BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL VOLUMES IN 2022
[Million gallons of fuel]
Biomass-based diesel
Biodiesel
Virgin plant oils ........................................................................................................................................
Corn fractionation ....................................................................................................................................
Rendered fats and greases .....................................................................................................................
660
150
—
Renewable
diesel
—
—
188
Other
advanced
biofuel
Renewable
diesel
—
—
188
The following discussion pertains to
the distribution of biofuels. A
discussion of the distribution of biofuel
feedstocks and co-products is contained
in Section 1.3.3 and 5.1 of the DRIA
respectively. In conducting our analysis
of biofuel distribution, we took into
account the projected size and location
of biofuel production facilities and
where we project biofuels would be
used.151
The current motor fuel distribution
infrastructure has been optimized to
facilitate the movement of petroleumbased fuels. Consequently, there are
very efficient pipeline-terminal
networks that move large volumes of
petroleum-based fuels from production/
import centers on the Gulf Coast and the
Northeast into the heartland of the
148 See Table 3 in Mueller, Steffen. An analysis
of the projected energy use of future dry mill corn
ethanol plants (2010–2030). October 10, 2007.
Available at https://www.chpcentermw.org/pdfs/
2007CornEthanolEnergySys.pdf.
149 Based on plant capacities reported by the
National Biodiesel Board and data reported by F.O.
Licht.
150 Based on statements from the National
Renderer’s Association.
151 The location of biofuel production facilities
and where biofuels would be used is discussed in
Sections 1.5 and 1.7 of the DRIA respectively and
earlier in this Section V of the preamble.
C. Renewable Fuel Distribution
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25002
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
country. In contrast, the majority of
renewable fuel is expected to be
produced in the heartland of the
country and will need to be shipped to
the coasts, flowing roughly in the
opposite direction of petroleum-based
fuels. This limits the ability of
renewable fuels to utilize the existing
fuel distribution infrastructure.
The modes of distributing renewable
fuels to the end user vary depending on
constraints arising from their physical/
chemical nature and their point of
origination. Some fuels are compatible
with the existing fuel distribution
system, while others currently require
segregation from other fuels. The
location of renewable fuel production
plants is also often dictated by the need
to be close to the source of the
feedstocks used rather than to fuel
demand centers or to take advantage of
the existing petroleum product
distribution system. Hence, the
distribution of renewable fuels raises
unique concerns and in many instances
requires the addition of new
transportation, storage, blending, and
retail equipment.
Significant challenges must be faced
in reconfiguring the distribution system
to accommodate the large volumes of
ethanol and to a lesser extent biodiesel
that we project will be used. While
some uncertainties remain, particularly
with respect to the ability of the market
to support the use of the volume of E85
needed, no technical barriers appear to
be insurmountable. The response of the
transportation system to date to the
unprecedented increase in ethanol use
is encouraging. A U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) report concluded
that logistical concerns have not
hampered the growth in ethanol
production, but that concerns may arise
about the adequacy of transportation
infrastructure as the growth in ethanol
production continues.152
Considerable efforts are underway by
individual companies in the fuel
distribution system, consortiums of
such companies, industry associations,
independent study groups, and interagency governmental organizations to
evaluate what steps may be necessary to
facilitate the necessary upgrades to the
distribution system to support
compliance with the RFS2 standards.153
152 ‘‘Ethanol Transportation Backgrounder,
Expansion of U.S. Corn-based Ethanol from the
Agricultural Transportation Perspective’’, USDA,
September 2007, https://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/
TSB/EthanolTransportationBackgrounder09-1707.pdf.
153 For example: (1) The Biomass Research and
Development Board, a government study group, has
formed a task group on biofuels distribution
infrastructure that is composed of experts on
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
EPA will continue to participate/
monitor these efforts as appropriate to
keep abreast of potential problems in
the biofuel distribution system which
might interfere with the use of the
volumes of biofuels that we project will
be needed to comply with the RFS2
standards. The 2008 Farm Act (Title IX)
requires USDA, DOE, DOT, and EPA to
conduct a biofuels infrastructure study
that will assess infrastructure needs,
analyze alternative development
approaches, and provide
recommendations for specific
infrastructure development actions to be
taken.154
Considerations related to the
distribution of ethanol, biodiesel, and
renewable diesel are discussed in the
following sections as well as the
changes to each segment in the
distribution system that would be
needed to support the volumes of these
biofuels that we project would be used
to satisfy the RFS2 standards.155 We
request comments on the challenges that
will be faced by the fuel distribution
system under the RFS2 standards and
on what steps will be necessary to
facilitate making the necessary
accommodations in a timely fashion.156
To the extent that biofuels other than
ethanol and biodiesel are produced in
response to the RFS2 standards, this
might lessen the need for added
segregation during distribution.
Distillate fuel produced from cellulosic
feedstocks might be treated as
petroleum-based diesel fuel blendstocks
or a finished distillate fuel in the
distribution system. Likewise, biogasoline or bio-butanol could
potentially be treated as petroleumbased gasoline blendstocks.157 This also
might open the possibility for additional
transport by pipeline. However, the
location of plants that produce such
biofuels relative to petroleum pipeline
origination points would continue to be
an issue limiting the usefulness of
biofuel distribution from a broad range of
governmental agencies. (2) The National
Commission on Energy Policy, an independent
advisory group, has formed a task group of fuel
distribution experts to make recommendations on
the steps needed to facilitate the distribution of
biofuels. (3) The Association of Oil Pipelines is
conducting research to evaluate what steps are
necessary to allow the distribution of ethanol
blends by pipeline.
154 https://www.ers.usda.gov/FarmBill/2008/
Titles/TitleIXEnergy.htm#infrastructure.
155 Additional discussion can be found in Section
1.6 of the DRIA.
156 The costs associated with making the
necessary changes to the fuel distribution
infrastructure are discussed in Section VIII.B of
today’s preamble.
157 Biogasoline might also potentially be treated
as finished fuel.
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
existing pipelines for biofuel
distribution.158
1. Overview of Ethanol Distribution
Pipelines are the preferred method of
shipping large volumes of petroleum
products over long distances because of
the relative low cost and reliability.
Ethanol is currently not commonly
shipped by pipeline because it can
cause stress corrosion cracking in
pipeline walls and its affinity for water
and solvency can result in product
contamination concerns.159 Shipping
ethanol in pipelines that carry distillate
fuels as well as gasoline also presents
unique difficulties in coping with the
volumes of a distillate-ethanol mixture
which would typically result.160 It is not
possible to re-process this mixture in
the way that diesel-gasoline mixtures
resulting from pipeline shipment are
currently handled.161 Substantial testing
and analysis is currently underway to
resolve these concerns so that ethanol
may be shipped by pipeline either in a
batch mode or blended with petroleumbased fuel.162 By the time of the
publication of this proposal, results of
these evaluations may be available
regarding what actions are necessary by
multi-product pipelines to overcome
safety and product contamination
concerns associated with shipping 10%
ethanol blends. A short gasoline
pipeline in Florida has begun shipping
158 The projected location of biofuel plants would
not be affected by the choice of whether they are
designed to produce ethanol, distillate fuel, biogasoline, or butanol. Proximity to the feedstock
would continue to be the predominate
consideration. The use of pipelines is being
considered for the shipment of bio-oils
manufactured from cellulosic feedstocks to
refineries where they could be converted into
renewable diesel fuel or renewable gasoline. The
distribution of biofuel feedstocks is discussed in
Section 1.3 of the DRIA.
159 Stress corrosion cracking could lead to a
pipeline leak. The potential impacts on water from
today’s proposal are discussed in Section X of
today’s preamble.
160 Different grades of gasoline and diesel fuel are
typically shipped in multi-product pipelines in
batches that abut each other. To the extent possible,
products are sequenced in a way to allow the
interface mixture between batches to be cut into one
of the adjoining products. In cases where diesel fuel
abuts gasoline in the pipeline, the resulting mixture
must typically be reprocessed into its component
parts by distillation for resale as gasoline and diesel
fuel.
161 Gasoline-ethanol mixtures can be blended into
finished gasoline.
162 Association of Oil Pipelines: https://aopl.org/
go/searchresults/888/?q=ethanol&sd=&ed=.
‘‘Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Transporting Ethanol,
Ethanol Blends, and Other Biofuels’’, Notice of
policy statement and request for comment, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
Department of Transportation, August 10, 2007, 72
FR 45002.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
batches of ethanol.163 Thus, existing
petroleum pipelines in some areas of the
country might play a role in the
shipment of ethanol from the points of
production/importation to petroleum
terminals.
However, the location of ethanol
plants in relation to existing pipeline
origination points will limit the role of
existing pipelines in the shipment of
ethanol.164 Current corn ethanol
production facilities are primarily
located in the Midwest far from the
origination points of most existing
product pipelines and the primary
gasoline demand centers. We project
that a substantial fraction of future
cellulosic ethanol plants will also be
located in the Midwest, although a
greater proportion of cellulosic plants
are expected to be dispersed throughout
the country compared to corn ethanol
plants. The projected locations for this
subset of future cellulosic ethanol plants
more closely coincide with the
origination points of product pipelines
in the Gulf Coast.165 Imported ethanol
could also be brought into ports near the
origination point of product pipelines in
the Gulf Coast and the Northeast.
Nevertheless, the majority of ethanol
will continue to be produced at
locations distant from the origination
points of product pipelines and gasoline
demand centers. The gathering of
ethanol from production facilities
located in the Midwest and shipment by
barge down the Mississippi for
introduction to pipelines in the Gulf
Coast is under consideration. However,
the additional handling steps to bring
the ethanol to the pipeline origin points
in this manner could negate any
potential benefit of shipment by existing
petroleum pipelines compared to direct
shipment by rail.
Evaluations are also currently
underway regarding the feasibility of
constructing a new dedicated ethanol
pipeline from the Midwest to the East
Coast.166 Under such an approach,
ethanol would be gathered from a
number of Midwest production facilities
to provide sufficient volume to justify
pipeline operation. To the extent that
ethanol production would be further
163 Article on shipment of ethanol in Kinder
Morgan pipeline: https://www.ethanolproducer.com/
article.jsp?article_id=5149.
164 Some small petroleum product refineries are
currently limited in their ability to ship products
by pipeline because their relatively low volumes
were not sufficient to justify connection to the
pipeline distribution system.
165 A discussion of the projected location of
cellulosic ethanol plants is contained in Section 1.5
of the DRIA.
166 Magellan and Poet joint assessment of
dedicated ethanol pipeline: https://
www.magellanlp.com/news/2009/20090316_5.htm.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
concentrated in the Midwest due to the
siting of cellulosic ethanol plants, this
would tend to help justify the cost of
installing a dedicated ethanol pipeline.
Substantial issues would need to be
addressed before construction on such a
pipeline could proceed, including those
associated with securing new rights-ofways and establishing sufficient surety
regarding the return on the several
billion dollar investment.
Due to the uncertainties regarding the
degree to which pipelines will be able
to participate in the transportation of
ethanol, we assumed that ethanol will
continue to be transported by rail, barge,
and truck to the terminal where it will
be blended into gasoline. The
distribution by these modes can be
further optimized primarily through the
increased shipment by unit train and
installation of additional hub delivery
terminals that can accept large volumes
of ethanol for further distribution to
satellite terminals. To the extent that
pipelines do eventually play a role in
the distribution of ethanol, this could
tend to reduce distribution costs and
improve reliability in supply.
USDA estimated that in 2005
approximately 60% of ethanol was
transported by rail, 30% was
transported by tank truck, and 10% was
transported by barge.167 Denatured
ethanol is shipped from production/
import facilities to petroleum terminals
where it is blended with gasoline. When
practicable, shipment by unit train is
the preferred method of rail shipment
rather than shipping on a manifest rail
car basis. The use of unit trains,
sometimes referred to as a virtual
pipeline, substantially reduces shipping
costs and improves reliability. Unit
trains are composed entirely of 70–100
ethanol tank cars, and are dedicated to
shuttle back and forth to large hub
terminals.168 Manifest rail car shipment
refers to the shipment of ethanol in rail
tank cars that are incorporated into
trains which are composed of a variety
of other commodities. Unit trains can be
assembled at a single ethanol
production plant or if a group of plants
is not large enough to support such
service individually, can be formed at a
central facility which gathers ethanol
from a number of producers. The Manly
Terminal in Iowa, which is the first
such ethanol gathering facility, accepts
ethanol from a number of nearby
167 ‘‘Ethanol Transportation Backgrounder,
Expansion of U.S. Corn-based Ethanol from the
Agricultural Transportation Perspective’’, USDA,
September 2007, https://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/
TSB/EthanolTransportationBackgrounder09-1707.pdf.
168 Hub ethanol receipt terminals can be located
at large petroleum terminals or at rail terminals.
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25003
ethanol production facilities for
shipment by unit train. Regional (Class
2) railroad companies are an important
link bringing ethanol to gathering
facilities for assembly into unit trains
for long-distance shipment by larger
(Class 1) railroads. Ethanol is sometimes
carried by multiple modes before finally
arriving at the terminal where it is
blended into gasoline. For example,
some ethanol is currently shipped from
the Midwest to a hub terminal on the
East Coast by unit train where a portion
is further shipped to satellite terminals
by barge or tank truck.
Ethanol is blended into gasoline at
either 10 or 85 volume percent at
terminals (to produce E10 and E85) for
delivery to retail and fleet facilities by
tank truck. Special retail delivery
hardware is needed for E85 which can
be used in flexible fuel vehicles only.169
The large volume of ethanol that we
project will be used by 2022 means that
more ethanol will need to be used than
can be accommodated by blending to
the current legal limit of 10% in all of
the gasoline used in the country. This
will require the installation of a
substantial number of new E85 refueling
facilities and the addition of a
substantial number of flex-fuel vehicles
to the fleet. Concerns have been raised
regarding the inducements that would
be necessary for retailers to install the
needed E85 facilities and for consumers
to purchase E85.170 As discussed in
Section V.D. of today’s preamble, this is
prompting many to evaluate whether a
mid-level ethanol blend (e.g. E15) might
be allowed for use in existing (non-flexfuel) vehicles. Current refueling
equipment (not designed for E85) is
only certified for ethanol blends up to
10 volume percent (E10).171 Hence, if a
mid-level ethanol blend were to be
introduced, fuel retail facilities would
need to ensure that the equipment used
to store/dispense mid-level ethanol
169 The cost of retail dispensing hardware which
is tolerant to ethanol blends greater than E10 is
discussed in Section VIII.B. of today’s preamble and
discussed in more detail in Section 4.2 of the DRIA.
170 See Section V.D of today’s preamble for a
discussion of issues related to use of the projected
volumes of ethanol that would be produced to
comply with the RFS2 standards.
171 Underwriters Laboratory certifies retail
refueling equipment. UL stated that they have data
which indicates that the use of fuel dispensers
certified for up to E10 blends to dispense blends up
to a maximum ethanol content of 15 volume
percent would not result in critical safety concerns
(https://www.ul.com/newsroom/newsrel/
nr021909.html). Based on this, UL stated that it
would support authorities having jurisdiction who
decide to permit legacy equipment originally
certified for up to E10 blends to be used to dispense
up to 15 volume percent ethanol. The UL
announcement did address the compatibility of
underground storage tank systems with greater than
E10 blends.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25004
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
blends is compatible with the mid-level
ethanol blend.172 Underwriters
Laboratories has one certification
standard for fuel retail equipment that
covers ethanol blends up to 10%, and a
separate certification standard for
equipment that dispenses ethanol
blends above 10% (including E85).173
Should other biofuels be introduced
that do not require differentiation from
diesel fuel or gasoline in place of some
of the volume of ethanol that we project
would be used under the RFS2
standards, this may tend to reduce the
need for changes at fuel retail facilities
and the need for flex-fuel vehicles.
Concerns about the difficulties/costs
associated with expanding the ethanol
distribution infrastructure and adding a
sufficient number of vehicles capable of
using 10% ethanol to fleet is generating
increased industry interest in renewable
diesel and gasoline which would be
more transparent to the existing fuel
distribution system.
2. Overview of Biodiesel Distribution
Biodiesel is currently transported
from production plants by truck,
manifest rail car, and by barge to
petroleum terminals where it is blended
with petroleum-based diesel fuel.
Unblended biodiesel must be
transported and stored in insulated/
heated containers in colder climes to
prevent gelling. Insulated/heated
containers are not needed for biodiesel
that has been blended with petroleumbased diesel fuel (i.e., B2, B5). Biodiesel
plants are not as dependent on being
located close to feedstock sources as are
corn and cellulosic ethanol plants.174
Biodiesel feedstocks are typically
preprocessed to oil prior to shipment to
biodiesel production facilities. This can
substantially reduce the volume of
172 Although it has yet to be established, most
underground steel storage tanks themselves would
likely be compatible with ethanol blends greater
than 10 percent. The compatibility of piping,
submersed pumps, gaskets, and seals associated
with these tanks with ethanol blends greater than
10% would also need to be evaluated. Some
fiberglass tanks are incompatible and would need
to be replaced. It is difficult and sometimes
impossible to verify the suitability of underground
storage tanks and tank-related equipment for E85
use. The State of California prohibits the conversion
of underground storage tanks to E85 use. Significant
changes to dispensers, including hoses, nozzles,
and other miscellaneous fittings would be needed
to ensure they are compatible with ethanol blends
greater than 10 percent.
173 Joint UL/DOE Legacy System Certification
Clarification https://www.ul.com/global/eng/
documents/offerings/industries/chemicals/
flammableandcombustiblefluids/development/
UL_DOE_LegacySystemCertification.pdf.
174 Biodiesel feedstocks are typically
preprocessed to oil prior to shipment to biodiesel
production facilities. This can substantially reduce
the volume of feedstocks shipped to biodiesel
plants relative to ethanol plants.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
feedstocks shipped to biodiesel plants
relative to ethanol plants, and has
allowed some biodiesel plants to be
located adjacent to petroleum terminals.
Biodiesel production facilities are more
geographically dispersed than ethanol
facilities and the production volumes
also tend to be smaller than ethanol
facilities.175 These characteristics in
combination with the smaller volumes
of biodiesel that we project will be used
under the RFS2 standards compared to
ethanol allow relatively more biodiesel
to be used within trucking distance of
the production facility. However, we
project that there will continue to be a
strong and growing demand for
biodiesel as a blending component in
heating oil which could not be satisfied
alone by local sources of production. It
is likely that state biodiesel mandates
will also need to be satisfied in part by
out-of-state production. Fleets are also
likely to continue to be a substantial
biodiesel user, and these will not always
be located close to biodiesel producers.
Thus, we are assuming that a substantial
fraction of biodiesel will continue to be
shipped long distances to market.
Downstream of the petroleum terminal,
B2 and B5 can be distributed in the
same manner as petroleum diesel.
Concerns remain regarding the
shipment of biodiesel by pipeline
(either by batch mode or in blends with
diesel fuel) related to the contamination
of other products (particularly jet fuel),
the solvency of biodiesel, and
compatibility with pipeline gaskets and
seals.176 The smaller anticipated
volumes of biodiesel and the more
dispersed and smaller production
facilities relative to ethanol also make
biodiesel a less attractive candidate for
shipment by pipeline. Due to the
uncertainties regarding the suitability of
transporting biodiesel by pipeline, we
assumed that biodiesel which needs to
be transported over long distance will
be carried by manifest rail car and to a
lesser extent barge. Due to the relatively
small plant size and dispersion of
biodiesel plants, we anticipate the
volumes of biodiesel that can be
gathered at a single location will
continue to be insufficient to justify
shipment by unit train. To the extent
that pipelines do eventually play a role
in the distribution of biodiesel, this
could tend to reduce distribution costs
and improve reliability in supply.
175 Section 1.2 contains a discussion of our
projections regarding the location of biodiesel
production facilities.
176 Industry evaluations are currently underway
to resolve these concerns.
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
3. Overview of Renewable Diesel
Distribution
We believe that renewable diesel fuel
will be confirmed to be sufficiently
similar to petroleum-based diesel fuel
blendstocks with respect to distribution
system compatibility. Hence, renewable
diesel fuel could be treated in the same
manner as any petroleum-based diesel
fuel blendstock with respect to transport
in the existing petroleum distribution
system. Approximately two-thirds of
renewable diesel fuel is projected to be
produced at petroleum refineries.177
The transport of such renewable diesel
fuel would not differ from petroleumbased diesel fuel since it would be
blended to produce a finished diesel
fuel before leaving the refinery. The
other one-third of renewable diesel fuel
is projected to be produced at standalone facilities located more closely to
sources of feedstocks. We anticipate that
such renewable diesel fuel would be
shipped by tank truck to nearby
petroleum terminals where it would be
blended directly into diesel fuel storage
tanks. Because of its high cetane and
value, we anticipate that all renewable
diesel fuel would likely be blended with
petroleum based diesel fuel prior to use.
Downstream of the terminal, renewable/
petroleum diesel fuel mixtures would be
distributed the same as petroleum
diesel.
4. Changes in Freight Tonnage
Movements
To evaluate the magnitude of the
challenge to the distribution system up
to the point of receipt at the terminal,
we compared the growth in freight
tonnage for all commodities from the
AEO 2007 reference case to the growth
in freight tonnage under the RFS2
standards in which ethanol increases, as
does the feedstock (corn) and coproducts (distillers grains). We did not
include a consideration of the
distribution of cellulosic ethanol
feedstocks on freight tonnage for the
proposal. We intend to evaluate this in
the final rule. For purposes of this
analysis, we focused on only the ethanol
portion of the renewable fuel goals for
ease of calculation and because ethanol
represents the vast majority of the total
volume of biofuel. The resulting
calculations serve as an indicator of
changes in freight tonnages associated
with increases in renewable fuels. We
calculated the freight tonnage for the
total of all modes of transport as well as
the individual cases of rail, truck, and
barge.
177 Either co-processed with crude oil or
processed in separate units at the refinery for
blending with other refinery diesel blendstocks.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
In calculating the reference case
percent growth rate in total freight
tonnage, we used data compiled by the
Federal Highway Administration to
calculate the tonnages associated with
these commodities.178 We then
calculated the growth in freight tonnage
for 2022 under the RFS2 standards and
compared the difference with the
reference case. The comparisons
indicate that across all transport modes,
the incremental increase in freight
tonnage of ethanol and accompanying
feedstocks and co-products associated
with the increased ethanol volume
under the RFS2 standards are small. The
percent increase for total freight across
all modes (including pipeline) by 2022
is 0.9 percent. Because pipelines
currently do not carry ethanol, and the
increase in the volume of ethanol used
in motor vehicles displaces a
corresponding volume of gasoline,
pipelines showed a decrease in the total
tonnage carried due to a decrease in the
volume of gasoline carried by pipeline.
The displaced gasoline also resulted in
some decrease in tonnage in other
modes that slightly reduced the overall
increases in tonnage reflected in the
totals.
To further evaluate the magnitude of
the increase in freight tonnage under the
RFS2 standards, we calculated the
portion of the total freight tonnage for
rail, barge, and truck modes made up of
ethanol-related freight for both the 2022
and control cases. The freight associated
with ethanol constitutes only a very
small portion of the total freight tonnage
for all commodities. Specifically,
ethanol freight represents approximately
0.5% and 2.5% of total freight for the
reference case and RFS2 standards case,
respectively. The results of this analysis
suggest that it should be feasible for the
distribution infrastructure upstream of
the terminal to accommodate the
additional freight associated with this
RFS2 standards especially given the
lead time available. Specific issues
related to transportation by rail, barge,
and tank truck are discussed in the
following sections. We intend to
incorporate the results of a recently
completed study by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) on the potential
constraints in ethanol distribution into
the analysis for the final rule.179 The
ORNL study concluded that the increase
in ethanol transport would have
minimal impacts on the overall
transportation system. However, the
178 https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/
freight_analysis/faf/index.htm.
179 ‘‘Analysis of Fuel Ethanol Transportation
Activity and Potential Distribution Constraints’’,
prepared for EPA by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, March 2009.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
ORNL study did identify localized areas
where significant upgrades to the rail
distribution system would likely be
needed.
5. Necessary Rail System
Accommodations
Many improvements to the freight rail
system will be required in the next 15
years to keep pace with the large
increase in the overall freight demand.
Improvements to the freight railroad
infrastructure will be driven largely by
competition in the burgeoning intermodel transport sector. As inter-model
freight represents the vast majority of all
freight hauled by these railroads, the
biofuels transport sector can be
expected to benefit from the
infrastructure build-out resulting from
inter-model transport sector
competition. As such, most of the
needed upgrades to the rail freight
system are not specific to the transport
of renewable fuels and would be needed
irrespective of today’s proposed rule.
We also expect that the excess rail
capacity associated with inter-model
build-out to be adequately large to
absorb potential increases in truck
transport associated with fuel cost
increases. The modifications required to
satisfy the increase in demand include
upgrading tracks to allow the use of
heavier trains at faster speeds, the
modernization of train braking systems
to allow for increased traffic on rail
lines, the installation of rail sidings to
facilitate train staging and passage
through bottlenecks.
Some industry groups 180 and
governmental agencies in discussions
with EPA, and in testimony provided
for the Surface Transportation Board
(STB) expressed concerns about the
ability of the rail system to keep pace
with the large increase in demand even
under the reference case (27% by 2022).
For example, the electric power
industry has had difficulty keeping
sufficient stores of coal in inventory at
power plants due to rail transport
difficulties and has expressed concerns
that this situation will be exacerbated if
rail congestion worsens. One of the
more sensitive bottleneck areas with
respect to the movement of ethanol from
the Midwest to the East coast is Chicago.
180 Industry
groups include the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers, American Chemistry
Council, and the National Industrial Transportation
League; governmental agencies include the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), and the American
Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). Testimony for the STB public
hearings includes Ex Parte No. 671, Rail Capacity
and Infrastructure Requirements and Ex Parte No.
672, Rail Transportation and Resources Critical to
the Nation’s Energy Supply.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25005
The City of Chicago commissioned its
own analysis of rail capacity and
congestion, which found that the lack of
rail capacity is ‘‘no longer limited to a
few choke points, hubs, and heavily
utilized corridors.’’ Instead, the report
finds, the lack of rail capacity is
‘‘nationwide, affecting almost all the
nation’s critically important trade
gateways, rail hubs, and intercity freight
corridors.’’
Significant private and public
resources are focused on making the
modifications to the rail system to cope
with the increase in demand. Rail
carriers report that they typically invest
$16 to $18 billion a year in
infrastructure improvements.181
Substantial government loans are also
available to small rail companies to help
make needed improvements by way of
the Railroad Rehabilitation and
Improvement Finance (RRIF) Program,
administered by Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), as well as
Section 45G Railroad Track
Maintenance Credits, offered by the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The
American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
estimates that between $175 billion and
$195 billion must be invested over a 20year period to upgrade the rail system
to handle the anticipated growth in
freight demand, according to the
report’s base-case scenario.182 The
report suggests that railroads should be
able to provide up to $142 billion from
revenue and borrowing, but that the
remainder would have to come from
other sources including, but not limited,
to loans, tax credits, sale of assets, and
other forms of public-sector
participation. Given the reported
historical investment in rail
infrastructure, it may be reasonable to
assume that rail carriers would be able
to manage the $7.1 billion in annual
investment from rail carriers that
AASHTO projects would be needed to
keep pace with the projected increase in
freight demand.
However, the Government Accounting
Office (GAO) found that it is not
possible to independently confirm
statements made by Class I rail carriers
regarding future investment plans.183 In
181 ‘‘The Importance of Adequate Rail
Investment’’, Association of American Railroads,
https://www.aar.org/GetFile.asp?File_ID=150.
182 AASHTO Freight-Rail Bottom-Line Report,
2003.
183 The railroads interviewed by GAO were
generally unwilling to discuss their future
investment plans with the GAO. Therefore, GAO
was unable to comment on how Class I freight rail
companies are likely to choose among their
competing investment priorities for the future,
including those of the rail infrastructure, GAO
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
Continued
26MYP2
25006
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
addition, questions persist regarding
allocation of these investments, with the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,
American Chemistry Council, National
Industrial Transportation League, and
others expressing concern that their
infrastructural needs may be neglected
by the Class I railroads in favor of more
lucrative intermodal traffic. Moreover,
the GAO has raised questions regarding
the competitive nature and extent of
Class I freight rail transport. This raises
some concern that providing sufficient
resources to facilitate the transport of
increasing volumes of ethanol and
biodiesel might not be a first priority for
rail carriers. In response to GAO
concerns, the Surface Transportation
Board (STB) agreed to undertake a
rigorous analysis of competition in the
freight railroad industry.184
Given the broad importance to the
U.S. economy of meeting the anticipated
increase in freight rail demand, and the
substantial resources that seem likely to
be focused on this cause, we believe that
overall freight rail capacity would not
be a limiting factor to the successful
implementation of the biofuel
requirements to meet the RFS2
standards. Evidence from the recent
ramp up of ethanol use has also shown
that rail carriers are enthusiastically
pursuing the shipment of ethanol. Class
2 railroads have been particularly active
in gathering sufficient numbers of
ethanol cars to allow Class 1 railroads
to ship ethanol by unit train. Likewise,
we believe that that Class 2 railroads
and, to a lesser extent, the trucking
industry, will play a key role in the
transportation of DDGs and other
byproducts from regions with
concentrated ethanol production
facilities to those with significant
livestock operations. Based on this
recent experience, we believe that
ethanol will be able to compete
successfully with other commodities in
securing its share of freight rail service.
While many changes to the overall
freight rail system are expected to occur
irrespective of today’s proposed rule, a
testimony Before the Subcommittee on Surface
Transportation and Merchant Marine, Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, U.S. Senate, Freight Railroads
Preliminary Observations on Rates, Competition,
and Capacity Issues, Statement of JayEtta Z. Hecker,
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, GAO, GAO–
06–898T (Washington, DC: June, 21, 2006).
184 GAO, Freight Railroads: Industry Health Has
Improved, but Concerns about Competition and
Capacity Should Be Addressed, GAO–07–94
(Washington, DC: Oct. 6, 2006); GAO, Freight
Railroads: Updated Information on Rates and Other
Industry Trends, GAO–07–291R Freight Railroads
(Washington, DC: Aug. 15, 2007). STB’s final report,
entitled Report to the U.S. STB on Competition and
Related Issues in the U.S. Freight Railroad Industry,
is expected to be completed November, 1, 2008.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
number of ethanol-specific
modifications will be needed. For
instance, a number of additional rail
terminals are likely to be configured for
receipt of unit trains of ethanol for
further distribution by tank truck or
other means to petroleum terminals.
The placement of ethanol unit train
receipt facilities at rail terminals would
be particularly useful in situations
where petroleum terminals might find it
difficult or impossible to install their
own ethanol rail receipt capability. We
anticipate that ethanol storage will
typically be installed at rail terminal
ethanol receipt hubs over the long run.
We do not anticipate that the rail
industry will experience substantial
difficulty in installing such ethanolspecific facilities once a clear long term
demand for ethanol in the target markets
has been established to justify the
investment. However, the need for longterm demand to be established prior to
the construction of such facilities will
likely mean that the needed facilities
will, at best, come on-line on a just-intime basis. This may lead to use of less
efficient means of ethanol transport in
the short term. The ability to rely on
transloading while ethanol storage
facilities at rail terminal ethanol receipt
hub facilities are constructed will speed
the optimization of the distribution of
ethanol by rail by allowing the
construction of ethanol storage at rail
terminal hubs to be delayed.
We estimate that a total of 44,000 rail
cars would be needed to distribute the
volumes of ethanol and biodiesel that
we project would be used in 2022 to
satisfy the RFS2 requirements.185 Our
analysis of ethanol and biodiesel rail car
production capacity indicates that
access to these cars should not represent
a serious impediment to meeting the
requirements under the RFS2 standards.
Ethanol tank car production has
increased approximately 30% per year
since 2003, with over 21,000 tank cars
expected to be produced in 2007. The
volume of these newly-produced tank
cars, coupled with that of an existing
tank car fleet already dedicated to
ethanol and biodiesel transport, suggests
that an adequate number of these tank
cars will be in place to transport the
proposed renewable fuel volume
requirements in the time available.
We request comment on the extent to
which the rail system will be able to
deliver the additional volumes of
ethanol and biodiesel that we anticipate
would be used in response to the RFS2
standards in a timely and reliable
185 A discussion of how we arrived at the
estimated number of tank cars needed is contained
in Section 4.2 of the DRIA.
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
fashion. A recently completed report by
ORNL identifies specific segments of the
rail system which would likely see the
most significant increase in traffic due
to increased shipments of ethanol under
the EISA.186
6. Necessary Marine System
Accommodations
The American Waterway’s
Association has expressed concerns
about the need to upgrade the inland
waterway system in order to keep pace
with the anticipated increase in overall
freight demand. The majority of these
concerns have been focused on the need
to upgrade the river lock system on the
Mississippi River to accommodate
longer barge tows and on dredging
inland waterways to allow for
movement of fully loaded vessels. We
do not anticipate that a substantial
fraction of renewable/alternative fuels
will be transported via these arteries.
Thus, we do not believe that the ability
to ship ethanol/biodiesel by inland
marine will represent a serious barrier
to the implementation of
implementation of the requirements
under RFS2 standards. Substantial
quantities of the corn ethanol coproduct dried distiller grains (DDG) is
expected to be exported from the
Midwest via the Mississippi River as the
U.S. demand for DDG becomes
saturated. We anticipate that the volume
of exported DDG would take the place
of corn that would be shifted from
export to domestic use in the
production of ethanol. Thus, we do not
expect the increase in DDG exports to
result in a substantial increase in river
freight traffic. We request comment on
the extent to which marine transport
may be used in the transport of
cellulosic ethanol feedstocks.
7. Necessary Accommodations to the
Road Transportation System
Concerns have been raised regarding
the ability of the trucking industry to
attract a sufficient number of drivers to
handle the anticipated increase in truck
freight.187 The American Trucking
Association projected the need for
additional 54,000 drivers each year. We
estimate that the growth in the use of
biofuels through 2022 due to the RFS2
standards would result in the need for
a total of approximately 3,000
186 ‘‘Analysis of Fuel Ethanol Transportation
Activity and Potential Distribution Constraints’’,
prepared for EPA by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, March 2009.
187 ‘‘The U.S. Truck Driver Shortage: Analysis and
Forecasts’’, Prepared by Global Insights for the
American Trucking Association, May 2005. https://
www.truckline.com/NR/rdonlyres/E2E789CF–F308–
463F–8831–0F7E283A0218/0/
ATADriverShortageStudy05.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
additional trucks drivers. Given the
relatively small number of new truck
drivers needed to transport the volumes
of biofuels needed to comply with the
RFS2 standards through 2022 compared
to the total expected increase in demand
for drivers over the same time period
(>750,000), we do not expect that the
implementation of the RFS2 standards
would substantially impact the potential
for a shortage of truck drivers. However,
specially certified drivers are required
to transport ethanol and biodiesel
because these fuels are classified as
hazardous liquids. Thus, there may be a
heightened level of concern about the
ability to secure a sufficient number of
such specially certified tank truck
drivers to transport ethanol and
biodiesel. The trucking industry is
involved in efforts to streamline the
certification of drivers for hazardous
liquids transport and more generally to
attract and retrain a sufficient number of
new truck drivers.
Truck transport of biofuel feedstocks
to production plants and finished
biofuels and co-products from these
plants is naturally concentrated on
routes to and from these production
plants. This may raise concerns about
the potential impact on road congestion
and road maintenance in areas in the
proximity of these facilities. We do not
expect that such potential concerns
would represent a barrier to the
implementation of the RFS2 standards.
The potential impact on local road
infrastructure and the ability of the road
network to be upgraded to handle the
increased traffic load is an inherent part
in the placement of new biofuel
production facilities. Consequently, we
expect that any issues or concerns
would be dealt with at the local level.
We request comment on the extent to
which satisfying the requirements under
the RFS2 standards might exacerbate the
anticipated shortage of truck drivers or
lead to localized road congestion and
condition problems. Comment is further
requested on the means to mitigate such
potential difficulties to the extent they
might exist.
8. Necessary Terminal Accommodations
Terminals will need to install
additional storage capacity to
accommodate the volume of ethanol/
biodiesel that we anticipate will be used
in response to the RFS2 standards.
Questions have been raised about the
ability of some terminals to install the
needed storage capacity due to space
constraints and difficulties in securing
permits.188 Overall demand for fuel
188 The Independent Fuel Terminal Operators
Association represents terminals in the Northeast.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
used in spark ignition motor vehicles is
expected to remain relatively constant
through 2022. Thus, much of the
demand for new ethanol and biodiesel
storage could be accommodated by
modifying storage tanks previously used
for the gasoline and petroleum-based
diesel fuels that would displaced by
ethanol and biodiesel. The areas served
by existing terminals also often overlap.
In such cases, one terminal might be
space constrained while another serving
the same area may be able to install the
additional capacity to meet the increase
in demand. Terminals with limited
ethanol storage (or no access to rail/
barge ethanol shipments) could receive
truck shipments of ethanol from
terminals with more substantial ethanol
storage (and rail/barge receipt) capacity.
The trend towards locating ethanol
receipt and storage capability at rail
terminals located near petroleum
terminals is likely to be an important
factor in reducing the need for large
volume ethanol receipt and storage
facilities at petroleum terminals. In
cases where it is impossible for existing
terminals to expand their storage
capacity due to a lack of adjacent
available land or difficulties in securing
the necessary permits, new satellite
storage or new separate terminal
facilities may be needed for additional
ethanol and biodiesel storage. However,
we believe that there would be few such
situations.
Another question is whether the
storage tank construction industry
would be able to keep pace with the
increased demand for new tanks that
would result from today’s proposal. The
storage tank construction industry
recently experienced a sharp increase in
demand after years of relatively slack
demand for new tankage. Much of this
increase in demand was due to the
unprecedented increase in the use of
ethanol. Storage tank construction
companies have been increasing their
capabilities which had been pared back
during lean times.189 Given the
projected gradual increase in the need
for biofuel storage tanks, it seems
reasonable to conclude that the storage
tank construction industry would be
able to keep pace with the projected
demand.
The RFG and anti-dumping
regulations currently require certified
gasoline to be blended with denatured
ethanol to produce E85. The gasoline
must meet all applicable RFG and antidumping standards for the time and
189 It currently may take 4 to 8 months to begin
construction of a storage tank after a contract is
signed due to tightness in construction assets and
steel supply.
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25007
place where it is sold. We understand
that some parties may be blending
butanes and or pentanes into gasoline
before it is blended with denatured
ethanol in order to meet ASTM
minimum volatility specifications for
E85 that were set to ensure proper
drivability, particularly in the winter.190
If terminal operators add blendstocks to
finished gasoline for use in
manufacturing E85, the terminal
operator would need to register as a
refiner with EPA and meet all
applicable standards for refiners.
Recent testing has shown that much
of in-use E85 does not meet minimum
ASTM volatility specifications.191
However, it is unclear if noncompliance
with these specifications has resulted in
a commensurate adverse impact on
drivability. This has prompted a reevaluation of the fuel volatility
requirements for in-use E85 vehicles
and whether the ASTM E85 volatility
specifications might be relaxed.192 For
the purpose of our analysis, we are
assuming that certified gasoline
currently on hand at terminals can be
used to make up the non-ethanol
portion of E85.193
We request comment on the extent
that this will be the case in light of the
projected outcome of the ASTM process.
Comment is requested on the fraction of
terminals that currently have butane/
pentane blending capability and the
logistical/cost implications of adding
such capability including sourcing and
transportation issues associated with
supplying these blending components to
the terminal for the purpose of blending
E85 to ASTM specifications. We also
seek comment on whether we should
include a separate section in the RFS2
regulations to specify the requirements
for producing E85, and whether we
should provide E85 manufacturers who
use blendstocks to produce E85 with
any flexibilities in complying with the
refiner requirements.194
190 ‘‘Specification for Fuel Ethanol (Ed75–Ed85)
for Spark-Ignition Engines’’, American Society for
Testing and Materials standard ASTM D5798.
191 Coordinating Research Council (CRC) report
No. E–79–2, Summary of the Study of E85 Fuel in
the USA Winter 2006–2007, May 2007. https://
www.crcao.org/reports/recentstudies2007/E–79–2/
E–79–
2%20E85%20Summary%20Report%202007.pdf.
192 CRC Cold Start and Warm-up E85 Driveability
Program, https://www.crcao.com/about/
Annual%20Report/2007%20Annual%20Report/
Perform/CM–133.htm.
193 This is different from the approach taken in
the refinery modeling which assumed that special
blendstocks would be used to blend E85. A
discussion of the refinery modeling can be found
in Section 4 of the DRIA.
194 Certain accommodations for butane blenders
into gasoline were provided in a direct final rule
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
Continued
26MYP2
25008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
A significant challenge facing
terminals and one that is currently
limiting the volume of ethanol that can
be used is the ability to receive ethanol
by rail. Only a small fraction of
petroleum terminals currently have rail
receipt capability and a number likely
have space constraints or are located too
far from the rail system which prevents
the installation of such capability. The
trend to locate ethanol unit train
destinations at rail terminals will help
to alleviate these concerns. Petroleum
terminals within trucking distance of
each other are also likely to cooperate so
that only one would need to install rail
receipt capability. Given the timeframe
during which the projected volumes of
ethanol ramp up, we believe that these
means can be utilized to ensure that a
sufficient number of terminals have
access to ethanol shipped by rail
although some will need to rely on
secondary shipment by truck from large
ethanol hub receipt facilities. We
request comment on the current rail
receipt capability at terminals and the
extent to which petroleum terminals can
be expected to install such capability.
Comment is also requested on the extent
to which the installation of ethanol
receipt facilities at rail terminals can
help to meet the need to bring ethanol
by rail to petroleum terminals. Our
current analysis estimated that half of
the new ethanol rail receipt capability
needed to support the use of the
projected ethanol volumes under the
EISA would be installed at petroleum
terminals, and half would be installed at
rail terminals. A recently completed
study by ORNL estimated that all new
ethanol rail receipt capability would be
installed at existing rail terminals given
the limited ability to install such
capability at petroleum terminals.195 We
intend to review our estimates regarding
the location of the additional ethanol
rail receipt facilities for the final rule in
light of the ORNL study.
9. Need for Additional E85 Retail
Facilities
We estimate that an additional 24,250
E85 retail facilities would be needed to
facilitate the consumption of the
additional amount of ethanol that we
project would be used by 2022 in
response to the requirements under the
published on December 15, 2005 entitled,
‘‘Modifications to Standards and Requirements for
Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline Including
Butane Blenders and Attest Engagements’’, 70 FR
74552.
195 ‘‘Analysis of Fuel Ethanol Transportation
Activity and Potential Distribution Constraints’’,
prepared for EPA by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, March 2009.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
RFS2 standards.196 On average, this
equates to approximately 1,960 new E85
facilities that would need to be added
each year from 2009 through 2022 in
order to satisfy this goal. This is a very
ambitious timeline given that there are
less than 2,000 E85 retail facilities in
service today. Nevertheless, we believe
the addition of these numbers of new
E85 facilities may be possible for the
industries that manufacture and install
E85 retail equipment. Underwriters
Laboratories recently finalized its
certification requirements for E85 retail
equipment.197 Equipment manufactures
are currently evaluating the changes that
will be needed to meet these
requirements.198 However, we
anticipate the needed changes will not
substantially increase the difficulty in
the manufacture of such equipment
compared to equipment which is
specifically manufactured for
dispensing E85 today.
We estimate that the cost of installing
E85 refueling equipment will average
$122,000 per facility which equates to
$3 billion by 2022.199 These costs
include the installation of an
underground storage tank, piping,
dispensers, leak detection, and other
ancillary equipment that is compatible
with E85.200 Our E85 facility cost
estimates are based on input from fuel
retailers and other parties with
familiarity in installing E85 compatible
equipment. We understand that a
certification has yet to be finalized by
Underwriters Laboratories for a
complete equipment package necessary
to store/dispense E85 at a retail
facility.201 Thus, there is some
196 See Section 1.6 of the DRIA for a discussion
of the projected number of E85 refueling facilities
that would be needed. There would need to be a
total of 28,750 E85 retail facilities, 4,500 of which
are projected to have been placed in service absent
the RFS2 standards.
197 See https://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/
outscope/0087A.html.
198 All dispenser equipment except the hose used
to dispense fuel to the vehicle has been evaluated
by UL. Once suitable hoses have been evaluated, a
complete E85 dispenser system can be certified by
UL.
199 See Section 4.2 of the DRIA for a discussion
of E85 facility costs. These costs include the
installation of 2 pumps with 4 E85 refueling
positions at 40% of new facilities, and 1 pump with
2 refueling positions at 60% of new facilities. A
sensitivity case was evaluated where it was
assumed that all new E85 facilities would install 3
pumps with 6 refueling positions. The cost per
facility under this sensitivity case is $166,000.
200 40 CFR 280.32 requires that underground
storage tank systems must be made of or lined with
materials that are compatible with the substance
stored in the system.
201 Underwriters Laboratories recently finalized
their requirements for the certification of E85
compatible equipment. No certifications have been
completed to date, because of the time needed to
complete the application for certification including
necessary testing.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
uncertainty regarding the type of
equipment that will be needed for
compliance with the E85 equipment
certification requirements, and the
associated costs. Nevertheless, we
believe that the E85 equipment that is
eventually certified for use will not be
substantially different from that on
which our cost estimates are based.202
Petroleum retailers expressed
concerns about their ability to bear the
cost installing the needed E85 refueling
equipment. Today’s proposal does not
contain a requirement for retailers to
carry E85. We understand that retailers
will only install E85 facilities if it is
economically advantageous for them to
do so and that they will price their E85
and E10 in a manner to recover these
costs. While the $3 billion total cost for
E85 refueling facilities is a substantial
sum, it equates to just 1.5 cents per
gallon of E85 throughput.203 Therefore,
we do not believe that the cost of
installing E85 refueling equipment will
represent an undue burden to retailers
given the very large projected consumer
demand for E85.
Petroleum retailers also expressed
concern regarding their ability to
discount the price of E85 sufficiently to
persuade flexible fuel vehicle owners to
choose E85 given the lower energy
density of ethanol. This issue is
discussed in Section V.D.2.e. of today’s
preamble.
D. Ethanol Consumption
1. Historic/Current Ethanol
Consumption
Ethanol and ethanol-gasoline blends
have a long history as automotive fuels.
However, cheap gasoline/blendstocks
kept ethanol from making a significant
presence in the transportation sector
until the end of the 20th century when
environmental regulations and tax
incentives helped to stimulate growth.
In 1978, the U.S. passed the Energy
Tax Act which provided an excise tax
exemption for ethanol blended into
gasoline that would later be modified
through subsequent regulations.204 In
the 1980s, EPA initiated a phase-out of
leaded gasoline which created some
interest in ethanol as a gasoline
202 All retail dispenser components except the
hose that connects the nozzle to the dispenser have
been evaluated by UL. Once such hoses have been
evaluated by UL, a certification for the complete
fuel dispenser assembly may be finalized by UL.
203 E85 facility costs were amortized over 15 years
at 7% and the costs spread over the projected
volume of E85 dispensed.
204 Gasohol, a fuel containing at least 10%
biomass-derived ethanol, received a partial
exemption from the federal gasoline excise tax. This
exemption was implemented in 1979 and a
blender’s tax credit and a pure alcohol fuel credit
were added to the mix in 1980.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
oxygenate. Upon passage of the 1990
CAA amendments, states implemented
winter oxygenated fuel (‘‘oxyfuel’’)
programs to monitor carbon monoxide
emissions. EPA also established the
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program to
help reduce emissions of smog-forming
and toxic pollutants. Both the oxyfuel
and RFG programs called for oxygenated
gasoline. However, petroleum-derived
ethers, namely methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE), dominated oxygenate use
until drinking water contamination
concerns prompted a switch to ethanol.
Additional support came in 2004 with
the passage of the Volumetric Ethanol
Excise Tax Credit (VEETC). The VEETC
provided domestic ethanol blenders
with a $0.51/gal tax credit, replacing the
patchwork of existing subsidies.205 The
phase-out of MTBE and the introduction
of the VEETC along with state mandates
and tax incentives created a growing
demand for ethanol that surpassed the
traditional oxyfuel and RFG markets. By
the end of 2004, not only was ethanol
the lead oxygenate, it was found to be
blended into a growing number of
states’ conventional gasoline.206
In the years that followed, rising
crude oil prices and other favorable
market conditions continued to drive
ethanol usage. In May 2007, EPA
promulgated a Renewable Fuel Standard
(‘‘RFS1’’) in response to EPAct. The
RFS1 program set a floor for renewable
fuel use reaching 7.5 billion gallons by
2012, the majority of which was
ethanol. The country is currently on
track for exceeding the RFS1
requirements and meeting the
introductory years of today’s proposed
204 Gasohol, a fuel containing at least 10%
biomass-derived ethanol, received a partial
exemption from the federal gasoline excise tax. This
exemption was implemented in 1979 and a
blender’s tax credit and a pure alcohol fuel credit
were added to the mix in 1980.
205 The 2008 Farm Bill, discussed in more detail
in Section V.B.2.b, replaces the $0.51/gal ethanol
blender credit with a $0.45/gal corn ethanol blender
credit and also introduces a $1.01/gal cellulosic
biofuel producer credit. Both credits are effective
January 1, 2009.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
25009
currently refueling on conventional
gasoline (E0 or E10) due to limited E85
availability and the fact that E85 is
typically priced 20–30 cents per gallon
TABLE V.D.1–1—U.S. ETHANOL
higher than gasoline on an energy
CONSUMPTION (INCLUDING IMPORTS) equivalent basis. As such, we are not
currently tapping into the full ethanol
Total ethanol use a
consumption potential of our FFV fleet.
Year
However, we expect refueling patterns
Trillion BTU
Bgal
to change in the future under the RFS2
1999 ..................
120
1.4 program.
RFS2 program. For a summary of the
growth in U.S. ethanol usage over the
past decade, refer to Table V.D.1.–1.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
138
144
171
233
292
334
451
566
792
1.6
1.7
2.0
2.8
3.5
4.0
5.3
6.7
9.4
a EIA Monthly Energy Review March 2009
(Table 10.2).
Through the years, there have also
been several policy initiatives to
increase the number of flexible fuel
vehicles (FFVs) capable of consuming
up to 85 volume percent ethanol blends
(E85). The Alternative Motor Vehicle
Fuels Act of 1988 provided automakers
with Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) credits for producing
alternative-fuel vehicles, including
FFVs as well as CNG and propane
vehicles. Furthermore, the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 required government
fleets to begin purchasing alternativefuel vehicles, and the majority of fleets
chose FFVs.207 As a result of these two
policy measures, there are over 7
million FFVs on the road today.208
These vehicles increase our nation’s
ethanol consumption potential beyond
what is capable with conventional
vehicles. However, most FFVs are
206 Based on 2004 Federal Highway Association
(FHWA) State Gasohol Report less estimated RFG
and oxyfuel ethanol usage based on EPA’s 2004
RFG Fuel Survey results and knowledge of state
oxyfuel programs and fuel oxygenates. For more on
historical ethanol usage by state and fuel type, refer
to Section 1.7.1.1 of the DRIA.
207 Source: June 23, 2008 Federal Times, Special
Report: Fleet Management.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2. Increased Ethanol Use under RFS2
To meet the RFS2 standards, ethanol
consumption will need to be much
higher than both today’s levels and
those projected to occur absent RFS2.
The Energy Information Administration
(EIA) projected that under business-asusual conditions, ethanol usage would
grow to just over 13 billion gallons by
2022.209 This represents significant
growth from today’s usage, however,
this volume of ethanol is capable of
being consumed by today’s vehicle fleet
albeit with some fuel infrastructure
improvements.210 Although EIA
projected a small percentage of ethanol
to be blended as E85 in 2022, 13 billion
gallons of ethanol could also be
consumed by displacing about 90% of
our country’s forecasted gasoline energy
demand with E10. The maximum
amount of ethanol our country is
capable of consuming as E10 compared
to the projected RFS2 ethanol volumes
is shown below in Figure V.D.2–1.211
208 Source: DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (worksheet available at
www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/data/.)
209 Source: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2007,
Table 17.
210 For more information on distribution
accommodations, refer to Section V.C.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
As shown in Figure V.D.2–1, under
the proposed RFS2 program, we are
projected to hit the E10 ‘‘blend wall’’ of
about 14.5 billion gallons of ethanol by
2013. This volume corresponds to 100%
E10 nationwide. However, if gasoline
demand falls, or if E10 cannot get
distributed nationwide, the nation could
hit the blend wall sooner. Regardless, to
get beyond the blend wall and consume
more than 14–15 billion gallons of
ethanol, we are going to need to see
significant increases in the number
FFVs on the road, the number of E85
retailers, and the FFV E85 refueling
frequency. In the subsections that
follow, we will highlight the variables
that impact our nation’s ethanol
consumption potential and, more
specifically, what measures the market
may need to take in order to consume
34 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022
(assuming the cellulosic biofuel
standard and the majority of the
advanced biofuel standard are met with
ethanol).
As explained in Section V.A.2, our
primary RFS2 analysis focuses on
ethanol as the main biofuel in the
211 The maximum E10 volumes are a function of
the gasoline energy demand reported in EIA’s
Annual Energy Outlook 2009, Table 2 adjusted with
lower heating values.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
future.213 In addition, from an ethanol
consumption standpoint, we have
focused on an E10/E85 world. While E0
is capable of co-existing with E10 and
E85 for a while, we assumed that E10
would replace E0 as expeditiously as
possible and that all subsequent ethanol
growth would come from E85.
Furthermore, for our primary analysis,
we assumed that no ethanol
consumption would come from the midlevel ethanol blends (i.e., E15 or E20) as
they are not currently approved for use
in non-FFVs. However, in Section V.D.3
below, we discuss the potential
approval pathways for mid-level ethanol
blends and the volume implications.
We acknowledge that, if approved,
mid-level ethanol blends could help the
nation meet the proposed RFS2 volume
requirements. First, non-FFVs could
consume more ethanol per gallon of
‘‘gasoline’’. This could result in greater
ethanol consumption nationwide. In
addition, mid-level blends could allow
gasoline retailers to continue to price
ethanol relative to gasoline (as it
currently is for E10). For these reasons,
it is possible that mid-level ethanol
blends could help the nation get beyond
the E10 blend wall. However, as
explained in Section V.D.3.b, there are
213 For consideration of other biofuels, refer to
Section V.D.3.d.
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
numerous actions that would need to be
taken to bring mid-level ethanol blends
to market. In addition, mid-level ethanol
blends alone (even if made available
nationwide) are not capable of fulfilling
the RFS2 requirements in later years.
We would essentially hit another blend
wall 1–6 years later depending on the
intermediate blend, how quickly it
could be brought to market, and how
widely mid-level ethanol blends were
distributed at retail stations nationwide.
Nevertheless, this time could be very
valuable when it comes to expanding
E85/FFV infrastructure and/or
commercializing other non-ethanol
cellulosic biofuels.
Regardless, our primary analysis
focuses on an E10/E85 world because
mid-level ethanol blends are not
currently approved for use in
conventional gasoline vehicles and
nonroad equipment. Before usage could
be legalized, as discussed more in
Section V.D.3 below, EPA would need
to grant a waiver declaring that midlevel blends are substantially similar or
‘‘sub-sim’’ to gasoline or perhaps even
reinterpret the meaning of ‘‘sub-sim’’.
While such a waiver has not yet been
granted, several organizations/agencies
are performing vehicle emission testing
and investigating other impacts of mid-
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
EP26MY09.006
25010
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
level blends.214 Therefore, as a
sensitivity analysis, we have analyzed
what might need to be done to bring
mid-level ethanol blends to market
(should a sub-sim waiver be approved)
and the extent to which such blends
could help our nation meet the RFS2
ethanol standards, at least in the near
term. Finally we end our ethanol usage
discussion by looking at other strategies
for getting beyond the E10 blend wall.
a. Projected Gasoline Energy Demand
The maximum amount of ethanol our
country is capable of consuming in any
given year is a function of the total
gasoline energy demanded by the
transportation sector. Our nation’s
gasoline energy demand is dependent
on the number of gasoline-powered
vehicles on the road, their average fuel
economy, vehicle miles traveled (VMT),
and driving patterns. For analysis
purposes, we relied on the gasoline
energy projections reported by EIA in
AEO 2008.215 Unlike AEO 2007, AEO
2008 takes the fuel economy
improvements set by EISA into
consideration and also assumes a slight
dieselization of the vehicle fleet. The
result is a 15% reduction in the
projected 2022 gasoline energy demand
from AEO 2007 to AEO 2008.216 EIA
basically has gasoline energy demand
(petroleum-based gasoline plus ethanol)
flattening out, and even slightly
decreasing, as we move into the future
and implement the EISA vehicle
standards.217
b. Projected Growth in Flexible Fuel
Vehicles
According to DOE’s Department of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, there are currently over 7
million FFVs on the road today capable
of consuming E85.218 And that number
is growing steadily. Automakers are
incorporating more and more FFVs into
their light-duty production plans. While
the FFV system (i.e., fuel tank, sensor,
delivery system, etc.) used to be an
option on some vehicles, most FFV
producers are moving in the direction of
converting entire product lines over to
E85-capable systems. Still, the number
214 For more information on mid-level ethanol
blends testing, refer to Section V.D.3.b.
215 For blend wall discussions, we rely on the
most recent AEO 2009 projections. However for our
detailed ethanol consumption analysis presented in
this section (and in more detail in Section 1.7.1 of
the DRIA), we relied on AEO 2008.
216 EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2007 & 2008,
Table 2.
217 For more information on gasoline energy
projections, refer to Section 1.7.1.2.1 of the DRIA.
218 DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
August 2008 estimate (worksheet available at
www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/data/).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
of FFVs that will be manufactured and
purchased in future years is uncertain.
For our cost analysis, we examined
several different FFV production
scenarios. But for our ethanol usage
analysis, we focused on one primary
FFV scenario, described in more detail
below.219
In response to President Bush’s ‘‘20in-10’’ plan of reducing American
gasoline usage by 20% in 10 years,
domestic automakers responded with
aggressive FFV production goals.
General Motors, Ford and Chrysler
(referred to hereafter as ‘‘The Detroit 3’’)
announced plans to produce 50% FFVs
by 2012.220 And despite the current
state of the economy and the auto
industry, it appears U.S. automakers are
still moving forward with their FFV
production plans.221 Assuming that The
Detroit 3 continue to maintain 50%
market share and that total vehicle sales
remain around 16 million per year, at
least 4 million FFVs will be produced
by the 2012 model year. Based on 2008
offerings, we assumed that
approximately 80% of The Detroit 3’s
FFV production commitment would be
met by light-duty trucks and the
remaining 20% would be cars.222 223 We
also assumed that all the FFVs in
existence today were produced by The
Detroit 3 (and therefore share the same
aforementioned car/truck ratio) and that
production would ramp up linearly
beginning in 2008 to reach the 2012
commitment.
Although non-domestic automakers
have not made any official FFV
production commitments, Nissan,
Mercedes, Izuzu, and Mazda all
included at least one flexible fuel
vehicle in their 2008 model year
offerings.224 And we anticipate that
additional FFVs (or FFV options) will be
added in the future. Ultimately, we
predict that non-domestic FFV
production could be as high as 25%, or
about 2 million FFVs per year. While we
are not forecasting an official FFV
production commitment from the nondomestic automakers, we believe that
this represents an aggressive, yet
reasonable FFV production estimate for
analysis purposes. Furthermore, based
on current offerings, we assumed that
219 For more on the FFV production scenarios we
considered, refer to Section 1.7.1.2.2 of the DRIA.
220 Ethanol Producer Magazine, ‘‘View From the
Hill.’’ July 2007.
221 Ethanol Producer Magazine, ‘‘Automakers
Maintain FFV Targets in Bailout Plans.’’ February
2009.
222 NEVC 2008 Purchasing Guide for Flexible
Fuel Vehicles.
223 Several of the FFV assumptions may need to
be revised for the FRM in light of recent events.
224 Ibid.
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25011
the majority of non-domestic FFV
production would be trucks. With
respect to timing, we expect that the
non-domestic automakers would ramp
up FFV production later than The
Detroit 3. For analysis purposes, we
assumed that non-domestic automakers
would ramp up FFV production
beginning in 2013, and like The Detroit
3, it would take about five years for
them to reach their FFV production
goals (or in this case, the assumed 25%
production level)
Based on these FFV assumptions and
forecasted vehicle phase-out, VMT, and
fuel economy estimates provided by
EPA’s MOVES Model, we calculate that
the maximum percentage of fuel
(gasoline/ethanol mix) that could
feasibly be consumed by FFVs in 2022
would be about 30%. For more
information on our FFV analysis, refer
to Section 1.7.1.2.2 of the DRIA.
c. Projected Growth in E85 Access
According to the National Ethanol
Vehicle Coalition (NEVC), there are
currently over 1,900 retailers offering
E85 in 45 states plus the District of
Columbia.225 While this represents
significant industry growth, it still only
translates to about 1% of U.S. retail
stations nationwide carrying the fuel.226
As a result, most FFV owners clearly do
not have reasonable access to E85. For
our FFV/E85 analysis, we have defined
‘‘reasonable access’’ as one-in-four
pumps offering E85 in a given area.227
Accordingly, just over 4% of the nation
currently has reasonable access to E85,
up from 3% in 2007 (based on a midyear NEVC E85 pump estimate).228
There are a number of states
promoting E85 usage by offering FFV/
E85 awareness programs and/or retail
pump incentives. A growing number of
states are also offering infrastructure
grants to help expand E85 availability.
Currently, nine Midwest states have
adopted a progressive Energy Security
and Climate Stewardship Platform.229
225 NEVC FYI Newsletter: Volume 15, Issue 5:
March 9, 2009.
226 Based on National Petroleum News gasoline
station estimate of 161,768 in 2008.
227 For a more detailed discussion on how we
derived our one-in-four reasonable access
assumption, refer to Section 1.6 of the DRIA. For
the distribution cost implications as well as the cost
impacts of assuming reasonable access is greater
than one-in-four pumps, refer to Section 4.2 of the
DRIA.
228 Computed as percent of stations with E85
(1,963/161,768 as of March 2009 or 1,251/164,292
as of July 2007) divided by 25% (one-in-four
stations).
229 The following states have adopted the plan:
Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, South
Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and most recently, North
Dakota. For more information, visit: https://
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
Continued
26MYP2
25012
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
The platform includes a Regional
Biofuels Promotion Plan with a goal of
making E85 available at one third of all
stations by 2025. In addition, on July 31,
2008, Congresswoman Stephanie
Herseth Sandlin (D–SD) and John
Shimkus (R–IL) introduced The E85 and
Biodiesel Access Act that would amend
IRS tax code and increase the existing
federal income tax credit from $30,000
or 30% of the total cost of
improvements to $100,000 or 50% of
the total cost of needed alternative fuel
equipment and dispensing
improvements.230 While not signed into
law, such a tax credit could provide a
significant retail incentive to expand
E85 infrastructure.
Given the growing number of state
infrastructure incentives and the
proposed Federal alternative fuel
infrastructure subsidy, it is clear that
E85 infrastructure will continue to
expand in the future. However, the
extent to which nationwide E85 access
will grow is difficult to predict, let alone
quantify. For analysis purposes, as a
practical upper bound, we have selected
70% by 2022. This is roughly equivalent
to all urban areas in the United States
offering reasonable (one-in-four-station)
access to E85.231 We are not concluding
that the percentage of the nation with
reasonable access to E85 could not
exceed 70% (as a sensitivity, we also
modeled the cost impacts of nationwide
access to E85) or that availability would
necessarily be concentrated in urban
areas. However, for analysis purposes,
we believe that 70% is a good surrogate
for a practical portion of the country
that could have reasonable one-in-four
access to E85 by 2022 under the
proposed RFS2 program. On average,
this translates to about 18% of retail
stations nationwide offering E85. As
discussed in Section V.C, we believe
this is feasible based on our assessment
of the distribution infrastructure
capabilities. For more information on
the projected growth in E85 access, refer
to Section 1.7.1.2.3 of the DRIA.
d. Required Increase in E85 Refueling
Rates
As mentioned above, there were
approximately 7 million FFVs on the
road in 2008. If all FFVs refueled on E85
www.midwesterngovernors.org/resolutions/
Platform.pdf.
230 A copy of House Rule 6734 can be accessed
at: https://www.e85fuel.com/news/2008/
080108_shimkus_release/shimkus.pdf.
231 For this analysis, we’ve defined ‘‘urban’’ as the
top 150 metropolitan statistical areas according to
the U.S. census and/or counties with the highest
VMT projections according the EPA MOVES model,
all RFG areas, winter oxy-fuel areas, low-RVP areas,
and other relatively populated cities in the
Midwest.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
100% of the time, this would translate
to about 6.5 billion gallons of E85
use.232 However, E85 usage was only
around 12 million gallons in 2008.233
This means that, on average, FFV
owners were only tapping into about
0.2% of their vehicles’ E85/ethanol
usage potential last year. Assuming that
only 4% of the nation had reasonable
one-in-four access to E85 in 2008 (as
discussed above), this equates to an
estimated 5% E85 refueling frequency
for those FFVs that had reasonable
access to the fuel.
There are several reasons for today’s
low E85 refueling frequency. For
starters, many FFV owners may not
know they are driving a vehicle that is
capable of handling E85. As mentioned
earlier, more and more automakers are
starting to produce FFVs by engine/
product line, e.g., all 2008 Chevy
Impalas are FFVs.234 Consequently,
consumers (especially brand loyal
consumers) may inadvertently buy a
flexible fuel vehicle without making a
conscious decision to do so. And
without effective consumer awareness
programs in place, these FFV owners
may never think to refuel on E85. In
addition, FFV owners with reasonable
access to E85 and knowledge of their
vehicle’s E85 capabilities may still not
choose to refuel on E85. They may feel
inconvenienced by the increased E85
refueling requirements. Based on its
lower energy density, FFV owners will
need to stop to refuel 21% more often
when filling up on E85 over E10 (and
likewise, 24% more often when
refueling on E85 over conventional
gasoline).235 In addition, some FFV
owners may be deterred from refueling
on E85 out of fear of reduced vehicle
performance or just plain unfamiliarity
with the new motor vehicle fuel.
However, as we move into the future,
we believe the biggest determinant will
be price—whether E85 is priced
competitively with gasoline based on its
reduced energy density and the fact that
you need to stop more often, drive a
232 Based on the assumption that FFV owners
travel approximately 12,000 miles per year and get
about 18 miles per gallon on average under actual
in-use driving conditions. For more information,
refer to Section 1.7.1.2.4 of the DRIA.
233 EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2009, Table 17.
234 NEVC, ‘‘2008 Purchasing Guide for Flexible
Fuel Vehicles.’’ Refers to all mass produced 3.5 and
3.9L Impalas. However, it is our understanding that
consumers may still place special orders for nonFFVs.
235 Based on our assumption that denatured
ethanol has an average lower heating value of
77,930 BTU/gal and conventional gasoline (E0) has
average lower heating value of 115,000 BTU/gal.
For analysis purposes, E10 was assumed to contain
10 vol% ethanol and 90 vol% gasoline. Based on
EIA’s AEO 2008 report, E85 was assumed to contain
74 vol% ethanol and 26 vol% gasoline on average.
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
little further to find an E85 station, and
depending on the retail configuration,
wait in longer lines to fill up on E85.
To comply with the proposed RFS2
program and consume 34 billion gallons
of ethanol by 2022, not only would we
need more FFVs and more E85 retailers,
we would need to see a significant
increase in the current FFV E85
refueling frequency. Based on the FFV
and retail assumptions described above
in subsections (b) and (c), our analysis
suggests that FFV owners with
reasonable access to E85 in 2022 would
need to fill up on it 74% of the time,
a significant increase from today’s
estimated 5% refueling frequency. Were
there to be fewer FFVs in the fleet, the
E85 refueling frequency would need to
be even higher. Similarly, with more
FFVs in the fleet, the E85 refueling
frequency could be lower and still meet
the proposed RFS2 requirements.
However, even with an FFV mandate,
our analysis suggests that we would
need to see an increase from today’s
average FFV E85 refueling frequency. In
order for this to be possible, there will
need to be an improvement in the
current E85/gasoline price relationship.
e. Market Pricing of E85 Versus Gasoline
According to a recent online fuel
price survey, E85 is currently priced
almost 30 cents per gallon higher than
conventional gasoline on an energyequivalent basis.236 To increase our
nation’s E85 refueling frequency to the
levels described above, E85 needs to be
priced competitively with (if not lower
than) conventional gasoline based on its
reduced energy content, increased time
spent at the pump, and limited
availability. Our analysis, described in
more detail in Section 1.7.1.2.5 of the
DRIA, suggests that E85 would need to
be priced about one-third lower than
gasoline at retail (based on 2006 prices)
in order for it to be cost-competitive. As
expected, higher crude prices could
make E85 look slightly more attractive
while lower crude oil prices could make
E85 look less attractive.
In Brazil, charts are posted at gas
stations informing flex-fuel vehicle
owners whether it makes sense to fill up
on ‘‘gasoline’’ (containing 20–25%
denatured anhydrous ethanol) 237 or
‘‘alcohol’’ (100% denatured hydrous
ethanol) based on the price and relative
energy density of each. However, in the
U.S., FFV owners will likely be on their
236 Based on average E85 and regular unleaded
gasoline prices reported at https://
www.fuelgaugereport.com/ on April 23, 2009.
237 The government-mandated gasoline ethanol
content was 25% as of July 2007. Source: F.O. Licht
World Ethanol & Biofuels Report Vol. 5 No. 21 July
9, 2007.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
own for figuring out which fuel is more
economical.
Although in some areas of the country
E85 is already priced significantly lower
than gasoline, this is a far cry from a
nationwide trend. And as we move into
the future and incorporate cellulosic
ethanol (a fuel that is currently more
expensive to produce than corn
ethanol), it may be even more difficult
to produce ethanol for a price that the
market would accept. However, a
number of measures could be taken to
help encourage FFV E85 refueling.
The first is increased consumer
awareness. To maximize ethanol usage,
it is important that FFV owners are
aware of their vehicle’s fueling
capabilities, i.e., that their vehicle is
capable of refueling on E85. It is equally
important that FFV owners are aware of
E85 refueling outlets that may be
available to them. Automakers and/or
car dealerships could notify FFV owners
of E85 stations in their area. Together,
increased automaker and retail
awareness could help increase our
nation’s E85 throughput potential.
However, in order for consumers to
actually choose E85 over conventional
gasoline on a regular basis, there needs
to be a marked price incentive at the
pump.
Current federal and most state tax
code does not differentiate between
ethanol sold as E10 and as E85. As of
July 2008, state excise taxes were
reported to account for more than $0.18
per gallon of gasoline (on average).238
However, there are a number of states
(e.g., Illinois, Indiana, North Dakota,
and South Dakota) that currently waive
or discount excise taxes on E85. This
type of fuel tax structure helps
contribute to a retail price relationship
that favors E85 over conventional
gasoline.239 If states continue to waive/
reduce E85 fuel taxes under RFS2, this
could help increase the FFV E85
refueling frequency. As expected, this
would have the greatest impact on
ethanol consumption in the areas of the
country with the most FFVs.
The E10/E85 price relationship could
also be modified by the refining
industry. Under the proposed program,
gasoline refiners (as well as importers)
would be required to purchase RINs to
demonstrate that sufficient volumes of
renewable/alternative fuels were used to
meet their volume obligations. This
could provide an incentive for these
parties to take the steps necessary to
238 Source: The American Petroleum Institute July
2008 Gasoline Tax Report available at: https://
www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/July_2008_
gasoline_and_diesel_summary_pages.pdf.
239 Source: DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Web site (https://www.eere.energy.gov/).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
ensure adequate ethanol use levels to
facilitate compliance. One potential
action that refiners might take to ensure
a sufficient RIN supply would be to
subsidize the price of the ethanol used
to manufacture E85. Such a subsidy
might be financed by an increase in
their selling price of gasoline. In
addition, refiners with marketing arms
could adjust the retail price relationship
of E10 in E85 in way that encourages
E85 throughput while still maintaining
the same average net profit. However, a
relatively small proportion of refiners
market their own gasoline and thus have
the ability to make retail price
adjustments. Consequently, relying
solely on market mechanisms may
create some competitive concerns. We
request comment on viable and
cooperative ways refiners and gasoline
retailers could promote E85 throughput
to meet the proposed RFS2
requirements.
3. Other Mechanisms for Getting
Beyond the E10 Blend Wall
a. Mandate for FFV Production
One way to increase ethanol usage
under RFS2 would be if there were more
FFVs in the fleet. As described above,
our primary analysis is based on the
assumption that The Detroit 3 would
follow through with their commitment
to produce 50% FFVs by 2012 and the
non-domestic automakers would ramp
up FFV production beginning in 2013
and produce 25% FFVs by 2017. Based
on the projected number of FFVs in the
fleet (and our E85 infrastructure growth
assumptions), FFV owners with
reasonable one-in-four access to E85
would need to refuel on it 74% of the
time. To achieve this optimistic
refueling frequency, we believe there
would need to be significant
improvements to the E10/E85 price
relationship.
One way to reduce the required FFV
E85 refueling frequency (and in turn
decrease some of the pressure off E85
prices) would be to further increase the
number of FFVs in the fleet. While EPA
does not have the authority to require
automakers to produce FFVs, there are
a number of bills in Congress that are set
out to do just that. On July 22, 2008
Senator Sam Brownback (R–KS) on
behalf of himself and Senators Susan
Collins (R–ME), Joseph Lieberman (I–
CT), Ken Salazar (D–CO), and John
Thune (R–SD) introduced the Open Fuel
Standard Act of 2008, a bill that calls for
50% of the U.S. vehicle fleet to be FFVs
capable of using high blends of ethanol
or methanol (in addition to gasoline) by
2012. This number would grow to 80%
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25013
by 2015.240 A similar FFV bill was
introduced by Eliot Engel (D–NY) in the
House on July 22, 2008.241
Since a future congressional mandate
on FFV production in being discussed,
we have modeled the impact that such
a mandate could have on the RFS2
program. For our sensitivity analysis,
we found that if automakers were
required to make all light-duty vehicles
E85-capable by 2015 (and our same E85
infrastructure growth assumptions
applied), FFV owners with reasonable
one-in-four access to E85 would only
need to refuel on it 33% of the time.
This represents a smaller increase from
today’s estimated 5% refueling rate.
However, implementing such a FFV
mandate would have significant cost
implications on the auto industry and
would still not provide certainty that
FFV owners would fuel on E85. For
more information on this analysis, as
well as other FFV production scenarios
we considered, refer to Section 1.7.1.2.2
of the DRIA.
b. Waiver of Mid-Level Ethanol Blends
(E15/E20)
For our primary ethanol usage
analysis, we considered that there
would only be two fuels in the future,
E10 and E85. And as explained in
Section V.D.2, we believe it is feasible
to consume 34 billion gallons of ethanol
by 2022 given growth in FFV
production and E85 availability and
projected improvements in the current
E10/E85 price relationship.
However, several organizations and
government entities are interested in
increasing the concentration of ethanol
beyond the current 10% limit in the
commercial gasoline pool. Section
211(f)(1) of the Clean Air Act prohibits
the introduction into commerce, or
increase in the concentration in use of,
gasoline or gasoline additives for use in
motor vehicles unless they are
substantially similar to the gasoline or
gasoline additives used in the
certification of new motor vehicles or
motor vehicle engines. EPA may grant a
waiver of this prohibition under Section
211(f)(4) provided that the fuel or fuel
additive ‘‘will not cause or contribute to
a failure of any emission control device
or system (over the useful life of the
motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine,
nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle in
which the device or system is used) to
achieve compliance by the vehicle or
engine with the emission standards to
240 Refer to Senate Bill 3303 which can be found
at: https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/
z?c110:S.3303.
241 Refer to House Rule 6559 which can be found
at: https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/
z?d110:H.R.6559.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25014
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
which it has been certified.’’ The most
recent ‘‘substantially similar’’
interpretive rule for unleaded gasoline
presently allows oxygen content up to
2.7% by weight for certain ethers and
alcohols.242 E10 contains approximately
3.5% oxygen by weight, which makes a
gasoline-ethanol blend with ten%
ethanol not ‘‘substantially similar’’ to
certification fuel under the current
interpretation.243 Since any mid-level
blend would have a greater than
allowed oxygen content, any mid-level
blend would need to have a waiver
under Section 211(f)(4) of the CAA in
order to be sold commercially.
Before EPA grants a 211(f)(4) waiver
for a new fuel or fuel additive, an
applicant must prove that the new fuel
or fuel additive will meet the waiver
requirements outlined in the statute.
EPA has required that applicants
provide vehicle/engine testing for
tailpipe emissions, evaporative
emissions, materials compatibility, and
driveability. Testing needs to include
emissions over the full useful life of
vehicle and equipment. Several
interested parties are investigating the
impact that mid-level ethanol blends
(e.g., E15 or E20) may have on these
areas among others (i.e. catalyst, engine,
and fuel system durability, and onboard
diagnostics). In order to use the
information collected for waiver
application purposes, the mid-level
ethanol blend testing will need to
consider the different engines and fuel
systems currently in service that could
be exposed to mid-level ethanol blends
and the long-term impact of using such
blends.244 After receiving a waiver
application, EPA must give public
notice and comment and has 270 days
to grant or deny the waiver request.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has
developed and initiated a
242 73
FR 22277 (April 25, 2008).
Plus, Inc. submitted an application for a
211(f)(4) waiver for E10 which was granted, see 44
FR 20777 (April 6, 1979).
244 EPA has expressed what such a waiver testing
program might look like, see Karl Simon, ‘‘Mid
Level Ethanol Blend Experimental Framework: Epa
Staff Recommendations,’’ June 2008, and Ed Nam
‘‘Vehicle Selection & Sample Size Issues for
Catalyst and Evap Durability Testing,’’ November
2008, in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161).
243 Gas
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
comprehensive testing program to
investigate the potential impacts of midlevel blends of ethanol. Initial testing
was conducted on a limited number of
high-volume vehicles and small nonroad engines and a preliminary report
was published in October, 2008.245 In
addition, DOE is in the process of
leveraging existing EPA vehicle and
small engine test programs (originally
designed to test up to 10% ethanol) to
add mid-level ethanol blends to the fuel
matrix. DOE’s comprehensive test
program is intended to evaluate a wide
range of emission, performance, and
durability issues associated with midlevel ethanol blends (additional reports
forthcoming).
DOE is not alone in pursuing midlevel blends. In 2005, the State of
Minnesota, a large producer of corn
ethanol, passed a law requiring that by
2015, 20% of gasoline (by volume) must
be replaced by ethanol. While this level
could be achieved with a high
percentage of E85 usage by FFVs, the
state has also expressed an interest in
moving to 20% ethanol blends. Several
other states and organizations have also
expressed interest in increasing ethanol
use by adopting E15 or E20. The
Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and
the American Coalition for Ethanol
(ACE) have been working with various
government entities to investigate the
impact of mid-level blends
On March 6, 2009, Growth Energy and
54 ethanol manufacturers submitted an
application for a waiver of the
prohibition of the introduction into
commerce of certain fuels and fuel
additives set forth in section 211(f) of
the Act. This application seeks a waiver
for ethanol-gasoline blends of up to 15
percent by volume ethanol. The statute
directs the Administrator of EPA to
grant or deny this application within
270 days of receipt by EPA, in this
instance December 1, 2009. EPA
recently issued a federal register notice
announcing receipt of the Growth
Energy waiver application and soliciting
245 Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends on
Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines,
Report 1, Prepared by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory for the Department of Energy, October
2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
comment on all aspects of it. Refer to 74
FR 18228 (April 21, 2009).
While the current Growth Energy
waiver application is still under review,
as a sensitivity, we considered the
implications that adding E15 or E20 to
the marketplace could have on ethanol
usage and the supporting fuel
infrastructure should such blends be
permitted. For each case, we assumed
that E10 would need to continue to
remain in existence to meet the demand
of legacy vehicle and non-road engine
owners. This would also provide
consumer choice. Experience in past
fuel programs has shown that many
consumers will not be comfortable
refueling on higher ethanol blends and
will blame any problems that may occur
on the new fuel (regardless of the actual
cause of the vehicle problems) causing
a backlash against the new fuel
requirements. Therefore, we believe it is
critical to continue to allow consumers
the choice between mid-level ethanol
blends and conventional gasoline
(assumed to be E10 in the future).
For our optimistic mid-level ethanol
blends scenario, we assumed that E15 or
E20 could be available at all retail
stations nationwide by the time the
nation hits the E10 blend wall, or
around 2013. This assumes a number of
actions are taken to bring mid-level
blends to market (explained in more
detail below).246 We assumed that E10
would be marketed as premium-grade
gasoline, the mid-level ethanol blend
(E15 or E20) would serve as regular, and
like today, midgrade would be blended
from the two fuels. Those vehicles and
equipment which are unable to refuel
on mid-level ethanol blends (or choose
not to) could continue to fill up on E10.
This mid-level ethanol blends scenario,
described in more detail in Section
1.7.1.3 of the DRIA, concluded that if
mid-level ethanol blends were to be
distributed at all retail stations
nationwide, they could help increase
ethanol usage to over 19 billion gallons
(with E15) and 25 billion gallons (with
E20).
246 Results for other cases are discussed in
Section 1.7.1.3 of the DRIA.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
fuel distribution system.247 A number of
changes would be needed to EPA
regulations including those pertaining
to reformulated gasoline, anti-dumping,
and gasoline deposit control additives to
accommodate and mid-level ethanol
blends. Such changes would need to be
made through the notice and comment
process similar to today’s action. In
addition, most states require that fuel
comply with the applicable ASTM
International (formally known as the
American Standards for Testing and
Materials) specification. The
development of an ASTM International
specification for mid-level ethanol
blends through an industry consensus
process is currently being initiated.
There are a number of requirements
regarding the fire and leak protection
safety of retail fuel dispensing and
storage equipment. The Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) requires that retail fuel
handling equipment be listed with an
independent standards body such as
Underwriters Laboratories (UL). No
independent standards body has listed
fuel handling equipment for mid-level
ethanol blends. Furthermore, UL has
247 It may be possible for refiners to formulate a
gasoline blendstock that would be suitable for
manufacturing mid-level ethanol blends and E10 at
the terminal. While this would avoid the logistical
problems associated with maintaining separate
blendstocks, there could be significant additional
refining costs.
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
stated that it would not expand listings
for in-use fuel retail equipment
originally listed for E10 blends to cover
greater than E10 blends.248 EPA’s Office
of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST)
requires that UST systems must be
compatible with the fuel stored in the
system. These requirements pertain to
all components of the system including
the storage tank, connecting piping,
pumps, seals and leak detection
equipment.
States typically adopt fire safety codes
from either the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) or the International
Code Council (ICC). These organizations
currently do not have provisions that
would allow the mid-level ethanol
blends to be stored/dispensed from
existing equipment at retail. Local safety
officials (e.g. fire marshals) referred to as
‘‘Authorities Having Jurisdiction’’
(AHJ’s) often require a UL certification
for fuel retail storage/dispensing
equipment although some will accept
248 UL stated that they have data which indicates
that the use of fuel dispensers certified for up to
E10 blends to dispense blends up to a maximum
ethanol content of 15 volume percent would not
result in critical safety concerns (https://
www.ul.com/newsroom/newsrel/nr021909.html).
Based on this, UL stated that it would support
authorities having jurisdiction who decide to
permit legacy equipment originally certified for up
to E10 blends to be used to dispense up to 15
volume percent ethanol. The UL announcement did
address the compatibility of underground storage
tank systems with greater than E10 blends.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
EP26MY09.007
As shown in Figure V.D.2–2, in this
optimistic phase-in scenario, adding
E15 could postpone the blend wall by
about three years to 2016 and adding
E20 could postpone it another three
years to 2019. Although mid-level
ethanol blends will fall short of meeting
the RFS2 requirements, they could
provide interim relief while the county
ramps up E85/FFV infrastructure and/or
finds other non-ethanol alternatives
(e.g., cellulosic diesel or biobutanol) to
reach the RFS2 volumes.
Our nation’s whole system of gasoline
fuel regulation, fuel production, fuel
distribution, and fuel use is built around
gasoline with ethanol concentrations
limited to E10. As a result, while a
waiver may legalize the use of mid-level
ethanol blends under the CAA, there are
a number of other actions that would
have to occur to bring mid-level blends
to retail. The time needed to take these
actions could delay the penetration of
mid-level ethanol blends into the
market. The CAA only provides a 1
pound RVP waiver for ethanol blends of
10 volume percent or less. Lacking such
an RVP waiver, a special low-RVP
gasoline blendstock would be needed at
terminals to allow the formulation of
mid-level ethanol blends that are
complaint with EPA RVP requirements.
Providing such a separate gasoline
blendstock would present significant
logistical challenges and costs to the
25015
25016
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
other substantiation of equipment safety
such as a manufacture certification. Fuel
retailers must also satisfy the
requirements of the insurance company
that they are insured through which
may be more stringent than the legal
requirements. Given the liability
concerns associated with leaks from
underground storage tanks, these issues
have to be resolved in order to facilitate
the widespread use of mid-level ethanol
blends.
The Department of Energy and EPA
are currently working with industry to
evaluate what changes may be necessary
to underground storage tank systems,
fuel dispensers, and refueling vapor
recovery equipment at fuel retail
facilities to handle a mid-level ethanol
blend. If existing equipment proves
tolerant to a mid-level ethanol blend,
this could substantially facilitate its
introduction at retail. If the data
supports the suitability of legacy retail
equipment to store/dispense a mid-level
blend, then the process of seeking
acceptance by the standard bodies
discussed above could commence. The
normal processes used by these
standards bodies can be lengthy. For
example, the NFPA has a 3 year cycle
for evaluating changes to its codes with
proposals for the current cycle due this
June. Thus, apart from the need to
technically evaluate the suitability of
legacy retail equipment to handle a midlevel ethanol blend, the need to secure
recognition from standards bodies could
delay the introduction of a mid-level
ethanol blend at retail should a waiver
be granted by EPA.
If some components of the aboveground existing retail hardware are
found to be incompatible with a midlevel ethanol blend, it may be possible
for them to be replaced through normal
attrition. For example the ‘‘hanging
hardware’’ which includes the nozzle
and hose from the dispenser is typically
replaced every 3 to 5 years. It is also
possible that only minor changes might
be needed to equipment that has a
longer service life which might be
accomplished without too much
difficulty/cost. However, if extensive
new equipment is needed and
particularly if this involves the breaking
of concrete, we believe that it is unlikely
that fuel retailer would opt to install
equipment specifically for a mid-level
ethanol blend given the projected future
need for retail equipment capable of
handling E85.249
249 As discussed previously, significant
penetration of E85 is projected to be needed to
facilitate the use of the volumes of ethanol we
project would be needed to satisfy the requirements
of the EISA.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Finally, all vehicles and nonroad
equipment currently in use are only
warranted for ethanol levels not
exceeding E10 (except for FFVs), and
the owner’s manuals are written to
reflect this. Before widespread
acceptance of mid-level ethanol blends
by consumers can occur, these warranty
issues would need to be addressed.
c. Partial Waiver for Mid-Level Blends
CAA section 211(f)(4), the waiver
provision, states that the Administrator
may grant a fuel waiver if a fuel
manufacturer can demonstrate that the
fuel ‘‘will not cause or contribute to a
failure of any emission control device or
system (over the useful life of the motor
vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad
engine or nonroad vehicle in which
such device or system is used) to
achieve compliance by the vehicle or
engine with the emission standards with
respect to which it has been certified.’’
For reasons discussed below, it may be
possible that these criteria for a midlevel blend waiver may be met for a
subset of gasoline vehicles or engines
but not for all gasoline vehicles or
engines. The waiver criteria are applied
over the useful life of ‘‘the motor
vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad
engine or nonroad vehicle in which
such device or system is used.’’
Assuming the criteria is met for a
certain subset of vehicles, and that
adequate measures could be put in place
to ensure that a waiver fuel were only
used in that subset of vehicles or
engines, one interpretation of this
provision is that the waiver could apply
only to that subset of vehicles or
engines.
One potential outcome from a review
of the entire body of scientific and
technical information available may be
an indication that mid-level ethanol
blends could meet the criteria of a
section 211(f)(4) waiver for some
vehicles and engines but not for others.
It may be that certain vehicles and
engines operate as intended using midlevel blends but others may be more
susceptible to emissions increases or
durability problems. For example,
vehicles or engines without newer
technology that do not readily adjust for
the higher oxygen level in the fuel may
experience problems, while newer
technology vehicles such as those
meeting our Tier 2 standards may be
able to adjust for such changes as a
result of more advanced emissions and
fuel control equipment. Nonroad
engines, which are typically small, are
likely to be most susceptible given the
less sophisticated technology associated
with such engines. Given this potential
outcome, EPA requests comment on all
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
aspects, both legal and technical, as to
the possibility that a section 211(f)(4)
waiver might be granted, in a partial
way with conditions, such that the use
of mid-level blends would be restricted
to a subset of the gasoline vehicles or
engines covered by the waiver
provision, while those nonroad engines
and vehicles not covered by the waiver
would continue using fuels with blends
no greater than E10.
Any waiver approval, either fully or
partially, is likely to elicit a market
response to add E15 blends to E10 and
E0 blends in the marketplace, rather
than replace them. Thus consumers
would merely have an additional choice
of fuel.
Experience in past fuel programs has
shown that even with consumer
education and fuel implementation
efforts, there sometimes continues to be
public concern for new fuel
requirements. Several examples include
the phasedown of the amount of lead
allowed in gasoline in the 1980s and the
introduction of reformulated gasoline
(RFG) in 1995. Some segments of the
public were convinced that the new
fuels caused vehicle problems or
decreases in fuel economy. Although
substantial test data proved otherwise,
these concerns lingered in some cases
for several years. As a direct result of
these experiences, EPA wants to be
assured that prior to potentially granting
a waiver for mid-level blends, sufficient
testing has been conducted to
demonstrate the compatibility of a
waiver fuel with engine, fuel and
emission control system components.
EPA has previously granted waivers
with certain restrictions or conditions.
Among other things, these restrictions
have included requiring fuels to meet
certain voluntary consensus-based
gasoline standards such as those
developed by the American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM
standards), requirements that
precautions be taken to prevent using
the waiver fuel as a base fuel for adding
oxygenates, and that certain corrosion
inhibitors be utilized when producing
the waived fuel.250 However, in those
waivers, the conditions placed upon the
fuel manufacturer were directly related
to manufacturing the fuel itself. Here,
the conditions placed upon the fuel
manufacturer would be on the use of the
fuel in certain vehicles or engines. In
other words, the fuel manufacturer
would have to ensure that the mid-level
blend was only used in that particular
subset of vehicles or engines to be able
to legally manufacture and sell the fuel
250 See, for example, 53 FR 3636, February 8,
1988, and 53 FR 33846, September 1, 1988.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
under the terms of the waiver. Since it
would become the fuel manufacturer’s
responsibility to prevent misfueling, the
following discussion highlights some of
the ideas that the fuel manufacturer
could implement, based on particular
subsets of vehicles,251 to prevent
misfueling.
If a partial waiver covered only newly
manufactured vehicles, methods
focused on the manufacturing of the
vehicle could be utilized to inform the
buyer that the vehicle was capable of
operating on the waiver fuel. In this
case, approaches such as the use of
vehicle fueling inlet labels and owner’s
manuals could be utilized in tandem
with retail station fuel dispenser labels.
Such an approach depends on the
attention of the vehicle operator to
ensure compliance with the waiver.
Additionally, retail station attendants
could be trained to provide guidance to
operators on which vehicles are covered
under the waiver.
If only vehicles of certain model years
were covered, owners would know if
they could utilize the mid-level blends
simply by knowing the model year
(again, in tandem with pump labeling).
Alternatively, if some portion of the
existing fleet, not based upon modelyear (such as vehicles meeting EPA Tier
2 emission standards), would also be
covered, the approach would have to
include some means by which the
operator of such a vehicle would be
made aware that the vehicle being
fueled was covered or not covered by
the waiver. Such an approach would
likely involve notification of owners of
covered vehicles, through direct contact
or education campaigns, and would
likely require the assistance of the
vehicle manufacturers. This approach,
as with other approaches, would require
pump labeling.
Other approaches may bring about
tighter control of misfueling situations
but may present additional challenges.
For example, one approach might be to
provide owners of covered vehicles with
a transaction card similar to a credit
card that could be swiped at the
dispenser to allow for the dispensing of
a waived mid-level blend. Presumably,
software and/or hardware at dispensing
pumps may be able to be adjusted to
accommodate such an approach. Some
retail station chains have already
251 Although it is not possible at this time to
know the contours of a partial waiver with
conditions, or even if one might be appropriate, the
remainder of this discussion will refer only to
vehicles covered by the waiver (and not engines)
since newer vehicles are more likely to have more
sophisticated emissions and fuel control
equipment, while certain engines might be more
affected for the reasons stated above.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
utilized transponder mechanisms to
record sales. Similar transponder
systems could be utilized in place of
transaction cards.
The above discussion is not meant to
be an exhaustive list of possible
approaches for ensuring compliance
with a partial waiver, nor does it
explore all the facets of any single
approach. EPA recognizes that there
may be legal and practical limitations
on what a fuel manufacturer may be
able to do to ensure compliance with
the conditions of the partial waiver.
EPA has not previously imposed this
type of ‘‘downstream’’ condition on the
fuel manufacturer as part of a section
211(f)(4) waiver. EPA does, however,
have experience with compliance
problems occurring when two types of
gasoline have been available at service
stations. Beginning in the mid-1970s
with the introduction of unleaded
gasoline and continuing into the 1980s
as leaded gasoline was phased out, there
was significant intentional misfueling
by consumers. At the time most service
stations had pumps dispensing both
leaded and unleaded gasoline and a
price differential as small as a few cents
per gallon was enough to cause some
consumers to misfuel. Higher price
differentials could occur if, as expected,
mid-level ethanol blends were to be
marketed as the regular grade and E0 or
E10 as the premium grade. The Agency
seeks comment regarding whether this
is a reasonable or practical condition for
this type of waiver. EPA acknowledges
that the issue of misfueling would be
challenging in a situation where a
partial waiver is granted. Therefore,
EPA solicits comments on what
measures a fuel manufacturer, EPA or
others in the gasoline distribution
network could take for ensuring
compliance with a partial waiver.
While EPA has not analyzed the
specific cost of a conditional waiver,
such a waiver would likely carry a cost
similar to the costs described above in
Section V.D.3.b. Because existing
equipment in retail stations is certified
by Underwriters Laboratories only up to
ten percent ethanol, existing equipment
would need to be evaluated for its
acceptability for use with mid-level
blends (and deemed to be acceptable if
possible) or it would have to be
modified/replaced before any ethanol
blend greater than ten percent could be
effectuated in the marketplace.252 If
existing retail equipment is found not to
be acceptable for storing/dispensing
252 See previous discussion in Section V.D.3.b of
this preamble regarding the issues that would need
to be addressed to facilitate the introduction of midlevel ethanol blends at retail.
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25017
mid-level blends, the aforementioned
infrastructure challenges would be
present and additional costs would be
associated with measures adopted for
the prevention of releases due to
material incompatibility, as well as
those associated with misfueling. EPA
therefore seeks comment on the
compatibility of the existing retail fuel
storage/dispensing equipment with midlevel ethanol blends. Further, adoption
of such a waiver would mean that fewer
vehicles/engines would be able to
utilize mid-level blends and, therefore,
the full impact of mid-level blends on
the E10 blend wall under such a
scenario would not be as significant as
full unrestricted utilization of such
blends.
d. Non-Ethanol Cellulosic Biofuel
Production
While our analysis describes possible
pathways by which the market could
meet the RFS2 requirements with 34
billion gallons of ethanol as E10 and
E85, our analysis of the required FFV
and E85 infrastructure growth as well as
the required changes to the E10/E85
price relationship suggests some
inherent challenges. Furthermore, we
conclude that the introduction of midlevel ethanol blends (contingent upon
waiver approval) would by itself not
allow the country to achieve the RFS2
standards. Another means of achieving
the RFS2 volume requirements would
be through the introduction of nonethanol cellulosic biofuels. The growing
spread in gasoline and diesel pricing
implies that we are currently moving in
the direction of being oversupplied with
gasoline and undersupplied with
diesel.253 As such, it makes sense that
the market might preferentially
investigate diesel fuel replacements,
e.g., cellulosic diesel via FischerTropsch synthesis, pyrolysis, or
catalytic depolymerization. These fuels
would meet the definition of cellulosic
biofuel (as well as advanced biofuel)
under the proposed RFS2 program and
help reduce the ethanol blend wall
impacts associated with this rule.
Although for our analysis we assumed
that the cellulosic biofuel standard
would be met with ethanol, the market
could choose a significant volume of
other non-ethanol renewable fuels. DOE
and other agencies are currently
providing grants to support critical
253 According to EIA, gasoline and diesel prices
were pretty similar on average for a decade from
1995–2004. However, over the past four years,
diesel prices have begun to track consistently
higher than gasoline prices. To date in 2008, diesel
has been priced more than $0.50/gallon higher than
gasoline on average. Source: https://
tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25018
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
research into these second-generation
cellulosic feedstock conversion
technologies. DOE is also providing loan
guarantees to help with the
commercialization of such technologies.
For more information on non-ethanol
cellulosic biofuels, refer to Section V.A.
or Section 1.4.3 of the DRIA.
e. Measurement Tolerance For E10
Some stakeholders have suggested
that the implementation of a tolerance
in the measurement of the ethanol
content of gasoline could allow more
ethanol to be used in existing vehicles
without the need for a formal waiver
and without the need for more FFVs.
Such a tolerance could allow ethanol
contents slightly higher than 10 volume
percent while still treating such blends
as meeting the 10 volume percent
limitation on the ethanol content of
gasoline.
Although there is no explicit written
precedent for permitting ethanol
contents higher than 10 vol%, some
have speculated that current vehicles
would not exhibit any noticeable change
in performance, durability, or emissions
if a small measurement tolerance for
ethanol content of gasoline were
allowed. The current specified test
method for oxygen content ASTM D–
5599–00 includes estimates of the
measurement reproducibility that could
be used to inform the determination of
an appropriate tolerance for ethanol
content in gasoline. For instance, based
on the provided reproducibility, a
measurement as high as 11 vol%
ethanol in gasoline might be possible for
gasoline that was blended to meet a 10
vol% ethanol requirement. Historically,
however, EPA has always enforced the
10 vol% waiver at the 10 vol% level
without any tolerance.
The 1978 gasohol waiver application
requested a blend of 90% unleaded
gasoline and 10% anhydrous ethanol.
Although not specified in the
application, the convention and the
practical approach for blending ethanol
into gasoline in 1978 was by volume,
and it has continued to be by volume.
Thus, the limit on ethanol in gasoline
under the waiver is 10% by volume.
This is approximately 3.5% oxygen by
weight. The waiver request did not
apply to a level of ethanol in gasoline
beyond 10%, and since the application
was approved by default after 180 days
due to the fact that the Administrator
did not make an explicit decision in this
timeframe, there is no formal approval
that could have indicated what
measurement tolerances might have
been acceptable. Thus it has historically
been enforced at the 10 vol% limit
without any enforcement tolerance.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
However, parties who have raised this
option have suggested that the Agency’s
previous treatment of the oxygenate
content of gasoline may provide a
precedent that would allow for a higher
measurement tolerance for ethanol
content.
Prior to and after 1981, several
waivers issued by the Agency allowed
the use of various alcohols and ethers in
unleaded gasoline. In 1981, the
‘‘substantially similar’’ interpretive rule
for unleaded gasoline allowed certain
alcohols and ethers at up to 2.0%
oxygen by weight. In 1991 the limit was
increased to 2.7% oxygen by weight. For
each of these waivers, the unleaded
gasoline base to which the oxygenate
was to be added was to be initially free
of oxygenate. With the exception of
ethanol, oxygenates, mostly MTBE, were
blended at the refinery, with the refiner
in control of the gasoline used for
blending. This enabled the refiner to
ensure that it was free of oxygenate
prior to blending. Ethanol was primarily
blended at terminals. In order to ensure
that gasoline blended with ethanol at
the terminal was free of other
oxygenates, the ethanol blender first had
to check for the presence of other
oxygenates in the base gasoline. In the
mid-1980’s ethanol blenders informed
EPA that they were having difficulty
finding oxygenate-free gasoline. Much
of gasoline had at least trace amounts of
MTBE due to commingling of gasolines
with different oxygenates in the fungible
pipeline system. In order to continue to
allow the blending of ethanol up to the
10 vol% limit, EPA issued a letter
stating that it would not consider it to
be a violation of the ethanol sub-sim
waiver if up to 10% by volume ethanol
were added to unleaded gasoline
containing no more than 2% by volume
MTBE. However, the MTBE must have
been present only as a result of
commingling during storage or transport
and not purposefully added as an
additional component to the ethanol
blend.
Subsequently, two other statements
by EPA provided guidance on the
allowable oxygen content of oxygenated
fuels. For instance, in a memorandum
dated October 5, 1992, EPA provided
interim guidance for states that allowed
averaging programs.254 This guidance
allowed the oxygen content of ethanol
to be as high as 3.8% by weight, but did
not indicate that the ethanol
concentration could be higher than 10
vol%. Also, in a 1995 RFG/Anti254 Memorandum from Mary T. Smith, Director of
the Field Operations and Support Division, to State/
Local Oxygenated Fuels Contacts, October 5, 1992.
Subject: ‘‘Testing Tolerance’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
dumping Q&A it was noted that the
maximum oxygen range for the simple
and complex models was 4.0% by
weight. This range was implemented to
once again continue to allow the
blending of ethanol up to the 10 vol%
limit in cases where an extremely low
gasoline density might increase the
calculated weight percent oxygen
content for E10 above the more typical
3.5–3.7 wt% range.
Although we acknowledge that the
currently specified test method ASTM
D–5599–00 includes some variability,
ethanol is different than many other fuel
properties and components that are
controlled in other fuel programs in one
important respect. Fuel properties such
as RVP, and components such as sulfur
and benzene, are natural characteristics
of gasoline as a result of the chemical
nature of crude oil and the refining
process. Their level or concentration in
gasoline is unknown until measured,
and then is dependent upon accuracy of
the test method. In contrast, ethanol is
intentionally added in known amounts
using equipment designed to ensure a
specific concentration within a small
fraction of one percent. Parties that
blend ethanol into gasoline therefore
have precise control over the final
concentration. Thus, a measurement
tolerance for ethanol would be less
appropriate than measurement
tolerances for other fuel properties and
components.
We request comment on whether a
measurement tolerance should be
allowed for the ethanol content of
gasoline, the basis for such a tolerance,
and what tolerance if any would be
appropriate. We also request comment
on whether such a tolerance would fit
within the existing Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc. (UL) approval for the
safety of equipment at refueling stations,
including underground storage tanks,
pumps, piping, seals, etc.
f. Redefining ‘‘Substantially Similar’’ to
Allow Mid-Level Ethanol Blends
Section 211(f)(1) prohibits the
introduction into commerce, or increase
in the concentration in use of, gasoline
or gasoline additives for use in motor
vehicles unless they are substantially
similar to the gasoline or gasoline
additives used in the certification of
new motor vehicles or motor vehicle
engines. EPA may grant a waiver of this
prohibition under section 211(f)(4) of
the Clean Air Act provided that the fuel
or fuel additive ‘‘will not cause or
contribute to a failure of any emission
control device or system (over the useful
life of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle
engine, nonroad engine or nonroad
vehicle in which the device or system
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
is used) to achieve compliance by the
vehicle or engine with the emission
standards to which it has been
certified.’’
EPA first interpreted the term
‘‘substantially similar’’ for unleaded
gasoline and its additives in 1978.255
Recognizing that this interpretation was
too limited, EPA updated it in 1980, and
again in 1981.256 EPA set the limits
contained in the interpretation based on
the physical and chemical similarities of
the fuel or fuel additives to those used
in the motor vehicle certification
process. EPA also considered
information available regarding the
emission effects that such fuels and
additives would exhibit relative to the
emissions performance of the
certification fuels and fuel additives.
The 1981 interpretative rule identified
the characteristics and specifications
that EPA determined would make a fuel
or fuel additive ‘‘substantially similar’’
to those used in certification. Under this
rule, a fuel or fuel additive would be
considered substantially similar if it
satisfied certain limits on fuel and fuel
additive composition, did not exceed a
maximum allowable oxygen content of
fuel at 2.0% by weight, and met certain
ASTM specifications. Comments on this
interpretative rule requested that EPA
increase the maximum oxygen
concentration up to 3.5% oxygen by
weight, but EPA rejected this
recommendation, stating that it would
keep the limit at 2.0% because of
concerns over emissions, material
compatibility, and drivability from use
of various alcohols at higher oxygen
contents.
In 1991, EPA amended the
interpretive rule by revising the oxygen
content criteria to allow fuels containing
aliphatic ethers and/or alcohols
(excluding methanol) to contain up to
2.7% by weight oxygen.257 EPA based
this increase in the oxygen content on
its review of information on a wide
variety of alcohol and ether blends,
leading it to determine that ‘‘unleaded
gasolines with such oxygen content are
chemically and physically substantially
similar to, and have been shown to have
emissions properties substantially
similar to, unleaded gasolines used in
light-duty vehicle certification.’’ 258
Finally, in 2008, EPA amended the
interpretive rule to allow flexibility for
the vapor/liquid ratio specification for
fuel introduced into commerce in the
255 43 FR 11258 (March 17, 1978), 43 FR 24131
(June 2, 1978).
256 45 FR 67443 (October 10, 1980), 46 FR 38582
(July 28, 1981).
257 56 FR 5352 (February 11, 1991).
258 56 FR at 5353.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
state of Alaska to improve cold starting
for vehicles during the winter months in
Alaska.259 Thus the ‘‘substantially
similar’’ interpretive rule for unleaded
gasoline presently allows oxygen
content up to 2.7% by weight for certain
ethers and alcohols.
A waiver of the substantially similar
prohibition was provided by operation
of law in 1979 under CAA section
211(f)(4), allowing a gasoline-alcohol
fuel blend with up to 10% ethanol by
volume (E10) (‘‘E10 Waiver’’). E10 has
an oxygen content which typically
ranges between 3.5 and 3.7% by weight,
depending on the specific gravity of the
gasoline. Any ethanol blends with
greater than 10% ethanol by volume
would have an oxygen content which
exceeds the 2.7% by weight allowed
under the current interpretation of
‘‘substantially similar.’’ Therefore,
under the 1991 interpretive rule, midlevel ethanol blends would not be
considered substantially similar and
would require a CAA section 211(f)(4)
waiver.
It has been suggested to EPA that we
should update the interpretive rule such
that mid-level ethanol blends would be
considered substantially similar. As in
the past, this would involve
consideration of the physical and
chemical similarities of such mid-level
blends to fuels used in the certification
process, as well as information about
the expected emissions effects of such
mid-level blends.260 EPA invites
comment on whether mid-level blends
of ethanol are physically and chemically
similar enough to the fuels used in the
motor vehicle certification process such
that they could be considered
‘‘substantially similar’’ to the
certification fuels used by EPA. With
respect to the emissions effects of midlevel blends on emissions performance,
EPA recognizes that there may be
different impacts depending on the kind
of motor vehicle involved. For example,
it has been suggested that older
technology motor vehicles and engines
may have emissions and durability
impacts from ethanol blends higher than
10 percent, while Tier 2 and later
technology vehicles—2004 and later
model year vehicles—may have fewer
such impacts.261 These more recent
259 73
FR 22277 (April 25, 2008).
point to be clear on is that the
substantially similar provision relates to fuels used
in certification. It is not an issue of whether midlevel blends are substantially similar to a fuel that
has received a waiver of this prohibition. See 46 FR
38582, 38583 (July 28, 1981). The fuels used in
certification include the test fuels used for exhaust
testing, test fuels for evaporative emissions testing,
and the fuels used in the durability process.
261 It has also been suggested that nonroad
engines and equipment may experience greater
260 One
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25019
technology vehicles represent an ever
growing proportion of the in-use fleet.
DOE is currently conducting various test
programs to ascertain the impacts of
higher level ethanol blends on vehicles
and equipment.
EPA seeks comment on all of the
issues involved with reconsidering its
interpretation of the term ‘‘substantially
similar’’ to include gasoline blended
with ethanol to contain up to 4.5%
oxygen by weight. If EPA revised the
substantially similar interpretation in
this manner, gasoline blended with up
to 12% ethanol by volume (E12) would
be considered ‘‘substantially
similar.’’ 262 Given the possibility, based
upon engineering judgment, of a varying
impact of a mid-level ethanol blends on
different technology vehicles, EPA
invites comment on limiting such an
interpretation to gasoline intended for
use in Tier 2 and later motor vehicles.
We estimate that defining E12 as
‘‘substantially similar’’ for Tier 2 and
later motor vehicles could delay the
saturation of the gasoline market with
ethanol for up to a year, allowing for
more comprehensive testing on higher
blend levels to be carried out. However,
before EPA could determine whether it
was appropriate to revise the
interpretation of ‘‘substantially similar’’
for gasoline to include gasoline-alcohol
fuels blended with up to 12% ethanol,
information would need to be provided
to EPA that would allow for a robust
assessment of the impact of E12 over the
full useful life of Tier 2 and later motor
vehicles addressing emissions (both
tailpipe and evaporative emissions),
materials compatibility, and drivability.
Furthermore, E12 would still need to
fulfill registration requirements (i.e.
speciation and health effects testing
found at 40 CFR 79.52 and 40 CFR
79.53).
EPA also seeks comments on
additional regulatory and
implementation issues that would arise
as a result of changing the ‘‘substantially
similar’’ definition to allow for E12.
These issues as identified for mid-level
blends in the discussion in Section
V.D.3.b include, but are not necessarily
limited to, the applicability of the 1.0
psi RVP waiver with regard to 10%
ethanol blends found at 40 CFR
emissions effects and durability problems when
using mid-level blends.
262 As mentioned earlier, EPA has typically used
the oxygen weight percent convention when
interpreting the ‘‘substantially similar’’ provision. A
change in the ‘‘substantially similar’’ interpretation
to allow for up to 4.5% oxygen by weight in the
form of ethanol would essentially accommodate
ethanol blends up to 12% by volume since the vast
majority of gasolines blended at 12% by volume
ethanol would not exceed this oxygen weight
percent limit.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25020
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
80.27(d), Clean Air Act section 211(h);
the accommodation of ethanol blends in
making calculations utilizing the
complex model for reformulated and
conventional gasoline at 40 CFR 80.45;
and detergent certification requirements
found at 40 CFR 80 (Subpart G).
Emissions speciation and health effects
testing is required for oxygenate-specific
blends under 40 CFR 79 (Subpart F).
Such testing is currently underway for
10% ethanol blends but not for ethanol
levels higher than 10 percent.
Additionally, if E12 was allowed under
the ‘‘substantially similar’’ definition,
presumably such a blend would have to
meet one of the volatility classes of
ASTM D4814–88, which is not now the
case with some blends of 10% ethanol
blended under the E10 Waiver. Any
change in the allowable maximum
ethanol level in motor fuels will impact
these and, potentially, other motor fuel
regulations.
Furthermore, there are also
implications beyond EPA’s motor fuel
regulations. Existing equipment in retail
stations is certified by Underwriters
Laboratories only up to 10% ethanol.
Thus, either existing equipment would
need to be recertified for E12 (if
possible) or it would have to be replaced
before E12 could be effectuated in the
marketplace. In addition, the
substantially similar prohibition applies
to the fuel manufacturer, and if the
reinterpretation only applied to gasoline
used with Tier 2 and later motor
vehicles, then the manufacturer of a
mid-level blend could not introduce it
into commerce for use with any other
motor vehicles. This means that the fuel
distribution system would need to be
structured in such a way that the fuel
manufacturer could appropriately
ensure that the fuel was only used in
Tier 2 or later motor vehicles.
Preventing the misfueling of mid-level
blends into vehicles and engines not
specified in the interpretive rule, and
ensuring the availability of fuels for
other vehicles and engines, poses a
major problem with reinterpreting
‘‘substantially similar’’ to include midlevel blends with a restriction for use in
Tier 2 and later motor vehicles. (For a
more detailed discussion on this issue,
see Section V.D.3.c above). We seek
comment on these logistical and
regulatory concerns as well.
VI. Impacts of the Program on
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A. Introduction
Lifecycle modeling, often referred to
as fuel cycle or well-to-wheel analysis,
assesses the net impacts of a fuel
throughout each stage of its production
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
and use including production/extraction
of the feedstock, feedstock
transportation, fuel production, fuel
transportation and distribution, and
tailpipe emissions.263 This section
describes and seeks comment on the
methodology developed by EPA to
determine the lifecycle greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions of biofuels fuels as
required by EISA as well as the
petroleum-based transportation fuels
being replaced. While much of the
discussion below focuses on those
portions of lifecycle assessment
particularly important to biofuel
production, the basic methodology was
the same for analyzing both petroleumbased fuels and biofuels. This
methodology was utilized to determine
which biofuels (both domestic and
imported) qualify for the four different
GHG reduction thresholds established
in EISA. This threshold assessment
compares the lifecycle emissions of a
particular biofuel including its
production pathway against the
lifecycle emissions of the petroleumbased fuel it is replacing (e.g., ethanol
replacing gasoline or biodiesel replacing
diesel). This section also seeks comment
on the Agency’s proposal to utilize the
discretion provided in EISA to adjust
these thresholds downward should
certain conditions be met. We also
explain how feedstocks and fuel types
not included in our analysis will be
addressed and incorporated in the
future. The overall GHG benefits of the
RFS program, which are based on the
same methodology presented here, are
provided in Section VI.F.
As described in detail below, EPA has
analyzed the lifecycle GHG impacts of
the range of biofuels currently expected
to contribute significantly to meeting
the volume mandates of EISA through
2022. In these analyses we have used
the best science available. Our analysis
relies on peer reviewed models and the
best estimate of important trends in
agricultural practices and fuel
production technologies as these may
impact our prediction of individual
biofuel GHG performance through 2022.
We have identified and highlighted
assumptions and model inputs that
particularly influence our assessment
and seek comment on these
assumptions, the models we have used
263 In this preamble, we are considering ‘‘lifecycle
analysis’’ in the context of estimating GHG
emissions, as required by EISA. More generally, the
term ‘‘lifecycle analysis’’ or ‘‘assessment’’ has been
defined as an evaluation of all the environmental
impacts across the range of media/exposure
pathways that are associated with a ‘‘cradle to
grave’’ view of a product or set of policies. For more
information on this broader context, please see the
2006 EPA publication ‘‘Life Cycle Assessment:
Principles and Practice (EPA/600/R–06/060).
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and our overall methodology so as to
assure the most robust assessment of
lifecycle GHG performance for the final
rule.
EPA believes that compliance with
the EISA mandate—determining the
aggregate GHG emissions related to the
full fuel lifecycle, including both direct
emissions and significant indirect
emissions such as land use changes—
makes it necessary to assess those direct
and indirect impacts that occur not just
within the United States and also those
that occur in other countries. This
applies to determining the lifecycle
emissions for petroleum-based fuels, to
determine the baseline, as well as the
lifecycle emissions for biofuels. For
biofuels, this includes evaluating
significant emissions from indirect land
use changes that occur in other
countries as a result of the increased
production and importation of biofuels
in the U.S. As detailed below, we have
included the GHG emission impacts of
international indirect land use changes.
We recognize the significance of
including international land use
emissions impact and in our analysis
presentation we have been transparent
in breaking out the various sources of
GHG emissions so that the reader can
readily see the impact of including
international land use impacts.
In addition to the many technical
issues addressed in this proposal, this
section also discusses the emissions
decreases and increases associated with
the different parts of the lifecycle
emissions of various biofuels, and the
timeframes in which these emissions
changes occur. Determining a single
lifecycle value that best represents this
combination of emissions increases and
decreases occurring over time led EPA
to consider various alternative ways to
analyze the timeframe of emissions
related to biofuel production and use as
well as options for adjusting or
discounting these emissions to
determine their net present value.
Several variations of time period and
discount rate are discussed. The
analytical time horizon and the choice
whether to discount GHG emissions
and, if so, at what appropriate rate can
have a significant impact on the final
assessment of the lifecycle GHG
emissions impacts of individual biofuels
as well as the overall GHG impacts of
these EISA provisions and this rule.
We believe that our lifecycle analysis
is based on the best available science,
and recognize that in some aspects it
represents a cutting edge approach to
addressing lifecycle GHG emissions.
Because of this, varying degrees of
uncertainty are in our analysis. For this
proposal, we conducted a number of
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
sensitivity analyses which focus on key
parameters and demonstrate how our
assessments might change under
alternative assumptions. By focusing
attention on these key parameters, the
comments we receive as well as
additional investigation and analysis by
EPA will allow narrowing of uncertainty
concerns for the final rule. In addition
to this sensitivity analysis approach, we
will also explore options for more
formal uncertainty analyses for the final
rule to the extent possible.
Because lifecycle analysis is a new
part of the RFS program, in addition to
the formal comment period on the
proposed rule, EPA is making multiple
efforts to solicit public and expert
feedback on our proposed approach. As
discussed in Section XI, EPA plans to
hold a public workshop during the
comment period focused specifically on
our lifecycle analysis to help ensure full
understanding of the analyses
conducted, the issues addressed and
options that should be considered. We
expect that this workshop will help
ensure that we receive the most
thoughtful and useful comments to this
proposal and that the best methodology
and assumptions are used for
calculating GHG emissions impacts of
fuels for the final rule. Additionally we
will conduct peer-reviews of key
components of our analysis. As
explained in more detail in the
following sections, EPA is specifically
seeking peer review of: Our use of
satellite data to project future land use
changes; the land conversion GHG
emissions factors estimated by Winrock;
our estimates of GHG emissions from
foreign crop production; methods to
account for the variable timing of GHG
emissions; and how models are used
together to provide overall lifecycle
GHG estimates.
The regulatory purpose of the
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions
analysis is to determine whether
renewable fuels meet the GHG
thresholds for the different categories of
renewable fuel.
1. Definition of Lifecycle GHG
Emissions
The GHG provisions in EISA are
notable for the GHG thresholds
mandated for each category of
renewable fuel and also the mandated
lifecycle approach to those thresholds.
Renewable fuel must, unless
‘‘grandfathered’’ as discussed in Section
II.B.3., achieve at least 20% reduction in
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions
compared to the average lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions for gasoline or
diesel sold or distributed as
transportation fuel in 2005. Similarly,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
biomass-based diesel and advanced
biofuels must achieve a 50% reduction,
and cellulosic biofuels a 60% reduction,
unless these thresholds are adjusted
according to the provisions in EISA. To
EPA’s knowledge, the GHG reduction
thresholds presented in EISA are the
first lifecycle GHG performance
requirements included in federal law.
These thresholds, in combination with
the renewable fuel volume mandates,
are designed to ensure significant GHG
emission reductions from the use of
renewable fuels and encourage the use
of GHG-reducing renewable fuels.
The definition of lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions established by Congress is
also critical. Congress specified that:
The term ‘lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions’ means the aggregate quantity of
greenhouse gas emissions (including direct
emissions and significant indirect emissions
such as significant emissions from land use
changes), as determined by the
Administrator, related to the full fuel
lifecycle, including all stages of fuel and
feedstock production and distribution, from
feedstock generation or extraction through
the distribution and delivery and use of the
finished fuel to the ultimate consumer, where
the mass values for all greenhouse gases are
adjusted to account for their relative global
warming potential.264
This definition requires EPA to look
broadly at lifecycle analyses and to
develop a methodology that accounts for
all the important factors that may
significantly influence this assessment,
including the secondary or indirect
impacts of expanded biofuels use. EPA’s
analysis described below indicates that
the assessment of lifecycle GHG
emissions for biofuels is significantly
affected by the secondary agricultural
sector GHG impacts from increased
biofuel feedstock production (e.g.,
changes in livestock emissions due to
changes in agricultural commodity
prices) and also by the international
impact of land use change from
increased biofuel feedstock production.
Thus, these factors must be
appropriately incorporated into EPA’s
lifecycle methodology to properly assess
full lifecycle GHG performance of
biofuels in accordance with the EISA
definition.
2. History and Evolution of GHG
Lifecycle Analysis
Traditionally, the GHG lifecycle
analysis of fuels has involved
calculating the emissions associated
with each individual stage in the
production and use of the fuel (e.g.,
growing or extracting the feedstock,
moving the feedstock to the processing
plant, processing the feedstock into fuel,
264 Clean
PO 00000
Air Act Section 211(o)(1).
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25021
moving the fuel to market, and
combusting the fuel.) EPA used this
approach for the lifecycle modeling
conducted for the RFS1 program in
2005. However, it has become
increasingly apparent that this type of
first order or attributional lifecycle
modeling has notable shortcomings,
especially when evaluating the
implications of biofuel policies.265 In
fact, the main criticism EPA received in
reaction to our previous RFS1 lifecycle
analysis was that we did not include
important secondary, indirect, or
consequential impacts of biofuel
production and use.
Several studies and analyses
conducted since the completion of RFS1
have contributed to our understanding
of the lifecycle GHG emissions of
biofuel production. These studies, and
others, have highlighted the potential
impacts of biofuel production on the
agricultural sector and have specifically
identified land use change impacts as an
important consideration when
determining GHG impacts of
biofuels.266 267 In the meantime, the
dramatic increase in U.S. production of
biofuels has heightened the concern
about the impacts biofuels might have
on land use and has increased the
importance of considering these indirect
impacts in lifecycle analysis.
Based on the evolution of lifecycle
analysis and the new requirements of
EISA, we have developed a
comprehensive methodology for
estimating the lifecycle GHG emissions
associated with renewable fuels.
Through dozens of meetings with a
wide range of experts and stakeholders,
EPA has shared and sought input on
this methodology. We also have relied
on the expertise of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) and the
Department of Energy (DOE) to help
inform many of the key assumptions
and modeling inputs for this analysis.
Dialogue with the State of California
and the European Union on their
parallel, on-going efforts in GHG
265 See also, Conceptual and Methodological
Issues in Lifecycle Analysis of Transportation
Fuels, Mark A. Delucchi, Institute of Transportation
Studies, University of California, Davis, 2004, UCD–
ITS–RR–04–45 for a description of issues with
traditional lifecycle analysis used to model GHG
impacts of biofuels and biofuel policies.
266 Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and
P. Hawthorne. 2008. Land clearing and the biofuel
carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238. See https://
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5867/
1235.pdf.
267 Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton,
F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes,
and T.-H. Yu. 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for
biofuels increases greenhouse gases through
emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–
1240. See https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/
319/5867/1238.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25022
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
lifecycle analysis has also helped inform
EPA’s methodology. As part of this
discussion, we have identified several of
the key drivers associated with these
lifecycle GHG emissions estimates,
including assumptions about
international land use change and the
timing of GHG emissions over time. The
inputs we have received through these
interactions are reflected throughout
this section.
Specifically EPA has worked closely
with the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) regarding their development of
transportation fuels lifecycle GHG
impacts. California Executive Order S–
1–07, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard
(LCFS) (issued on January 18, 2007),
calls for a reduction of at least 10
percent in the carbon intensity of
California’s transportation fuels by
2020. CARB has worked to develop
lifecycle GHG impacts of different fuels
for this Executive Order rulemaking.
More information about this rulemaking
and the lifecycle analysis conducted by
California can be found at https://
www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm. EPA
will continue to coordinate with
California on this rulemaking and the
biofuels lifecycle GHG analysis work.
Because this lifecycle GHG emissions
analysis is complex and requires the use
of sophisticated computer models, we
have taken several steps to increase the
transparency associated with our
analysis. For example, we have updated
the model documentation for the Forest
and Agricultural Sector Optimization
Model (FASOM), which is included in
the docket. In addition, we have
highlighted key assumptions in FASOM
and the Food and Agricultural Policy
Research Institute (FAPRI) models that
impact the results of our analysis.
Finally, this NPRM provides an
important opportunity for the Agency to
present our work and to receive input
from stakeholders and experts in this
field. We will also continue to refine our
analysis between the proposed and final
rules, and we will add or update
information to the docket as it becomes
available.
B. Methodology
This section describes EPA’s
methodology for assessing the lifecycle
GHG emissions associated with each
biofuel evaluated as well as the
petroleum-based gasoline and diesel
fuel these biofuels would replace.
Whereas lifecycle GHG emission
methodologies have been well studied
and established for petroleum-based
gasoline and diesel fuel, much of EPA’s
work has focused on newly developing
lifecycle methodologies for biofuels.
Therefore, much of the following
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
section describes the biofuels-related
methodologies and identifies important
issues for comment. Assessing the
complete lifecycle GHG impact for each
individual biofuel mandated by EISA
requires that a number of key
methodological issues be addressed—
from the choice of a baseline to the
selection of the most credible technique
for predicting international land use
conversion due to the increase in U.S.
renewable fuels demand, to accounting
for the time dimension of changes in
GHG emissions. In this section, we first
describe the scenarios we have analyzed
for this proposal. Second, we discuss
the scope of our analysis and what is
included in our estimates. Third, we
provide details on the tools and models
we used to quantify the GHG emissions
associated with the different fuels.
Fourth, we discuss the uncertainties
associated with lifecycle analysis and
how we have addressed them. Fifth, we
describe the different components of the
lifecycle that we have analyzed and the
key questions we have addressed in this
analysis.
1. Scenario Description
To quantify the lifecycle GHG
emissions associated with the increase
in renewable fuel mandated by EISA,
we compared the differences in total
GHG emissions between two future
scenarios. The first assumed a ‘‘business
as usual’’ volume of a particular
renewable fuel based on what would
likely be in the fuel pool in 2022
without EISA, as predicted by the
Energy Information Agency’s Annual
Energy Outlook (AEO) for 2007 (which
took into account the economic and
policy factors in existence in 2007
before EISA). The second assumed the
higher volume of renewable fuels as
mandated by EISA for 2022. For each
individual biofuel, we analyzed the
incremental GHG emission impacts of
increasing the volume of that fuel to the
total mix of biofuels needed to meet the
EISA requirements. Rather than focus
on the impacts associated with a
specific gallon of fuel and tracking
inputs and outputs across different
lifecycle stages, we determined the
overall aggregate impacts across sections
of the economy in response to a given
volume change in the amount of biofuel
produced.268
This analysis is not a comparison of
biofuel produced today versus biofuel
produced in the future. Instead, it is a
comparison of two future scenarios. Any
projected changes in factors such as
268 We then normalize those impacts for each
gallon of fuel (or Btu) by dividing total impacts over
the given volume change.
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
crop yields, energy costs, or production
plant efficiencies, both domestically and
internationally, are reflected in both
scenarios. We focused our analyses on
2022 results for three reasons. First, it
would require an extremely complex
assessment and administratively
difficult implementation program to
track how biofuel production might
continuously change from month to
month or year to year. Instead, it seems
appropriate that each biofuel be
assessed a level of GHG performance
that is constant over the implementation
of this rule, allowing fuel providers to
anticipate how these GHG performance
assessments should affect their
production plans. Second, it is
appropriate to focus on 2022, the final
year of ramp up in the required volumes
of renewable fuel as this year.
Assessment in this year allows the
complete fuel volumes specified in
EISA to be incorporated. Third, since
the GHG assessment compares
performance between a business as
usual case and the mandated volumes
case, many of the factors that change
over time such as crop yield per acre are
reflected in both cases. Therefore the
differences in these parallel assessments
are unlikely to vary significantly over
time.
EPA requests comment on its
proposal to adopt fixed assessments of
fuels meeting the GHG thresholds based
on a 2022 performance assessment.
Additional information on the scenarios
modeled and the supplemental analyses
that will be conducted for the final rule
is included in Chapter 2 of the DRIA.
In the existing Renewable Fuel
Standard rules adopted in response to
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, biofuels
and RINs associated with them are not
based on regional differences of where
the feedstock was grown or the biofuel
was produced. In effect, the RINs apply
to a national average of the fuel type.
Similarly, this proposal does not
distinguish biofuel on the basis of where
within the country the biofuel feedstock
was grown or the biofuel produced.
Thus, for example, ethanol produced
from corn starch using the same
production technology will receive the
same GHG lifecycle assessment
regardless of where the corn was grown
or at what facility the biofuel was
produced. There are regional differences
in soil types, weather conditions, and
other factors which could affect, for
example, the amount of fertilizer
applied and thus the GHG impact of
corn production. Such factors could
vary somewhat across a region, within
a state and even within a county. The
agricultural models used to conduct this
analysis do distinguish crop production
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
by region domestically and by country
internationally. However, biofuel
feedstocks such as corn or soybean oil
are well traded commodities including
internationally. So, for example, if corn
in a certain location in Iowa is used to
produce ethanol, corn from all other
regions will be used to replace that corn
for all its other potential uses.
Therefore, it is not appropriate to
ascribe the indirect affects, both
domestically and internationally, to
corn grown in one area differently to
corn (or other biofuel feedstock) grown
in another area. Our national treatment
of biofuel feedstock also pertains to
fuels produced in other countries. Thus
for example, sugarcane-based ethanol
produced in Brazil is all treated the
same regardless of where the sugarcane
was grown in Brazil. Nevertheless,
comments are invited on the option of
differentiating biofuels in the future
based on the location of their feedstock
production within a country.
2. Scope of the Analysis
a. Legal Interpretation of Lifecycle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As described in VI.A.1, the definition
of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions
refers to the ‘‘aggregate quantity of GHG
emissions’’ that are ‘‘related to the full
fuel lifecycle.’’ The fuel lifecycle
includes ‘‘all stages of fuel and
feedstock production and distribution,
from feedstock generation or extraction
through * * * use of the finished fuel
to the ultimate consumer.’’ The
aggregate quantity of GHG emissions
includes ‘‘direct emissions’’ and
‘‘significant indirect emissions such as
significant emission from land use
changes.’’ This provision is written in
generally broad and expansive terms,
such as ‘‘aggregate quantity’’, ‘‘related
to’’, ‘‘full fuel lifecycle’’, and ‘‘all
stages’’ of production and distribution.
At the same time, these and other terms
are not themselves defined and provide
discretion to the Administrator in
implementing this definition. For
example, the word ‘‘significant,’’ which
is used to modify ‘‘indirect emissions,’’
is not defined.
The definition includes both ‘‘direct’’
and ‘‘significant indirect’’ emissions
related to the full fuel lifecycle. We
consider direct emissions as those that
are emitted from each stage of the full
fuel lifecycle, and indirect emissions as
those from second order effects that
occur as a consequence of the full fuel
lifecycle. For example, direct emissions
for a renewable fuel would include
those from the growing of renewable
fuel feedstock, the distribution of the
feedstock to the renewable fuel
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
producer, the production of renewable
fuel, the distribution of the finished fuel
to the consumer, and the use of the fuel
by the consumer as transportation fuel.
Similarly, direct emissions associated
with the baseline fuel would include
extraction of the crude oil, distribution
of the crude oil to the refinery, the
production of gasoline and diesel from
the crude oil, the distribution of the
finished fuel to the consumer, and the
use of the fuel by the consumer. Indirect
emissions would include other
emissions impacts that result from fuel
production or use, such as changes in
livestock emissions resulting from
changes in livestock numbers, or shifts
in acreage between different crop types.
The definition of indirect emissions
specifically includes ‘‘land use
changes’’ which would include changes
in the kind of usage that land is put to
such as changes in forest, pasture,
savannah, and crop use.269
In considering how to address land
use changes in our lifecycle analysis,
two distinct questions have been
raised—whether to account for
emissions that occur outside of the U.S.,
and under what circumstances land use
change should properly be included in
the lifecycle analysis.
On the question of considering GHG
emissions that occur outside of the U.S.,
it is important to be clear that including
such emissions in the lifecycle analysis
does not exercise regulatory authority
over activities that occur solely outside
the U.S., and does not raise questions of
extra-territorial jurisdiction. EPA’s
regulatory action involves classification
of products either produced in the U.S.
or imported into the U.S. EPA is simply
assessing whether the use of these
products in the U.S. satisfies
requirements under the Clean Air Act
for the use of designated volumes of
renewable fuel, cellulosic biofuel,
biomass-based diesel and advanced
biofuel, as those terms are defined in the
Act. Considering international
emissions in determining the lifecycle
GHG emissions of the domestically
produced or imported fuel does not
change the fact that the actual regulation
of the product involves its use solely
inside the U.S.
When looking at the issue of
international versus domestic
emissions, it is important to recognize
that a large variety of different activities
269 Arguably shifts in acreage between different
crops also could be considered a land use change,
but we believe there will be less confusion if the
term land use change is used with respect to
changes in land such as changing from savannah or
forest to cropland. There is no difference in result,
as in both cases the emissions need to be
significant.
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25023
outside the U.S. play a major part of the
full fuel lifecycle of baseline and
renewable fuels. For example, for
baseline fuels (i.e., gasoline and diesel
fuels used as transportation fuel in
2005), GHG emissions associated with
extraction and delivery of crude oil
imported to the U.S. all have occurred
overseas. In addition, for imported
gasoline or diesel, all of the crude
extraction and delivery emissions, as
well as the emissions associated with
refining and distribution of the finished
product to the U.S., would have
occurred overseas. For imported
renewable fuel all of the emissions
associated with feedstock production
and distribution, processing of the
feedstock into renewable fuel, and
delivery of the finished renewable fuel
to the U.S. would have occurred
overseas. The definition of lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions makes it clear
that EPA is to determine the aggregate
emissions related to the ‘‘full’’ fuel
lifecycle, including ‘‘all stages of fuel
and feedstock production and
distribution.’’ Thus, EPA could not, as
a legal matter, ignore those parts of a
fuel lifecycle that occur overseas.
Drawing a distinction between GHG
emissions that occur inside the U.S. as
compared to emissions that occur
outside the U.S. would dramatically
alter the lifecycle analysis in a way that
bears no apparent relationship to the
purpose of this provision. The purpose
of including lifecycle GHG thresholds in
this statutory provision is to require the
use of renewable fuels that achieve
reductions in GHG emissions compared
to the baseline. Drawing a distinction
between domestic and international
emissions would ignore a large part of
the GHG emission associated with the
different fuels, and would result in a
GHG analysis of baseline renewable
fuels that bears no relationship to the
real world emissions impact of the fuels.
The baseline would be significantly
understated, given the large amount of
imported crude used to produce
gasoline and diesel, and the importation
of finished gasoline and diesel, in 2005.
Likewise, the emissions associated with
imported renewable fuel would be
understated, as it would only consider
the emissions from distribution of the
fuel to the consumer and the use of the
fuel by the consumer, and would ignore
both the emissions that occurred
overseas as well as the emissions
reductions from the intake of CO2 from
growing of the feedstock. While large
percentages of GHG emissions would be
ignored, this would take place in a
context where the global warming
impact of emissions is irrespective of
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25024
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
where the emissions occur. Thus taking
such an approach would essentially
undermine the provision, and would be
an arbitrary interpretation of the broadly
phrased text used by Congress.
While the emissions discussed above
would more typically be considered
direct emissions related to the full fuel
lifecycle, there would also be no basis
to cover just foreign direct emissions
while excluding foreign indirect
emissions. The text of the statute draws
no such distinction, nor is there a
distinction in achieving the purposes of
the provision. GHG emissions impact
global warming wherever they occur,
and if the purpose is to achieve some
reduction in GHG emissions in order to
help address global warming, then
ignoring GHG emissions because they
are emitted outside our borders versus
inside our borders interferes with the
ability to achieve this objective.
For example, domestic production of
a renewable fuel could lead to indirect
emissions, whether from land use
changes or otherwise, some occurring
within the U.S. and some occurring in
other countries. Similarly, imported
renewable fuel could have resulted in
the same indirect emissions whether
occurring in the country that produced
the biofuel or in other countries. It
would be arbitrary to assign the indirect
emissions to the domestic renewable
fuel but not to assign the identical
indirect emissions that occur overseas to
an imported product.
Based on the above, EPA believes that
the definition of lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions is properly interpreted as
including all direct and significant
indirect GHG emissions related to the
full fuel lifecycle, whether or not they
occur in the U.S. This applies to both
the baseline lifecycle greenhouse
emissions as well as the lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions for various
renewable fuels.
EPA recognizes, as discussed later,
our estimates of domestic indirect
emissions are more certain than our
estimate of international indirect
emissions. The issue of how to evaluate
and weigh the various elements of the
lifecycle analysis, and properly account
for uncertainty in our estimates, is a
different issue, however. The issue here
is whether the definition of lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions is properly
interpreted as including direct and
significant indirect emissions that occur
outside the U.S. as well as those that
occur inside the U.S.
As to the question of which land use
changes should be included in our
lifecycle analyses, a central element to
focus on is the requirement that such
indirect emissions be related to the full
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
fuel lifecycle. The term ‘‘related to’’ is
generally interpreted as providing a
broad and expansive scope for a
provision. It has routinely been
interpreted as meaning to have a
connection to or refer to a matter. To
determine whether an indirect emission
has the appropriate connection to the
full fuel lifecycle, we must look at both
the objectives of this provision as well
as the nature of the relationship.
In this case, EPA has used a global
model that projects a variety of
agricultural impacts that stem from the
use of feedstocks to produce renewable
fuel. We have estimated shifts in types
of crops planted and increases in crop
acres planted. There is a direct
relationship between these shifts in the
agricultural market as a consequence of
the increased demand for biofuels in the
U.S. Increased U.S. demand for biofuel
feedstocks diverts these feedstocks from
other competing uses, and also increases
the price of the feedstock, thus spurring
production. To the extent feedstocks
like corn and soybeans are traded
internationally, this combined impact of
lower supply from the U.S. and higher
commodity prices encourages
international production to fill the gap.
Our analysis uses country specific
information to determine the amount,
location, and type of land use change
that would occur to meet this change in
production patterns. The linkages are
generally close, and are not extended or
overly complex. While there is clearly
significant uncertainty in determining
the specific degree of land use change
and the specific impact of those
changes, there is considerable overall
certainty as to the existence of the land
use changes in general, the fact that
GHG emissions will result, and the
cause and effect linkage of these
emissions impacts to the increased use
of feedstock for production of renewable
fuels.
Overall, EPA is confident that it is
appropriate to consider the estimated
emissions from land use changes as well
as the other indirect emissions as
‘‘related to’’ the full fuel lifecycle, based
on the reasonable technical basis
provided by the modeling for the
connection between the full fuel
lifecycle and the indirect emissions, as
well as for the determination that the
emissions are significant. EPA believes
uncertainty in the resulting aggregate
GHG estimates should be taken into
consideration, but that it would be
inappropriate to exclude indirect
emissions estimates from this analysis.
Developing a reasonable estimate of
these kinds of indirect emissions will
allow for a reasoned evaluation of total
GHG impacts, which is needed to
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
promote the objectives of this provision,
as compared to ignoring or not
accounting for these indirect emissions.
b. System Boundaries
It is important to establish clear
system boundaries in this analysis. By
determining a common set of system
boundaries, different fuel types can then
be validly compared. As described in
the previous section, we have assessed
the direct and indirect GHG impacts in
each stage of the full fuel lifecycle for
biofuels and petroleum fuels.
To capture the direct emissions
impacts of feedstock production in our
analysis, we included the agricultural
inputs (e.g., the fuel used in the tractor,
the energy used to produce and
transport fertilizer to the field) needed
to grow crops directly used in biofuel
production. We also included the N2O
emissions associated with agricultural
sector practices used in biofuel
production (including direct and
indirect N2O emissions from synthetic
fertilizer application, N fixing crops,
crop residue, and manure management),
as well as the land use change
associated with converting land to grow
crops directly used in biofuel
production. To capture the indirect, or
secondary, GHG emissions that result
from biofuel feedstock production, we
relied on the internationally accepted
lifecycle assessment standards
developed by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO).
Examples of significant secondary
impacts include the agricultural inputs
associated with crops indirectly
impacted by the use of feedstock for
biofuel production (domestically and
internationally), the emissions
associated with land use change that are
indirectly impacted by using feedstocks
for biofuel production (e.g., to make up
for lost U.S. exports), changes in
livestock herd numbers that result from
higher feed costs, and changes in rice
methane emissions indirectly impacted
by shifts in acres to produce feedstocks
for biofuel production. These indirect or
secondary impacts would not have
occurred if it were not for the use of
biomass to produce a biofuel.
We did not include the infrastructure
related GHG emissions (e.g., the energy
needed to manufacture the tractor used
on the farm) or the facility constructionrelated emissions (e.g., steel or concrete
needed to construct a refinery). As part
of the GHG analysis performed for
RFS1, we performed a sensitivity
analysis on expanding the corn
production system to include farm
equipment production to determine the
impact it has on the overall results of
our analysis. We found that including
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
farm equipment production energy use
and emissions increases corn ethanol
lifecycle energy use and GHG emissions
and decreases the corn ethanol lifecycle
GHG benefit as compared to petroleum
gasoline by approximately 1%.
Furthermore, to be consistent in the
modeling if system boundaries are
expanded to include production of
farming equipment they should also be
expanded to include producing other
material inputs to both the ethanol and
petroleum lifecycles. The net effect of
this would be a slight increase in both
the ethanol and petroleum fuel lifecycle
results and a smaller or negligible effect
on the comparison of the two.
For this proposal, we have not yet
incorporated secondary energy sector
impacts, however we plan to have this
analysis complete for the final rule.
Additional details on the system
boundaries are included in the DRIA
Chapter 2.
3. Modeling Framework
Currently, no single model can
capture all of the complex interactions
associated with estimating lifecycle
GHG emissions for biofuels, taking into
account the ‘‘significant indirect
emissions such as significant emissions
from land use change’’ required by
EISA. For example, some analysis tools
used in the past focus on process
modeling—the energy and resultant
emissions associated with the direct
production of a fuel at a petroleum
refinery or biofuel production facility.
But this is only one component in the
production of the fuel. Clearly in the
case of biofuels, impacts from and on
the agricultural sector are important,
because this sector produces feedstock
for biofuel production. Commercial
agricultural operations make many of
their decisions based on an economic
assessment of profit maximization.
Assessment of the interactions
throughout the agricultural sector
requires an analysis of the commodity
markets using economic models.
However, existing economy wide
general equilibrium economic models
are not detailed enough to capture the
specific agricultural sector interactions
critical to our analysis (e.g., changes in
acres by crop type) and would not
provide the types of outputs needed for
a thorough GHG analysis. As a result,
EPA has used different tools that have
different strengths for each specific
component of the analysis to create a
more comprehensive estimate of GHG
emissions. Where no direct links
between the different models exist,
specific components and outputs of
each are used and combined to provide
an analytical framework and the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
composite lifecycle assessment results.
As this is a new application of these
modeling tools, EPA plans to organize
peer review of our modeling approach.
The individual models are described in
the following sections and in more
detail in Chapter 2 of the DRIA.
To quantify the emissions factors
associated with different steps of the
production and use of various fuels
(e.g., extraction of petroleum products,
transport of feedstocks), we used the
spreadsheet analysis tool developed by
Argonne National Laboratories, the
Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions,
and Energy use in Transportation
(GREET) model. This analysis tool
includes the GHG emissions associated
with the production and combustion of
fossil fuels (diesel fuel, gasoline, natural
gas, coal, etc.). These fossil fuels are
used both in the production of biofuels,
(e.g., diesel fuel used in farm tractors
and natural gas used at ethanol plants)
and could also be displaced by
renewable fuel use in the transportation
sector. GREET also estimates the GHG
emissions estimates associated with
electricity production required for
biofuel and petroleum fuel production.
For the agricultural sector, we also
relied upon GREET to provide GHG
emissions associated with the
production and transport of agricultural
inputs such as fertilizer, herbicides,
pesticides, etc. While GREET provides
direct GHG emissions estimates
associated with the extraction-throughcombustion phases of fuel use, it does
not capture some of the secondary
impacts associated with the fuel, such
as changes in the composition of feed
used for animal production, which
would be expected due to changes in
cost. EPA addresses these secondary
impacts through other models described
later in this section. 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 GHG emissions of fossil energy
consumed, we believe that GREET offers
the most comprehensive treatment of
emissions from the covered sources.
For some steps in the production of
biofuels, we used more detailed models
to capture some of the dynamic market
interactions that result from various
policies. Here, we briefly describe the
different models incorporated into our
analysis to provide specific details for
various lifecycle components.
To estimate the changes in the
domestic agricultural sector (e.g.,
changes in crop acres resulting from
increased demand for biofuel feedstock
or changes in the number of livestock
due to higher corn prices) and their
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25025
associated emissions, we used the
FASOM model, developed by Texas
A&M University and others. FASOM is
a partial equilibrium economic model of
the U.S. forest and agricultural sectors.
EPA selected the FASOM model for this
analysis for several reasons. FASOM is
a comprehensive forestry and
agricultural sector model that tracks
over 2,000 production possibilities for
field crops, livestock, and biofuels for
private lands in the contiguous United
States. It accounts for changes in CO2,
methane, and N2O from most
agricultural activities and tracks carbon
sequestration and carbon losses over
time. Another advantage of FASOM is
that it captures the impacts of all crop
production, not just biofuel feedstock.
Thus, as compared to some earlier
assessments of lifecycle emissions,
using FASOM allows us to determine
secondary agricultural sector impacts,
such as crop shifting and reduced
demand due to higher prices. It also
captures changes in the livestock market
(e.g., smaller herd sizes that result from
higher feed costs) and U.S. export
changes. FASOM also has been used by
EPA to consider U.S. forest and
agricultural sector GHG mitigation
options.270
To estimate the impacts of biofuels
feedstock production on international
agricultural and livestock production,
we used the integrated FAPRI
international models, developed by
Iowa State University and the
University of Missouri. These models
capture the biological, technical, and
economic relationships among key
variables within a particular commodity
and across commodities. FAPRI is a
worldwide agricultural sector economic
model that was run by the Center for
Agricultural and Rural Development
(CARD) at Iowa State University on
behalf of EPA. The FAPRI models have
been previously employed to examine
the impacts of World Trade
Organization proposals and changes in
the European Union’s Common
Agricultural Policy, to analyze farm bill
proposals since 1984, and to evaluate
the impact of biofuel development in
the United States. In addition, the
FAPRI models have been used by the
USDA Office of Chief Economist,
Congress, and the World Bank to
examine agricultural impacts from
government policy changes, market
developments, and land use shifts.
Although FASOM predicts land use
and export changes in the U.S. due to
270 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential in U.S.
Forestry and Agriculture, EPA Document 430–R–
05–006. See https://www.epa.gov/sequestration/
greenhouse_gas.html.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25026
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
greater demand for domestic biofuel
feedstock, it does not assess how
international agricultural production
might respond to these changes in
commodity prices and U.S. exports. The
FAPRI model does predict how much
crop land will change in other countries
but does not predict what type of land
such as forest or pasture will be
affected. We used data analyses
provided by Winrock International to
estimate what land types will be
converted into crop land in each
country and the GHG emissions
associated with the land conversions.
Winrock has used 2001–2004 satellite
data to analyze recent land use changes
around the world that have resulted
from the social, economic, and political
forces that drive land use. Winrock has
then combined the recent land use
change patterns with various estimates
of carbon stocks associated with
different types of land at the state level.
This international land use assessment
is an important consideration in our
lifecycle GHG assessment and is
explained in more detail later in this
section.
To test the robustness of the FASOM,
FAPRI and Winrock results, we are also
evaluating the Global Trade Analysis
Project (GTAP) model, a multi-region,
multi-sector, computable general
equilibrium model that estimates
changes in world agricultural
production. Maintained through Purdue
University, GTAP projects international
land use change based on the economics
of land conversion, rather than using the
historical data approach applied by
FAPRI/Winrock. GTAP is designed to
project changes in international land
use as a result of the change in U.S.
biofuel policies, based on the relative
land use values of cropland, forest, and
pastureland. The GTAP design has the
advantage of explicitly modeling the
competition between different land
types due to a change in policy. As
further discussed in Section VI.B.5.iv,
GTAP has several disadvantages, some
of which prevented its use for the
proposal. We expect to correct several of
these shortcomings between the
proposed and final rules and therefore
continue to evaluate how the GTAP
model could be used as part of the final
rule.
The assessments provided in this
proposal use the values provided by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) to estimate the impacts of
N2O emissions from fertilizer
application. However, due to concern
that this may underestimate N2O
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
emissions from fertilizer application, 271
we are working with the CENTURY and
DAYCENT models, developed by
Colorado State University, to update our
assessments. The DAYCENT model
simulates plant-soil systems and is
capable of simulating detailed daily soil
water and temperature dynamics and
trace gas fluxes (CH4, N2O, NOX and N2).
The CENTURY model is a generalized
plant-soil ecosystem model that
simulates plant production, soil carbon
dynamics, soil nutrient dynamics, and
soil water and temperature. We
anticipate the results of this new
modeling work will be reflected in our
assessments for the final rule. More
description of this ongoing work is
included in the Chapter 2 of the DRIA.
To estimate the GHG emissions
associated with renewable fuel
production, we used detailed ASPENbased process models developed by
USDA and DOE’s National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL). While
GREET contains estimates for renewable
fuel production, these estimates are
based on existing technology. We expect
biofuel production technology to
improve over time, and we projected
improvements in process technology
over time based on available
information. These projections are
discussed in DRIA Chapter 4. We then
utilized the ASPEN-based process
models to assess the impacts of these
improvements. We also cross-checked
the ASPEN-based process model
predictions by comparing them to a
number of industry sources and other
modeling efforts that estimate potential
improvements in ethanol production
over time, including the Biofuel Energy
Systems Simulator (BESS) model. BESS
is a software tool developed by the
University of Nebraska that calculates
the energy efficiency, greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, and natural resource
requirements of corn-to-ethanol biofuel
production systems. We used the
GREET model to estimate the GHG
emissions associated with current
technology as used by petroleum
refineries, because we do not expect
significant changes in petroleum
refinery technology.
We used the EPA-developed Motor
Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) to
estimate vehicle tailpipe GHG
emissions. The MOVES modeling
system estimates emissions for on-road
and nonroad sources, covers a broad
range of pollutants, and allows multiple
271 Crutzen, P. J., Mosier, A. R., Smith, K. A., and
Winiwarter, W.: N2O release from agro-biofuel
production negates global warming reduction by
replacing fossil fuels, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 389–
395, 2008. See https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/
389/2008/acp-8-389-2008.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
scale analysis, from fine-scale analysis
to national inventory estimation.
Finally, for the FRM we intend to use
an EPA version of the Energy
Information Administration’s National
Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to
estimate the secondary impacts on the
energy market associated with increased
renewable fuel production. NEMS is a
modeling system that simulates the
behavior of energy markets and their
interactions with the U.S. economy by
explicitly representing the economic
decision-making involved in the
production, conversion, and
consumption of energy products. NEMS
can reflect the secondary impacts that
greater renewable fuel use may have on
the prices and quantities of other
sources of energy, and the greenhouse
gas emissions associated with these
changes in the energy sector. It was not
possible to complete this analysis in
time for the NPRM
While EPA is using state-of-the-art
tools available today for each of the
lifecycle components considered, using
multiple models necessitates integrating
these models and, where possible,
applying a common set of assumptions.
As discussed later in this section, this
is particularly important for the two
agricultural sector models, FASOM and
FAPRI, which are being used in
combination to describe the agricultural
sector impacts domestically and
internationally. As described in more
detail in the DRIA Chapter 5, we have
worked with the FAPRI and FASOM
models to align key assumptions. As a
result, the projected agricultural impacts
described in Section IX are relatively
consistent across both models. One
outstanding issue is the differences
between the modeling results associated
with increased soybean-based biodiesel
production. We intend to further refine
the soybean biodiesel scenarios for the
final rule. Additional details on all of
the models used can be found in DRIA
Chapter 2. Finally, as noted earlier, we
are planning to have a number of
aspects of our modeling framework peer
reviewed before finalizing these
regulations. In the sections below, we
have identified specific peer review
plans.
4. Treatment of Uncertainty
While EPA believes the methodology
presented here represents a robust and
scientifically credible approach, we
recognize that some calculations of GHG
emissions are relatively straightforward, while others are not. The
direct, domestic emissions are relatively
well known. These estimates are based
on well-established process models that
can relatively accurately capture
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
emissions impacts. For example, the
energy and GHG emissions used by a
natural gas-fired ethanol plant to
produce one gallon of ethanol can be
calculated through direct observations,
though this will vary somewhat between
individual facilities. The indirect
domestic emissions are also fairly well
understood; however, these results are
sensitive to a number of key
assumptions (e.g., current and future
corn yields). We address uncertainty in
this area by testing the impact of
changing these assumptions on our
results. Finally, the indirect,
international emissions are the
component of our analysis with the
highest level of uncertainty. For
example, identifying what type of land
is converted internationally and the
emissions associated with this land
conversion are critical issues that have
a large impact on the GHG emissions
estimates. We address this uncertainty
by using sensitivity analyses to test the
robustness of the results based on
different assumptions. We also identify
areas of additional work that will be
completed prior to the final rulemaking.
For example, while we utilized an
approach using comprehensive
agricultural sector models and recent
satellite data to determine the emissions
resulting from international land use
impacts, we are also considering an
alternative methodology (the analyses
using GTAP) that estimates changes in
land use based on the relative land use
values of cropland, forest, and
pastureland. Additionally, we are
considering country-specific
information which may allow us to
better predict specific trends in land use
such as the degree to which marginal or
abandoned pasture land will need to be
replaced if used instead for crop
production. In addition to the
sensitivity analysis approach, we will
also explore options for more formal
uncertainty analyses for the final rule to
the extent possible. However, formal
uncertainty analyses generally include
an assumption of a statistically based
distribution of likely outcomes. In the
time available for developing this
proposal, we have not developed an
analytical technique which allows us to
determine the likelihood of a range of
possible outcome across the wide range
of critical factors affecting lifecycle GHG
assessment. We specifically ask for
recommendations on how best to
conduct a sound, statistically based
uncertainty analysis for the final rule.
Despite the uncertainty associated
with international land use change, we
would expect at least some international
land use change to occur as demand for
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
crop land increases as a result of this
rule. Furthermore, the conversion of
crop land will lead to GHG emission
from land conversion that must be
accounted for in the calculation of
lifecycle GHG emissions. As discussed
above, we believe that uncertainty in the
effects and extent of land use changes is
not a sufficient reason for ignoring land
use change emissions. Although
uncertainties are associated with these
estimates, it would be far less
scientifically credible to ignore the
potentially significant effects of land use
change altogether than it is to use the
best approach available to assess these
known emissions. We anticipate that
comment and information received in
response to this proposal as well as
additional analyses will improve our
assessment of land use impacts for the
final rule. Finally, we note that further
research on key variables will result in
a more robust assessment of these
impacts in the future.
5. Components of the Lifecycle GHG
Emissions Analysis
As described previously, GHG
emissions from many stages of the full
fuel lifecycle are included within the
system boundaries of this analysis.
Details on how these emissions were
calculated are included in the DRIA
Section 2. This section highlights the
key questions that we have attempted to
address in our analysis. In addition, this
section identifies some of the key
assumptions that influence the GHG
emissions estimates in the following
section.
a. Feedstock Production
Our analysis addresses the lifecycle
GHG emissions from feedstock
production by capturing both the direct
and indirect impacts of growing corn,
soybeans, and other renewable fuel
feedstocks. For both domestic and
international agricultural feedstock
production, we analyzed four main
sources of GHG emissions: agricultural
inputs (e.g., fertilizer and energy use),
fertilizer N2O, livestock, and rice
methane. (Emissions related to land use
change are discussed in the next
section).
As described in Section IX.A, EPA
uses FASOM to model domestic
agricultural sector impacts and uses
FAPRI to model international
agricultural sector impacts. However,
we also recognize that these emission
estimates rely on a number of key
assumptions, including crop yields,
fertilizer application rates, use of
distiller grains and other co-products,
and fertilizer N2O emission rates. As
described in the following sections, we
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25027
have used sensitivity analyses to test the
impact of changing these assumptions
on our results.
i. Domestic Agricultural Sector Impacts
Agricultural Sector Inputs: GHG
emissions from agricultural sector
inputs (chemical and energy) are
determined based on output from
FASOM combined with default factors
for GHG emissions from GREET. Fuel
use emissions from GREET include both
the upstream emissions associated with
production of the fuel and downstream
combustion emissions. Inputs are based
on historic rates by region and include
projected increases to account for yield
improvements over time. This yield
increase does not capture changes due
to cropping practices such as shifts to
corn-after-corn rotations.
N2O Emissions: FASOM estimates
N2O emissions from fertilizer
application and nitrogen fixing crops
based on the amount of fertilizer used
and different regional factors to
represent the percent of nitrogen (N)
fertilizer applied that result in N2O
emissions. This approach is consistent
with IPCC guidelines for calculating
N2O emissions from the agricultural
sector.272 A recent paper 273 raised the
question of whether N2O emissions are
significantly higher than previously
estimated. To better understand this
issue, we are working with Colorado
State University to analyze N2O
emissions. Specifically, Colorado State
University will provide several key
refinements for a re-analysis of land use
and cropping trends and GHG emissions
in the FASOM assessment, including:
• Direct N2O emissions based on
DAYCENT simulations with an
accounting of all N inputs to
agricultural soils, including mineral N
fertilizer, organic amendments,
symbiotic N fixation, asymbiotic N
fixation, crop residue N, and
mineralization of soil organic matter.
Colorado State University will provide
(1) the total emission rate on an acre
basis for each simulated bioenergy crop
in the 63 FASOM regions and (2) a total
emissions for each N source.
• Indirect N2O emissions on a per
acre basis using results from DAYCENT
simulations of volatilization, leaching
and runoff of N from each bioenergy
crop included in the analysis for the 63
FASOM regions, combined with IPCC
272 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories, Volume 4, Chapter 11, N2O
emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions
from lime and Urea Application. See https://
www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html.
273 Crutzen et al., 2008.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25028
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
factors for the N2O emission associated
with the simulated N losses.
The analyses with updated N2O
estimates are not yet complete and are
not included in this proposal. We
expect to complete these analyses for
the final rule.
Livestock Emissions: GHG emissions
from livestock have two main sources:
enteric fermentation and manure
management. Enteric fermentation
produces methane emissions as part of
the normal digestive processes in
animals. The FASOM modeling reflects
changes in livestock enteric
fermentation emissions due to changes
in livestock herds. As more corn is used
in producing ethanol the price of corn
increases, driving changes in livestock
production costs and demand. The
FASOM model predicts reductions in
livestock herds. IPCC factors for
different livestock types are applied to
herd values to get GHG emissions. The
management of livestock manure can
produce methane and N2O emissions.
Methane is produced by the anaerobic
decomposition of manure. N2O is
produced as part of the nitrogen cycle
through the nitrification and
denitrification of the organic nitrogen in
livestock manure and urine. FASOM
calculates these manure management
emissions based on IPCC default factors
for emissions factors from the different
types of livestock and management
methods. Manure management
emissions are projected to be reduced as
a result of lower livestock animal
numbers. Use of distiller grains (DGs),
as discussed in Section VI.B.5.b, has
been shown to decrease methane
produced from enteric fermentation if
replacing corn as animal feed.274 This
effect is not currently captured in the
models but will be considered for the
final rule.
Methane from Rice: Most of the
world’s rice, and all rice in the United
States, is grown in flooded fields. When
fields are flooded, aerobic
decomposition of organic material
gradually depletes most of the oxygen
present in the soil, causing anaerobic
soil conditions. Once the environment
becomes anaerobic, methane is
produced through anaerobic
decomposition of soil organic matter by
methanogenic bacteria. FASOM predicts
changes in rice acres resulting from the
RFS2 program and calculates changes in
methane emissions using IPCC factors.
274 Salil Arora, May Wu, and Michael Wang,
‘‘Update of Distillers Grains Displacement Ratios for
Corn Ethanol Life-Cycle Analysis,’’ September
2008. See https://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/
AF/527.pdf.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
ii. International Agricultural Sector
GHG Impacts
Agricultural Sector Inputs: The FAPRI
model does not directly provide an
assessment of the GHG impacts of
changes in international agricultural
practices (e.g., changes in fertilizer load
and fuels usage), however it does
predict changes in the land area and
production by crop type and by country.
We therefore determined international
fertilizer and energy use based on
international data collected by the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of
the United Nations and the International
Energy Agency (IEA). We used the
historical trends based on these FAO
and IEA data to project chemical and
energy use in 2022. Additional details
on the data used are included in DRIA
Chapter 2. We intend to review input
changes required to increase yields for
the final rule and request comment on
the extent to which historic trends
adequately project what could occur in
2022 or what alternative assumptions
should be made and the bases for these
assumptions. For example, will changes
in farming practices or seed varieties
likely result in significantly different
impacts on fertilizer use internationally
than suggested by recent trends?
Additionally, we intend to have the
selection and application of this data
peer reviewed before the final rule.
N2O Emissions: For international N2O
emissions from crops, we apply the
IPCC emissions factors based on total
amount of fertilizer applied and N2O
impacts of crop residue by type of crop
produced. As noted above, we are also
working with Colorado State University
to update these factors as part of the
final rule analysis. Additional details on
the factors used are included in DRIA
Chapter 2.
Livestock Emissions: Similar to
domestic livestock impacts associated
with an increase in biofuel production,
FAPRI model predicts international
changes in livestock production due to
changes in commodity prices. The GHG
impacts of these livestock changes,
including enteric fermentation and
manure management GHG emissions,
were included in our analysis. Unlike
FASOM, the FAPRI model does not
have GHG emissions built in and
therefore livestock GHG impacts were
based on activity data provided by the
FAPRI model (e.g., number and type of
livestock by country) multiplied by
IPCC default factors for GHG emissions.
We seek comments on the extent to
which the use of this methodology is
appropriate.
Rice Emissions: To estimate rice
emission impacts internationally, we
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
used the FAPRI model to predict
changes in international rice production
as a result of the increase in biofuels
demand in the U.S. Since FAPRI does
not have GHG emissions factors built
into the model, we applied IPCC default
factors by country based on predicted
changes in rice acres. We seek
comments on this methodology.
b. Land Use Change
We are also addressing GHG
emissions associated with land use
changes that occur domestically and
internationally as a result of the increase
in renewable fuels demand in the U.S.
Key questions we address in this
analysis include the land area converted
to crop production, where those acreage
changes occur, lands types converted,
and the GHG emission impacts
associated with different types of land
conversion.
EPA recognizes that analyzing
international impacts of land use change
can introduce additional uncertainty to
the GHG emissions estimates. At this
time, we do not have the same quality
of data for international crop production
and projected future trends as we do for
the United States. For example,
prediction of the economic and
geographic development of developing
country agricultural systems is far more
difficult than prediction of future U.S.
agricultural development. The U.S. has
a very mature agriculture system in
which the high quality agricultural
lands are already under production and
the infrastructure to move crops to
market is already in place. This is not
necessarily the case in other countries.
Some very large countries expected to
play a significant role in future
agricultural production are still
developing their agricultural system.
Brazil, for example, has vast areas of
land that may be suitable for
commercial agricultural production that
would allow for significant expansion in
crop lands. One of the restraints on
expansion is the relative lack of
infrastructure (e.g., road and rail
systems) that would allow shipment of
expanded crop production to market.
Identifying what type of land is
converted internationally and the
emissions associated with this land
conversion can significantly affect our
assessment of GHG impacts. We present
a range of results for differences in these
and other assumptions in Section
VI.C.2, and we seek comment on our
approach so that the final rule will use
the best science to provide credible
estimates of lifecycle GHG emissions for
each biofuel.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
i. Amount of Land Converted
The main question regarding the
amount of new land needed to meet an
increasing demand for biofuels hinges
on assumptions about the
intensification of existing production
versus expansion of production to other
lands. This interaction is driven by the
relative costs and returns associated
with each option, but there are other
factors as described below.
Co-Products: One factor determining
the amount of new crop acres required
under an increased biofuel scenario is
the treatment of co-products. For
example, distillers grains (DGs) are the
major co-product of dry mill ethanol
production that is also used as animal
feed. Therefore, using the DGs as an
animal feed to replace the use of corn
tends to offset the loss of corn to ethanol
production, and reduces the need to
grow additional corn to feed animals. As
the renewable fuels industry expands,
the handling and use of co-products is
also expanding. Some uncertainty is
associated with how these co-products
will be used in the future (e.g., whether
it can be reformulated for higher
incorporation into pork and poultry
diets, whether it will be dried and
shipped long distances, whether
fractionation will become widespread).
Both our FASOM and FAPRI models
account for the use of DGs in the
agricultural sector. The FASOM and
FAPRI models both assume that a
pound of co-product would displace
roughly a pound of feed. However, a
recent paper by Argonne National
Laboratory 275 estimates that 1 pound of
DGs can displace more than a pound of
feed due to the higher nutritional value
of DGs compared to corn.
The Argonne replacement ratios do
not take into account the dynamic least
cost feed decisions faced by livestock
producers. The actual use of DGs will
depend on the maximum inclusion rates
for each type of animal (based on the
digestibility of DGs), the displacement
ratio for each type of animal (based on
DGs energy and protein content), and
the adoption rate (based on the feed
value relative to price). Furthermore, as
world vegetable oil prices increase, dry
mill ethanol producers will have an
incentive to extract the corn oil from the
DGs. This step changes the nutritional
content of the DGs, which results in
different replacement rates than the
ones currently used in FASOM or
described by Argonne. As we plan to
evaluate and incorporate a least cost
feed rationing approach for the final
rule, we invite comment on the
275 Salil
276 Note that these same assumptions apply in
both the reference case and the control cases.
et al., 2008.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
expected future uses of DGs and their
displacement ratios.
Crop Yields: Assumptions about
yields and how they may change over
time can also influence land use change
predictions. Domestic yields were based
on USDA projections, extrapolated out
to 2022. In 2022, we estimate that the
U.S. average corn yield will be
approximately 180 bushels/acre (a 1.6%
annual increase consistent with recent
trends) and average U.S. soybean yields
will be approximately 50 bushels per
acre (a 0.4% annual increase).276 Using
the FASOM model, we conducted a
sensitivity analysis on the impact of
higher and lower yields in the U.S.
Details on this scenario are included in
DRIA Chapter 5.1. International yields
changes are also based on the historic
trends. The FAPRI model contains
projected yields and yield growths that
are generally lower in other countries
compared to the U.S. We request
comment on the projected increase in
crop yields in the U.S (including
consideration of how emerging seed
types might be expected to increase
average crop yields). We also request
comment on the use of historical trends
to predict future agricultural production
in other countries and request
information on alternative
methodologies and supporting data that
would allow us to base our predictions
on alternative assumptions.
The FASOM and FAPRI models
currently do not take into account
changes in productivity as crop
production shifts to marginal acres or
the impact of price induced yield
changes on land use change. We would
expect these two factors could work in
opposite directions and therefore could
tend to offset each other’s impacts.
Marginal acres in fully developed
agricultural systems are expected to
have lower yields, because most
productive acres are already under
cultivation. This may not be the case in
developing systems where prime
agricultural lands are not currently in
full production due to, for example, lack
of supporting infrastructure. Changes in
agricultural inputs (e.g., fertilizer,
pesticides) can also change crop yield
per acre. Higher commodity prices
might provide an incentive to increase
production in existing acres. If the costs
of increasing productivity on existing
land were minimal relative to the value
of the increased production, then
agricultural landowners would
presumably adopt these productivityenhancing actions under the reference
case. Although it is reasonable to
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25029
assume a trend wherein some
productivity-enhancing practices may
become profitable if commodity prices
are high enough such as might occur as
the result of increased biofuel
production, it is not clear that farmers
would find significant increases in
production per acre profitable. If crop
yields either domestically or
international are significantly impacted
by higher commodity prices driven by
general increase in worldwide demand,
this could affect our assessment of land
use impacts and the resulting GHG
emissions due to increased biofuel
demand in the U.S. However, as
described in Section IX, the change in
commodity prices associated with the
increase in U.S. biofuel as a result of the
EISA mandates are very small and
perhaps not large enough to induce
significant increased yield changes. We
invite comment on projected yields and
the potential impact of increased use of
marginal lands and price induced yield
changes. For the final rule we plan to
explicitly model the impact of price
induced yield changes.
Land Conversion Costs: The assumed
cost associated with different types of
land conversion can also play a key role
in determining how much land will be
converted. In FASOM, the decision to
convert land from pasture or forest to
cropland is based on whether the
landowner can increase the net present
value of expected returns through
conversion (including any costs of
conversion). Among other things, the
decision to convert land depends on
regional yields, costs, and other factors
affecting profitability and on the returns
to alternative land uses. In other words,
FASOM assumes that land conversion is
based on maximizing profits rather than
minimizing costs. Additional details on
land conversions costs incorporated in
FASOM are included in DRIA Chapter
2.
FAPRI does not explicitly model land
conversion costs, however the
international production supply curves
used by the FAPRI model implicitly
take into account conversion costs.
FAPRI’s supply curves are based on
historical responses to price changes,
which take into account the conversion
costs of land, based on expected future
returns associated with land conversion.
Thus, we believe that our assessments of
international land use changes are based
on economic land-use decisions.
ii. Where Land is Converted
The first step in determining what
domestic and international land will be
converted due to biofuels production is
to estimate the extent to which the
increased demand for biofuel feedstock
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25030
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
will be met through increased U.S.
agriculture production or reductions in
U.S. exports.
This question has several
implications. For example, U.S.
agriculture production is typically more
energy and input intensive but has
higher yields than agricultural
production in other parts of the world.
This implies that increased production
in the U.S. has higher input GHG
emission impacts but lower land use
change impacts compared to overseas
production. In addition, the types of
land where agriculture would expand
would be different in the U.S. vs. other
parts of the world.
EPA’s analysis relies on FASOM
predictions to represent changes in the
U.S. agricultural sector, including land
use, and on FAPRI to predict the
resulting international agricultural
sector impacts including the amount of
additional cropland needed under
different scenarios. The impact on the
international agricultural sector is
highly dependent on the U.S. export
assumptions. As the FASOM model was
used to represent domestic agricultural
sector impacts with an assumed export
picture, the international agricultural
sector impacts from FAPRI needed to be
based on a consistent set of export
assumptions. We worked with FASOM
and FAPRI modelers to ensure this
consistency. This involved coordinating
crop yields, ethanol yields and coproduct use, assumptions regarding CRP
acres, a consistent export response, and
a consistent livestock demand and feed
use in both models.
As shown in Chapter 2 of the DRIA,
coordination of assumptions has
generated a consistent export picture
response from both the FASOM and
FAPRI model for the majority of biofuel
and feedstock scenarios considered.
Differences in responses in the biodiesel
scenario remain between the two
models. FASOM assumes more
biodiesel will come from new soybean
acres (but total domestic acres are
relatively constant as reductions in
other crops offset the increase in
soybean acres). In comparison, FAPRI
contains more types of oil seed crops
and has a more elastic demand in the
soybean oil market. The FAPRI model
also allows for some corn oil
fractionation from DGs, which can be
used as a substitute for soybean oil. The
FASOM model predicts a larger change
in net exports than the FAPRI model.
Since we are using the FAPRI model as
the basis for estimating international
land use changes, we may be
underestimating the international land
use change emissions associated with
soybean based biodiesel. For the final
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
rule, EPA will work, in particular, to
resolve the differences in soybean
production impact between the models.
This, too, may modify our assessment of
the biodiesel lifecycle GHG emissions.
Due to the wide range of carbon and
biomass properties associated with land
in different parts of the world, the
location of crop conversion is also
important to our lifecycle analysis. For
example, an average acre of forest in
Southeast Asia stores a much larger
quantity of carbon than a typical acre of
forest in Northern Europe. The FAPRI
model provides estimates of the acreage
change by country and crop that result
from a decrease in U.S. exports due to
the increase in U.S. biofuel demand.
These estimates are based on historic
responsiveness to changes in prices in
other countries. Implicit in these supply
curves are the costs associated with
converting new land to crop production
and the relative competitiveness of each
country to increase production based on
production costs, yields, transportation
costs, and currency fluctuations. FAPRI
also includes in its baseline projections
of future population growth, GDP
growth, and other macroeconomic
changes. FAPRI also takes into account
the fact that not all U.S. exports will
need to be made up in international
production, as there is a small decreases
in demand due to shifts in crop
production and higher prices.
iii. What Type of Land is Converted
In the same way that the location of
land conversion is important, the type
of land that is converted is critical to the
magnitude of impact on the GHG
emissions associated with biofuel
production. For example, the
conversion of rainforest results in a
much larger increase in GHG emissions
than the conversion of grassland. There
are several options for determining what
type of land will be converted to crop
acreage. One option is to model land
rental rates for different types of land
(e.g., forest, pasture, and crop
production), and allow the model to
choose the type of land that is expected
to have the highest net returns. This
approach is used by FASOM on the
domestic side. Another option is to use
historical land conversion trends in a
given country or region. The FAPRI/
Winrock approach uses this approach
for international land use conversion.
Domestic: The FASOM model
includes competition between land
types, agriculture, pasture, and forest
land. The interaction is based on
providing the highest rate of return
across the different land types.
Therefore domestically we have the
ability to explicitly model what types of
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
land would be converted to increased
agriculture based on the rates of return
for different land types for the 63
regions in FASOM. For this draft
proposal we incorporated the
agricultural component (which includes
both existing cropland and pasture) of
the FASOM model, but not the forestry
component (see Section IX.A for
explanation). Therefore, this analysis
assumes that all additional cropland
predicted by FASOM comes from
pasture. As we incorporate the forestry
component for the final rule analysis we
would expect to see more interaction
between the forestry and agriculture
sector such that there may be
conversion of forest to agriculture based
on additional cropland needed. While
we do not know if forest will be
converted to cropland or the extent that
this might occur, if domestic forests
were converted to cropland, we would
expect domestic GHG emissions would
increase. This work will be incorporated
for our final rule.
International: Basing land use change
on the economics and rates of return of
different land uses offers advantages for
capturing potential future land use
changes. However, the only model
potentially capable of fully
incorporating this calculation
internationally, GTAP, is still in the
process of being updated and modified
for this purpose. Thus, EPA has chosen
to use historical patterns as identified
by satellite images to estimate future
land conversion. This approach is
referred to here as the FAPRI/Winrock
approach because it relies on the
integration of each of these tools.
EPA believes that FAPRI/Winrock is a
scientifically credible modeling
approach at this time. However, we will
continue to work with the GTAP model
to help test the results generated by our
primary approach.
FAPRI/Winrock
Since FAPRI does not contain
information on what type of land is
being converted into cropland, we
worked with Winrock International, a
global nonprofit organization, to address
this question. A key advantage of
Winrock is that they can accurately
measure and monitor trends in forest
and land use change, forest carbon
content, biodiversity, and the impact of
infrastructure development.
Furthermore, several of the Winrock
staff were involved in the development
of the IPCC land use change good
practice guidance and are widely
recognized as the leaders in this field.
Using satellite data from 2001–2004,
Winrock provided a breakdown of the
types of land that have been converted
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25031
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
into cropland for a number of key
agriculturally producing countries based
on the International GeosphereBiosphere Programme (IGBP).277 The
IGBP land cover list includes eleven
classes of natural vegetation, three
classes of developed and mosaic lands,
and three classes of non-vegetated
lands. The natural vegetation units
distinguish evergreen and deciduous,
broadleaf and needle-leaf forests, mixed
forests, where mixtures occur; closed
shrublands and open shrublands;
savannas and woody savannas;
grasslands; and permanent wetlands of
large areal extent. The three classes of
developed and mosaic lands distinguish
among croplands, urban and built-up
lands, and cropland/natural vegetation
mosaics. Classes of non-vegetated land
cover units include snow and ice;
barren land; and water bodies. Winrock
aggregated these categories into five
similar classes: five classes of forest
were combined into one, two classes of
savanna were combined into one, and
two classes of shrubland were combined
into one. The final land cover categories
for this analysis are forest, cropland,
grassland, savanna, and shrubland. The
rest of the IGBP categories not of interest
to this analysis were reclassified into
the background. The satellite data
represents different types of land cover,
which we are using as a proxy for land
use.
A key strength of this approach is that
satellite information is based on
empirical data instead of modeled
predictions. Furthermore, it is
reasonable to assume that recent land
use changes have been driven largely by
economics and recent historical patterns
will continue in the future absent major
economic or land use regime shifts
caused, for example, by changes in
government policies. We are using the
FAPRI model to predict where in the
world, based on economic conditions,
the most likely increase in agriculture
production will occur as a result of the
EISA mandates. We are then using the
historical satellite data to address the
key question: If additional land is
needed for crop production in a
particular country, what type of land
will be used? The Winrock analysis
addresses this question by calculating
the weighted average type of land that
was converted to cropland between
2001 and 2004. Essentially, we are using
the Winrock data to determine the type
of land that is most likely to be
converted to cropland, should
additional acres be needed as predicted
by FAPRI.
Table VI.B.5–1 shows the percentage
of land converted to cropland between
2001 and 2004 according to the Winrock
satellite data analysis for the countries
currently available. We use these
percentages to calculate a weighted
average of the types of land converted
into cropland. For example, if FAPRI
predicts that one additional acre of
cropland will be brought into
production in Argentina, we used the
Winrock data to estimate that 8% on
average of that acre will come from
forest, 40% of that acre will come from
grassland, 45% of that land will come
from savanna, and 8% of that land will
come from shrubland. Using GTAP
might result in different percentage
weights.
TABLE VI.B.5–1—TYPES OF LAND CONVERTED TO CROPLAND BY COUNTRY
[In percent]
Country
Forest
Argentina ..........................................................................................................
Brazil ................................................................................................................
China ................................................................................................................
EU ....................................................................................................................
India .................................................................................................................
Indonesia .........................................................................................................
Malaysia ...........................................................................................................
Nigeria ..............................................................................................................
Philippines ........................................................................................................
South Africa .....................................................................................................
Grassland
8
4
17
27
7
34
74
4
49
10
40
18
38
16
7
5
3
56
5
22
Savanna
Shrub
45
74
23
36
33
58
19
36
44
53
8
4
21
21
53
4
3
4
3
15
Source: Winrock Satellite Data (2001–2004).
We are assuming that the weighted
average, resulting from agriculture
demand as well as other possible
drivers, is a reasonable estimate of the
land use change attributable to
increased agricultural demand. A
shortcoming of this approach is that it
assumes that when new crop acres are
needed to meet increased agricultural
demand these crop acres will follow the
average pattern of recent historical land
conversion, recognizing that this pattern
is based on a variety of drivers of land
use change, not all of which are
associated with agricultural demand.
This approach is not able to isolate from
the historical pattern the land use
changes stemming just from increased
agricultural demand. For example, it is
likely that in some cases trees are being
removed from forests for the value of the
wood. However, having removed
valuable wood, additional clearing may
occur to allow the land to be used for
pasture or cropland. In that case the
GHG emissions associated with the
removal of the trees would not occur as
a consequence of increased agricultural
demand, but as a consequence of
increased demand for the wood, while
the GHG emissions associated with the
additional clearing would occur as a
consequence of the agricultural demand.
As a result, the Winrock data also
does not distinguish between the landuse impacts associated with one crop
versus another. Indeed, at least in the
case of sugarcane production in Brazil,
a number of researchers argue that
expanded sugarcane production is likely
to occur in significant part through the
use of degraded or abandoned pasture
land without additional land use
impact.278 These research reports
suggest that general historical trends in
land use change to grow crops in Brazil
may not pertain to expected growth in
sugarcane production. Ideally, an
analysis of a U.S. biofuels policy’s
influence on land use change would
277 U.S. Geological Survey MODIS Data Set
Documentation. See https://edcdaac.usgs.gov/modis/
mod12q1v4.asp.
278 See for example ‘‘Mitigation of GHG emissions
using sugarcane bio-ethanol—Working Paper’’ by
Isaias C. Macedo and Joaquim E. A. Seabra, and
‘‘Prospects of the Sugarcane Expansion in Brazil:
Impacts on Direct and Indirect Land Use Changes—
Working Paper’’ by Andre Nassar et al., both
received by EPA October 13, 2008.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25032
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
model the marginal impact that U.S.
biofuel would have on land use and
land use change in addition to baseline
land use change. Use of historic land
use change data is capturing some of
this baseline land use change.
Comments are requested on our
approach of assuming historical land
use changes will continue to be
followed in response to increased
agricultural demand associated with our
biofuel policy. We also invite comment
on what alternative methodologies and
data are available, if any, to better link
the impacts of biofuels to land use
change. To the extent additional
information or data may be available for
certain countries such as the example of
Brazil, we also ask how this countryspecific data and similar information
might best be integrated with the
modeling results otherwise available.
Furthermore, to the extent different
government policies can shift land use
patterns (e.g., through regulations,
financial supports), these weighted
averages could change in the future. We
request comment on whether these
government policies and regulations
should be incorporated into the future
land use change calculations and the
best methodology for taking into
account these changes.
The Winrock data and analyses
present an aggregate picture of land use
changes; they cannot predict the nature
of the land use change that will result
due to an additional acre of corn
planted in a country versus an
additional acre of sugarcane or
soybeans. In reality, sugarcane may be
more suitable for planting in different
regions with different soil types
compared to corn or soybeans. However,
because we are using weighted averages
to characterize the type of land that is
converted to crop acres, all additional
crop acres in a particular country are
treated identically.
Winrock also provides information on
land conversions between other
categories (e.g., forest to savanna). For
one set of GHG analyses, we assumed
that land taken out of actively managed
use 279 (e.g., pasture used for livestock
production) would have to be replaced
with new pasture acreage, thereby
capturing some of the domino effect
associated with converting previously
productive land into cropland.
Therefore, in addition to land
conversion shown in Table VI.B.5–1, we
also include land conversion to replace
some of the grassland and savanna that
is used as pasture. An alternative
approach would be to assume that no
additional land is necessary, since there
279 GTAP
Land Cover Data (2000–2001).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
is a significant amount of pastureland
that could be used more intensively for
grazing purposes. For example, as noted
above, in Brazil almost all of the direct
land conversion associated with
expanding sugarcane production is
coming out of existing pasture land, in
some cases, depleted, low value pasture
land, that may have relatively low levels
of stored carbon compared to other land.
Also in Brazil there is a trend toward
more intensive use of existing pasture
land by grazing higher numbers of cattle
per unit of pasture, decreasing the need
to replace pasture converted to
cropland. This more intensive use of
pasture is encouraged by two factors:
improved grasses which can sustain
more intensive grazing and lack of
transportation infrastructure which
tends to constrain geographic expansion
of pasture lands. However, we also note
that depleted cropland in Brazil might
also be suitable for other crop
production. To extend sugarcane limits
to production of these other crops on
this land, the indirect effect could be
that these crops move into other areas
of Brazil and resulting in increased
emissions due to land use change. We
invite comment on alternative
methodologies for predicting land use
changes in particular in other countries.
Some alternative methodologies are
described in more detail in Chapter 2 of
the DRIA.
The FAPRI model results have been
used in peer reviewed literature in
conjunction with satellite data to assess
land use changes 280 and we also believe
it is an appropriate method for
projecting biofuel induced land use
changes. However, we recognize the
uncertainty associated with this
approach and, in addition to seeking
public comment, we plan to conduct an
expert peer review of the data and
methods used, including the
appropriateness of using historic
satellite data to project future land use
changes.
iv. What Are the GHG Emissions
Associated With Different Types of
Land Conversion?
Our estimates of domestic land use
change GHG emissions are based on
outputs of the FASOM model. As we are
just using the agricultural portion of the
FASOM model for this analysis the land
use change GHG emissions are limited
to changes in land use for existing crop
and pasture land. Some of that crop
land could currently be fallow and some
of the pasture land could currently be
unused. However, no new crop or
pasture land (beyond some
280 Searchinger
PO 00000
Frm 00130
et al., 2008.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
land due to legislative changes in the
program) is added compared to current
levels. Thus FASOM only models shifts
in the use of this land.
Changes in the agricultural sector due
to increased corn used for ethanol have
impacts on land use change in a number
of ways. FASOM explicitly models
change in soil carbon from increased
crop production acres and from
different types of crop production.
FASOM also models changes in soil
carbon from converting non crop land
into crop production. Land converted to
crop land could include pasture land.
As recommended by USDA, we are
assuming that 32 million acres of CRP
land will remain in that program even
if crop prices increase and thus increase
land values. This assumption is
consistent with the 2008 Farm Bill,
which limits CRP acres to 32 million. A
sensitivity analysis on this assumption
is included in Chapter 5 of the DRIA.
For the international impacts, we
used the 2006 IPCC Agriculture,
Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU)
Guidelines 281 and the Winrock
provided GHG emissions factors for
each country based on the weighted
average type of land converted. GHG
emissions estimates were based on
immediate releases (e.g., changes in
biomass carbon stocks, soil carbon
stocks, and non-CO2 emissions
assuming the land is cleared with fire)
and foregone forest sequestration (the
future growth in vegetation and soil
carbon). Additional details on these
calculations are included in Chapter 2
of the DRIA. For the emissions factors
presented, we assume forests cleared
would have continued to sequester
carbon for another 80 years, based on
the amount of time it takes for forests to
reach a general equilibrium stage. We
request comment on whether it is
appropriate to include foregone
sequestration in the GHG emissions
estimates. Carbon soil calculations 282
take into account the annual changes in
carbon content in the top 30 centimeters
of soil over the first 20 years, based on
IPCC recommendations.283 We also
request comment on whether soil
carbon calculations should be based on
the top 30 centimeters of soil. These
emission factors do not include credits
for harvested wood products, based on
the expectation that they would have a
281 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories, Volume 4, Agriculture, Forestry
and Other Land Use (AFOLU). See https://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html.
282 See ftp://www.daac.ornl.gov/data/global_soil/
IsricWiseGrids.
283 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories, Volume 4, Section 5.3.3.4.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
very small impact on our estimates of
land use change emissions. However,
we intend to analyze the impact of
wood product credits for the final rule.
We invite comment on whether it is
appropriate to include wood product
credits in the GHG emissions estimates.
GHG emissions associated with land
use changes vary significantly based on
the type of land and the geographic
region. For example, the GHG emissions
associated with converting an acre of
grassland to cropland in China are lower
than the emissions associated with
converting an acre of shrubland to
cropland in China. Similarly, the GHG
emissions associated with converting an
acre of forest to cropland in Malaysia
are larger than the emissions associated
with converting an acre of forest in
Nigeria to cropland. Where country
specific emission factors were not
available in time for the proposal, we
used world average. For the proposal,
we focused on the countries with the
largest projected changes in crop
acreage. The Winrock data currently
covers 63% of total land use change
acres associated with corn ethanol, 53%
of the acres associated with biodiesel,
57% of the acres associated with
switchgrass, and 87% of the acres
associated sugarcane ethanol. We will
continue to add additional countries for
our analysis for the final rule. Two
changes that may impact these results
for the final rule include the addition of
perennial crops and the conversion on
land with peat soils. We request
comment on our calculation of emission
factors due to land use change;
improved data and assumptions are
specifically requested. Additionally, we
plan to have the calculation of these
emissions factors reviewed by experts in
this field. Details on the Winrock
estimates are included in the DRIA
Chapter 2.
GTAP Approach:
GTAP is an economy-wide general
equilibrium model that was originally
developed for addressing agricultural
trade issues among countries. The
databases and versions of the model are
widely used internationally.284 Since its
inception in 1993, GTAP has rapidly
become a common ‘‘language’’ for many
of those conducting global economic
analysis. For example, the WTO and the
World Bank co-sponsored two
conferences on the so-called
Millennium Round of Multilateral Trade
talks in Geneva. Here, virtually all of the
quantitative, global economic analyses
were based on the GTAP framework.
Over the past few years, a version of the
284 https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
model was developed to explicitly
model global competition among
different land types (e.g., forest,
agricultural land, pasture) and different
qualities of land based on the relative
value of the alternative land-uses. More
recently, it was modified to include
biofuel substitutes for gasoline and
diesel. In simulating land use changes
due to biofuels production, GTAP
explicitly models land-use conversion
decisions, as well as land management
intensification. For example, it allows
for price-induced yield changes (e.g.,
farmers can reallocate inputs to increase
yields when commodity prices are high)
and considers the marginal productivity
of additional land (e.g., expansion of
crop land onto lower quality land as a
result of the increased use of biofuels).
Most importantly, in contrast to other
models, GTAP is designed with the
framework of predicting the amount and
types of land needed in a region to meet
demands for both food and fuel
production. The GTAP framework also
allows predictions to be made about the
types of land available in the region to
meet the needed demands, since it
explicitly represents different land types
within the model.
The global modeling of land-use
competition and land management
decisions is relatively new, and
evolving.285 GTAP does not yet contain
cellulosic feedstocks in the model. In
addition, GTAP does not currently
contain unmanaged land, which could
be a major factor driving current GTAP
land use projections and is a significant
potential source of GHG emissions. We
expect to update GTAP with cellulosic
feedstocks and unmanaged land in time
for the final rule.
Our proposal is therefore based on the
FAPRI/Winrock estimates. There are
advantages and disadvantages
associated with any model choice and
we have chosen the FAPRI/Winrock
combination as the best approach
available for preparing the proposal.
Although we have not relied on the
current version of GTAP for the
principal analyses in this proposal,
others have used versions of the current
model to assess land use changes which
could result from expanded biofuel
demand. The California Air Resources
Board as part of the analysis for their
low carbon fuel standard used GTAP to
model indirect land use change for
biofuels. More information on their
program and GTAP analysis can be
found at https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/
285 See
Hertel, Thomas, Steven Rose, Richard Tol
(eds.), (in press). Economic Analysis of Land Use in
Global Climate Change Policy, Routledge
Publishing.
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25033
lcfs/lcfs.htm. Furthermore, researchers
from Purdue University have released a
report on work using GTAP to look at
land use change associated with corn
ethanol production scenarios.286 This
work was partially funded by Argonne
National Lab for possible inclusion in
the GREET model. We anticipate
additional refinements will be made to
the GTAP model between the proposal
and final rule and we will include this
information and results in the docket as
they become available. We invite
comments in this NPRM on the use of
the GTAP model in helping to establish
the GHG emissions estimates for the
final rule.
v. Assessing GHG Emissions Impacts
Over Time and Potential Application of
a GHG Discount Rate
When comparing the lifecycle GHG
emissions associated with biofuels to
those associated with gasoline or diesel
emissions, it is critical to take into
consideration the time profile associated
with each fuel’s GHG emissions stream.
With gasoline, a majority of the lifecycle
GHG emissions associated with
extraction, conversion, and combustion
are likely to be released over a short
period of time (i.e., annually) as crude
oil is converted into gasoline or diesel
fuel which quickly pass to market. This
means that the lifecycle GHG emissions
of a gallon of gasoline produced one
year are unlikely to vary much from the
lifecycle GHG emissions of a similar
gallon of gasoline produced in a
subsequent year.
In contrast, the lifecycle GHG
emissions from the production of a
typical biofuel may continue to occur
over a long period of time. As with
petroleum based fuels, renewable fuel
lifecycle GHG emissions are associated
with the conversion and combustion of
biofuels in every year they are
produced. In addition, GHG emissions
could be released through time if new
acres are needed to produce corn,
soybeans or other crops as a
replacement for crops that are directly
used for biofuel production or displaced
due to biofuels production. The GHG
emissions associated with converting
land into crop production would
accumulate over time with the largest
release occurring in the first few years
due to clearing with fire or biomass
decay. After the land is converted,
moderate amounts of soil carbon would
continue to be released for
286 Land Use Change Carbon Emissions due to US
Ethanol Production, Wallace E. Tyner, Farzad
Taheripour, Uris Baldos, January 2009. Available at
https://www.agecon.purdue.edu/papers/biofuels/
Argonne-GTAP_Revision%204a.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25034
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
recent estimates suggest that old growth
forests accumulate carbon for up to 800
years.290 The foregone sequestration
methods used in this proposal are
within the range supported by the
scientific literature and the 2006 IPCC
guidelines. Details of the foregone
sequestration estimates are included in
DRIA Chapter 2. We seek comment on
our estimate of the average length of
annual foregone forest sequestration for
consideration in biofuel lifecycle GHG
analysis.
Figure VI.B.5–1 shows how lifecycle
GHG emissions vary over time for a
natural gas fired dry mill corn ethanol
plant assuming that all land use change
occurs in 2022. While biomass
feedstocks grown each year on new
cropland can be converted to biofuels
that offer an annual GHG benefit relative
to the petroleum product they replace,
these benefits may be small compared to
the upfront release of GHG emissions
from land use change. Depending on the
specific biofuel in question, it can take
many years for the benefits of the
biofuel to make up for the large initial
releases of carbon that result from land
conversion (e.g., the payback period). As
shown in Figure VI.B.5–1, the payback
period for a natural gas-fired dry mill
corn ethanol plant which begins
operation in 2022 would be
approximately 33 years. We present a
similar payback period calculation for
the full range of biofuels analyzed in
Section VI.C.
As required by EISA, our analysis
must demonstrate whether biofuels
reduce GHG emissions by the required
percentage relative to the 2005
petroleum baseline. A payback period
alone cannot answer that question.
Since the payback period alone is not
sufficient for our analysis, we have
considered accounting methods for
capturing the full stream of emissions
and benefits over time. There are at least
two necessary criteria for the accounting
methods we have considered. First, they
must provide an estimate of renewable
fuel lifecycle GHG emissions that is
consistent over time. Otherwise, for
example, all of the upfront emissions
due to land clearing would be assigned
to corn ethanol produced in the first
year, and none of those emissions to
corn ethanol produced the following
years even though this land use change
is central to the production over these
following years. Second, the accounting
method must also provide a common
metric that allows for a direct
comparison of biofuels to gasoline or
287 Following Section 5.3.3.4 of the IPCC AFOLU
guidelines, the total difference in soil carbon stocks
before and after conversion was averaged over 20
years.
288 Table 4.9 from the 2006 GL AFOLU was used
to estimate the lost C sequestration of forests that
were converted to another land use.
289 See Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential in
U.S. Forestry and Agriculture, EPA Document 430–
R–05–006 for a discussion of the time required for
forests to reach carbon saturation.
290 Luyassert, S et al., 2008. Old-growth forests as
global carbon sinks. Nature 455: 213–215. Link:
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7210/
abs/nature07276.html.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
EP26MY09.008
approximately 20 years.287 Furthermore,
there would be foregone sequestration
associated with forest clearing as this
forest would have continued to
sequester carbon had it not been cleared
for approximately 80 years.
Therefore, we have included an
analysis which considers GHG
emissions from land use change that
may continue for up to 80 years, based
on our estimate of the average length of
foregone sequestration after a forest is
cleared. Annual foregone sequestration
rates were estimated by ecological
region using growth rates for forests
greater then 20 years old from the 2006
IPCC guidelines for Agriculture,
Forestry and Other Land Use.288 Studies
have estimated that new forests grow for
90 years to over 120 years.289 More
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
diesel. When accounting for the time
profile of lifecycle GHG emissions, the
two most important assumptions in the
determination of whether a biofuel
meets the specified emissions reduction
thresholds include: (1) The time period
considered and (2) the discount rate
(which could be zero) applied to future
emissions streams.
Time Periods Considered
The illustration of the payback period
in Figure VI.B.5–1 demonstrates the
importance of the time period over
which to consider both the lifecycle
GHG emissions increases associated
with the production of a biofuel as well
as the benefits from using the biofuel.
As mentioned above, based on our
lifecycle GHG analysis for this proposed
rule we estimate that the payback period
for corn ethanol produced in a natural
gas-fired dry mill is approximately 33
years. In this case, if we measure GHG
impacts over a time period of less than
33 years we will determine that the total
corn ethanol produced over this time
period increases lifecycle GHG
emissions. Conversely, total corn
ethanol production will reduce net
lifecycle GHG emissions if we look
beyond 33 years, with net emissions
reductions increasing the further into
the future we extend our analysis. To
inform our decision of which time
period for analysis is most appropriate,
we must consider a number of factors
including but not limited to the length
of time over which we expect a
particular biofuel to be produced, the
time over which biofuel production
continues to impact GHG emissions into
the future, the importance of achieving
near-term GHG emissions reductions,
and the increasing uncertainty of
projecting GHG emissions impacts into
the future. Based on these
considerations, our discussion of
lifecycle analyses prepared for this
proposed rule focuses on time periods
of 100 years and 30 years.
There are advantages and
disadvantages to using the 100 and 30
year time frames to represent both
emissions impacts as well as emissions
benefits of use of biofuels over time.
There are several principal reasons for
using the 100 year time frame. First,
greenhouse gases are chemically stable
compounds and persist in the
atmosphere over long time scales that
span two or more generations. Second,
the 100 year time frame captures the
emissions associated with land use
change that may continue for a long
period of time after biofuel-induced
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
land conversion first takes place.291 For
example, physical changes in carbon
stocks on unmanaged lands may not
slow until after 100 years, and optimal
forest rotation ages can influence
greenhouse gas emissions for 100 years
on managed lands. Similarly, a 100 year
time frame would allow estimating the
future changes in the land should the
need for these changes due to biofuel
production cease. For example, as
discussed in more detail below, if
production of a biofuel ended, then the
land use impacts associated with that
biofuel would also tend to go away in
a process known as land use reversion.
A longer time frame would allow
assessment of the impacts of that land
use reversion.
For a number of reasons we believe
that biofuel production could continue
for a long time into the future. As
biofuel technologies advance and
production costs are decreased, it is
likely that renewable fuels will become
increasingly competitive with
petroleum-based fuels. Another reason
for expecting long term biofuel
production is that, unlike a specific
facility that has an expected lifetime,
the RFS program does not have a
specified expiration date. The
expectation that renewable fuel
production will continue for a long time
provides justification for using a longer
time frame for analysis, such as 100
years. Another reason for considering an
inter-generational time period such as
100 years for lifecycle GHG analysis is
that climate change is a long-term
environmental problem that may require
GHG emissions reductions for many
decades.
The 100 year time frame also has
drawbacks. A general concern with
projecting impacts over a very long time
period is that uncertainty increases the
further the analysis is extended into the
future. For example, a 100 year analysis
presumes that production of a particular
biofuel will continue for at least 100
years. Although we expect renewable
fuel production as a whole to continue
for a long time, it is possible that due
to changing market conditions or other
factors, the use of first generation
biofuels (e.g., corn ethanol) could see a
decline in use over a shorter period of
time.
For this proposal, we are also showing
the results of analyzing both GHG
emissions impacts of producing a
biofuel as well as benefits from using
the biofuel over 30 years, a time frame
291 Luyassert, S et al., 2008. Old-growth forests as
global carbon sinks. Nature 455: 213–215. Link:
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7210/
abs/nature07276.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25035
which has been used in the literature to
estimate the greenhouse gas impacts of
biofuels.292 293 Since a time period such
as 30 years would truncate the potential
GHG benefits that accumulate over time,
this second option would reduce the
GHG benefits of biofuels relative to
gasoline or diesel compared to assuming
a longer time frame for biofuel
production such as 100 years.
One advantage of using a shorter time
period is that it is more ‘‘conservative’’
from a climate change policy
perspective. In general, the further out
into the future an analysis projects, the
more uncertainty is introduced into the
results. For example, with a longer time
period for analysis, it is more likely that
significant changes in market factors or
policies will change the incentives for
producing biofuels. If a biofuel only has
greenhouse benefits when considered in
an extended future time frame, it is not
clear that these benefits will be realized
due to the inherent uncertainty of the
future. Also, potential irreversible
climate change impacts or future actions
in other sectors of the economy, such as
reductions from stationary sources,
could influence the relative importance
of renewable fuel GHG impacts. The
timing and severity of these potential
irreversible climate change impacts are
clearly uncertain as is the degree to
which near-term lifecycle emissions
related to biofuel production influences
these climate change impacts. Given
these uncertainties, it may be
appropriate to limit our analysis horizon
to a much shorter time period such as
30 years.
Several disadvantages are also
associated with choosing the 30 year
time frame to represent both emissions
impacts as well as emissions benefits.
One key disadvantage is that it ignores
the potential sources of GHG emissions
impacts of producing biofuel after 30
years such as foregone sequestration
from forests that may have been
removed which could have continuing
impacts even after production of a
biofuel has ended. Thus, it doesn’t
account for the full land use emissions
‘‘signature’’ of biofuels. In addition,
even if second generation fuels start to
dominate new construction, building a
first generation fuel production facility
such as a corn ethanol refinery
represents a significant capital
investment. Once the facility is built
and financed, it may continue
292 Searchinger
et al., 2008.
Delucchi, ‘‘A multi-country analysis of
lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels and
motor vehicles’’ (UCD–ITS–RR–05–10, University
of California at Davis, Davis, CA 2005). See also
https://www.its.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/
delucchi/.
293 M.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25036
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
producing biofuel as long as it is
covering its operating costs. This
suggests that, once a plant is built, if the
variable cost of corn ethanol production
is less than the cost to produce gasoline,
then corn ethanol production at that
facility may continue. This economic
advantage may contribute to the
longevity of first generation biofuel
production and usage far into the future.
An appropriate time frame for
analysis could also be different for
different biofuels. While we could
assume that corn ethanol would be
phased out after a shorter time period
such as 30 years, it might be more
appropriate to use a longer time period
over which to analyze the benefits of
other advanced biofuels such as
cellulosic biofuels. It could be
reasonably assumed that cellulosic
biofuels will be produced for more than
30 years, perhaps for 100 years or
longer. However, even if cellulosic
biofuels are expected to be produced for
100 years or longer, a shorter time
period, such as 30 years, may still be the
most relevant period over which to
assess GHG emissions, given the
importance of near-term emissions
reductions and the increasing
uncertainty of future events. We
specifically seek comments on the 100
year and 30 year time frames discussed
in this proposal. We also seek general
comments on the most appropriate time
periods for analysis of biofuels, and
whether we should use different time
periods for different types of renewable
fuels.
Another way to look at the time
period issue, which we have not
specifically analyzed for this proposed
rule, would separate the time period
into two parts. The first part would
consider how long we expect
production of a particular biofuel to
continue into the future. We refer to this
concept, which is similar to the project
lifetime often considered in traditional
cost benefit analysis, as the ‘‘project’’
time horizon. The second part would
address the length over which to
account for the changes in GHG
emissions due to land use changes
which result from biofuel production.
We call this the ‘‘impact’’ time horizon.
Our analysis for this proposed rule
has not considered a scenario where the
project time horizon is shorter than
impact time horizon. However, we are
considering this option for the final
rule. For example, we could look at a
scenario where corn ethanol production
continues for 30 years and land use
related GHG emissions are estimated for
100 years. Specifically, we are
considering whether to use 30 years
after 2015 (as an approximation of when
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
ethanol production from corn starch
reaches 15 billion gallons) as a
reasonable estimate of when corn will
no longer be used for ethanol
production due to advances in other
biofuels and the competing demand to
use corn for food rather than biofuel
feedstock. We specifically ask whether a
30 year estimate of continued corn
starch ethanol production (i.e., through
2045) is a reasonable estimate for
assessing the stream of GHG benefits
from corn ethanol use while 100 years
would be appropriate for assessing
impacts of the land use change. Under
such an assumption a 100 time horizon
would capture the longer term emission
impacts of corn ethanol production
(including indirect land use impacts)
while the benefits from 31 through 100
years would be zero since corn ethanol
would be modeled as no longer in use.
In that scenario, we would have to
consider the lifecycle GHG impacts after
the production of corn ethanol ends.
This would include the issue of land
reversion, or what happens to the land
used to produce a biofuel feedstock after
its use for biofuel production has
ceased. A full accounting of land
reversion would involve economic
modeling to determine how long we
expect production of a particular biofuel
to last, and to determine the land use
changes after that biofuel production
ends. Ideally this modeling would
extend well beyond 2022 to the point
where land reversion is complete, and it
would include projections for global
crop yield improvements, population
trends, food demand, and other key
factors. For this proposal, we have not
projected the GHG emissions associated
with land reversion, but we plan to
consider land reversion in our final rule
analysis and we seek comments on
methodologies and approaches for doing
this. We also seek comment on the
related issue of how best to estimate
how long each type of biofuel is most
likely to continue to be produced, and
whether production of these biofuels is
likely to end abruptly or phase out
gradually.
Agricultural and economic models
that look beyond 2022 would not only
help to estimate the impacts of land
reversion after biofuel production ends,
they would also help to project how
evolving agricultural conditions could
influence the lifecycle GHG emissions
of biofuels beyond 2022. For example,
corn yields per acre are expected to
continue increasing after 2022; this
increase in yields per acre will decrease
the amount of land required to produce
a bushel of corn. At higher yields, fewer
acres are required to grow the corn used
for the 15 billion gallons of corn starch
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ethanol modeled for the rule. The
indirect impacts of maintaining 15
billion gallons of corn ethanol
production would similarly be reduced.
EPA intends to more carefully model
these transitions in particular to better
account for future land use impacts and
we invite comments on methodology,
sources of data, factors that should be
considered in assessing whether and
when a particular biofuel such as
ethanol from corn starch, for example,
will no longer be produced and
recommendations on how to improve on
our assessment of the likely stream of
GHG emissions after 2022 that will
result from the EISA mandates.
A complicating consideration in this
analysis arises in determining future use
of the land (post-biofuel production) is
the fact that perhaps significant land use
change occurred as a result of biofuel
production and that land is now more
easily suited for alternative uses
compared to its pre-biofuel state. For
example, the demand created by biofuel
production may have justified clearing
forested lands and turning them into
productive cropland. Even if the need
for the land to produce crops in
response to biofuel demand ceases
when the biofuel production ends, the
land will still be in an altered form
making it, for example, more
economically available for other crop
production than when it had been
forested. How this land is subsequently
used can affect its impact on GHG
emissions. If it is used for intensive crop
production, the land will have a much
different carbon sequestration profile,
for example, than if it returned to its
pre-biofuel forested state. EPA asks for
suggestions on how to best treat these
lingering effects of land use change
when attributing the effects of biofuel
demand to uses of land even after
biofuel production ends.
For the determination of whether
biofuels meet the GHG emissions
reduction required by EISA, we present
the results for a range of time periods,
including both 100 years and 30 years
in Section VI.C and specifically invite
comment on whether use of a 100 year
time frame, a 30 year time frame, or
some other time frame, would be most
appropriate.
In addition to this general issue of the
appropriate time frames for analysis,
several more specific issues exist. Since
it would be likely that corn starch
ethanol production will phase out
gradually rather than stopping all of a
sudden in 2045, we also are evaluating
options for estimating the phase out of
corn starch ethanol production. One
simplifying assumption would have
corn ethanol production phase out
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Discounting of Lifecycle GHG Emissions
Economic theory suggests that in
general consumers have a time
preference for benefits received today
versus receiving them in the future.
Therefore, future benefits are often
valued at a discounted rate. Although
discount rates are most often applied to
the monetary valuation of future versus
present benefits, a discounting approach
can also be used to compare physical
quantities (i.e., total GHG emissions per
gallon of fuel used).
The concept of weighting physical
units accruing at different times has
been used in the environmental and
resource economics literature,294 and is
analogous to valuing the monetary cost
and benefits of a policy, only that in this
case the metric that we ‘value’ is the
reduction in GHG emissions. 295 An
important part of the economic theory of
time is the idea that benefits expected
to accrue in the long term are less
certain than benefits in the near term.
This is true in the case of GHG
emissions changes from biofuel
production which are dependent upon
how long biofuel production will
continue, how technologies will
develop over time, and other factors.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Another reason to give more weight to
near-term emissions changes is that the
risks associated with climate change in
the future include the possibility of
extreme climate change and threshold
impacts (e.g., species and ecosystem
thresholds, catastrophic events).
Increased GHG emissions in the nearterm may be more important in terms of
physical damage to the world’s
environment. Some scientists, for
example, believe that effects on factors
such as arctic summer ice, HimalayanTibetan Glaciers, and the Greenland ice
sheet are more likely to be effected by
near-term GHG emissions, causing nonlinearities in the effects attributable to
GHG emissions.296 Long-term GHG
reductions may be too late to mitigate
these irreversible impacts, providing
further justification for discounting
GHG emissions changes that are
expected in the distant future. Under
this perspective, it would be appropriate
to discount the physical quantities of
future emissions, and especially in a
long term analysis of lifecycle GHG
emissions. Thus in our analysis with a
100 year time frame, or impact horizon,
we discount the value of future GHG
emissions changes.
Despite the rationale for discounting
future GHG emissions changes
discussed above, there are reasons to be
cautious about the application of
discounting in lifecycle GHG analysis.
One argument is that it may only be
appropriate to discount monetized
values. Our lifecycle analysis estimates
GHG emission impacts, not their
monetary value, and under this
argument emissions should not be
directly discounted. Rather, the physical
GHG emissions should be converted
into monetary impacts, where these
monetary impacts are also a function of
climate science. The resulting climate
impacts would then have to be
translated into monetary values. This
presents significant challenges for
lifecycle GHG analysis because it is
difficult to translate dynamic GHG
emissions into a single estimate of
physical impacts, much less a single
estimate of monetized impacts. This is
the case for a number of reasons,
including the complex physical systems
associated with climate change (e.g., the
relationship between atmospheric
degradation rates with atmospheric
carbon stocks) that may create nonconstant marginal damages from GHG
emissions over time. Furthermore,
converting lifecycle GHG emissions into
monetized impacts may be inconsistent
with the EISA definition of lifecycle
GHG emissions provided above in
Section VI.A.1, which stipulates that
lifecycle GHG emissions are the
‘‘aggregate quantity of greenhouse gas
emissions * * * where the mass values
for all greenhouse gases are adjusted to
account for their relative global
warming potential.’’
Another argument against discounting
GHG emissions changes is the concept
of inter-generational equity, which
argues that benefits or damages affecting
future generations merit just as much
weight as impacts felt by current
generations. It is argued that this would
invalidate the practice of discounting
emissions impacts that could affect
future generations.
Finally, earlier in this section we
discussed the possible ranges of time
frames for analyzing the GHG emissions
impacts. For shorter time frames such as
30 years, there would be less
uncertainty in the emissions stream so
the benefit of discounting to address
uncertainty is also lessoned.
Comments are requested on the
concept of discounting a stream of GHG
emissions for the purpose of estimating
lifecycle GHG emissions from
transportation fuels as specified in
EISA.
296 Ramanathan and Feng, 2008. On avoiding
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system: Formidable challenges ahead.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
105:143245–14250.
linearly between 2022 and 2045 as
production of other biofuels such as
cellulosic biofuels continue to expand.
Comments are requested on the option
of linearly phasing out corn ethanol
production from 2022 through 2045 and
other approaches for estimating this
transition in corn ethanol production.
Finally, its not only corn starch ethanol
that might be replaced in future years.
For example, the use of soy oil for
biodiesel fuel production might be
replaced by other non-food oils such as
oil from algae. Comments are requested
on whether other biofuels will similarly
phase out of use and therefore the land
use change impacts need to be similarly
considered.
In addition to seeking comments on
all of the issues related to the time
periods for lifecycle analysis, EPA plans
to convene a peer review of the range of
time periods considered in this
proposed rule. This peer review will
also seek expert feedback on all of the
issues raised above in this section,
including how to determine the most
appropriate time periods for
consideration in the final rule.
294 Herzog et al. 2003 (See https://
sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/climatic_change.pdf),
Richards 1997, Stavins and Richards 2005 (See
https://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/
Sequest_Final.pdf).
295 Sunstein and Rowell, 2007, On Discounting
Regulatory Benefits: Risk, Money, and
Intergenerational Equity, Chicago Law Review.
25037
297 Technical Support Document on Benefits of
Reducing GHG Emissions, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, June 12, 2008,
www.regulations.gov (search phrase ‘‘Technical
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Appropriate Level of Discount Rate
As described in more detail in Section
IX on GHG emission reduction benefits,
GHG emissions have primarily
consumption effects and intergenerational impacts, as changes in
GHG emissions today will continue to
have impacts on climate change for
decades to centuries. If a discount rate
is applied to future GHG emissions, an
appropriate discount rate should be
based on a consumption-based discount
rate given that monetized climate
change impacts are primarily
consumption effects (i.e., impacts on
household purchases of goods and
services). A consumption-based
discount rate reflects the implied
tradeoffs between consumption today
and in the future. Discount rates of 3%
or less are considered appropriate for
discounting climate change impacts,
since they reflect the long run
uncertainty in economic growth and
interest rates and the risk of high impact
climate damages that could reduce
economic growth.297
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
Continued
26MYP2
25038
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
When analyzing the GHG emissions
associated with a 100 year time period,
we examined a variety of alternative
discount rates (e.g., 0, 2, 3, 7 percent) to
show the sensitivity of greenhouse gas
emissions estimates to the choice of the
discount rate. A zero discount rate
estimates GHG emission impacts as if
each ton of GHG emissions is treated
equally through time. Previous
methodologies of lifecycle GHG benefits
have presented results using a zero
discount rate.298 However, some of the
climate change literature supports using
a higher discount rate, as described in
Section IX.C. We show the 7% discount
rate for illustrative purposes; however
climate change benefit analyses from
global long-run growth models typically
use discount rates well under 7% for
standard analysis.299 High discount
rates imply very low values for the
future GHG emission impacts resulting
from today’s actions on the welfare of
future generations. Therefore, lower
discount rates such as 2–3% are
considered more appropriate for
discounting long term climate change
impacts.300
In the analysis for this proposal we
use a 2% discount rate to assess the
present value of GHG emissions changes
which occur over a 100 year time frame.
This discount rate is consistent with the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) 301 and EPA 302 guidance and is
one of the discount rates that has been
used in the literature to monetize the
impacts of climate change.303 EPA has
considered this issue previously, and
after weighing the pros and cons of
different values, set forth a guidance
document recommending using a range
of consumption based discount rates of
0.5–3%. OMB and EPA guidance on
inter-generational discounting suggests
using a low but positive discount rate if
there are important inter-generational
benefits and costs. In selecting a 2%
discount rate coupled with a 100 year
emission stream estimate, EPA would be
recognizing the long term nature of the
emission impacts of biofuel production,
the uncertainty in estimating these
emission impacts and their
consequences plus the significance of
nearer term emission changes in
avoiding future consequences. Other
options for intergenerational
Support Document on Benefits of Reducing GHG
Emissions’’).
298 Searchinger et al., 2008.
299 Tol, 2005.
300 Newell and Pizer, 2003.
301 OMB Circular A–4, 2003 provides a range of
1–3% for consumption based discount rates.
302 EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analyses, 2000.
303 Tol (2005, 2007).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
discounting have been discussed in the
economic literature, such as dealing
with uncertainty by using a nonconstant, declining, or negative discount
rate.304 Comments could consider how
discounting appropriately reflects the
uneven emission of greenhouse gases
from biofuels over time, the uncertainty
in predicting emissions in more distant
futures and the impacts these emissions
could have on climate change.
Alternative approaches for intergenerational discounting are described
in Chapter 5.3 of the DRIA.
Because we are considering not
discounting GHG emissions and in
particular since the justifications for
discounting physical emissions are not
as strong for shorter time periods, in
Section VI.C.2, we also present the GHG
emissions reductions associated with
biofuels using a 30 year time period and
no discount rate. Using a zero percent
or no discount rate implies that all
emission releases and uptakes during
this time period are valued equally. For
a shorter time period such as thirty
years, we are relatively certain of the
emission trends. Furthermore, all of
these emissions occur in a relatively
short period of time so their impact on
climate change and the consequences of
that climate change could all be
considered the same regardless of
whether those emissions occurred early
or late in this 30-year time period.
We specifically invite comment on
our use of a 2% discount rate with a 100
year time period for analysis of lifecycle
GHG emissions, and our use of no
discount rate in our analysis of GHG
emissions over 30 years. We also invite
comments on whether using physical
science metrics such as the actual
quantities of climate forcing gasses in
the atmosphere, actual quantities of
climate forcing gasses in the atmosphere
weighted by global warming potential
(GWP), or cumulative radiative forcing
should be used to evaluate emissions
over time. Specifically, we seek
comment on an approach for comparing
GHG emissions based on the time
profile of the greenhouse gas emissions
in the atmosphere, and whether this
approach would be consistent with the
legal definition of lifecycle GHG
emissions in EISA. One such method is
the Fuel Warming Potential as outlined
in a memo to the EPA from the Union
of Concerned Scientists which is
available on the public docket for this
304 Newell and Pizer, 2003, Weitzman (1999,
2001), Nordhaus (2008), Guo et al., (2006), Saez,
C.A. and J.C. Requena, ‘‘Reconciling sustainability
and discounting in Cost-Benefit Analysis: A
methodological proposal’’, Ecological Economics,
2007, vol. 60, issue 4, pages 712–725.
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
rulemaking.305 This approach is based
on the ratio of the cumulative radiative
forcing between the biofuel and the
gasoline case over a specified time
frame.
The EISA definition of lifecycle GHG
emissions stipulates that the mass
values for all greenhouse gas emissions
shall be adjusted to account for their
relative GWP. We are proposing to use
the standard 100-year GWP’s published
in the IPCC Second Assessment
Report.306 307 We invite comment on
whether it is appropriate to discount
GWP-weighted emissions and how such
discounting might appropriately apply
across the several greenhouse gases.
Furthermore, if alternative time
periods for the production of biofuels
and the GHG impacts of biofuel
production are considered as discussed
above, and the choice is made to
discount GHG emissions, the question
that arises is: What discount rate or
combination of discount rates should be
considered? For example, if ethanol
production is assumed to occur for 30
years and the GHG impacts are assumed
to span across 80–100 years, should a
single discount rate be applied to the
emissions stream or alternative discount
rates based upon the different time
frames? EPA is taking comment on
whether and how to apply discounting
when different time frames between the
production and long-run GHG impacts
are utilized to analysis biofuels.
Specifically, EPA is considering and
requests comment on the option of
using either no discount rate or a 3%
discount rate to assess those emissions
that occur during the relatively shorter
time frame for biofuel use which could
phase out within 30 years as in our corn
ethanol example and a 2% discount rate
over the reminder of the 100 years in
assessing the longer term GHG
emissions impacts resulting from land
use changes related to biofuel
production (including land reversion
considerations).
EPA is considering a range of
discount rates including zero or no
discounting for reasons as described
above and requests comments on the
appropriate discount rate to use when
assessing the stream of GHG emission
changes that are likely to result from
biofuel production and use. Other
305 See Memo to EPA, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality from Union of Concerned
Scientists, Re: Treatment of Time in Life Cycle
Accounting, February 18, 2009.
306 See https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/
assessments-reports.htm.
307 O’Hare, Plevin, Martin, Jones, Kendal and
Hopson; ‘‘Proper accounting for time increases
crop-based biofuel’s greenhouse gas deficit versus
petroleum’’; Environmental Research Letters, 4
(2009) 024001.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
options for intergenerational
discounting have been discussed in the
economic literature, such as dealing
with uncertainty by using a nonconstant, declining, or negative discount
rate.308 Comments could consider how
discounting appropriately reflects the
uneven release of greenhouse gases from
biofuels over time, the uncertainty in
predicting emissions in more distant
futures and the impacts these emissions
could have on climate change.
Alternative approaches for intergenerational discounting are described
in Chapter 5.3 of the DRIA.
EPA recognizes that the time horizon
for analysis and the treatment of future
emissions including the appropriateness
of applying discount factors are key
factors in determining biofuel lifecycle
GHG impacts; therefore, we plan to
organize an expert peer review of these
issues before the final rule.
c. Feedstock Transport
The GHG impacts of transporting corn
from the field to the ethanol facility and
transporting the co-product DGs from
the ethanol facility to the point of use
were included in this analysis. The
GREET default of truck transportation of
50 miles was used to represent corn
transportation from farm to plant.
Transportation assumptions for DGs
transport were 14% shipped by rail 800
miles, 2% shipped by barge 520 miles,
and 86% shipped by truck 50 miles. The
percent shipped by mode was from data
provided by USDA and based on
Association of American Railroads,
Army Corps of Engineers, Commodity
Freight Statistics, and industry
estimates. The distances DGs were
shipped were based on GREET defaults
for other commodities shipped by those
transportation modes. The GHG
emissions from transport of corn and
DGs are based on GREET default
emission factors for each type of vehicle
including capacity, fuel economy, and
type of fuel used. Similar detailed
analyses were conducted for the
transport of cellulosic biofuel feedstock
and biomass-based diesel feedstock.
As part of this rulemaking analysis we
have conducted a more detailed analysis
of biofuel production locations and
transportation distances and modes of
transport used in the criteria pollutant
emissions inventory calculations
described in DRIA Chapter 1.6 and for
the cost analysis of this rule described
in DRIA Chapter 4.2. Given the timing
308 Newell
and Pizer, 2003, Weitzman (1999,
2001), Nordhaus (2008), Guo et al., (2006), Saez,
C.A. and J.C. Requena, ‘‘Reconciling sustainability
and discounting in Cost-Benefit Analysis: A
methodological proposal’’, Ecological Economics,
2007, vol. 60, issue 4, pages 712–725.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
of when the current analysis was
completed we were not able to
incorporate this updated transportation
information into our lifecycle analysis
but plan to do that for the final rule.
Furthermore, the transportation
modes and distances assumed for corn
and DGs do not account for the
secondary or indirect transportation
impacts. For example, decreases in
exports might reduce overall domestic
agricultural commodity transport and
emissions but might increase
transportation of commodities
internationally. We plan to consider
these secondary transportation impacts
in our final rule analysis.
d. Processing
The GHG emissions estimates
associated with the processing of
renewable fuels is dependent on a
number of assumptions and varies
significantly based on a number of key
variables. The ethanol yield impacts the
total amount of corn used and
associated agricultural sector GHG
emissions. The amount of DGs and other
co-products produced will also impact
the agricultural sector emissions in
terms of being used as a feed
replacement. Finally the energy used by
the ethanol plant will result in GHG
emissions, both from producing the fuel
used and through direct combustion
emissions.
As mentioned above, in traditional
lifecycle analyses, the energy consumed
and emissions generated by a renewable
fuel plant must be allocated not only to
the renewable fuel, but also to each of
the by-products. For corn ethanol
production, our analysis avoids the
need to allocate by accounting for the
DGs and other co-products directly in
the FASOM and FAPRI agricultural
sector modeling described above. DGs
are considered a partial replacement for
corn and other animal feed and thus
reduce the need to make up for the corn
production that went into ethanol
production. Since FASOM takes the
benefits from the production and use of
DGs into account (e.g., displacing the
need to grow additional crops for feed
and therefore reducing GHG emissions
in the agricultural sector), no further
allocation was needed at the ethanol
plant and all plant emissions are
accounted for here.
In terms of the energy used at
renewable fuel facilities, there is a lot of
variation between plants based on the
process type (e.g., wet vs. dry milling)
and the type of fuel used (e.g., coal vs.
natural gas). There can also be variation
between the same type of plants using
the same fuel source based on the age
of the plant and types of processes
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25039
included, etc. For our analysis we
considered different pathways for corn
ethanol production. Our focus was to
differentiate between facilities based on
the key differences between plants,
namely the type of plant and the type
of fuel used. One other key difference
we modeled between plants was the
treatment of the co-products DGs. One
of the main energy drivers of ethanol
production is drying of the DGs. Plants
that are co-located with feedlots have
the ability to provide the co-product
without drying. This has a big enough
impact on overall results that we
defined a specific category for wet vs.
dry co-product. One additional factor
that appears to have a significant impact
on GHG emissions is corn oil
fractionation from DGs. Therefore, this
category is also broken out as a separate
category in the following section. See
DRIA Chapter 1.4 for a discussion of
corn oil fractionation.
Furthermore, as our analysis was
based on a future timeframe, we
modeled future plant energy use to
represent plants that would be built to
meet requirements of increased ethanol
production, as opposed to current or
historic data on energy used in ethanol
production. The energy use at dry mill
plants was based on ASPEN models
developed by USDA and updated to
reflect changes in technology out to
2022 as described in DRIA Chapter 4.1.
The GHG emissions from renewable
fuel production are calculated by
multiplying the Btus of the different
types of energy inputs by emissions
factors for combustion of those fuel
sources. The emission factors for the
different fuel types are from GREET and
are based primarily on assumed carbon
contents of the different process fuels.
The emissions from producing
electricity are also taken from GREET
and represent average U.S. grid
electricity production emissions. The
emissions from combustion of biomass
fuel source are not assumed to increase
net atmospheric CO2 levels 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.
Therefore, CO2 emissions from biomass
combustion as a process fuel source are
not included in the lifecycle GHG
inventory of the ethanol plant.
e. Fuel Transport
Transportation and distribution of
ethanol, biomass-based diesel,
petroleum diesel and gasoline were also
included in this analysis based on
GREET defaults. The GREET defaults for
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25040
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
both ethanol and gasoline transport
from plant/refinery to bulk terminals
were used. The GREET defaults for both
ethanol and gasoline distribution from
the bulk terminal to the service station
were also used.
As with feedstock transport we have
conducted a more detailed analysis of
fuel transport and distribution impacts
for use in criteria pollutant inventories
(see DRIA Chapter 1.6) and for our cost
analysis described in DRIA Chapter 4.2.
Due to the timing of this analysis we
were not able to incorporate the results
in our proposed lifecycle calculation but
plan to do that for the final rule.
f. Tailpipe Combustion
Combustion CO2 emissions for
ethanol, biomass-based diesel,
petroleum diesel and gasoline were
based on the carbon content of the fuel.
However, over the full lifecycle of the
fuel, the CO2 emitted from biomassbased 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. Net carbon fluxes
from changes in biogenic carbon
reservoirs in wooded or crop lands are
accounted for separately in the land use
change analysis as outlined in the
agricultural sector modeling above.
When calculating combustion GHG
emissions, however, the methane and
N2O emitted during biomass-based fuels
combustion are included in the analysis.
Unlike CO2 emissions, the combustion
of biomass-based fuels does result in net
additions of methane and N2O to the
atmosphere. Therefore, combustion
methane and N2O emissions are
included in the lifecycle GHG emissions
results for biomass-based fuels.
Combustion related methane and N2O
emissions for both biomass-based fuels
and petroleum-based fuels are based on
EPA MOVES model results.
6. Petroleum Baseline
To establish the lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions associated with the
petroleum baseline against which the
renewable fuels were compared, we
used an updated version of the GREET
model. Lifecycle energy use and
associated emissions for petroleumbased fuels in GREET is calculated
based on an energy efficiency metric for
the different processes involved with
petroleum-based fuels production. The
energy efficiency metric is a measure of
how many Btus of input energy are
needed to make a Btu of product.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
GREET has assumptions on energy
efficiency for different finished
petroleum products as well as for
different types of crude oil.
We are using the latest version of the
GREET model for this analysis (Version
1.8b) which includes recent updates to
the energy efficiencies of petroleum
refining. To represent baseline
petroleum fuels we have used the 2005
estimates of actual gasoline and diesel
fuel used. For 2005, 86% of gasoline
and 92% of diesel fuel was produced
domestically with the rest imported
finished product. To represent
international production we assume the
same GHG refinery emissions from
GREET as used domestically. We did
not include indirect land use impacts in
assessing the lifecycle GHG performance
of the 2005 baseline fuel pool as we
believe these would insignificantly
impact the average performance
assessment of the baseline.
Additionally, consistent with our
assessment of energy security impacts,
we did not include as an indirect GHG
impact the potential impact of
maintaining a military presence.
GREET also has assumptions on the
mix of energy sources used to provide
the energy input, which determine GHG
emissions. For example if coal, natural
gas, or purchased electricity is used as
an energy source. The GHG emissions
associated with petroleum fuel
production are based on the emissions
from producing and combusting the
input energy sources needed, like GHG
emissions from using natural gas at the
petroleum refinery. Non-combustion
GHG sources like fugitive methane
emissions are added in where
applicable.
Based on the EISA requirements, we
used the 2005 mix of crude as the
petroleum baseline. We developed
emissions factors for those crude types
since they are not currently included in
GREET. In 2005, 5% of crude was
Canadian tar sand, 1% was Venezuela
extra heavy, and 23% was heavy crude.
For this proposal, we are using the
average GHG emissions associated with
the 2005 petroleum baseline, as required
by EISA. However, we recognize that an
additional gallon of renewable fuel
replaces the marginal gallon of
petroleum fuel. To the extent that the
marginal gallon is from oil sands or
other types of crude oil that are
associated with higher than average
GHG emissions, replacing these fuels
could have a larger GHG benefit.
Conversely to the extent the marginal
gallon displaced is from imported
gasoline produced from light crude,
replacing these fuels would have a
smaller GHG benefit. We solicit
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
comment on whether—strictly for
purposes of assessing the benefits of the
rule (and not for purposes of
determining whether certain renewable
fuel pathways meet the GHG reduction
thresholds set forth in EISA), we should
assess benefits based on a marginal
displacement approach and, if so, what
assumptions we should use for the
marginal displacements.
In December 2008, the U.S.
Department of Energy’s National Energy
Technology Laboratory (NETL) released
a report that estimates the average
lifecycle GHG emissions from
petroleum-based fuels sold or
distributed in 2005.309 The estimates in
the report are based on a slightly
different methodology than EPA’s
analysis of lifecycle GHG emissions for
the petroleum baseline. The NETL
report is available on the docket for this
rulemaking. We invite comments on
whether NETL’s analysis has significant
implications for how EPA is estimating
petroleum baseline lifecycle GHG
emissions.
7. Energy Sector Indirect Impacts
Increased demand for natural gas to
power corn ethanol plants could have
additional impacts on the U.S. energy
sector. As demand for natural gas
increases, the use of natural gas in other
sectors (e.g., electric generation) could
decrease. For this analysis, we are using
the NEMS model to project the
secondary or indirect impacts on the
energy sector. However, we were not
able to include this analysis in the GHG
emissions estimates presented in this
proposal. We hope to have this analysis
for the final rule. Additional details on
the methodology are included in the
DRIA Chapter 2, and we invite
comments on this approach.
We are assuming, for the proposal,
that a gallon of renewable fuel replaces
an energy equivalent gallon of
petroleum fuel. This analysis presumes
that petroleum-based fuels as they are
currently produced will continue to be
used for transportation fuels and will be
replaced on a Btu for Btu basis. Many
factors could affect this assumption
including advances in petroleum fuel
technology, availability of other fossil
fuels for transportation use, and of
course the supply and cost of
petroleum. We have not tried to analyze
these potential impacts in this rule.
However we invite comment on such an
approach.
We have also not assessed whether
expanded use of biofuels in the U.S.
309 DOE/NETL. 2008. Development of Baseline
Data and Analysis of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions of Petroleum-Based Fuels. DOE/NETL–
2009/1346.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25041
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
will impact the energy markets in other
countries. For example, reducing
demand for petroleum-based fuel in the
U.S. may reduce worldwide petroleum
prices and impact the use of petroleum
in other countries. We invite comment
on how best to assess these potential
impacts and will attempt to do so for the
final rule.
C. Fuel Specific GHG Emissions
Estimates
While the results presented in this
section represent the most up-to-date
information currently available, this
analysis is part of an ongoing process.
Because lifecycle analysis is a new part
of the RFS program, in addition to the
formal comment period on the proposed
rule, EPA is making multiple efforts to
solicit public and expert feedback on
our proposed approach. As discussed in
Section XI, EPA plans to hold a public
workshop focused specifically on
lifecycle analysis during the comment
period to assure full understanding of
the analyses conducted, the issues
addressed and options that should be
considered. We expect that this
workshop will allow the most
thoughtful and useful comments to this
proposal and assure the best
methodology and assumptions are used
for calculating GHG emissions impacts
of fuels for the final rule. Additionally
we will conduct peer-reviews of key
components of our analysis. As part of
ongoing analysis for the final rule, EPA
will seek peer review of: Our use of
satellite data to project future land use
changes; the land conversion GHG
emissions factors estimated by Winrock;
our estimates of GHG emissions from
foreign crop production; methods to
account for the variable timing of GHG
emissions; and how models are used
together to provide overall lifecycle
GHG estimates.
In addition to the refinements to the
methodology that we plan to undertake
for the final rule, we also intend to
update our results periodically. EPA
recognizes that the state of the science
for lifecycle GHG analysis will continue
to evolve over time as new data and
modeling techniques become available
and as there are improvements in
agricultural and renewable fuel
production practices as well as new
feedstocks. We invite comments on the
appropriate amount of time for periodic
review of the lifecycle assessment
methodology, but we propose that
performing an update of the
methodology every 3–5 years would be
appropriate. We would expect the first
update to this analysis would occur
closer to 3 years. This timeframe would
allow us to undergo a formal review
process after the final rule to ensure that
this methodology takes into account the
most state-of-the-art science and reflects
the input of appropriate experts in this
field. However, any change in lifecycle
methodology as contemplated here
would not affect the eligibility of
biofuels produced at facilities covered
by the grandfathering provisions of
EISA at section 211(o)(4)(g).
1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reductions Relative to the 2005
Petroleum Baseline
In this section we present detailed
lifecycle GHG results for several specific
biofuels representing a range biofuel
pathways. This section also includes the
results of sensitivity analysis for key
variables. The sensitivity of the time
period and discount rate are discussed
below. In the rest of this section we
focus on two sets of lifecycle GHG
results. One set of results that uses a 100
year time period and 2% discount rate
and a parallel set of results using a 30
year time period and a 0% discount
rate. In Section IV.C.2 which follows,
we also present the results for some
additional combinations of time horizon
for assessing GHG emission changes as
well as assuming other discount rates.
Additional pathways, not included in
the results presented in this section,
distinguishing other combinations of
feedstock and processing technologies
have been evaluated. These additional
pathways are described in detail in the
DRIA and are included in these
proposed regulations.
a. Corn Ethanol
Table VI.C.1–1 presents the breakout
of the net present value of lifecycle GHG
emissions per million British thermal
unit (mmbtu) of corn ethanol and
gasoline. The results are broken out by
lifecycle stage. Values are shown for a
standard dry mill corn ethanol plant in
2022 using natural gas for process
energy and drying the co-product of
distillers grains (DGs). Results indicate
where the major contributions of GHG
emissions are across the fuel lifecycle.
Fuel processing and indirect land use
change are the main contributors to corn
ethanol lifecycle GHG emissions. Net
domestic and international agricultural
impacts (w/o land use change) include
direct and indirect impacts, such as
reductions in livestock enteric
fermentation.
TABLE VI.C.1–1—ABSOLUTE LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS FOR CORN ETHANOL AND THE 2005 PETROLEUM BASELINE
[CO2-eq/mmBtu]
2005 Gasoline
baseline
Lifecycle Stage
Natural gas
dry mill with
dry DGs
2005 Gasoline
baseline
100 yr 2%
Natural gas
dry mill with
dry DGs
30 yr 0%
¥499,029
452,118
79,547
1,911,391
1,404,083
174,327
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
573,058
........................
¥347,365
314,711
92,575
1,910,822
977,358
121,346
Tailpipe Emissions 312 ......................................................................................
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A 310
823,262
(see footnote
321)
3,417,311
37,927
2,378,800
26,400
Net Total Emissions .................................................................................
4,240,674
3,560,365
2,951,858
3,095,846
Net Domestic Agriculture (w/o land use change) ............................................
Net International Agriculture (w/o land use change) .......................................
Domestic Land Use Change ...........................................................................
International Land Use Change .......................................................................
Fuel Production 311 ..........................................................................................
Fuel and Feedstock Transport ........................................................................
310 For this proposal, our preliminary analysis
suggests land use impacts of petroleum production
for the fuels used in the U.S. in 2005 would not
have an appreciable impact on the 2005 baseline
GHG emissions assessment. However, we expect to
more carefully consider potential land use impacts
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
of petroleum-based fuel production for the final
rule and invite comment and information that
would support such an analysis.
311 2005 petroleum baseline fuel production
includes crude oil extraction, transportation,
refining, and transport of finished product.
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
312 Ethanol tailpipe emissions include CH and
4
N2O emissions but not CO2 emissions as these are
assumed to be offset by feedstock carbon uptake.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25042
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Table VI.C.1–1 demonstrates the
importance of the discount rate and
time period analyzed as well as the
importance of significance of including
GHG emissions from international land
use changes. Assuming 100 years of
corn ethanol produced in a basic dry
mill ethanol production facility and
using a 2% discount rate results in corn
ethanol having a 16% reduction in GHG
emissions compared to the 2005
baseline gasoline assumed to be
replaced. In contrast, assuming 30 years
of corn ethanol production and use and
no discounting of the GHG emission
impacts results in predicting that corn
ethanol will have a 5% increase in GHG
emissions compared to petroleum
gasoline.
As discussed in Section VI.B.2.a,
EPA’s interpretation of the EISA statute
compels us to include significant
indirect emission impacts including
those due to land use changes in other
countries. The data in Table VI.C.1–1
indicate that excluding the international
land use change would result in corn
ethanol having an approximately 60%
reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions
compared to petroleum gasoline
regardless of the timing or discount rate
used.313
In Table VI.C.1–1, we project a
standard dry mill ethanol plant in 2022
using corn as its feedstock, using natural
gas for process energy, and drying the
co-product of distillers grains (DGs).
Different corn ethanol production
technologies will have different
lifecycle GHG results. For example, due
to its high carbon content, using coal as
the process energy source significantly
worsens the lifecycle GHG impact of
ethanol produced at such a facility. On
the other hand, replacing natural gas
with renewable biomass as the process
energy source greatly improves the GHG
assessment.
Other technology options are
available to improve the efficiency of
ethanol facilities. Table VI.C.1–2 shows
the impact that different corn ethanol
production process pathways will have
on the overall lifecycle GHG results.
Table VI.C.2–2 shows that currently
available technologies could be applied
to corn ethanol plants to reduce their
net GHG emissions.
For example, a combined heat and
power (CHP) configuration, used in
combination with corn oil fractionation,
would result in a GHG emissions
reduction of 27% relative to the 2005
petroleum baseline over 100 years using
a 2% discount rate, and a 6% reduction
over 30 years with no discounting. In
addition, advanced technologies such as
membrane separation and raw starch
hydrolysis could improve the emissions
associated with corn ethanol production
even more substantially. Combining all
of these technologies in a state-of-the-art
natural gas powered corn ethanol
facility would produce ethanol that has
approximately 35% less lifecycle GHG
emissions than an energy equivalent
amount of baseline gasoline displaced
over 100 years using a 2% discount rate
and, by comparison a 14% reduction
when accounting for 30 years of
emission changes but applying no
discounting. Details on these different
technologies are included in the DRIA
Chapter 1.5.
Table VI.C.1–2 also shows that the
choice of drying DGs can have a
significant impact on the GHG
emissions associated with an ethanol
plan, since drying the ethanol
byproduct is an energy intensive
process. However, wet DGs are only
suitable where a local market is
available such as a dairy farm or cattle
feedlot, since wet DGs are highly
perishable.
TABLE VI.C.1–2—LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS CHANGES FOR VARIOUS CORN ETHANOL PATHWAYS IN 2022 RELATIVE TO
THE 2005 PETROLEUM BASELINE
Percent
change from
2005 petroleum baseline
(100 yr 2%)
Corn ethanol production plant type
Natural Gas Dry Mill with dry DGs ..........................................................................................................................
Natural Gas Dry Mill with dry DGs and CHP ..........................................................................................................
Natural Gas Dry Mill with dry DGs, CHP, and Corn Oil Fractionation ...................................................................
Natural Gas Dry Mill with dry DGs, CHP, Corn Oil Fractionation, and Membrane Separation .............................
Natural Gas Dry Mill with dry DGs, CHP, Corn Oil Fractionation, Membrane Separation, and Raw Starch Hydrolysis .................................................................................................................................................................
Natural Gas Dry Mill with wet DGs .........................................................................................................................
Natural Gas Dry Mill with wet DGs and CHP .........................................................................................................
Natural Gas Dry Mill with wet DGs, CHP, and Corn Oil Fractionation ...................................................................
Natural Gas Dry Mill with wet DGs, CHP, Corn Oil Fractionation, and Membrane Separation .............................
Natural Gas Dry Mill with wet DGs, CHP, Corn Oil Fractionation, Membrane Separation, and Raw Starch Hydrolysis .................................................................................................................................................................
Coal Fired Dry Mill with dry DGs .............................................................................................................................
Coal Fired Dry Mill with dry DGs and CHP .............................................................................................................
Coal Fired Dry Mill with dry DGs, CHP, and Corn Oil Fractionation ......................................................................
Coal Fired Dry Mill with dry DGs, CHP, Corn Oil Fractionation, and Membrane Separation ................................
Coal Fired Dry Mill with dry DGs, CHP, Corn Oil Fractionation, Membrane Separation, and Raw Starch Hydrolysis .......................................................................................................................................................................
Coal Fired Dry Mill with wet DGs ............................................................................................................................
Coal Fired Dry Mill with wet DGs and CHP ............................................................................................................
Coal Fired Dry Mill with wet DGs, CHP, and Corn Oil Fractionation .....................................................................
Coal Fired Dry Mill with wet DGs, CHP, Corn Oil Fractionation, and Membrane Separation ...............................
Coal Fired Dry Mill with wet DGs, CHP, Corn Oil Fractionation, Membrane Separation, and Raw Starch Hydrolysis .................................................................................................................................................................
Biomass Fired Dry Mill with dry DGs ......................................................................................................................
Biomass Fired Dry Mill with wet DGs ......................................................................................................................
Natural Gas Fired Wet Mill ......................................................................................................................................
313 The treatment of emissions over time is not
critical if international land use change emissions
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
are excluded because the results without land use
change are consistent over time. Therefore the
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Percent
change from
2005 baseline
(30 yr 0%)
¥16
¥19
¥27
¥30
+5
+2
¥6
¥10
¥35
¥27
¥30
¥33
¥36
¥14
¥6
¥9
¥12
¥15
¥39
+13
+10
¥5
¥13
¥18
+34
+31
+15
+8
¥21
¥9
¥11
¥17
¥25
¥1
+12
+10
+3
¥4
¥30
¥39
¥40
¥7
¥9
¥18
¥19
+14
overall lifecycle GHG results do not vary with time
or discount rate assumptions.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25043
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI.C.1–2—LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS CHANGES FOR VARIOUS CORN ETHANOL PATHWAYS IN 2022 RELATIVE TO
THE 2005 PETROLEUM BASELINE—Continued
Percent
change from
2005 petroleum baseline
(100 yr 2%)
Corn ethanol production plant type
Coal Fired Wet Mill ..................................................................................................................................................
Biomass Fired Wet Mill ............................................................................................................................................
As described in Sections VI.A and
VI.B, there are a number of parameters
and modeling assumptions that could
impact the overall renewable fuel GHG
results. The estimates in Table VI.C.1–
2 are based on the GHG emissions for
a specific change in volumes analyzed
in 2022 (12.3 to 15 Bgal). These volumes
represent the change in corn ethanol
production that would occur in 2022
without and then with EISA mandates
in place. The GHG impact is then
normalized to a per gallon or Btu basis
in relation to gasoline. These values are
used to represent every gallon of corn
ethanol produced throughout the
program.
There are several important
implications associated with this
methodology. First, this analysis focuses
on the average impact of an increase in
fuel produced using a technology
pathway and does not distinguish the
emission performance between biofuel
production plants using the same basic
production technology and type of
feedstock. Thus it does not account for
any incremental differences in facility
design or operation which may affect
the lifecycle GHG performance at that
facility. Second, by focusing on 2022,
this analysis does not track how biofuel
GHG emission performance may change
over time between now and 2022. Third,
the results presented here are based on
the GHG impacts of the volumes
analyzed.
For this proposal, we believe that
using the emissions assessment from a
typical 2022 facility for each major
technology pathway captures the
appropriate level of detail needed to
determine whether a particular biofuel
meets the threshold requirements in
Percent
change from
2005 baseline
(30 yr 0%)
+20
¥47
+41
¥26
EISA. To address whether the GHG
emissions vary significantly over time,
we also calculated corn ethanol lifecycle
GHG emissions estimates in 2012 and
2017. As shown in Table VI.C.1–3, corn
ethanol’s lifecycle GHG emissions
reductions are fairly consistent
regardless of which base year is
analyzed. This may be due to
countervailing forces that stabilize land
use change emissions over the period of
our analysis. Crop yields increase over
time (therefore reducing land use
pressure), but there is also increasing
production of other renewable fuels that
require land for feedstock production
(therefore increasing land use pressure).
Although we are proposing to use 2022
as the base year for our lifecycle GHG
emissions estimates, we invite
comments on this approach.
TABLE VI.C.1–3—CORN ETHANOL LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS CHANGES IN 2012, 2017, AND 2022
Percent
change from
2005 petroleum baseline
(100 yr 2%)
Scenario Description
Corn Ethanol Natural Gas Dry Mill in 2012 with dry DGs ......................................................................................
Corn Ethanol Natural Gas Dry Mill in 2017 with dry DGs ......................................................................................
Corn Ethanol Natural Gas Dry Mill in 2022 with dry DGs ......................................................................................
We also tested the impact of analyzing
a larger change in corn ethanol volumes
on the GHG emissions estimates. Table
VI.C.1–4 shows the sensitivity of our
analysis to the volume changes
analyzed. Based on this scenario, the
GHG emissions estimates associated
with a larger change (6.3 Bgal) in corn
ethanol volumes (8.7 Bgal to 15 Bgal)
results in lower GHG emission
Percent
change from
2005 petroleum baseline
(30 yr 0%)
¥16
¥13
¥16
¥3
+9
+5
reductions. Additional details on these
sensitivity analyses are included in the
DRIA Chapter 2.
TABLE VI.C.1–4—CORN ETHANOL LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT VOLUME
CHANGES
Percent
Change from
2005
Petroleum
Baseline
(100 yr 2%)
Scenario Description
Corn Ethanol Natural Gas Dry Mill in 2022 with dry DGs; 2.7 Bgal change in corn ethanol volumes ..................
Corn Ethanol Natural Gas Dry Mill in 2022 with dry DGs; 6.3 Bgal change in corn ethanol volumes ..................
The results presented in previous
tables assume that managed pasture
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
(i.e., land actively used for livestock
grazing) converted from pasture to
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
¥16
¥6
Percent
Change from
2005
Petroleum
Baseline
(30 yr 0%)
+5
+14
cropland would be replaced with new
pasture in other areas. The area of
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25044
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
managed pasture converted to cropland
was estimated using satellite data from
Winrock and land cover data from
GTAP. As a sensitivity analysis, we also
analyzed a scenario in which none of
the pastureland converted to cropland
would be replaced if, for example,
livestock production could be more
intensively developed on the remaining
pasture (see first row in Table VI.C.1–5).
Similarly, we also calculated results
assuming that all pasture acres would be
replaced (second row in Table VI.C.1–
5). Finally, the third row of Table
VI.C.1–5 includes lifecycle GHG results
assuming that all of the land converted
to cropland would come from pasture
and that none of that pasture would be
replaced, which is counter to the land
use trends identified by the Winrock
satellite data. As can be seen, the
assumption of pastureland replacement
can have a significant effect on the
results. We ask for comment on the best
assumptions to be made when
considering the need to replace pasture
that has been converted to crop
production. We note that the best
decision on pasture land replacement
may vary by country or region due to
such factors as the current intensity of
use of pasture land as well as trends in
demand for pasture. DRIA Chapter 2
includes more details about the
treatment of pasture conversion, and
sensitivity analysis of the types land use
changes induced by corn ethanol
production.
TABLE VI.C.1–5—CORN ETHANOL LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS ON
LAND USE CHANGES
Percent
Change from
2005 Petroleum Baseline
(100 yr 2%)
Scenario Description
Corn Ethanol Natural Gas Dry Mill in 2022 with dry DGs; 0% pastureland replaced ............................................
Corn Ethanol Natural Gas Dry Mill in 2022 with dry DGs; 100% pastureland replaced ........................................
Corn Ethanol Natural Gas Dry Mill in 2022 with dry DGs; grassland only conversion and 0% pastureland replaced ...................................................................................................................................................................
DRIA Chapter 2 includes results for
additional sensitivity analysis of corn
ethanol lifecycle GHG emissions. We
also intend to conduct additional
sensitivity analysis for the final rule. We
invite comment on these assumptions.
b. Imported Ethanol
Table VI.C.1–6 presents the breakout
of lifecycle GHG emissions for
sugarcane ethanol compared to a 2005
petroleum baseline under different
discount rate and time horizon
scenarios and land use assumptions.
This assessment was based on applying
the same methodology as for other
biofuels including the assessment of
both direct and indirect impacts using
the combination of FASOM, FAPRI and
Winrock modeling results. Virtually all
the ethanol from sugarcane is expected
to be imported from Brazilian
production. Applying the proposed
FAPRI/Winrock methodology to
sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil
predicts a large increase in new acres
planted, which has a relatively large
impact on overall GHG emissions. The
impact is from both new sugarcane
production acres in Brazil resulting in
land use change but also reduced
commodity exports from Brazil resulting
in land use change in other countries.
The proposed FAPRI/Winrock
methodology predicts that new crop
acreage is converted from a range of
land types. In contrast, some studies
suggest that sugarcane ethanol
production can increase in Brazil by
relying on existing excess pasture lands
and will not significantly impact other
land types.314 Table VI.C.1–6 provides
the range of lifecycle GHG emission
reduction results under these different
Percent
Change from
2005 Petroleum Baseline
(30 yr 0%)
¥34
¥2
¥19
+24
¥48
¥38
assumptions of type conversion
patterns. As a sensitivity analysis,
shows results for a scenario where none
of the grassland converted to cropland
in Brazil would be replaced if, for
example, livestock production could be
more intensively developed on the
remaining pasture (see second row in
Table VI.C.1–6). The third row of Table
VI.C.1–6 includes lifecycle GHG results
assuming that in Brazil all of the land
converted to cropland would come from
grassland and that none of that
grassland would be replaced. As can be
seen in the table, the assumption of
pastureland replacement can have an
important effect on the results. DRIA
Chapter 2 includes more details about
the treatment of pasture conversion, and
sensitivity analysis of the types land use
changes induced by sugarcane ethanol
production.
TABLE VI.C.1–6—SUGARCANE ETHANOL GHG EMISSION CHANGES UNDER VARIED LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND VARIED
DISCOUNT RATES AND TIME HORIZONS RELATIVE TO 2005 PETROLEUM BASELINE
Land Use Change Scenario Description
(100 yr 2%)
FAPRI/Winrock estimate with managed pasture replacement ................................................................................
FAPRI/Winrock estimate with no pasture replacement in Brazil ............................................................................
Only grassland conversion in Brazil and no pasture replacement in Brazil ...........................................................
We are aware that recent land use
enforcement policies in Brazil may shift
cropland expansion patterns (see also
Section VI.B.5.b.iii). We seek comment
on both pasture conversion patterns and
Brazil land use enforcement policy
impacts. We are conducting more
detailed economic modeling of the
Brazilian agricultural sector by state for
inclusion in FAPRI to address pasture,
314 Goldemberg, J.; Coelho, ST.; Guardabassi, PM.
The sustainability of ethanol production from
sugarcane. Energy Policy. 2008. doi:10.1016/
j.enpol.2008.02.028.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
¥44
¥59
¥64
(30 yr 0%)
¥26
¥45
¥52
enforcement and other assumptions for
the final rule. State level production
data could be used in conjunction with
Winrock’s state level satellite data,
which may substantially change the
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25045
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
estimates of the location and type of
land being converted in Brazil for the
final rule.
We have also assumed that sugarcane
ethanol production relies on burning
bagasse as an energy source and that the
process produces excess electricity. We
factor in credits from this excess
electricity based on offsetting the
Brazilian electricity grid. As Brazil
implements limits on field burning of
bagasse there may be additional bagasse
used at sugarcane ethanol plants and
additional electricity production. We
plan to look at this further for the final
rule analysis.
c. Cellulosic Ethanol
Given that commercially-viable
cellulosic ethanol production is not yet
a reality, analysis of this pathway relies
upon significant assumptions regarding
the development of production
technologies. As described in the
previous section, our analysis assumed
corn stover required no international
land use changes, since corn stover does
not compete with other crops for
acreage in the U.S. Therefore, using corn
stover as a feedstock for cellulosic
biofuel production would not have an
impact on U.S. exports. We assumed
some of the nutrients would have to be
replaced through higher fertilizer rates
on acres where stover is removed;
however, increased stover removal was
also associated with higher rates of
reduced tillage or no tillage practices
which results in soil carbon increase.
See Section IX.A for details. In addition,
cellulosic ethanol was assumed to be
produced using the biochemical process
which is expected to produce more
electricity from the lignin in the
feedstock than is required to power the
ethanol plant, so excess electricity can
be sold back to the grid. See DRIA
Chapter 2 for additional details. This
electricity provides a GHG benefit,
which results in GHG emissions
reductions from fuel production as
shown in Table VI.C.1–7.
TABLE VI.C.1–7—ABSOLUTE LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS FOR CORN STOVER CELLULOSIC ETHANOL AND THE 2005
PETROLEUM BASELINE
[CO2-eq/mmBtu]
2005
Petroleum
baseline
Lifecycle Stage
Corn stover
ethanol (selling excess
electricity to
grid)
2005
Petroleum
baseline
(100 yr 2%)
Corn stover
ethanol (selling excess
electricity to
grid)
(30 yr 0%)
Net Domestic Agriculture (w/o land use change) ............................................
Net International Agriculture (w/o land use change) .......................................
Domestic Land Use Change ...........................................................................
International Land Use Change .......................................................................
Fuel Production ................................................................................................
Fuel and Feedstock Transport ........................................................................
Tailpipe Emissions ...........................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
823,262
........................
3,417,311
178,862
0
¥78,448
0
¥875,424
107,214
37,927
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
573,058
........................
2,378,800
124,503
........................
¥91,925
0
¥609,367
74,629
26,400
Net Total Emissions .................................................................................
4,240,674
¥629,870
2,951,858
¥475,130
Although switchgrass must compete
with other crops for land in the U.S.,
average switchgrass ethanol yields are
on average higher than corn ethanol
yields (approximately 580 gallons/acre
compared to 480 gallons/acre).
Therefore, switchgrass would need
approximately 20% less land to produce
the same amount of ethanol compared
to corn. In addition, FASOM predicts
that switchgrass would generally be
grown on more marginally productive
land. Since switchgrass is not projected
to displace crop acres with high yields,
new switchgrass acres generally would
not have a large impact on exports.
Therefore, the international land use
change impacts are modest. Like
cellulosic ethanol from corn stover,
switchgrass ethanol is also assumed to
produce excess electricity that can be
sold to the grid, therefore switchgrass
cellulosic ethanol results in relatively
large lifecycle GHG reductions
compared to the replaced petroleum
gasoline as shown in Table VI.C.1–8.
TABLE VI.C.1–8—ABSOLUTE GHG EMISSIONS FOR SWITCHGRASS CELLULOSIC ETHANOL AND THE 2005 PETROLEUM
BASELINE
[CO2-eq/mmBtu]
2005
Petroleum
baseline
Lifecycle Stage
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
2005
Petroleum
baseline
(100 yr 2%)
Net Domestic Agriculture (w/o land use change) ............................................
Net International Agriculture (w/o land use change) .......................................
Domestic Land Use Change ...........................................................................
International Land Use Change .......................................................................
Fuel Production ................................................................................................
Fuel and Feedstock Transport ........................................................................
Tailpipe Emissions ...........................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Switchgrass
ethanol (selling excess
electricity to
grid)
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
........................
........................
........................
........................
823,262
........................
3,417,311
Sfmt 4702
(30 yr 0%)
¥470,620
¥356,712
¥65,318
423,097
¥874,599
136,663
37,927
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
Switchgrass
ethanol (selling excess
electricity to
grid)
........................
........................
........................
........................
573,058
........................
2,378,800
26MYP2
¥327,590
¥248,301
¥76,015
424,094
¥608,793
95,129
26,400
25046
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI.C.1–8—ABSOLUTE GHG EMISSIONS FOR SWITCHGRASS CELLULOSIC ETHANOL AND THE 2005 PETROLEUM
BASELINE—Continued
[CO2-eq/mmBtu]
2005
Petroleum
baseline
Net Total Emissions .................................................................................
Cellulosic ethanol does not have
nearly as significant an impact on land
use as other biofuels, therefore we did
not calculate sensitivity impacts of, for
example, assuming full replacement of
pasture versus no pasture replacement
which could be important in the
lifecycle GHG assessment of other
4,240,674
biofuels. As the land use issue is not
critical for the cellulosic feedstock fuels
in the scenarios we analyzed, the impact
of timing and discount rates also do not
have a significant impact on the overall
results for cellulosic ethanol. Both of the
cellulosic ethanol pathways we
examined, switchgrass and corn stover
Switchgrass
ethanol (selling excess
electricity to
grid)
2005
Petroleum
baseline
¥1,169,561
Switchgrass
ethanol (selling excess
electricity to
grid)
¥715,076
2,951,858
using enzymatic processing, reduced
lifecycle GHG emissions by significantly
more than the 60% threshold for
cellulosic biofuel. Table VI.C.1–9
summarizes the lifecycle GHG results
for cellulosic ethanol fuel pathways.
TABLE VI.C.1–9—CELLULOSIC ETHANOL GHG EMISSION CHANGES FROM DIFFERENT FEEDSTOCKS AND VARIED
DISCOUNT RATES AND TIME HORIZONS RELATIVE TO 2005 PETROLEUM BASELINE
[In percent]
Assumption—feedstock type
(100 yr 2%)
¥115
¥128
Corn Stover ..................................................................................................................................................
Switchgrass ..................................................................................................................................................
d. Biodiesel
EPA’s modeling predicts that
soybean-based biodiesel production has
a large land use impact for two major
reasons. Soybean biodiesel has a
relatively low gallon per acre yield
(approximately 65 gal/acre for soybean
biodiesel versus 480 gal/acre for corn
ethanol). Thus, the impact of any landuse change tends to be magnified with
soybean biodiesel. Even when the
higher Btu value of biodiesel is taken
into consideration, Btu/acre yields are
still significantly lower for biodiesel
than for ethanol (approximately 97 gal/
acre ethanol equivalent). Furthermore,
our analysis suggests that due to high
world wide demand for soybeans for
food, cooking and other non-biofuel
uses, soybean and other edible oils used
for biofuel are generally replaced by
production in other countries including
production in tropical climates where
the GHG emissions released per acre of
converted land are highest. This
indicates that soy-based biodiesel
(30 yr 0%)
¥117
¥121
lifecycle GHG emissions could be
greatly reduced with the adoption of
policies and agricultural practices that
limit the amount of tropical
deforestation induced by soy-based
biodiesel production. DRIA Chapter 2
includes sensitivity analyses about the
types of land converted to crops as a
result of soy-based biodiesel production.
Table VI.C.1–10 presents the breakout of
the absolute lifecycle GHG emissions for
soybean biodiesel and the petroleum
diesel fuel baseline by lifecycle stage.
TABLE VI.C.1–10—ABSOLUTE LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS FOR SOYBEAN BIODIESEL AND THE 2005 PETROLEUM
BASELINE
[CO2-eq/mmBtu]
2005 Petroleum baseline
Lifecycle Stage
Soybean
biodiesel
2005 Petroleum baseline
(100 yr 2%)
Soybean
biodiesel
(30 yr 0%)
Net Domestic Agriculture (w/o land use change) ............................................
Net International Agriculture (w/o land use change) .......................................
Domestic Land Use Change ...........................................................................
International Land Use Change .......................................................................
Fuel Production ................................................................................................
Fuel and Feedstock Transport ........................................................................
Tailpipe Emissions ...........................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
749,132
........................
3,424,635
¥423,206
195,304
¥8,980
2,474,074
838,490
149,258
30,169
........................
........................
........................
........................
521,458
........................
2,383,828
¥294,586
135,948
¥10,451
2,469,574
583,658
103,896
21,000
Net Total Emissions .................................................................................
4,173,768
3,255,109
2,905,286
3,009,039
Our analysis is based on a change in
biodiesel volumes from 0.4 Bgal to 0.7
Bgal. Similar to the analysis we
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
conducted for corn-ethanol, we plan to
run a sensitivity analysis on the impact
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of using different volumes for the final
rule.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25047
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
As discussed in Section VI.B.2.a,
EPA’s interpretation of the EISA statute
compels us to include significant
indirect emission impacts including
those due to land use changes in other
countries. The data in Table VI.C.1–10
indicate that excluding the international
land use change would result in soybased biodiesel having an
approximately 80% reduction in
lifecycle GHG emissions compared to
petroleum gasoline regardless of the
timing or discount rate used. The
treatment of emissions over time is not
critical if international land use change
emissions are excluded because the
results without land use change are
consistent over time. Therefore the
overall lifecycle GHG results do not vary
with time or discount rate assumptions.
In contrast, GHG emissions from
waste oil and greases are assumed to
have no land use impacts. We assumed
any land use change was attributed to
the original use of the feedstock, for
example, soy oil was produced for the
purpose of using for cooking and the
land required to produce this cooking
oil is properly attributed to that use.
Gathering and re-using the left over
waste cooking oil would have no
additional land use impact. This lack of
land use impact greatly influences the
lifecycle GHG analysis. Table VI.C.1–11
presents the breakout of the absolute
lifecycle GHG emissions for waste
grease biodiesel and the petroleum
diesel fuel baseline by lifecycle stage.
TABLE VI.C.1–11—ABSOLUTE LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS FOR WASTE GREASE BIODIESEL AND THE 2005 PETROLEUM
BASELINE
[CO2-eq/mmBtu]
2005
Petroleum
baseline
Lifecycle Stage
2005
Petroleum
baseline
Waste grease
biodiesel
(100 yr 2%)
Waste grease
biodiesel
(30 yr 0%)
Net Domestic Agriculture (w/o land use change) ............................................
Net International Agriculture (w/o land use change) .......................................
Domestic Land Use Change ...........................................................................
International Land Use Change .......................................................................
Fuel Production ................................................................................................
Fuel and Feedstock Transport ........................................................................
Tailpipe Emissions ...........................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
749,132
........................
3,424,635
0
0
0
0
658,198
149,258
30,169
........................
........................
........................
........................
521,458
........................
2,383,828
0
0
0
0
458,160
103,896
21,000
Net Total Emissions .................................................................................
4,173,768
837,626
2,905,286
583,056
Table VI.C.1–12 summarizes the
lifecycle GHG results for biodiesel fuel
pathways. As the waste grease biodiesel
is not assumed to have any land use
impact the choice of timing or discount
rate does not impact the waste grease
biodiesel results. However, as the
soybean biodiesel is found to have a
large land use impact the choice of
timing and discount rate has a big
impact on the soybean biodiesel results.
TABLE VI.C.1–12—BIODIESEL LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSION CHANGES FROM DIFFERENT FEEDSTOCKS AND VARIED
DISCOUNT RATES AND TIME HORIZONS RELATIVE TO 2005 PETROLEUM BASELINE
Assumption—feedstock type
(100 yr 2%)
¥22%
¥80%
Soybean .......................................................................................................................................................
Waste Grease ..............................................................................................................................................
Table VI.C.1–13 shows the sensitivity
of our assessment for soy oil biodiesel
assuming 100% of the grassland
converted to cropland is replaced
compared to an assumption that none of
this grassland is replaced for livestock
grazing. DRIA Section 2.8.2.4 provides
more information about sensitivity
(30 yr 0%)
+4%
¥80%
analysis for the pasture replacement
assumptions.
TABLE VI.C.1–13—SOY-BASED BIODIESEL GHG EMISSION CHANGES UNDER VARIED LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND
VARIED DISCOUNT RATES AND TIME HORIZONS RELATIVE TO 2005 PETROLEUM BASELINE
Assumption—land types available for conversion
(100 yr 2%)
¥4%
¥45%
100% Pasture Replacement ........................................................................................................................
No Pasture Replacement ............................................................................................................................
2. Treatment of GHG Emissions Over
Time
As described in Section VI.B.5,
changes in indirect land use associated
with increased biofuel production result
in GHG emissions increases that
accumulate over a long time period.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Since there is a large release of carbon
in the first year of land conversion, it
can take many years for the benefits of
the biofuel to make up for these early
carbon emissions, depending on the
specific biofuel in question. Table
VI.C.2–1 contains the payback period
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(30 yr 0%)
+27%
¥27%
associated with several types of biofuels
and fuel production pathways. A
payback period of 0 indicates that these
pathways do not have land use change
impacts and therefore reduce emissions
in the first year that they are produced.
Assessments are made in comparison to
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25048
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
the baseline transportation fuel used in
2005 in the U.S. as mandated by EISA.
The percent reduction goal is the
lifecycle GHG emissions of the biofuel
compared to the baseline petroleum fuel
it is replacing.
TABLE VI.C.2–1—PAYBACK PERIOD
[in years]
Payback period (years)
Fuel type
Reduction
goal: 0%
Corn Ethanol 2022 Base Dry Mill NG 315 ........................................................
Corn Ethanol 2022 Best Case Dry Mill NG 317 ...............................................
Corn Ethanol 2022 Base Dry Mill Coal 318 ......................................................
Corn Ethanol 2022 Base Dry Mill Biomass 319 ................................................
Soybean Biodiesel ...........................................................................................
Waste Grease Biodiesel ..................................................................................
Sugarcane Ethanol ..........................................................................................
Switchgrass Ethanol ........................................................................................
Corn Stover Ethanol ........................................................................................
Reduction
goal: 20%
33
23
75
22
32
0
18
3
0
Reduction
goal: 60%
316 N/A
54
31
>100
31
46
0
26
3
0
emissions with a 2% discount rate. In
the other set of results we consider 30
years of GHG emissions with no
discounting of future emissions (i.e., 0%
discount rate). Whereas the discussion
immediately above focused on lifecycle
As described in Section VI.B.5, we
have focused our lifecycle GHG analysis
on two ways of accounting for GHG
emissions over time. In one set of results
we consider lifecycle GHG emissions
over 100 years and discount future
Reduction
goal: 50%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
105
0
61
4
0
GHG impacts assuming 100 years with
a 2% discount rate and 30 years with no
discount rate, Table VI.C.2–2 shows the
lifecycle GHG emissions reductions
estimates with a variety of time periods
and discount rates.
TABLE VI.C.2–2—LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS CHANGES OF SELECT BIOFUELS RELATIVE TO THE 2005 PETROLEUM
BASELINE
Lifecycle GHG emissions changes of select biofuels relative to the 2005 petroleum baseline
Time horizon
30 Years
Discount rate
Corn Ethanol
Dry Mill NG
Corn Ethanol
Best Case Dry Mill NG
Corn Ethanol
Dry Mill Coal
Corn Ethanol
Dry Mill Biomass
Soybean Biodiesel ....................
Waste Grease Biodiesel ...........
Sugarcane Ethanol ....................
Switchgrass Ethanol ..................
Corn Stover Ethanol ..................
0%
2%
7%
0%
2%
100 Years
3%
7%
0%
2%
3%
7%
5%
18%
25%
54%
¥17%
¥2%
7%
44%
¥36%
¥16%
¥4%
41%
¥14%
¥1%
6%
35%
¥36%
¥21%
¥12%
25%
¥55%
¥35%
¥23%
22%
34%
46%
53%
83%
11%
27%
35%
72%
¥8%
13%
24%
69%
¥18%
4%
¥80%
¥27%
¥124%
¥116%
¥6%
20%
¥80%
¥17%
¥122%
¥117%
1%
29%
¥80%
¥11%
¥121%
¥117%
31%
68%
¥80%
12%
¥115%
¥118%
¥41%
¥24%
¥80%
¥45%
¥128%
¥115%
¥25%
¥4%
¥80%
¥32%
¥125%
¥116%
¥17%
7%
¥80%
¥26%
¥124%
¥116%
20%
55%
¥80%
3%
¥117%
¥117%
¥60%
¥48%
¥80%
¥61%
¥131%
¥114%
¥39%
¥22%
¥80%
¥44%
¥128%
¥115%
¥28%
¥7%
¥80%
¥35%
¥126%
¥115%
16%
51%
¥80%
1%
¥117%
¥117%
D. Thresholds
EISA established GHG thresholds for
each category of renewable fuel that it
mandates. EISA also provided EPA with
the authority to adjust the threshold
levels for each category of renewable
fuels if certain requirements are met.
Renewable fuels must achieve a 20%
reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions compared to the average
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for
gasoline or diesel sold or distributed as
transportation fuel in 2005. Due to the
grandfathering provisions of EISA as
315 Dry Mill corn ethanol plant using natural gas
with 2022 energy use and dry DDGS.
316 Payback periods were not calculated for
ethanol made from corn starch for the advanced
biofuel reduction goals of 50% and 60% since this
VerDate Nov<24>2008
50 Years
3%
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
adopted in this rule, this threshold only
pertains to renewable fuel produced at
plants to be constructed in the future.
EPA is permitted to adjust this
threshold to as low as 10%, based on
the ‘‘maximum achievable level, taking
cost into consideration, for natural gas
fired corn-based ethanol plants allowing
for the use of a variety of technologies.’’
Based on our analysis, there are a
number of corn ethanol natural gas
plant configurations that could meet the
20% reduction in GHG emissions
thresholds in 2022 if modeling emission
over a 100 year time frame and then
discounting these emissions 2%.
Therefore, based on this assessment, we
believe that an adjustment to the 20%
threshold would be unnecessary and we
are proposing to maintain it at the 20%
level if we adopt the 100 year, 2%
discounting methodology.
On the other hand, based on our
current analyses, if we adopt an
assessment methodology which assesses
emissions over just 30 years, then no
currently analyzed natural gas-fired
corn ethanol pathway will meet the
20% threshold. However, some of the
natural gas corn ethanol pathways do
corn ethanol does not qualify under EISA as a
potential advanced biofuel.
317 Dry Mill corn ethanol plant using natural gas
with 2022 energy use and w/CHP, Fractionation,
Membrane Separation, and Raw Starch Hydrolysis
(wet DGS).
318 Dry Mill corn ethanol plant using coal with
2022 energy use and dry DDGS.
319 Dry Mill corn ethanol plant using biomass
with 2022 energy use and dry DDGS.
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
have lifecycle GHG emission benefits in
the 10% to 20% range. Corn ethanol is
expected to be the major biofuel
contributing to meeting the renewable
fuel standards through at least the
middle of the next decade. Therefore, if
we adopt a 30 year timeframe for
emissions assessment and do not
discount the results, we may adjust the
renewable fuel thresholds to the
minimum level as necessary to
incorporate at least a few of the best
GHG pathways for corn ethanol. While
this adjusted threshold level could be
revised based on pathway analyses done
for the final rule, at this time we would
intend to allow a full 10% adjustment
of the renewable fuel threshold, down to
a threshold value of 10% reduction
compared to the 2005 gasoline baseline.
Cellulosic biofuels must meet a 60%
reduction in GHG emissions relative to
the petroleum baseline. EPA is
permitted to adjust this threshold to as
low as 50% if it is ‘‘not commercially
feasible for fuels made using a variety of
feedstocks, technologies, and processes’’
to achieve the 60% threshold. Our
initial analysis indicates that cellulosic
biofuels from corn stover, switchgrass,
and bagasse will all meet the 60%
threshold regardless of whether we use
to 100 year, 2% discount methodology
or the 30 year analysis time frame
without discounting. Furthermore, we
believe most fuels made from other
cellulosic feedstocks would as well.
Therefore we do not believe it is
necessary to adjust the threshold for
cellulosic biofuel at this time.
Biomass-based diesel must achieve a
50% reduction in GHG emissions
relative to petroleum-based diesel. EPA
is permitted to adjust this threshold to
as low as 40% if it is ‘‘not commercially
feasible for fuels made using a variety of
feedstocks, technologies, and processes’’
to meet the 50% level. For biomassbased diesel, our analysis indicates that
biodiesel from waste oils such as yellow
grease and tallow would meet the 50%
threshold, and we anticipate that
biodiesel from chicken waste and nonfood grade corn oil fractionation would
as well regardless of whether we use a
100 year, 2% discount methodology or
the 30 year analysis time frame without
discounting. However, our current
analysis indicates that there is
insufficient feedstock from waste grease
and fats to meet the one billion gallon
volumetric requirement under EISA.
Biodiesel from soy oil (and we believe
biodiesel from other food grade
vegetable oils) would reduce GHG
emissions by no more than 22% using
a 100 year, 2% discount methodology
and would be estimated to increase
GHG emissions if we analyze emission
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
impacts over 30 years whether the
emissions are discounted or not. Even if
EPA adjusted the biomass-based diesel
standard to the minimum allowable
level of 40%, soybean-based biodiesel
would still not meet the GHG emissions
reductions threshold for biomass based
diesel fuel. One option for meeting the
volumetric requirement and the
emissions reduction threshold,
assuming a 100 year timeframe and a
2% discount rate for GHG emission
impacts would be to allow biodiesel
producers to average the emissions
reductions from a blend of soy oil or
food grade vegetable oil-based biodiesel
with waste oil based biodiesel, as
discussed in more detail in Section VI.E.
However, this approach may still be
insufficient to ensure that the required
volumes of biomass-based diesel can be
produced unless other sources of
biomass-based diesel become available.
Therefore, we invite comments on
whether it be appropriate to both reduce
the threshold to 40% and allow
biodiesel producers to average their
emissions to meet the one billion gallon
volumetric requirement as discussed
below in Section VI.E.3.c.
Advanced biofuels must achieve a
50% reduction in GHG emissions. EPA
is permitted to adjust this threshold to
as low as 40% if it is ‘‘not commercially
feasible for fuels made using a variety of
feedstocks, technologies, and processes’’
to achieve the 50% threshold. Our
current lifecycle analysis suggests that
sugarcane based ethanol only offers an
estimated 44% reduction in GHG
emissions relative to the gasoline it
replaces when assessing 100 years of
emission impacts and discounting these
emissions 2%, and an estimated 27%
reduction when assessing 30 years of
emission impacts with no discounting.
Therefore, it would not qualify as an
advanced biofuel if we did not adjust
the 50% GHG threshold. We are also
unaware of other renewable fuels that
may be available in sufficient volumes
over the next several years to allow the
statutory volume requirements for
advanced biofuel to be met. As a result,
we are proposing that the GHG
threshold for advanced biofuels be
adjusted to 44% or potentially as low as
40% depending on the results from the
analyses that will be conducted for the
final rule. Based on our current analysis
of the lifecycle GHG impacts of
sugarcane ethanol, such an adjustment
would help ensure that the volume
mandates for advanced biofuel can be
met.
We invite comments on these
proposed thresholds and our basis for
them.
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25049
E. Assignment of Pathways to
Renewable Fuel Categories
The lifecycle analyses that we
conducted for a variety of fuel pathways
formed the basis for our determination
of which pathways would be permitted
to generate RINs, and to which of the
four renewable fuel categories
(cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based
diesel, advanced biofuel, and renewable
fuel) those RINs should be assigned.
This determination involved comparing
the lifecycle GHG performance
estimates to the GHG thresholds
associated with each renewable fuel
category, discussed in Section VI.D
above. In addition, each of the four
renewable fuel categories is defined in
EISA to include or exclude certain types
of feedstocks and production processes,
and these definitions also played a role
in determining the appropriate category
for each pathway. This section describes
our proposed assignments of pathways
to one of the four renewable fuel
categories. The GHG lifecycle values
used in this assignment of fuel
pathways to the four renewable fuel
categories were based on the lifecycle
analysis results over a 100-year
timeframe and using a 2% discount rate,
as described in Section VI.C. Different
assignments of pathways to the four
renewable fuel categories would occur
with different lifecycle results, but we
propose that the same assignment
methodology would be followed
regardless.
1. Statutory Requirements
EISA establishes requirements that are
common to all four categories of
renewable fuel in addition to
requirements that are unique to each of
the four categories. The common
requirements determine which fuels are
valid for generating RINs under the
RFS2 program. For instance, all
renewable fuel must be made from
renewable biomass, which defines the
types of feedstocks that can be used to
produce renewable fuel that is valid
under the RFS2 program, and also
defines the types of land on which crops
can be grown if those crops are used to
produce valid renewable fuel under the
RFS2 program. See Section III.B.4 for a
more detailed discussion of renewable
biomass. Moreover, all renewable fuel
must displace fossil fuel present in
transportation fuel, or be used as home
heating oil or jet fuel.
The requirements that are unique to
each of the four categories provide a
basis for assigning each pathway to a
category. For each of the four categories
of renewable fuel, EISA provides a
definition, specifies the associated GHG
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25050
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
thresholds, lists the allowable
feedstocks and/or fuel types, and in
some cases provides exclusions. Table
VI.E.1–1 summarizes these requirements
as we are applying them under the
proposed RFS2 program.
TABLE VI.E.1–1—REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWABLE FUEL CATEGORIES
Cellulosic biofuel
Biomass-based diesel
Advanced biofuel
Renewable fuel
GHG threshold ...............
Eligible Inclusions ..........
60% ................................
Renewable fuel made
from cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin.
50% a ..............................
Any renewable fuel that
is a diesel fuel substitute.
40–44% a ........................................
All cellulosic biofuel and biomassbased diesel, as well as other
renewable fuels including ethanol from sugar, starch, or
waste materials, biogas, and butanol and other alcohols.
20% a, b.
All advanced biofuel,
and any other fuel
made from renewable
biomass that is used
to replace or reduce
the quantity of fossil
fuel present in a transportation fuel.
Exclusions ......................
........................................
Any renewable fuel
made from coprocessing with petroleum.
Ethanol derived from corn starch.
a As discussed in Section VI.D, we are seeking comment on the need to adjust the thresholds, and are proposing that the GHG threshold for
advanced biofuels be adjusted to as low as 40%.
b 20% threshold does not apply to grandfathered volumes. See discussion in Section III.B.3.
2. Assignments for Pathways Subjected
to Lifecycle Analyses
There are a wide variety of pathways
(unique combinations of feedstock, fuel
type, and fuel production process) that
could result in renewable fuel that
would be valid under the RFS2
program. As described earlier in this
section, we conducted lifecycle analyses
for some of these pathways, and these
analyses allowed us to determine if the
GHG thresholds shown in Table
VI.E.1–1 would be met under the
assumption of a 100-year timeframe and
discount rate of 2%. For other pathways
that we have not yet subjected to
lifecycle analyses, there were some
cases in which we could nevertheless
still make moderately confident
determinations as to the likely GHG
impacts by making comparisons to the
pathways that we did analyze. A
discussion of these other determinations
is provided in Section VI.E.3 below.
For pathways that we subjected to
lifecycle analysis, we were able to
assign each pathway to one of the four
renewable fuel categories defined in
EISA by comparing the descriptions of
each pathway and its associated GHG
performance to the requirements shown
in Table VI.E.1–1. The results are shown
in Table VI.E.2–1.
TABLE VI.E.2–1—PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT OF PATHWAYS TO ONE OF THE FOUR RENEWABLE FUEL CATEGORIES FOR
PATHWAYS SUBJECTED TO LIFECYCLE ANALYSES
Cellulosic biofuel pathways .................................
Biomass-based diesel pathways .........................
Advanced biofuel pathways ................................
Renewable fuel pathways ...................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Ethanol produced from corn stover or switchgrass in a process that uses enzymes to hydrolyze the cellulose and hemicellulose.
Biodiesel (mono alkyl esters) produced from waste grease and waste oils.
Ethanol produced from sugarcane sugar in a process that uses sugarcane bagasse for process heat. a
Ethanol produced from corn starch in a process that uses biomass for process heat.
Ethanol produced from corn starch in a process that includes:
—Dry mill plant.
—Process heat derived from natural gas.
—Combined heat and power (CHP).
—Fractionation of feedstocks.
—All distillers grains are dried.
Ethanol produced from corn starch in a process that includes:
—Dry mill plant.
—Process heat derived from natural gas.
—All distillers grains are wet.
Ethanol produced from corn starch in a process that includes:
—Dry mill plant.
—Process heat derived from coal.
—Combined heat and power (CHP).
—Fractionation of feedstocks.
—Membrane separation of ethanol.
—Raw starch hydrolysis.
—All distillers grains are dried.
Ethanol produced from corn starch in a process that includes:
—Dry mill plant.
—Process heat derived from coal.
—Combined heat and power (CHP).
—Fractionation of feedstocks.
—Membrane separation of ethanol.
—All distillers grains are wet.
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
25051
TABLE VI.E.2–1—PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT OF PATHWAYS TO ONE OF THE FOUR RENEWABLE FUEL CATEGORIES FOR
PATHWAYS SUBJECTED TO LIFECYCLE ANALYSES—Continued
Biodiesel (mono alkyl esters) produced from soybean oil.
a Our
current analysis concludes that ethanol from sugarcane sugar would have a GHG performance of 44% in comparison to gasoline under
our assumed 100-year timeframe and 2% discount rate. Since this falls short of the 50% GHG threshold for advanced biofuel, we have categorized it as general renewable fuel. However, we request comment on lowering the applicable GHG threshold for advanced biofuel so that ethanol from sugarcane sugar could be categorized as advanced biofuel. See further discussion in Section VI.D.
In addition, our lifecycle analyses also
identified pathways that did not meet
the minimum 20% GHG threshold
under an assumed 100-year timeframe
and 2% discount rate, and thus would
be prohibited from generating RINs
unless a facility met the prerequisites
for grandfathering as described in
Section III.B.3. These prohibited
pathways all involved the production of
ethanol from corn starch in a process
that uses natural gas or coal for process
heat, but which does not meet any of the
process technology requirements listed
in Table VI.E.2–1. Our proposal for
temporary D codes in § 80.1416 would
explicitly prohibit the generation of
RINs for these pathways.
The proposed assignments of
individual pathways to one of the four
renewable fuel categories shown in the
table above assumed a 100-year
timeframe and discount rate of 2% for
lifecycle GHG emission impacts. The
assignments would be different if we
had assumed a different timeframe and
discount rate. By comparing the relative
GHG emission reductions shown in
Table VI.C.1–2 to the thresholds in
Table VI.E.1–1, a variety of different
assignments is possible covering
timeframes of 30, 50, and 100 years, and
discount rates of 0%, 2%, 3%, and 7%.
For instance, under the assumption of
30 years and no discounting,
switchgrass ethanol and corn stover
ethanol would continue to be
categorized as cellulosic biofuel and
biodiesel made from waste grease would
continue to be categorized as biomassbased diesel. However, sugarcane
ethanol could no longer be potentially
categorized as advanced biofuel but
instead would be categorized as
renewable fuel. Moreover, some
pathways would not meet the minimum
threshold of 20% for renewable fuel,
and so could not generate RINs if the
volume was not grandfathered. This
would include soybean biodiesel and all
of the corn starch ethanol pathways
shown in Table VI.E.2–1 produced from
newly constructed plants not meeting
the grandfathering criteria discussed in
Section III.B.3.
3. Assignments for Additional Pathways
We were not able to conduct lifecycle
modeling for all potential pathways in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
time for this proposed rulemaking.
Instead, we focused the lifecycle GHG
emissions analysis on the feedstocks
that, based on FASOM predictions and
other information, we anticipate could
contribute the largest volumes to the
renewable fuel pool and the production
processes representing the largest shares
of the market. As more information
becomes available, we anticipate that
we will be updating the lifecycle
methodology and expanding the list of
emission factors.
Beyond the pathways that we
explicitly subjected to lifecycle analysis,
there are additional pathways that may
not currently be significant contributors
to the volume of renewable fuel
produced, but their volumes could
increase in the future. Moreover, we
believe it is important that as many
pathways as possible be included in the
lookup table in the regulations to help
ensure that the volume requirements in
EISA can be met and to encourage the
development of new fuels. To this end,
we evaluated these additional pathways
to determine if they could be deemed
valid for generation of RINs, and if so
which of the four renewable fuel
categories they would fall into. This
section describes our evaluation of these
additional pathways and the resulting
proposed assignment to one or more of
the four renewable fuel categories.
a. Ethanol From Starch
Our lifecycle analysis focused on
ethanol from corn starch. However,
there are a variety of other sources of
starch that use or could use a very
similar process for conversion to
ethanol. These include wheat, barley,
oats, rice, and sorghum. Some existing
corn-ethanol facilities already use small
amounts of starch from these other
plants along with corn in their
production of ethanol.
Although we have not explicitly
analyzed the land use or processing
impacts of these other starch plants on
their lifecycle GHG performance, we
believe it would be reasonable to
assume similar impacts to corn in terms
of the types of land that would be
displaced and other aspects of
producing and transporting the
feedstock. Therefore, we propose that
the pathways shown in Table VI.E.2–1
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
for ethanol produced from corn starch
also be applied to ethanol produced
from other sources of starch.
The lifecycle analyses conducted for
this proposal only examined cases in
which a corn-ethanol facility dried
100% of its distiller’s grains or left
100% of its distiller’s grains wet. The
treatment of the distiller’s grains for
corn-ethanol facilities impacts the
determination of whether the 20% GHG
threshold for renewable fuel has been
met. However, in practice some
facilities may dry only a portion of their
distiller’s grains and leave the
remainder wet. As described in Section
III.D.3, we are proposing that a facility
that dried only a portion of its distiller’s
grain would be treated as if it dried
100% of its grains, and would thus need
to implement additional GHG-reducing
technologies as described in the lookup
table in order to qualify to generate
RINs. However, we are also taking
comment on whether a selection of
pathways should be included in the
lookup table that represent corn-ethanol
facilities that dry only a portion of their
distiller’s grains. We also request
comment on whether RINs could be
assigned to only a portion of the
facility’s ethanol in cases wherein only
a portion of the distiller’s grains are
dried.
b. Renewable Fuels from Cellulosic
Biomass
In analyzing the lifecycle GHG
impacts of cellulosic ethanol, we
determined that ethanol produced from
corn stover or switchgrass through a
process using enzymatic hydrolysis
followed by fermentation of the
resulting sugars met the GHG threshold
of 60% for cellulosic biofuel by a wide
margin (regardless of the discount rate
and the time period over which the
lifecycle GHG emissions are
discounted). However, there are many
other potential sources of cellulosic
biomass, and other processing
mechanisms to convert cellulosic
biomass into fuel. For some of these
cases, we believe that we can make
determinations regarding whether the
GHG thresholds shown in Table VI.E.1–
1 are likely to be met. In addition, as the
forestry component of the FASOM
model is incorporated into the analysis,
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25052
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
we will analyze pathways using planted
trees, tree residue, and slash and precommercial thinnings from forestland,
as qualify under the renewable biomass
definition, for feedstock.
Cellulosic biomass sources include
waste biomass such as corn stover, and
crops grown specifically for fuel
production such as switchgrass. While
cellulosic crops grown for the purpose
of fuel production could have land use
implications in a lifecycle GHG
analysis, waste materials produced
during the harvesting of some other type
of crop would not. Given that the GHG
impacts of a fermentation-based fuel
production process are likely to be very
similar for cellulose from a variety of
feedstocks, we believe it would be
reasonable to conclude that any
cellulosic feedstock from a waste source
that is subjected to enzymatic
hydrolysis followed by fermentation of
the resulting sugars would be very likely
to meet the 60% GHG threshold for
cellulosic biofuel. Therefore, we
propose that cellulosic ethanol
produced through an enzymatic
hydrolysis process followed by
fermentation using any eligible waste
cellulosic feedstock would be
determined to meet the 60% GHG
threshold for cellulosic biofuel. This
would include such wastes as wheat
straw, rice straw, sugarcane bagasse,
forest slash and thinnings, and yard
waste.
As stated earlier, cellulosic crops
grown for the purpose of fuel
production could have land use
implications in a lifecycle GHG
analysis. However, the only cellulosic
crop that we subjected to lifecycle
analysis was switchgrass which had a
relatively small impact of land-use.
Other cellulosic crops that have been
considered for fuel production include
miscanthus and trees such as poplar and
willow. It is possible that the land use
impacts of miscanthus and planted trees
could be different from that for
switchgrass. For instance, while
switchgrass can be grown on marginal
lands, planted trees may require more
arable land to thrive. However,
according to our lifecycle analysis for
switchgrass, the land use impacts could
significantly increase and the 60%
threshold for cellulosic biofuel would
still be met. Therefore, we propose that
the pathways shown in Table VI.E.2–1
for ethanol produced from switchgrass
through an enzymatic hydrolysis
process followed by fermentation also
be applied to ethanol produced from
miscanthus and planted trees. We
intend to examine this pathway more
closely for the final rule to determine if
this categorization is appropriate, and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
request comment on the land use
impacts of miscanthus and planted
trees.
Renewable fuels can also be produced
from cellulosic biomass through various
thermochemical processes rather than
enzymatic hydrolysis followed by
fermentation. One example of such
thermochemical processes would be
biomass gasification to produce
‘‘syngas’’ (a mixture of hydrogen and
carbon monoxide) which is then
catalytically synthesized through a
Fischer-Tropsch process to produce
ethanol, diesel, gasoline, or other
transportation fuels. Another example
would be a catalytic depolymerization
process in which the biomass is first
catalytically cracked to smaller
molecules and then polymerized under
specific combinations of temperature,
pressure, and residence time to produce
a transportation fuel. We have not
conducted a lifecycle analysis of these
pathways, but we believe that we can
nonetheless make a reasonable
determination regarding the appropriate
renewable fuel category. For instance,
we would expect that the GHG
emissions produced during fuel
production would be higher for a
thermochemical process than for
enzymatic hydrolysis due to the need
for greater process heat produced
through the combustion of fossil fuels.
However, the yield of fuel produced per
ton of biomass is likely to be greater for
thermochemical processing due to the
conversion of the lignin to fuel in
addition to the cellulose and
hemicellulose. Thus, while the lifecycle
GHG analyses we conducted for corn
stover and switchgrass demonstrated
that the 60% GHG threshold for
cellulosic biofuel would be met by a
wide margin, this margin may be
smaller if a thermochemical process was
used. While we intend to conduct
further analyses of this family of
pathways for the final rule, we believe
that a change from enzymatic hydrolysis
to a thermochemical process would be
expected to meet the 60% GHG
threshold associated with cellulosic
biofuel. Therefore, we propose that the
use of corn stover or other waste
cellulosic biomass, switchgrass, or
planted trees in a thermochemical
process would qualify as cellulosic
biofuel under the RFS2 program. This
would include pathways that produce
ethanol, cellulosic diesel, or cellulosic
gasoline. Since cellulosic diesel fuel
produced in this way would also meet
the requirements for biomass-based
diesel, we propose to allow it to be
categorized as either cellulosic biofuel
or biomass-based diesel at the
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
producer’s discretion. See further
discussion of this issue in Section
III.D.2.a. We request comment on our
proposed assignment of categories for
renewable fuels produced through a
thermochemical process, as well as data
and other information relating to the
various types of thermochemical fuel
production processes.
c. Biodiesel
Our lifecycle analysis of biodiesel
(mono alkyl esters) produced from
waste greases/oils demonstrated that the
50% GHG threshold for biomass-based
diesel would be met. Much of the GHG
benefit of these waste greases/oils
derives from the fact that they have no
land use impacts. While we did not
subject corn oil that is non-food grade
to lifecycle analysis, it is likely that it
would also have no land use impacts.
Moreover, such non-food grade corn oil
would require nearly the same process
energy to convert it into biodiesel.
Therefore, we propose that the pathway
shown in Table VI.E.2–1 for biodiesel
produced from waste greases/oils also
be applied to biodiesel produced from
non-food grade corn oil. We intend to
analyze this pathway in more depth for
the final rule.
Our lifecycle analysis of biodiesel
produced from soybean oil may also be
applicable to biodiesel produced from
other types of virgin (not waste) oils.
This would include canola oil, rapeseed
oil, sunflower oil, and peanut oil. While
we have not conducted a detailed
assessment of the land use impacts of
these other virgin oils, it is possible that
they would meet the 20% threshold for
generic renewable fuel. Therefore, we
propose that the pathway shown in
Table VI.E.2–1 for biodiesel produced
from soybean oil also be applied to
biodiesel produced from other these
virgin oils. We request comment on
whether this is appropriate.
Although our proposed list of RINgenerating pathways would allow
biodiesel made from waste greases/oils
to qualify as biomass-based diesel, it is
likely that there would be insufficient
quantities of these feedstocks to reach
the 1.0 billion gallon requirement by
2012. Biodiesel produced from soybean
oil would not qualify as biomass-based
diesel, but instead would be categorized
as generic renewable fuel based on our
current analysis of its lifecycle GHG
performance. However, biodiesel
production facilities can process either
soybean oil or waste grease with
relatively minor changes in operations,
and many facilities that formerly used
soybean oil have recently switched to
waste grease due to its more favorable
economics. Since the GHG performance
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
of biodiesel made from waste greases/
oils met the 50% GHG threshold by a
wide margin, and since it is common
industry practice for biodiesel facilities
to use these two feedstock sources, we
believe it may be appropriate to allow
a biodiesel production facility to
average the GHG benefit generated
through the use of waste grease with the
lower GHG performance of biodiesel
produced from soybean oil at the same
facility.
We recognize that an approach in
which we allow a biodiesel production
facility to average the GHG benefit of
waste grease with that from soybean oil
raises questions about whether similar
averaging could be allowed for other
combinations of feedstocks, other types
of fuel, or across multiple facilities
within the same company. While we
believe that the circumstances
surrounding biodiesel production are
somewhat unique—two different
feedstocks subjected to essentially the
same production process in a single
facility—we nevertheless request
comment on the appropriateness of such
an averaging approach for biodiesel.
Based on our lifecycle analyses,
biodiesel produced from waste grease
has a GHG performance of 80%
reduction from the conventional diesel
baseline, while biodiesel produced from
soybean oil has a GHG performance of
22% reduction. In order to meet the
GHG threshold of 50% for biomassbased diesel, a biodiesel production
facility would need to use a minimum
of 48% waste grease and a maximum of
52% soybean oil. Thus, a pathway that
would allow a biodiesel production
facility to designate all of its biodiesel
as biomass-based diesel would include
a requirement that the producer
demonstrate that every batch has been
produced from no less than 48% waste
grease and no more than 52% soybean
oil.
Although this approach would allow
the total volume of biomass-based diesel
to be larger than if waste greases/oils
alone qualified, it is still possible than
the 1.0 billion gallon requirement would
not be met due to limits on the
availability of waste greases and oils.
For instance, we estimate that the total
volume of waste greases and oils may be
no larger than 0.3–0.4 billion gallons. As
a result, we request comment on
whether it would also be appropriate to
lower the GHG threshold for biomassbased diesel. If this GHG threshold were
lowered to 40%, a biodiesel production
facility would only need to use a
minimum of 31% waste greases/oils
instead of 48%.
We recognize that it may be difficult
for a biodiesel production facility to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
process a consistent mixture of waste
grease and soybean oil every day.
Therefore, we request comment on
alternative approaches. For instance, if
a biodiesel production facility processed
only waste grease for the first 175 days
(48% × 365 days) of a calendar year, we
could allow it to designate any biodiesel
produced from soybean oil for the
remainder of the year as biomass-based
diesel. However, this may be difficult
for some producers who must contend
with cold temperature storage and
blending issues in the early part of a
calendar year by processing only
soybean oil. Alternatively, we could
allow a company to average the
production at all of its facilities, where
one facility processed only waste grease
and another processed only soybean oil.
Finally, we request comment on an
alternative approach in which an
obligated party, rather than the biodiesel
production facility, would demonstrate
that a minimum number of waste
grease-based biodiesel RINs is used to
meet the biomass-based diesel standard
in comparison to the number of soybean
oil-based biodiesel RINs. In essence, the
averaging would be carried out by the
obligated party instead of the biodiesel
producer. In this approach, biodiesel
RINs would not be placed into biomassbased diesel category shown in Table
VI.E.1–1, but instead would be placed
into two separate categories as waste
grease RINs or soybean oil RINs. This
designation would require that the list
of applicable D codes for use in the RIN
be expanded from four to six as shown
in Table VI.E.3.c–1.
25053
each day to continue to assign a D code
of 2 to their biodiesel.
An obligated party could use any
combination of RINs with a D code of
2, 3, or 4 in order to comply with the
biomass-based diesel standard.
However, he would also be subject to an
additional requirement that the ratio of
D=3 RINs to D=4 RINs must be less than
1.08. This criterion would ensure that a
minimum of 47 RINs representing
biodiesel from waste grease would be
used for compliance purposes for every
53 RINs representing biodiesel from
soybean oil that are also used for
compliance.
We request comment on these
alternative approaches to the treatment
of biodiesel.
d. Renewable Diesel Through
Hydrotreating
We did not conduct a lifecycle
analysis for the production of non-ester
renewable diesel through a
hydrotreating process. However, we
believe that our analysis of biodiesel
provides sufficient information to allow
us to designate the renewable fuel
category for various pathways leading to
the production of renewable diesel.
Renewable diesel is generally made
from the same feedstocks as biodiesel,
namely soybean oil, waste greases/oils,
tallow, and chicken fat. Therefore, the
GHG impacts associated with
producing/collecting the feedstock and
transporting it to the production facility
would be the same regardless of
whether the final product is biodiesel or
renewable diesel.
The fossil energy requirements of the
TABLE VI.E.3.C–1—ALTERNATIVE AP- production process contribute a
relatively small amount to the overall
PROACH TO D CODES FOR AVERGHG performance for biodiesel. For
AGING WASTE GREASE AND SOY- example, the 50% GHG threshold would
BEAN OIL BIODIESEL RINS IN COM- still be met for biodiesel produced from
PLIANCE
waste grease even if the fossil energy
requirements doubled. As a result,
D
Alternative apcompared to the transesterification
Proposal meaning proach meaning
value
process used to produce biodiesel, any
small variations in fossil energy
1 ...... Cellulosic biofuel
Cellulosic biofuel
requirements for renewable diesel
2 ...... Biomass-based
Biomass-based
diesel.
diesel
production in a hydrotreater would be
3 ...... Advanced biofuel Biodiesel made
unlikely to change compliance with the
from soybean
broad categories created by the GHG
oil
thresholds for biomass-based diesel and
4 ...... Renewable fuel ... Biodiesel made
generic renewable fuel. Therefore, we
from waste
believe that it would be appropriate to
grease
assign applicable renewable fuel
5 ...... (Not applicable) .. Advanced biofuel
categories to renewable diesel pathways
6 ...... (Not applicable) .. Renewable fuel
in parallel with the assignments we are
Since other types of renewable fuel
proposing for biodiesel, including the
may still qualify as biomass-based
potential for averaging of soyoil and
diesel, we would retain a separate D
waste grease derived volumes.
code for this category under this
Renewable diesel produced from waste
approach. This could allow biodiesel
grease, tallow, or chicken fat in a
producers who choose the process a
hydrotreater that does not coprocess
minimum of 48% waste greases/oils
petroleum feedstocks would be
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25054
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
categorized as biomass-based diesel.
Renewable diesel produced from waste
grease, tallow, or chicken fat in a
hydrotreater that does coprocess
petroleum feedstocks would be
categorized as advanced biofuel.
Finally, renewable diesel produced from
soybean oil in a hydrotreater would be
categorized as generic renewable fuel.
4. Summary
Based on the discussion above, we
have identified 15 pathways that we
propose could be used to produce fuel
that would meet the volume
requirements in EISA assuming a 100
year analysis time frame and
discounting GHG emissions over time
by 2%. As noted above, these pathways
would be adjusted should we adopt
other time frames or discount rates
(including a zero discount rate) for the
final rule. Each pathway would be
assigned a D code for use in generating
RINs that corresponds to one of the four
renewable fuel categories. Our proposed
list of allowable pathways is shown in
Table VI.E.4–1.
TABLE VI.E.4–1—APPLICABLE CATEGORIES FOR EACH FUEL PATHWAY a
Fuel type
Feedstock
Ethanol ...........................................
Ethanol ...........................................
Ethanol ...........................................
Ethanol ...........................................
Ethanol ...........................................
Ethanol ...........................................
Starch
oats,
Starch
oats,
Production process requirements
from corn, wheat, barley,
rice, or sorghum.
from corn, wheat, barley,
rice, or sorghum.
Starch from corn, wheat, barley,
oats, rice, or sorghum.
Starch from corn, wheat, barley,
oats, rice, or sorghum.
Starch from corn, wheat, barley,
oats, rice, or sorghum.
Cellulose and hemicellulose from
corn
stover,
switchgrass,
miscanthus, wheat straw, rice
straw, sugarcane bagasse, forest waste, yard waste, or planted trees.
Ethanol ...........................................
Cellulose and hemicellulose from
corn
stover,
switchgrass,
miscanthus, wheat straw, rice
straw, sugarcane bagasse, forest waste, yard waste, or planted trees.
Ethanol ...........................................
Sugarcane sugar ..........................
Biodiesel (mono alkyl ester) ..........
Waste grease, waste oils, tallow,
chicken fat, or non-food grade
corn oil.
Soybean oil and other virgin plant
oils.
Biodiesel (mono alkyl ester) ..........
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4701
—Process heat derived from biomass.
—Dry mill plant .............................
Category
Renewable fuel.
Renewable fuel.
—Process heat derived from natural gas.
—Combined heat and power
(CHP).
—Fractionation of feedstocks.
—Some or all distillers grains are
dried.
—Dry mill plant .............................
Renewable fuel.
—Process heat derived from natural gas.
—All distillers grains are wet.
—Dry mill plant .............................
Renewable fuel.
—Process heat derived from coal.
—Combined heat and power
(CHP).
—Fractionation of feedstocks.
—Membrane separation of ethanol.
—Raw starch hydrolysis.
—Some or all distillers grains are
dried.
—Dry mill plant .............................
Renewable fuel.
—Process heat derived from coal.
—Combined heat and power
(CHP).
—Fractionation of feedstocks.
—Membrane separation of ethanol.
—All distillers grains are wet.
—Enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose.
—Fermentation of sugars.
—Process heat derived from
lignin.
—Thermochemical gasification of
biomass.
Cellulosic biofuel.
Cellulosic biofuel.
—Fischer-Tropsch process.
—Process heat derived from sugarcane bagasse.
—Transesterification .....................
Advanced biofuel.
—Transesterification .....................
Renewable fuel.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
Biomass-based diesel.
26MYP2
25055
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI.E.4–1—APPLICABLE CATEGORIES FOR EACH FUEL PATHWAY a—Continued
Fuel type
Feedstock
Production process requirements
Cellulosic diesel .............................
Cellulose and hemicellulose from
corn
stover,
switchgrass,
miscanthus, wheat straw, rice
straw, sugarcane bagasse, forest waste, yard waste, or planted trees.
—Thermochemical gasification of
biomass.
Non-ester renewable diesel ...........
Non-ester renewable diesel ...........
Non-ester renewable diesel ...........
Cellulosic gasoline .........................
Waste grease, waste oils, tallow,
chicken fat, or corn oil.
Waste grease, waste oils, tallow,
chicken fat, or non-food grade
corn oil.
Soybean oil and other virgin plant
oils.
Cellulose and hemicellulose from
corn
stover,
switchgrass,
miscanthus, wheat straw, rice
straw, sugarcane bagasse, forest waste, yard waste, or planted trees.
Category
Cellulosic biofuel
based diesel.
or
biomass-
—Fischer-Tropsch process.
—Catalytic depolymerization.
—Hydrotreating.
—Dedicated facility that processes only renewable biomass.
—Hydrotreating .............................
—Coprocessing facility that also
processes
petroleum
feedstocks.
—Hydrotreating .............................
—Thermochemical gasification of
biomass.
Biomass-based diesel.
Advanced biofuel.
Renewable fuel.
Cellulosic biofuel.
—Fischer-Tropsch process.
—Catalytic depolymerization.
a
Under our assumed 100-year timeframe and 2% discount rate.
As stated earlier, there may be other
potential pathways that could lead to
qualifying renewable fuel. While we do
not have sufficient information at this
time to evaluate the likely lifecycle GHG
impact and thus assign those pathways
to one of the four renewable fuel
categories, we do plan on doing these
evaluations for the final rule. Pathways
that we intend to subject to lifecycle
analysis include butanol from starches
or oils and renewable diesel from
biomass using pyrolysis or catalytic
reforming. We request comment on the
inputs necessary to apply lifecycle
analysis to these pathways. We also
request comment on other pathways
that should be analyzed and the data
that would be necessary for those
analyses.
For pathways that are not included in
the lookup table in the final rule, we are
also proposing a regulatory mechanism
whereby a producer could temporarily
assign their renewable fuel to one of the
four renewable fuel categories under
certain conditions. For further
discussion of this issue, see Section
III.D.5.
F. Total GHG Emission Reductions
Our analysis of the overall GHG
emission impacts of this proposed
rulemaking was performed in parallel
with the lifecycle analysis performed to
develop the individual fuel thresholds
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
described in previous sections. The
same system boundaries apply such that
this analysis includes the effects of three
main areas: (a) emissions related to the
production of biofuels, including the
growing of feedstock (corn, soybeans,
etc.) with associated domestic and
international land use change impacts,
transport of feedstock to fuel production
plants, fuel production, and distribution
of finished fuel; (b) emissions related to
the extraction, production and
distribution of petroleum gasoline and
diesel fuel that is replaced by use of
biofuels; and (c) difference in tailpipe
combustion of the renewable and
petroleum based fuels. As discussed in
the previous sections we will be
updating our lifecycle approach for the
final rule and there are some areas that
we were not able to quantify at this
time, such as secondary impacts in the
energy sector. We are working to
include this for our final rule analysis.
Consistent with the fuel volume
feasibility analysis and criteria pollutant
emissions, our analysis of the GHG
impacts of increased renewable fuel use
was conducted by comparing the
impacts of the 2022 36 Bgal of
renewable fuel volumes required by
EISA to a projected 2022 reference case
of approximately 14 Bgal of renewable
fuel volumes. Similar to what was done
to calculate lifecycle thresholds for
individual fuels we considered the
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
change in 2022 of these two volume
scenarios of renewable fuels to
determine overall GHG impacts of the
rule. The reference case for the GHG
emission comparisons was taken from
the AEO 2007 projected renewable fuel
production levels for 2022 prior to
enactment of EISA. This scenario
provided a point of comparison for
assessing the impacts of the RFS2
standard volumes on GHG emissions.
We ran these multi-fuel scenarios
through our FASOM and FAPRI models
and applied the Winrock land use
change assumptions to determine to
overall GHG impacts. We were only able
to analyze 2022 reference and control
cases. However, in reality the impacts of
corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel will
be experienced beginning in 2009, with
the impacts of cellulosic ethanol and
sugarcane ethanol growing in later years
as their volumes increase.
The main difference between this
overall impacts analysis and the
analysis conducted to develop the
threshold values for the individual fuels
is that we analyzed the total change in
renewable fuels in one scenario as
opposed to looking at individual fuel
impacts. When analyzing the impact of
the total 36 billion gallons of renewable
fuel, we also took into account the
agricultural sector interactions
necessary to produce the full
complement of feedstock. We also
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25056
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
considered a mix of plant types and
configurations for the 2022 renewable
fuel production representing the mix of
plants we project to be in operation in
2022. This is based on the same analysis
used in the plant location and fuel
feasibility analysis described in Section
V.B.
For this overall impacts analysis we
used a different petroleum baseline fuel
that is offset from renewable fuel use.
The lifecycle threshold values are
required by EISA to be based on a 2005
petroleum fuel baseline. For this
inventory analysis of the overall impacts
of the rule we considered the crude oil
and finished product that would be
replaced in 2022. Displaced petroleum
product analysis was consistent with
work performed for the energy security
analysis described in Section IX.B. For
this analysis we consider that 25% of
displaced gasoline will be imported
gasoline. For the domestic production
we assumed replacement of the 2022
crude mix which is projected to include
7.6% tar sands and 3.8% Venezuelan
heavy crude which is higher then the
projected mix in 2005 which includes
5% tar sands and 1% Venezuelan heavy
crude.
Given these many differences, simply
adding up the individual lifecycle
results determined in Section VI.C.
multiplied by their respective volumes
would yield a different assessment of
the overall rule impacts. The two
analyses are separate in that the overall
rule impacts capture interactions
between the different fuels that can not
be broken out into per fuels impacts,
while the threshold values represent
impacts of specific fuels but do not
account for all the interactions.
For example, when we consider the
combined impact of the different fuel
volumes when analyzed separately, the
overall land use change is 9.0 million
acres. However, when we analyze the
volume changes all together, the overall
land use change is approximately 10%
higher.
The primary reason for the difference
in acre change between the sum of the
individual fuel scenarios and the
combined fuel scenarios is that when
looking at individual fuels there is some
interaction between different crops (e.g.,
corn replacing soybeans), but with
combined volume scenario when all
mandates need to be met there is less
opportunity for crop replacement (e.g.,
both corn and soybean acres needed)
and therefore more land is required.
Important findings of our analysis
include:
• As with the threshold lifecycle
calculations, assumptions about timing
to consider impacts over and discount
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
rates will have a significant impact on
results.
• We estimate the largest overall
agricultural sector impact is an increase
in land use change impacts, reflecting
the shift of crop production
internationally to meet the biofuel
demand in the U.S. Increased crop
production internationally resulted in
land use change emissions associated
with converting land into crop
production.
• Our analysis indicates that overall
domestic agriculture emissions would
increase. There is a relatively small
increase in total domestic crop acres
however, there are additional inputs
required due to the removal of crop
residues. The assumption is that
removal will require more inputs to
make up for lost residue nutrients.
These additional inputs result in GHG
emissions from production and from
N2O releases from application. This
effect is somewhat offset by reductions
due to lower livestock production.
These results are dependent on our
agricultural sector input and emission
assumptions that are being updated for
the final rule (e.g., N2O emission factor
work).
• In particular due to this
international impact, the potential
overall GHG emission reductions of
biofuels produced from food crops such
as corn ethanol and soy biodiesel are
significantly impacted. Large near term
emission increases due to land use
change require a number of years before
the emission reductions due to corn
ethanol and soy biodiesel use will offset
the near term emission increase as
discussed in the threshold calculation
section.
• Cellulosic biofuels contribute by far
the most to the total emission
reductions due to both their superior
per gallon emission reductions and the
large volume of these fuels anticipated
to be used by 2022.
The timing of the impact of land use
change and ongoing renewable fuels
benefits were discussed in the previous
lifecycle fuel threshold section. The
issue is slightly different for this
analysis since we are considering
absolute tons of emissions and not
determining a threshold comparison to
petroleum fuels. However the results
can be presented in a similar manner to
our individual fuels analysis in that we
can determine net benefits over time
with different discount rates and over a
different time frame for consideration.
As discussed in previous sections on
lifecycle GHG thresholds there is an
initial one time release from land
conversion and smaller ongoing releases
but there are also ongoing benefits of
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
using renewable fuels over time
replacing petroleum fuel use. Based on
the volume scenario considered, the one
time land use change impacts result in
448 million metric tons of CO2–eq.
emissions increase. There are, however,
based on the biofuel use replacing
petroleum fuels, GHG reductions in
each year. When modeling the program
as if all fuel volume changes occur in
2022, and considering 100 years of
emission impacts that are discounted by
2% per year, we get an estimated total
discounted NPV reduction in GHG
emissions of 6.8 billion tons over 100
years. Totaling the emissions impacts
over 30 years but assuming a 0%
discount rate over this 30 year period
would result in an estimated total NPV
reduction in GHG emissions of 4.5
billion tons over 30 years.
This total NPV reduction can be
converted into annual average GHG
reductions, which can be used for the
calculations of the monetized GHG
benefits as shown in Section IX.C.4.
This annualized value is based on
converting the lump sum present values
described above into their annualized
equivalents. For this analysis we
convert the NPV results for the 100 year
2% discount rate into an annualized
average such that the NPV of the
annualized average emissions will equal
the NPV of the actual emission stream
over 100 years with a 2% discount rate.
This results in an annualized average
emission reduction of approximately160
million metric tons of CO2–eq.
emissions. A comparable value
assuming 30 years of GHG emissions
changes but not applying a discount rate
to those emissions results in an
estimated annualized average emission
reduction of approximately 150 million
metrics tons of CO2–eq. emissions.
G. Effects of GHG Emission Reductions
and Changes in Global Temperature
and Sea Level
1. Introduction
The reductions in CO2 and other
GHGs associated with the proposal will
affect climate change projections.
Because GHGs mix well in the
atmosphere and have long atmospheric
lifetimes, changes in GHG emissions
will affect future climate for decades to
centuries. One common indicator of
climate change is global mean surface
temperature and sea level rise. This
section estimates the response in global
mean surface temperature projections to
the estimated net global GHG emissions
reductions associated with the proposed
rulemaking (See Section VI.F for the
estimated net reductions in global
emissions over time by GHG).
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25057
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
2. Estimated Projected Reductions in
Global Mean Surface Temperatures
EPA estimated changes in projected
global mean surface temperatures to
2100 using the MiniCAM (Mini Climate
Assessment Model) integrated
assessment model 320 coupled with the
MAGICC (Model for the Assessment of
Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate
Change) simple climate model.321
MiniCAM was used to create the
globally and temporally consistent set of
climate relevant variables required for
running MAGICC. MAGICC was then
used to estimate the change in the global
mean surface temperature over time.
Given the magnitude of the estimated
emissions reductions associated with
the proposed rule, a simple climate
model such as MAGICC is reasonable
for estimating the climate response.
EPA applied the estimated annual
GHG emissions changes for the proposal
to the MiniCAM U.S. Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP) Synthesis and
Assessment Product baseline
emissions.322 Specifically, the CO2,
N2O, and CH4 annual emission changes
from 2022–2121 from Section VI.F were
applied as net reductions to the
MiniCAM CCSP global baseline net
emissions for each GHG. Post-2121, we
assumed no change in emissions from
the baseline. This assumption is more
conservative than allowing the
emissions reductions to continue.
Table VI.G.2 provides our estimated
reductions in projected global mean
surface temperatures and sea level
associated with the proposed increase in
renewable fuels in 2022. To capture
some of the uncertainty in the climate
system, we estimated the changes in
projected temperatures and sea level
across the most current
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) range of climate
sensitivities, 1.5 °C to 6.0 °C.323 To
illustrate the time profile of the
estimated reductions in projected global
mean surface temperatures and sea
level, we have also provided Figures
VI.G.2–1 and VI.G.2–2.
TABLE VI.G.2–1—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN PROJECTED GLOBAL MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE AND GLOBAL MEAN
SEA LEVEL FROM BASELINE IN 2030, 2050, 2100, AND 2200 FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD IN 2022
Climate sensitivity
1.5
2
3
4.5
6
Change in global mean surface temperatures (degrees Celsius)
2030
2050
2100
2200
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
0.000
¥0.001
¥0.003
¥0.003
0.000
¥0.002
¥0.004
¥0.004
¥0.001
¥0.002
¥0.005
¥0.006
¥0.001
¥0.002
¥0.006
¥0.008
¥0.001
¥0.003
¥0.007
¥0.009
¥0.003
¥0.017
¥0.063
¥0.114
¥0.003
¥0.020
¥0.074
¥0.143
¥0.003
¥0.022
¥0.082
¥0.172
Change in global mean sea level rise (centimeters)
2030
2050
2100
2200
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
¥0.002
¥0.012
¥0.045
¥0.077
¥0.002
¥0.014
¥0.052
¥0.091
The results in Table VI.G.2–1 and
Figures VI.G.2–1 and VI.G.2–2 show
small, but detectable, reductions in the
global mean surface temperature and sea
level rise projections across all climate
sensitivities. Overall, the reductions are
small relative to the IPCC’s ‘‘best
estimate’’ temperature increases by 2100
of 1.8 °C to 4.0 °C.324 Although IPCC
does not issue ‘‘best estimate’’ sea level
rise projections, the model-based range
across SRES scenarios is 18 to 59 cm by
2099.325 Both figures illustrate that the
overall emissions reductions can
320 MiniCAM is a long-term, global integrated
assessment model of energy, economy, agriculture
and land use, that considers the sources of
emissions of a suite of greenhouse gases (GHG’s),
emitted in 14 globally disaggregated global regions
(i.e., U.S., Western Europe, China), the fate of
emissions to the atmosphere, and the consequences
of changing concentrations of greenhouse related
gases for climate change. MiniCAM begins with a
representation of demographic and economic
developments in each region and combines these
with assumptions about technology development to
describe an internally consistent representation of
energy, agriculture, land-use, and economic
developments that in turn shape global emissions.
Brenkert A, S. Smith, S. Kim, and H. Pitcher, 2003:
Model Documentation for the MiniCAM. PNNL–
14337, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Richland, Washington. For a recent report and
detailed description and discussion of MiniCAM,
see Clarke, L., J. Edmonds, H. Jacoby, H. Pitcher, J.
Reilly, R. Richels, 2007. Scenarios of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations.
Sub-report 2.1A of Synthesis and Assessment
Product 2.1 by the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change
Research. Department of Energy, Office of
Biological & Environmental Research, Washington,
DC., USA, 154 pp.
321 MAGICC consists of a suite of coupled gascycle, climate and ice-melt models integrated into
a single framework. The framework allows the user
to determine changes in GHG concentrations,
global-mean surface air temperature and sea-level
resulting from anthropogenic emissions of carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
reactive gases (e.g., CO, NOX, VOCs), the
halocarbons (e.g. HCFCs, HFCs, PFCs) and sulfur
dioxide (SO2). MAGICC emulates the global-mean
temperature responses of more sophisticated
coupled Atmosphere/Ocean General Circulation
Models (AOGCMs) with high accuracy. Wigley,
T.M.L. and Raper, S.C.B. 1992. Implications for
Climate and Sea-Level of Revised IPCC Emissions
Scenarios Nature 357, 293–300. Raper, S.C.B.,
Wigley T.M.L. and Warrick R.A. 1996. in Sea-Level
Rise and Coastal Subsidence: Causes, Consequences
and Strategies J.D. Milliman, B.U. Haq, Eds., Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
pp. 11–45. Wigley, T.M.L. and Raper, S.C.B. 2002.
Reasons for larger warming projections in the IPCC
Third Assessment Report J. Climate 15, 2945–2952.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
decrease projected annual temperature
and sea level for all climate sensitivities.
This means that the distribution of
potential temperatures in any particular
year is shifting down. However, the shift
is not uniform. The magnitude of the
decrease is larger for higher climate
322 Clarke
et al., 2007.
IPCC reports, equilibrium climate
sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in the
annual mean global surface temperature following
a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon
dioxide concentration. The IPCC states that climate
sensitivity is ‘‘likely’’ to be in the range of 2 °C to
4.5 °C and described 3 °C as a ‘‘best estimate.’’ The
IPCC goes on to note that climate sensitivity is
‘‘very unlikely’’ to be less than 1.5 °C and ‘‘values
substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be
excluded.’’ IPCC WGI, 2007, Climate Change
2007—The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the IPCC, https://www.ipcc.ch/.
324 IPCC WGI, 2007. The baseline increases by
2100 from our MiniCAM–MAGICC runs are 2 °C to
5 °C for global mean surface temperature and 35 to
74 centimeters for global mean sea level.
325 ‘‘Because understanding of some important
effects driving sea level rise is too limited, this
report does not assess the likelihood, nor provide
a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level
rise.’’ IPCC Synthesis Report, p. 45
323 In
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
sensitivities. Thus, the probability of a
higher temperature or sea level in any
year is lowered more than the
probability of a lower temperature or sea
level. For instance, in 2100, the
reduction in projected temperature for
climate sensitivities of 3 and 6 is
approximately 65% and 140% greater
than the reduction for a climate
sensitivity of 1.5. This difference grows
over time, to approximately 80% and
185% by 2200. The same pattern
appears in the reductions in the sea
level rise projections.326 Also
noteworthy in Figures VI.G.2–1 and
VI.G.2–2 is that the size of the decreases
grows over time due to the cumulative
effect of a lower stock of GHGs in the
atmosphere (i.e., concentrations).327
The bottom line is that the risk of
climate change is being lowered, as the
probabilities of any level of temperature
326 In 2100, the reduction in projected sea level
rise for climate sensitivities of 3 and 6 is
approximately 40% and 80% greater than the
reduction for a climate sensitivity of 1.5. This
difference grows over time, to approximately 50%
and 120% by 2200.
327 For global average temperature after 2100, the
growth in the size of the decrease noticeable slows.
This is because the emissions changes associated
with the policy were only estimated for 100 years.
Note that even with emissions reductions stopping
after 100 years, there continues to be a decrease in
projected temperatures due to reduced inertia in the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
increase and sea level rise are reduced
and the probabilities of the largest
temperature increases and sea level rise
are reduced even more. For the Final
Rulemaking, we hope to more explicitly
estimate the shapes of the distributions
and the estimated shifts in the shapes in
response to the Rulemakings.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
climate system from the earlier emissions
reductions. However, unlike temperature, after
2100, the size of the decrease in sea level rise
increases as the projected reduction in warming has
a continued effect on ice melt and ocean thermal
expansion.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
EP26MY09.009
25058
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
VII. How Would the Proposal Impact
Criteria and Toxic Pollutant Emissions
and Their Associated Effects?
A. Overview of Impacts
Today’s proposal would influence the
emissions of ‘‘criteria’’ pollutants (those
pollutants for which a National Ambient
Air Quality Standard has been
established), criteria pollutant
precursors,328 and air toxics, which may
affect overall air quality and health.
Emissions would be affected by the
processes required to produce and
distribute large volumes of biofuels
proposed in today’s action and the
direct effects of these fuels on vehicle
and equipment emissions. As detailed
in Chapter 3 of the Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis (DRIA), we have
estimated emissions impacts of
production and distribution-related
emissions using the life cycle analysis
methodology described in Section VI
with emission factors for criteria and
toxic emissions for each stage of the life
cycle, including agriculture, feedstock
transportation, and the production and
distribution of biofuel; included in this
analysis are the impacts of reduced
gasoline and diesel refining as these
328 NO and VOC are precursors to the criteria
X
pollutant ozone; we group them with criteria
pollutants in this chapter for ease of discussion.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
fuels are displaced by biofuels.
Emission impacts of tailpipe and
evaporative emissions for on and off
road sources have been estimated by
incorporating ‘‘per vehicle’’ fuel effects
from recent research into mobile source
emission inventory estimation methods.
For today’s proposal we are
presenting two sets of emission impacts
meant to present a range of the possible
effects of ethanol blends on light-duty
vehicle emissions. This approach is
carried forward from analysis
supporting the first RFS rule, which
presented ‘‘primary’’ and ‘‘sensitivity’’
fuel effects cases differentiated by E10
effects on cars and trucks. For this
analysis we also analyze two fuel effects
scenarios, now termed ‘‘less sensitive’’
and ‘‘more sensitive,’’ referring to the
sensitivity of car and truck exhaust
emissions to both E10 and E85 blends.
As detailed in Section VII.C, the ‘‘less
sensitive’’ case does not apply any E10
effects to NOx or HC emissions for later
model year vehicles, or E85 effects for
any pollutant, while the ‘‘more
sensitive’’ case assumes that later model
year vehicles have lower fuel sensitivity
than earlier model vehicles. EPA and
other parties are in the midst of
gathering additional data to help clarify
emissions impacts of ethanol on lightduty vehicles, and should be able to
reflect the new data for the final rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Analysis of criteria and toxic emission
impacts was performed for calendar
year 2022, since this year reflects the
full implementation of today’s proposal.
Our 2022 projections account for
projected growth in vehicle travel and
the effects of applicable emission and
fuel economy standards, including Tier
2 and Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT)
rules for cars and light trucks and
recently finalized controls on sparkignited off-road engines. The impacts
were analyzed relative to three different
reference case ethanol volumes, ranging
from 3.64 to 13.2 billion gallons per
year, in order to understand the impacts
of today’s proposal in different contexts.
To assess the total impact of the RFS
program, emissions were analyzed
relative to the RFS1 rule base case of
3.64 billion gallons in 2004. To assess
the impact of today’s proposal relative
to the current mandated volumes, we
analyzed impacts relative to RFS1
mandate of 7.5 billion gallons of
renewable fuel use by 2012, which was
estimated to include 6.7 billion gallons
of ethanol.329 In order to assess the
impact of today’s proposal relative to
the level of ethanol projected to already
be in place by 2022, the AEO2007
projection of 13.2 billion gallons of
329 For this analysis these RFS1 base and
mandated ethanol levels were assumed constant to
2022.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
EP26MY09.010
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
25059
25060
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
ethanol in 2022 was analyzed. For this
analysis our modeling was based on the
differences between the AEO2007
reference case and the control case; to
generate impacts for the RFS1 base and
mandated volumes we simply scaled the
modeled AEO2007-based impacts up
according to the larger increases in
renewable fuel volumes relative to the
other reference cases. For the final rule
we plan to directly model the RFS1
mandate reference case as well as the
AEO2007 case.
For the proposal we have only
estimated the change in national
emission totals that would result from
today’s proposal. These totals may not
be a good indication of local or regional
air quality and health impacts. These
results are aggregated across highly
localized sources, such as emissions
from ethanol plants and evaporative
emissions from cars, and reflect offsets
such as decreased emissions from
gasoline refineries. The location and
composition of emissions from these
disparate sources may strongly
influence the air quality and health
impacts of today’s proposed action, and
full-scale photochemical air quality
modeling is necessary to accurately
assess this. These localized impacts will
be assessed in the final rule as discussed
in Section VII.D.
Our projected emission impacts for
the ‘‘less sensitive’’ and ‘‘more
sensitive’’ cases are shown in Table
VII.A–1 and VII.A–2 for 2022. Shown
relative to each reference case are the
expected emission changes for the U.S.
in that year, and the percent
contribution of this impact relative to
the total U.S. inventory. Overall we
project the proposed program will result
in significant increases in ethanol and
acetaldehyde emissions—increasing the
total U.S. inventories of these pollutants
by 30–40% in 2022 relative to the RFS1
mandate case. We project more modest
increases in NOx, HC, PM, SO2,
formaldehyde, and acrolein relative to
the RFS1 mandate case. We project a
decrease in ammonia (NH3) emissions
due to reductions in livestock
agricultural activity, CO (due to impacts
of ethanol on exhaust emissions from
vehicles and nonroad equipment), and
benzene (due to displacement of
gasoline with ethanol in the fuel pool).
As shown, the direction of changes for
1,3-butadiene and naphthalene depends
on whether it is the ‘‘less sensitive’’ or
‘‘more sensitive’’ case.
TABLE VII.A–1—RFS2 ‘‘LESS SENSITIVE’’ CASE EMISSION IMPACTS IN 2022 RELATIVE TO EACH REFERENCE CASE
RFS1 base
Pollutant
Annual short
tons
NOx ..........................................................
HC ............................................................
PM10 .........................................................
PM2.5 ........................................................
CO ............................................................
Benzene ...................................................
Ethanol .....................................................
1,3-Butadiene ...........................................
Acetaldehyde ...........................................
Formaldehyde ..........................................
Naphthalene .............................................
Acrolein ....................................................
SO2 ...........................................................
NH3 ...........................................................
RFS1 mandate
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
312,400
112,401
50,305
14,321
¥2,344,646
¥2,791
210,680
344
12,516
1,647
5
290
28,770
¥27,161
Annual short
tons
2.8
1.0
1.4
0.4
¥4.4
¥1.7
36.5
2.9
33.7
2.3
0.03
5.0
0.3
¥0.6
AEO2007
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
274,982
72,362
37,147
11,452
¥1,669,872
¥2,507
169,929
255
10,369
1,348
3
252
4,461
¥27,161
2.5
0.6
1.0
0.3
¥3.1
¥1.5
29.4
2.1
27.9
1.9
0.02
4.4
0.05
¥0.6
Annual short
tons
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
195,735
¥8,193
9,276
5,376
¥240,943
¥1,894
83,761
65
5,822
714
¥1
174
¥47,030
¥27,161
1.7
¥0.07
0.3
0.16
¥0.4
¥1.1
14.5
0.5
15.7
1.0
¥0.01
3.0
¥0.5
¥0.6
TABLE VII.A–2—RFS2 ‘‘MORE SENSITIVE’’ CASE EMISSION IMPACTS IN 2022 RELATIVE TO EACH REFERENCE CASE
RFS1 base
Pollutant
Annual short
tons
NOx ..........................................................
HC ............................................................
PM10 .........................................................
PM2.5 ........................................................
CO ............................................................
Benzene ...................................................
Ethanol .....................................................
1,3-Butadiene ...........................................
Acetaldehyde ...........................................
Formaldehyde ..........................................
Naphthalene .............................................
Acrolein ....................................................
SO2 ...........................................................
NH3 ...........................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
402,795
100,313
46,193
10,535
¥3,779,572
¥5,962
228,563
¥212
16,375
3,373
¥175
253
28,770
¥27,161
PO 00000
Frm 00158
RFS1 Mandate
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
Annual short
tons
3.6
0.9
1.3
0.3
¥7.0
¥3.5
39.6
¥1.8
44.0
4.7
¥1.2
4.4
0.3
¥0.6
Fmt 4701
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
341,028
63,530
33,035
7,666
¥3,104,798
¥5,494
187,926
¥282
14,278
3,124
¥178
218
4,461
¥27,161
Sfmt 4702
AEO2007
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
3.0
0.6
0.9
0.2
¥5.8
¥3.3
32.5
¥2.4
38.4
4.3
¥1.3
3.8
0.05
¥0.6
26MYP2
Annual short
tons
210,217
¥15,948
5,164
1,589
¥1,675,869
¥4,489
105,264
¥430
9,839
2,596
¥187
143
¥47,030
¥27,161
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
1.9
¥0.14
0.15
0.05
¥3.1
¥2.7
18.2
¥3.6
26.5
3.6
¥1.3
2.5
¥0.5
¥0.6
25061
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
The breakdown of these results by the
fuel production/distribution (‘‘well-topump’’ emissions) and vehicle and
equipment (‘‘pump-to-wheel’’)
emissions is discussed in the following
sections.
B. Fuel Production & Distribution
Impacts of the Proposed Program
Fuel production and distribution
emission impacts of the proposed
program were estimated in conjunction
with the development of life cycle GHG
emission impacts and the GHG emission
inventories discussed in Section VI.
These emissions are calculated
according to the breakdowns of
agriculture, feedstock transport, fuel
production, and fuel distribution; the
basic calculation is a function of fuel
volumes in the analysis year and the
emission factors associated with each
process or subprocess. Additionally, the
emission impact of displaced petroleum
is estimated, using the same domestic/
import shares discussed in Section VI
above.
In general the basis for this life cycle
evaluation was the analysis conducted
as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS1) rulemaking, but enhanced
significantly. While our approach for
the RFS1 was to rely heavily on the
‘‘Greenhouse Gases, Regulated
Emissions, and Energy Use in
Transportation’’ (GREET) model,
developed by the Department of
Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory
(ANL), we are now able to take
advantage of additional information and
models to significantly strengthen and
expand our analysis for this proposed
rule. In particular, the modeling of the
agriculture sector was greatly expanded
beyond the RFS1 analysis, employing
economic and agriculture models to
consider factors such as land-use
impact, agricultural burning, fertilizer,
pesticide use, livestock, crop allocation,
and crop exports.
Other updates and enhancements to
the GREET model assumptions include
updated feedstock energy requirements
and estimates of excess electricity
available for sale from new cellulosic
ethanol plants, based on modeling by
the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL). EPA also updated
the fuel and feedstock transport
emission factors to account for recent
EPA emission standards and modeling,
such as the diesel truck standards
published in 2001 and the locomotive
and commercial marine standards
finalized in 2008. Emission factors for
new corn ethanol plants continue to use
the values developed for the RFS1 rule,
which were based on data submitted by
states for dry mill plants. There are no
new standards planned at this time that
would offer any additional control of
emissions from corn or cellulosic
ethanol plants. In addition, GREET does
not include air toxics or ethanol. Thus
emission factors for ethanol and the
following air toxics were added:
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, acrolein and naphthalene.
Results of these calculations relative
to each of the reference cases for 2022
are shown in Table VII.B–1 for the
criteria pollutants, ammonia, ethanol
and individual air toxic pollutants. It
should be noted that the impacts
relative to the two RFS1 reference cases
(3.64 and 6.7 billion gallons) rely on
applying ethanol volume proportions to
the modeling results of the AEO2007
reference case (13.2 billion gallons). Due
to the complex interactions involved in
projections in the agricultural modeling,
we did not attempt to adjust the
agricultural inputs of the AEO reference
case for the other two reference cases.
So the fertilizer and pesticide quantities,
livestock counts, and total agricultural
acres were the same for all three
reference cases. The agricultural
modeling that had been done for the
RFS1 rule itself was much simpler and
inconsistent with the new modeling, so
it would be inappropriate to use those
estimates. Thus, we plan to conduct
additional agricultural modeling
specifically for the RFS1 mandate case
prior to finalizing this rule.
The fuel production and distribution
impacts of the proposed program on
VOC are mainly due to increases in
emissions connected with biofuel
production, countered by decreases in
emissions associated with gasoline
production and distribution as ethanol
displaces some of the gasoline. Increases
in NOX, PM2.5, and SOX are driven by
combustion emissions from the
substantial increase in corn and
cellulosic ethanol production. Ethanol
plants (corn and cellulosic) tend to have
greater combustion emissions relative to
petroleum refineries on a per-BTU of
fuel produced basis. Increases in SOX
emissions are primarily due to corn
ethanol production. Ammonia
emissions are expected to decrease
substantially due to lower livestock
counts, which more than offsets
increased ammonia from fertilizer use.
Ethanol vapor and most air toxic
emissions associated with fuel
production and distribution are
projected to increase. Relative to the
U.S. total reference case emissions with
RFS1 mandate ethanol volumes,
increases of 10–20% for acetaldehyde
and ethanol vapor are especially
significant because they are driven
directly by the increased ethanol
production and distribution.
Formaldehyde and acrolein increases
are smaller, on the order of 1–5%.
Benzene emissions are estimated to
decrease by 1% due to decreased
gasoline production. There are also very
small increases in 1,3-butadiene and
decreases in naphthalene relative to the
U.S. total emissions.
TABLE VII.B–1—FUEL PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION IMPACTS IN 2022 RELATIVE TO EACH REFERENCE CASE
RFS1 base
Pollutant
Annual
short tons
NOX ............................................................................
HC ..............................................................................
PM10 ...........................................................................
PM2.5 ..........................................................................
CO ..............................................................................
Benzene .....................................................................
Ethanol .......................................................................
1,3-Butadiene .............................................................
Acetaldehyde .............................................................
Formaldehyde ............................................................
Naphthalene ...............................................................
Acrolein ......................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
241,041
77,295
50,482
14,419
186,559
¥1,670
115,187
16
7,460
877
¥6
278
Frm 00159
RFS1 mandate
Fmt 4701
2.1
0.7
1.4
0.4
0.3
¥1.0
19.9
0.13
20.1
1.2
¥0.04
4.8
Sfmt 4702
Annual
short tons
AEO2007
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
222,732
46,702
37,324
11,550
179,855
¥1,686
100,134
16
6,680
800
¥5
244
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
2.0
0.4
1.1
0.3
0.3
¥1.0
17.3
0.14
18.0
1.1
¥0.04
4.2
26MYP2
Annual
short tons
183,951
¥17,501
9,453
5,473
165,656
¥1,719
68,379
17
5,029
638
¥4
174
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
1.6
¥0.2
0.3
0.16
¥0.5
¥1.0
11.8
0.14
13.5
0.9
¥0.03
3.0
25062
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VII.B–1—FUEL PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION IMPACTS IN 2022 RELATIVE TO EACH REFERENCE CASE—
Continued
RFS1 base
Pollutant
Annual
short tons
SO2 .............................................................................
NH3 .............................................................................
C. Vehicle and Equipment Emission
Impacts of Fuel Program
The effects of the fuel program on
vehicle and equipment emissions are a
direct function of the effects of these
fuels on exhaust and evaporative
emissions from vehicles and off-road
equipment, and evaporation of fuel from
portable containers. To assess these
impacts we conducted separate analyses
to quantify the emission impacts of
additional E10 due to today’s proposal
on gasoline vehicles, nonroad sparkignited engines and portable fuel
containers; E85 on cars and light trucks;
biodiesel on diesel vehicles; and
increased refueling events due to lower
energy density of biofuels.330
For the proposal we have analyzed
inventory impacts for two fuel effects
scenarios to attempt to bound the
potential impacts on ethanol on
gasoline-fueled vehicle exhaust
emissions:
(1) ‘‘Less Sensitive’’: No exhaust VOC
or NOX emission impact on Tier 1 and
later vehicles due to E10, and no impact
due to E85. This was termed the
‘‘primary’’ case in the RFS1 rule.
(2) ‘‘More Sensitive’’: VOC and NOX
emission impacts due to E10 based on
limited test data from newer technology
vehicles that were analyzed as part of
the RFS1 rule. This data showed a 7%
reduction in exhaust VOC emissions
and an 8% increase in per-vehicle NOX
RFS1 mandate
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
28,770
¥27,161
0.3
¥0.6
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
Annual
short tons
4,461
¥27,161
emissions for Tier 1 and later vehicles
using E10 relative to E0. The E10 effects
are consistent with the ‘‘sensitivity’’
case from the RFS1 rule. For RFS2 this
case also includes E85 effects reflecting
significant increases in acetaldehyde,
formaldehyde and ethanol emissions,
and reductions in PM and CO.
EPA and other parties are in the midst
of gathering additional data on the
emission impacts of ethanol fuels on
later model vehicles, which we plan to
consider in updating our final rule
analysis.
We have also estimated the E10
effects on permeation emissions from
light-duty vehicles based on testing
previously completed by the
Coordinating Research Council (CRC).
Nonroad spark ignition (SI) emission
impacts of E10 were based on EPA’s
NONROAD model and show trends
similar to light duty vehicles. Biodiesel
effects for this analysis were based on a
new analysis of recent biodiesel testing,
detailed in the DRIA, showing a 2%
increase in NOX with a 20% biodiesel
blend, a 16% decrease in PM, and a
14% decrease in HC. These results
essentially confirm the results of an
earlier EPA analysis.
Summarized vehicle and equipment
emission impacts in 2022 are shown in
Table VII.C–1 and VII.C–2 for the ‘‘less
sensitive’’ and ‘‘more sensitive’’ cases.
Table VII.C–3 shows the biodiesel
contribution to these impacts, which are
AEO2007
Annual
short tons
0.05
¥0.6
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
¥47,030
¥27,161
¥0.5
¥0.6
comparatively small. While the two fuel
effect scenarios only differ with respect
to exhaust emissions from cars and
trucks, the totals shown below reflect
the net impacts from all mobile sources,
including car and truck evaporative
emissions, off road emissions, and
portable fuel containers, using the same
emissions impacts for these sources in
both cases. Additional breakdowns by
mobile source category can be found in
Chapter 3 of the DRIA.
As shown in Tables VII.C–1 and
VII.C–2, the vehicle and equipment
ethanol impacts vary widely between
the two fuel effects cases. Under the
‘‘less sensitive’’ case, CO and benzene
are projected to decrease in 2022 under
today’s proposal, while NOX, HC and
the other air toxics (except acrolein) are
projected to increase due to the impacts
of E10. For the ‘‘more sensitive’’ case,
NOX impacts are higher and HC impacts
lower due to the E10 effects on cars and
trucks, and the inclusion of E85 effects
leads to larger reductions in CO,
benzene and 1,3-butadiene but more
significant increases in ethanol,
acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. The
impacts on acrolein emissions in both
cases, and on naphthalene in the ‘‘more
sensitive’’ case depend on which
reference case is considered, with small
increases relative to the RFS1 base and
mandate cases and a decrease relative to
the AEO reference case.
TABLE VII.C–1—2022 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT ‘‘LESS SENSITIVE’’ CASE EMISSION IMPACTS BY FUEL TYPE RELATIVE TO
EACH REFERENCE CASE
RFS1 base
Pollutant
Annual short
tons
NOX ..........................................................
HC ............................................................
PM10 .........................................................
PM2.5 ........................................................
CO ............................................................
Benzene ...................................................
Ethanol .....................................................
1,3-Butadiene ...........................................
Acetaldehyde ...........................................
71,359
35,106
¥177
¥98
¥2,531,205
¥1,122
95,493
328
5,057
330 The impact of renewable diesel was not
estimated for the proposal; we expect little overall
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
RFS1 mandate
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
Annual short
tons
0.6
0.3
0.00
0.00
¥4.7
¥0.7
16.5
2.7
13.6
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4701
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
52,250
25,659
¥177
¥98
¥1,849,728
¥821
69,795
238
3,689
impact on criteria and toxic emissions due to the
relatively small volume change, and because
Sfmt 4702
AEO2007
0.5
0.2
0.00
0.00
¥3.4
¥0.5
12.1
2.0
9.9
Annual short
tons
11,784
9,308
¥177
¥98
¥406,599
¥174
15,383
48
793
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
0.11
0.08
0.00
0.00
¥0.8
¥0.1
2.7
0.4
2.1
emission effects relative to conventional diesel are
presumed to be negligible.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25063
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VII.C–1—2022 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT ‘‘LESS SENSITIVE’’ CASE EMISSION IMPACTS BY FUEL TYPE RELATIVE TO
EACH REFERENCE CASE—Continued
RFS1 base
Pollutant
Annual short
tons
Formaldehyde ..........................................
Naphthalene .............................................
Acrolein ....................................................
SO2 ...........................................................
NH3 ...........................................................
RFS1 mandate
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
771
10
12
0
0
Annual short
tons
1.1
0.07
0.2
0.0
0.0
AEO2007
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
548
8
8
0
0
0.8
0.05
0.14
0.0
0.0
Annual short
tons
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
76
3
¥0.4
0
0
0.11
0.02
¥0.01
0.0
0.0
TABLE VII.C–2—2022 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT ‘‘MORE SENSITIVE’’ CASE EMISSION IMPACTS BY FUEL TYPE RELATIVE
TO EACH REFERENCE CASE
RFS1 base
Pollutant
Annual short
tons
NOX ..........................................................
HC ............................................................
PM10 .........................................................
PM2.5 ........................................................
CO ............................................................
Benzene ...................................................
Ethanol .....................................................
1,3-Butadiene ...........................................
Acetaldehyde ...........................................
Formaldehyde ..........................................
Naphthalene .............................................
Acrolein ....................................................
SO2 ...........................................................
NH3 ...........................................................
161,754
23,018
¥4,289
¥3,884
¥3,966,131
¥4,293
113,376
¥228
8,915
2,497
¥170
¥25
0
0
TABLE VII.C–3—2022 VEHICLE AND
EQUIPMENT BIODIESEL EMISSION IMPACTS RELATIVE TO ALL REFERENCE
CASES
[these impacts are included in Tables VII.C–1
and VII.C–2]
Biodiesel
impacts
Pollutant
Annual
short tons
NOX ..........................................
HC .............................................
PM10 ..........................................
PM2.5 .........................................
CO ............................................
Benzene ....................................
Ethanol ......................................
1,3-Butadiene ...........................
Acetaldehyde ............................
Formaldehyde ...........................
Naphthalene .............................
Acrolein .....................................
SO2 ...........................................
NH3 ...........................................
418
¥753
¥177
¥98
¥1,275
¥9.4
0.0
¥5.1
¥21
¥57
¥0.12
¥2.7
0.0
0.0
D. Air Quality Impacts
Although the purpose of this proposal
is to implement the renewable fuel
requirements established by the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA)
of 2007, this proposed rule would also
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
RFS1 mandate
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
Annual short
tons
1.4
0.2
¥0.12
¥0.12
¥7.4
¥2.6
19.6
¥1.9
24.0
3.5
¥1.2
¥0.4
0.0
0.0
118,295
16,828
¥4,289
¥3,884
¥3,284,654
¥3,808
87,792
¥298
7,598
2,324
¥172
¥27
0
0
impact emissions of criteria and air
toxic pollutants. We first present current
levels of PM2.5, ozone and air toxics and
then discuss the national-scale air
quality modeling analysis that will be
performed for the final rule.
1. Current Levels of PM2.5, Ozone and
Air Toxics
This proposal may have impacts on
levels of PM2.5, ozone and air toxics.331
Nationally, levels of PM2.5, ozone and
air toxics are declining.332 333 However,
331 The proposed standards may also impact
levels of ambient CO, a criteria pollutant (see Table
VII.A–1 above for co-pollutant emission impacts).
For this analysis, however, we focus on the
proposal’s impacts on ambient PM2.5 and ozone
formation, since CO is a relatively minor problem
in comparison to some of the other criteria
pollutants. For example, as of August 15, 2008 there
are approximately 675,000 people living in 3 areas
(which include 4 counties) that are designated as
nonattainment for CO.
332 U.S. EPA (2003) National Air Quality and
Trends Report, 2003 Special Studies Edition. Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA 454/R–03–
005. https://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd03/
https://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd03/.
333 U.S. EPA (2007) Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis: Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Mobile Sources, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Ann Arbor, MI, Publication No. EPA420–
R–07–002. https://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
AEO2007
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
1.1
0.15
¥0.12
¥0.12
¥6.1
¥2.3
15.2
¥2.5
20.4
3.2
¥1.2
¥0.5
0.0
0.0
Annual short
tons
26,266
1,553
¥4,289
¥3,884
¥1,841,524
¥2,770
36,886
¥446
4,809
1,958
¥182
¥31
0
0
Percent of
total U.S.
inventory
0.2
0.01
¥0.12
¥0.12
¥3.4
¥1.6
6.4
¥3.7
12.9
2.7
¥1.3
¥0.5
0.0
0.0
as of December 16, 2008, approximately
88 million people live in the 39 areas
that are designated as nonattainment for
the 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) and
approximately 132 million people live
in the 57 areas that are designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
was recently revised and the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on
December 18, 2006. Area designations
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are
expected to be promulgated in 2009 and
become effective 90 days after
publication in the Federal Register. In
addition, the majority of Americans
continue to be exposed to ambient
concentrations of air toxics at levels
which have the potential to cause
adverse health effects.334 The levels of
air toxics to which people are exposed
vary depending on where people live
and work and the kinds of activities in
which they engage, as discussed in
334 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007).
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile
Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 8434, February 26, 2007.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25064
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
detail in U.S. EPA’s recent Mobile
Source Air Toxics Rule.335
EPA has already adopted many
emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient PM2.5,
ozone and air toxics levels. These
control programs include the Small SI
and Marine SI Engine Rule (73 FR
59034, October 8, 2008), Locomotive
and Commercial Marine Rule (73 FR
25098, May 6, 2008), Mobile Source Air
Toxics Rule (72 FR 8428, February 26,
2007), Clean Air Interstate Rule (70 FR
25162, May 12, 2005), Clean Air
Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June
29, 2004), Heavy Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel
Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66
FR 5002, Jan. 18, 2001) and the Tier 2
Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and
Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements
(65 FR 6698, Feb. 10, 2000). As a result
of these programs, the ambient
concentration of air toxics, PM2.5 and
ozone in the future is expected to
decrease.
2. Impacts of Proposed Standards on
Future Ambient Concentrations of
PM2.5, Ozone and Air Toxics
The atmospheric chemistry related to
ambient concentrations of PM2.5, ozone
and air toxics is very complex, making
predictions based solely on emissions
changes extremely difficult. For the
final rule, a national-scale air quality
modeling analysis will be performed to
analyze the impacts of the proposed
standards on ambient concentrations of
PM2.5, ozone, and selected air toxics
(i.e., benzene, formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, ethanol, acrolein and 1,3butadiene). The length of time needed to
prepare necessary inventory and model
updates has precluded us from
performing air quality modeling for this
proposal.
The air quality modeling we plan to
perform (described more specifically
below), will allow us to account for
changes in the spatial distribution of PM
and PM precursors, and changes in VOC
speciation which could impact
secondary PM formation. For example,
reductions in aromatics in gasoline may
reduce ambient PM concentrations by
reducing secondary PM formation.
Section 3.3 of the Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis (DRIA) for this
proposal contains more information on
aromatics and secondary aerosol
formation.
In addition, air quality modeling will
account for changes in fuel type and
spatial distribution of fuels that would
335 U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2007).
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile
Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 8434, February 26, 2007.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
change emissions of ozone precursor
species and thus could affect ozone
concentrations. Section 3.3 of the DRIA
for this proposed rule provides more
detail on the atmospheric chemistry and
potential changes in ozone formation
due to increased usage of ethanol fuels.
Section VII.A above presents
projections of the changes in air toxics
emissions due to the proposed
standards. The substantial increase in
emissions of ethanol and acetaldehyde
suggests a likely increase in ambient
levels of acetaldehyde from both direct
emissions and secondary formation as
ethanol breaks down in the atmosphere.
Formaldehyde and acrolein emissions
would also increase somewhat, while
emissions of benzene and 1,3-butadiene
would decrease as a result of the
proposed standards. Full-scale
photochemical modeling is necessary to
provide the needed spatial and temporal
detail to more completely and
accurately estimate the changes in
ambient levels of these pollutants.
For the final rule, EPA intends to use
a 2005-based Community Multi-scale
Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling platform
as the tool for the air quality modeling.
The CMAQ modeling system is a
comprehensive three-dimensional gridbased Eulerian air quality model
designed to estimate the formation and
fate of oxidant precursors, primary and
secondary PM concentrations and
deposition, and air toxics, over regional
and urban spatial scales (e.g., over the
contiguous U.S.).336 337 338 The CMAQ
model is a well-known and wellestablished tool and is commonly used
by EPA for regulatory analyses, for
instance the recent ozone NAAQS
proposal, and by States in developing
attainment demonstrations for their
State Implementation Plans.339 The
CMAQ model (version 4.6) was peerreviewed in February of 2007 for EPA as
reported in ‘‘Third Peer Review of
CMAQ Model,’’ and the peer review
336 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Byun,
D.W., and Ching, J.K.S., Eds, 1999. Science
algorithms of EPA Models-3 Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ modeling system, EPA/600/R–
99/030, Office of Research and Development).
337 Byun, D.W., and Schere, K.L., 2006. Review of
the Governing Equations, Computational
Algorithms, and Other Components of the Models3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ)
Modeling System, J. Applied Mechanics Reviews,
59 (2), 51–77.
338 Dennis, R.L., Byun, D.W., Novak, J.H.,
Galluppi, K.J., Coats, C.J., and Vouk, M.A., 1996.
The next generation of integrated air quality
modeling: EPA’s Models-3, Atmospheric
Environment, 30, 1925–1938.
339 U.S. EPA (2007). Regulatory Impact Analysis
of the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ground-Level Ozone.
EPA document number 442/R–07–008, July 2007.
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
report for version 4.7 (described below)
is currently being finalized.340
CMAQ includes many science
modules that simulate the emission,
production, decay, deposition and
transport of organic and inorganic gasphase and particle-phase pollutants in
the atmosphere. We intend to use the
most recent CMAQ version (version 4.7)
which was officially released by EPA’s
Office of Research and Development
(ORD) in December 2008, and reflects
updates to earlier versions in a number
of areas to improve the underlying
science. These include (1) enhanced
secondary organic aerosol (SOA)
mechanism to include chemistry of
isoprene, sesquiterpene, and aged incloud biogenic SOA in addition to
terpene; (2) improved vertical
convective mixing; (3) improved
heterogeneous reaction involving nitrate
formation; and (4) an updated gas-phase
chemistry mechanism, Carbon Bond 05
(CB05), with extensions to model
explicit concentrations of air toxic
species as well as chlorine and mercury.
This mechanism, CB05-toxics, also
computes concentrations of species that
are involved in aqueous chemistry and
that are precursors to aerosols. Section
3.3.3 of the DRIA for this proposal
discusses SOA formation and details
about the improvements made to the
SOA mechanism within this recent
release of CMAQ.
E. Health Effects of Criteria and Air
Toxic Pollutants
1. Particulate Matter
a. Background
Particulate matter (PM) represents a
broad class of chemically and physically
diverse substances. It can be principally
characterized as discrete particles that
exist in the condensed (liquid or solid)
phase spanning several orders of
magnitude in size. PM is further
described by breaking it down into size
fractions. PM10 refers to particles
generally less than or equal to 10
micrometers (μm) in aerodynamic
diameter. PM2.5 refers to fine particles,
generally less than or equal to 2.5 μm in
aerodynamic diameter. Inhalable (or
‘‘thoracic’’) coarse particles refer to
those particles generally greater than 2.5
μm but less than or equal to 10 μm in
aerodynamic diameter. Ultrafine PM
refers to particles less than 100
nanometers (0.1 μm) in aerodynamic
diameter. Larger particles tend to be
removed by the respiratory clearance
mechanisms (e.g., coughing), whereas
340 Aiyyer, A., Cohan, D., Russell, A., Stockwell,
W., Tanrikulu, S., Vizuete, W., Wilczak, J., 2007.
Final Report: Third Peer Review of the CMAQ
Model. p. 23.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
smaller particles are deposited deeper in
the lungs.
Fine particles are produced primarily
by combustion processes and by
transformations of gaseous emissions
(e.g., SOX, NOX and VOC) in the
atmosphere. The chemical and physical
properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly
with time, region, meteorology and
source category. Thus, PM2.5 may
include a complex mixture of different
pollutants including sulfates, nitrates,
organic compounds, elemental carbon
and metal compounds. These particles
can remain in the atmosphere for days
to weeks and travel hundreds to
thousands of kilometers.
b. Health Effects of PM
Scientific studies show ambient PM is
associated with a series of adverse
health effects. These health effects are
discussed in detail in the 2004 EPA
Particulate Matter Air Quality Criteria
Document (PM AQCD), and the 2005
PM Staff Paper.341 342 Further discussion
of health effects associated with PM can
also be found in the DRIA for this rule.
Health effects associated with shortterm exposures (hours to days) to
ambient PM include premature
mortality, increased hospital
admissions, heart and lung diseases,
increased cough, adverse lowerrespiratory symptoms, decrements in
lung function and changes in heart rate
rhythm and other cardiac effects.
Studies examining populations exposed
to different levels of air pollution over
a number of years, including the
Harvard Six Cities Study and the
American Cancer Society Study, show
associations between long-term
exposure to ambient PM2.5 and both
total and cardiovascular and respiratory
mortality.343 In addition, a reanalysis of
the American Cancer Society Study
shows an association between fine
particle and sulfate concentrations and
lung cancer mortality.344
341 U.S. EPA (2004) Air Quality Criteria for
Particulate Matter (Oct. 2004), Volume I Document
No. EPA600/P–99/002aF and Volume II Document
No. EPA600/P–99/002bF. This document is
available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161.
342 U.S. EPA (2005) Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate
Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and
Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA–
452/R–05–005. This document is available in
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161.
343 Dockery, D.W.; Pope, C.A. III: Xu, X.; et al.
1993. An association between air pollution and
mortality in six U.S. cities. N Engl J Med 329:1753–
1759.
344 Pope, C.A., III; Burnett, R.T.; Thun, M.J.; Calle,
E.E.; Krewski, D.; Ito, K.; Thurston, G.D. (2002)
Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and longterm exposure to fine particulate air pollution. J.
Am. Med. Assoc. 287:1132–1141.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
2. Ozone
a. Background
Ground-level ozone pollution is
typically formed by the reaction of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the lower
atmosphere in the presence of heat and
sunlight. These pollutants, often
referred to as ozone precursors, are
emitted by many types of pollution
sources, such as highway and nonroad
motor vehicles and engines, power
plants, chemical plants, refineries,
makers of consumer and commercial
products, industrial facilities, and
smaller area sources.
The science of ozone formation,
transport, and accumulation is
complex.345 Ground-level ozone is
produced and destroyed in a cyclical set
of chemical reactions, many of which
are sensitive to temperature and
sunlight. When ambient temperatures
and sunlight levels remain high for
several days and the air is relatively
stagnant, ozone and its precursors can
build up and result in more ozone than
typically occurs on a single hightemperature day. Ozone can be
transported hundreds of miles
downwind from precursor emissions,
resulting in elevated ozone levels even
in areas with low local VOC or NOX
emissions.
b. Health Effects of Ozone
The health and welfare effects of
ozone are well documented and are
assessed in EPA’s 2006 Ozone Air
Quality Criteria Document (ozone
AQCD) and 2007 Staff Paper.346 347
Ozone can irritate the respiratory
system, causing coughing, throat
irritation, and/or uncomfortable
sensation in the chest. Ozone can
reduce lung function and make it more
difficult to breathe deeply; breathing
345 U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., EPA 600/R–05/004aF–cF, 2006. This
document is available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2005–0161. This document may be accessed
electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/
standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html.
346 U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA 600/R–05/004aF–cF, 2006. This document is
available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161.
This document may be accessed electronically at:
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/
s_o3_cr_cd.html.
347 U.S. EPA (2007) Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Policy
Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information. OAQPS Staff Paper.EPA–452/R–07–
003. This document is available in Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2005–0161. This document is available
electronically at: http:www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/
standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_sp.html..
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25065
may also become more rapid and
shallow than normal, thereby limiting a
person’s activity. Ozone can also
aggravate asthma, leading to more
asthma attacks that require medical
attention and/or the use of additional
medication. In addition, there is
suggestive evidence of a contribution of
ozone to cardiovascular-related
morbidity and highly suggestive
evidence that short-term ozone exposure
directly or indirectly contributes to nonaccidental and cardiopulmonary-related
mortality, but additional research is
needed to clarify the underlying
mechanisms causing these effects. In a
recent report on the estimation of ozonerelated premature mortality published
by the National Research Council (NRC),
a panel of experts and reviewers
concluded that short-term exposure to
ambient ozone is likely to contribute to
premature deaths and that ozone-related
mortality should be included in
estimates of the health benefits of
reducing ozone exposure.348 Animal
toxicological evidence indicates that
with repeated exposure, ozone can
inflame and damage the lining of the
lungs, which may lead to permanent
changes in lung tissue and irreversible
reductions in lung function. People who
are more susceptible to effects
associated with exposure to ozone can
include children, the elderly, and
individuals with respiratory disease
such as asthma. Those with greater
exposures to ozone, for instance due to
time spent outdoors (e.g., children and
outdoor workers), are also of particular
concern.
The 2006 ozone AQCD also examined
relevant new scientific information that
has emerged in the past decade,
including the impact of ozone exposure
on such health effects as changes in
lung structure and biochemistry,
inflammation of the lungs, exacerbation
and causation of asthma, respiratory
illness-related school absence, hospital
admissions and premature mortality.
Animal toxicological studies have
suggested potential interactions between
ozone and PM, with increased responses
observed to mixtures of the two
pollutants compared to either ozone or
PM alone. The respiratory morbidity
observed in animal studies along with
the evidence from epidemiologic studies
supports a causal relationship between
acute ambient ozone exposures and
increased respiratory-related emergency
room visits and hospitalizations in the
warm season. In addition, there is
348 National Research Council (NRC), 2008.
Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic
Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. The
National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25066
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
suggestive evidence of a contribution of
ozone to cardiovascular-related
morbidity and non-accidental and
cardiopulmonary mortality.
3. Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) forms as a
result of incomplete fuel combustion.
CO enters the bloodstream through the
lungs, forming carboxyhemoglobin and
reducing the delivery of oxygen to the
body’s organs and tissues. The health
threat from CO is most serious for those
who suffer from cardiovascular disease,
particularly those with angina or
peripheral vascular disease. Healthy
individuals also are affected, but only at
higher CO levels. Exposure to elevated
CO levels is associated with impairment
of visual perception, work capacity,
manual dexterity, learning ability and
performance of complex tasks. Carbon
monoxide also contributes to ozone
nonattainment since carbon monoxide
reacts photochemically in the
atmosphere to form ozone.349
Additional information on CO related
health effects can be found in the
Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Criteria
Document (CO AQCD).350
4. Air Toxics
The population experiences an
elevated risk of cancer and noncancer
health effects from exposure to the class
of pollutants known collectively as ‘‘air
toxics.’’351 Fuel combustion contributes
to ambient levels of air toxics that can
include, but are not limited to,
acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3butadiene, formaldehyde, ethanol,
naphthalene and peroxyacetyl nitrate
(PAN). Acrolein, benzene, 1,3butadiene, formaldehyde and
naphthalene have significant
contributions from mobile sources and
were identified as national or regional
risk drivers in the 1999 National-scale
Air Toxics Assessment (NATA).352
PAN, which is formed from precursor
compounds by atmospheric processes,
is not assessed in NATA. Emissions and
ambient concentrations of compounds
are discussed in the DRIA chapter on
349 U.S. EPA (2000). Air Quality Criteria for
Carbon Monoxide, EPA/600/P–99/001F. This
document is available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2005–0161.
350 U.S. EPA (2000). Air Quality Criteria for
Carbon Monoxide, EPA/600/P–99/001F. This
document is available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2005–0161.
351 U. S. EPA. 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment. https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/
risksum.html
352 U.S. EPA. 2006. National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment for 1999. https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/
nata1999
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
emission inventories and air quality
(Chapter 3).
a. Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde is classified in EPA’s
IRIS database as a probable human
carcinogen, based on nasal tumors in
rats, and is considered toxic by the
inhalation, oral, and intravenous
routes.353 Acetaldehyde is reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen by
the U.S. DHHS in the 11th Report on
Carcinogens and is classified as possibly
carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) by
the IARC.354 355 EPA is currently
conducting a reassessment of cancer risk
from inhalation exposure to
acetaldehyde.
The primary noncancer effects of
exposure to acetaldehyde vapors
include irritation of the eyes, skin, and
respiratory tract.356 In short-term (4
week) rat studies, degeneration of
olfactory epithelium was observed at
various concentration levels of
acetaldehyde exposure.357 358 Data from
these studies were used by EPA to
develop an inhalation reference
concentration. Some asthmatics have
been shown to be a sensitive
subpopulation to decrements in
functional expiratory volume (FEV1
test) and bronchoconstriction upon
acetaldehyde inhalation.359 The agency
is currently conducting a reassessment
of the health hazards from inhalation
exposure to acetaldehyde.
b. Acrolein
EPA determined in 2003 that the
human carcinogenic potential of
353 U.S. EPA. 1991. Integrated Risk Information
System File of Acetaldehyde. Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is
available electronically at.
354 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services National Toxicology Program 11th Report
on Carcinogens available at: ntp.niehs.nih.gov/
index.cfm?objectid=32BA9724-F1F6-975E7FCE50709CB4C932.
355 International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC). 1999. Re-evaluation of some organic
chemicals, hydrazine, and hydrogen peroxide. IARC
Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk
of Chemical to Humans, Vol 71. Lyon, France.
356 U.S. EPA. 1991. Integrated Risk Information
System File of Acetaldehyde. This material is
available electronically at https://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0290.htm.
357 Appleman, L. M., R. A. Woutersen, V. J. Feron,
R. N. Hooftman, and W. R. F. Notten. 1986. Effects
of the variable versus fixed exposure levels on the
toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. J. Appl. Toxicol. 6:
331–336.
358 Appleman, L.M., R.A. Woutersen, and V.J.
Feron. 1982. Inhalation toxicity of acetaldehyde in
rats. I. Acute and subacute studies. Toxicology. 23:
293–297.
359 Myou, S.; Fujimura, M.; Nishi, K.; Ohka, T.;
and Matsuda, T. 1993. Aerosolized acetaldehyde
induces histamine-mediated bronchoconstriction in
asthmatics. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 148 (4 Pt 1): 940–
3.
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
acrolein could not be determined
because the available data were
inadequate. No information was
available on the carcinogenic effects of
acrolein in humans and the animal data
provided inadequate evidence of
carcinogenicity.360 The IARC
determined in 1995 that acrolein was
not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity
in humans.361
Acrolein is extremely acrid and
irritating to humans when inhaled, with
acute exposure resulting in upper
respiratory tract irritation, mucus
hypersecretion and congestion. Levels
considerably lower than 1 ppm (2.3 mg/
m3) elicit subjective complaints of eye
and nasal irritation and a decrease in
the respiratory rate.362 363 Lesions to the
lungs and upper respiratory tract of rats,
rabbits, and hamsters have been
observed after subchronic exposure to
acrolein. Based on animal data,
individuals with compromised
respiratory function (e.g., emphysema,
asthma) are expected to be at increased
risk of developing adverse responses to
strong respiratory irritants such as
acrolein. This was demonstrated in mice
with allergic airway disease by
comparison to non-diseased mice in a
study of the acute respiratory irritant
effects of acrolein.364
The intense irritancy of this carbonyl
has been demonstrated during
controlled tests in human subjects, who
suffer intolerable eye and nasal mucosal
sensory reactions within minutes of
exposure.365
c. Benzene
The EPA’s IRIS database lists benzene
as a known human carcinogen (causing
leukemia) by all routes of exposure, and
concludes that exposure is associated
with additional health effects, including
360 U.S. EPA. 2003. Integrated Risk Information
System File of Acrolein. Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is
available at https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/
0364.htm.
361 International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC). 1995. Monographs on the evaluation of
carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume
63, Dry cleaning, some chlorinated solvents and
other industrial chemicals, World Health
Organization, Lyon, France.
362 Weber-Tschopp, A.; Fischer, T.; Gierer, R.; et
al. (1977) Experimentelle reizwirkungen von
Acrolein auf den Menschen. Int Arch Occup
Environ Hlth 40(2):117–130. In German.
363 Sim, V.M.; Pattle, R.E. (1957) Effect of possible
smog irritants on human subjects. J Am Med Assoc
165(15):1908–1913.
364 Morris J.B., Symanowicz P.T., Olsen J.E., et al.
2003. Immediate sensory nerve-mediated
respiratory responses to irritants in healthy and
allergic airway-diseased mice. J Appl Physiol
94(4):1563–1571.
365 Sim V.M., Pattle R.E. Effect of possible smog
irritants on human subjects. JAMA 165:1980–2010,
1957.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
previously known.375 376 377 378 EPA’s
IRIS program has not yet evaluated
these new data.
genetic changes in both humans and
animals and increased proliferation of
bone marrow cells in mice.366 367 368 EPA
states in its IRIS database that data
indicate a causal relationship between
benzene exposure and acute
lymphocytic leukemia and suggest a
relationship between benzene exposure
and chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia
and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The
International Agency for Research on
Carcinogens (IARC) has determined that
benzene is a human carcinogen and the
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) has characterized
benzene as a known human
carcinogen.369 370
A number of adverse noncancer
health effects including blood disorders,
such as preleukemia and aplastic
anemia, have also been associated with
long-term exposure to benzene.371 372
The most sensitive noncancer effect
observed in humans, based on current
data, is the depression of the absolute
lymphocyte count in blood.373 374 In
addition, recent work, including studies
sponsored by the Health Effects Institute
(HEI), provides evidence that
biochemical responses are occurring at
lower levels of benzene exposure than
EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene
as carcinogenic to humans by
inhalation.379 380 The IARC has
determined that 1,3-butadiene is a
human carcinogen and the U.S. DHHS
has characterized 1,3-butadiene as a
known human carcinogen.381 382 There
are numerous studies consistently
demonstrating that 1,3-butadiene is
metabolized into genotoxic metabolites
by experimental animals and humans.
The specific mechanisms of 1,3butadiene-induced carcinogenesis are
unknown; however, the scientific
evidence strongly suggests that the
carcinogenic effects are mediated by
genotoxic metabolites. Animal data
suggest that females may be more
sensitive than males for cancer effects
associated with 1,3-butadiene exposure;
there are insufficient data in humans
from which to draw conclusions about
sensitive subpopulations. 1,3-butadiene
also causes a variety of reproductive and
developmental effects in mice; no
human data on these effects are
available. The most sensitive effect was
366 U.S. EPA. 2000. Integrated Risk Information
System File for Benzene. This material is available
electronically at https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/
0276.htm.
367 International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC). 1982. Monographs on the evaluation of
carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume
29, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, World
Health Organization, Lyon, France, p. 345–389.
368 Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.;
Henry, V.A. 1992. Synergistic action of the benzene
metabolite hydroquinone on myelopoietic
stimulating activity of granulocyte/macrophage
colony-stimulating factor in vitro, Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. 89:3691–3695.
369 International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC). 1987. Monographs on the evaluation of
carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume
29, Supplement 7, Some industrial chemicals and
dyestuffs, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
370 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services National Toxicology Program, 11th Report
on Carcinogens, available at: https://
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/16183.
371 Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and
carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health
Perspect. 82:193–197.
372 Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity.
Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews.
3:541–554.
373 Rothman, N., G.L. Li, M. Dosemeci, W.E.
Bechtold, G.E. Marti, Y.Z. Wang, M. Linet, L.Q. Xi,
W. Lu, M.T. Smith, N. Titenko-Holland, L.P. Zhang,
W. Blot, S.N. Yin, and R.B. Hayes (1996)
Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily
exposed to benzene. Am. J. Ind. Med. 29:236–246.
374 U.S. EPA (2002) Toxicological Review of
Benzene (Noncancer Effects). Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington
DC. This material is available electronically at
https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm.
375 Qu, O.; Shore, R.; Li, G.; Jin, X.; Chen, C.L.;
Cohen, B.; Melikian, A.; Eastmond, D.; Rappaport,
S.; Li, H.; Rupa, D.; Suramaya, R.; Songnian, W.;
Huifant, Y.; Meng, M.; Winnik, M.; Kwok, E.; Li, Y.;
Mu, R.; Xu, B.; Zhang, X.; Li, K. (2003) HEI Report
115, Validation & Evaluation of Biomarkers in
Workers Exposed to Benzene in China.
376 Qu, Q., R. Shore, G. Li, X. Jin, L.C. Chen, B.
Cohen, et al. (2002) Hematological changes among
Chinese workers with a broad range of benzene
exposures. Am. J. Industr. Med. 42:275–285.
377 Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et
al. (2004) Hematotoxicity in Workers Exposed to
Low Levels of Benzene. Science 306:1774–1776.
378 Turtletaub, K.W. and Mani, C. (2003) Benzene
metabolism in rodents at doses relevant to human
exposure from Urban Air. Research Reports Health
Effect Inst. Report No. 113.
379 U.S. EPA (2002) Health Assessment of 1,3–
Butadiene. Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report No.
EPA600–P–98–001F. This document is available
electronically at https://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/
buta-sup.pdf.
380 U.S. EPA (2002) Full IRIS Summary for 1,3butadiene (CASRN 106–99–0). Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington,
DC, https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm.
381 International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) (1999) Monographs on the evaluation of
carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume
71, Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals,
hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide and Volume 97
(in preparation), World Health Organization, Lyon,
France.
382 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (2005) National Toxicology Program, 11th
Report on Carcinogens, available at: https://
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=32BA9724–
F1F6–975E–7FCE50709CB4C932.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
d. 1,3-Butadiene
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25067
ovarian atrophy observed in a lifetime
bioassay of female mice.383
e. Ethanol
EPA is conducting an assessment of
the cancer and noncancer effects of
exposure to ethanol, a compound which
is not currently listed in EPA’s IRIS. A
description of these effects to the extent
that information is available will be
presented, as required by Section 1505
of EPAct, in a report to Congress on
public health, air quality and water
resource impacts of fuel additives. We
expect to release that report in 2009.
Extensive data are available regarding
adverse health effects associated with
the ingestion of ethanol while data on
inhalation exposure effects are sparse.
As part of the IRIS assessment,
pharmacokinetic models are being
evaluated as a means of extrapolating
across species (animal to human) and
across exposure routes (oral to
inhalation) to better characterize the
health hazards and dose-response
relationships for low levels of ethanol
exposure in the environment.
The IARC has classified ‘‘alcoholic
beverages’’ as carcinogenic to humans
based on sufficient evidence that
malignant tumors of the mouth,
pharynx, larynx, esophagus, and liver
are causally related to the consumption
of alcoholic beverages.384 The U.S.
DHHS in the 11th Report on
Carcinogens also identified ‘‘alcoholic
beverages’’ as a known human
carcinogen (they have not evaluated the
cancer risks specifically from exposure
to ethanol), with evidence for cancer of
the mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus,
liver and breast.385 There are no studies
reporting carcinogenic effects from
inhalation of ethanol. EPA is currently
evaluating the available human and
animal cancer data to identify which
cancer type(s) are the most relevant to
an assessment of risk to humans from a
low-level oral and inhalation exposure
to ethanol.
Noncancer health effects data are
available from animal studies as well as
epidemiologic studies. The
epidemiologic data are obtained from
studies of alcoholic beverage
383 Bevan, C.; Stadler, J.C.; Elliot, G.S.; et al.
(1996) Subchronic toxicity of 4-vinylcyclohexene in
rats and mice by inhalation. Fundam. Appl.
Toxicol. 32:1–10.
384 International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC). 1988. Monographs on the evaluation of
carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume
44, Alcohol Drinking, World Health Organization,
Lyon, France.
385 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. 2005. National Toxicology Program 11th
Report on Carcinogens available at:
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=32BA9724F1F6-975E-7FCE50709CB4C932.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25068
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
consumption. Effects include
neurological impairment,
developmental effects, cardiovascular
effects, immune system depression, and
effects on the liver, pancreas and
reproductive system.386 There is
evidence that children prenatally
exposed via mothers’ ingestion of
alcoholic beverages during pregnancy
are at increased risk of hyperactivity
and attention deficits, impaired motor
coordination, a lack of regulation of
social behavior or poor psychosocial
functioning, and deficits in cognition,
mathematical ability, verbal fluency,
and spatial
memory.387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 In some
people, genetic factors influencing the
metabolism of ethanol can lead to
differences in internal levels of ethanol
and may render some subpopulations
more susceptible to risks from the
effects of ethanol.
f. Formaldehyde
Since 1987, EPA has classified
formaldehyde as a probable human
carcinogen based on evidence in
humans and in rats, mice, hamsters, and
monkeys.395 EPA is currently reviewing
recently published epidemiological
data. For instance, research conducted
by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)
found an increased risk of
nasopharyngeal cancer and
386 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. 2000. 10th Special Report to the U.S.
Congress on Alcohol and Health. June 2000.
387 Goodlett CR, KH Horn, F Zhou. 2005. Alcohol
teratogenesis: mechanisms of damage and strategies
for intervention. Exp. Biol. Med. 230:394–406.
388 Riley EP, CL McGee. 2005. Fetal alcohol
spectrum disorders: an overview with emphasis on
changes in brain and behavior. Exp. Biol. Med.
230:357–365.
389 Zhang X, JH Sliwowska, J Weinberg. 2005.
Prenatal alcohol exposure and fetal programming:
effects on neuroendocrine and immune function.
Exp. Biol. Med. 230:376–388.
390 Riley EP, CL McGee, ER Sowell. 2004.
Teratogenic effects of alcohol: a decade of brain
imaging. Am. J. Med. Genet. Part C: Semin. Med.
Genet. 127:35–41.
391 Gunzerath L, V Faden, S Zakhari, K Warren.
2004. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism report on moderate drinking. Alcohol.
Clin. Exp. Res. 28:829–847.
392 World Health Organization (WHO). 2004.
Global status report on alcohol 2004. Geneva,
Switzerland: Department of Mental Health and
Substance Abuse. Available: https://www.who.int/
substance_abuse/publications/
global_status_report_2004_overview.pdf.
393 Chen W–JA, SE Maier, SE Parnell, FR West.
2003. Alcohol and the developing brain:
neuroanatomical studies. Alcohol Res. Health
27:174–180.
394 Driscoll CD, AP Streissguth, EP Riley. 1990.
Prenatal alcohol exposure comparability of effects
in humans and animal models. Neurotoxicol.
Teratol. 12:231–238.
395 U.S. EPA (1987) Assessment of Health Risks
to Garment Workers and Certain Home Residents
from Exposure to Formaldehyde, Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, April 1987.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
lymphohematopoietic malignancies
such as leukemia among workers
exposed to formaldehyde.396 397 NCI is
currently performing an update of these
studies. A recent National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) study of garment workers also
found increased risk of death due to
leukemia among workers exposed to
formaldehyde.398 Extended follow-up of
a cohort of British chemical workers did
not find evidence of an increase in
nasopharyngeal or
lymphohematopoietic cancers, but a
continuing statistically significant
excess in lung cancers was reported.399
Recently, the IARC re-classified
formaldehyde as a human carcinogen
(Group 1).400
Formaldehyde exposure also causes a
range of noncancer health effects,
including irritation of the eyes (burning
and watering of the eyes), nose and
throat. Effects from repeated exposure in
humans include respiratory tract
irritation, chronic bronchitis and nasal
epithelial lesions such as metaplasia
and loss of cilia. Animal studies suggest
that formaldehyde may also cause
airway inflammation—including
eosinophil infiltration into the airways.
There are several studies that suggest
that formaldehyde may increase the risk
of asthma—particularly in the
young.401 402
g. Naphthalene
Naphthalene is found in small
quantities in gasoline and diesel fuels.
396 Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.;
Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from
lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers
in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National
Cancer Institute 95: 1615–1623.
397 Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.;
Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2004. Mortality from solid
cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries.
American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 1117–1130.
398 Pinkerton, L. E. 2004. Mortality among a
cohort of garment workers exposed to
formaldehyde: an update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61:
193–200.
399 Coggon, D, EC Harris, J Poole, KT Palmer.
2003. Extended follow-up of a cohort of British
chemical workers exposed to formaldehyde. J
National Cancer Inst. 95:1608–1615.
400 International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC). 2006. Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and
1-tert-Butoxypropan-2-ol. Volume 88. (in
preparation), World Health Organization, Lyon,
France.
401 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological profile for
Formaldehyde. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111.html.
402 WHO (2002) Concise International Chemical
Assessment Document 40: Formaldehyde.
Published under the joint sponsorship of the United
Nations Environment Programme, the International
Labour Organization, and the World Health
Organization, and produced within the framework
of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound
Management of Chemicals. Geneva.
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Naphthalene emissions have been
measured in larger quantities in both
gasoline and diesel exhaust compared
with evaporative emissions from mobile
sources, indicating it is primarily a
product of combustion. EPA released an
external review draft of a reassessment
of the inhalation carcinogenicity of
naphthalene based on a number of
recent animal carcinogenicity
studies.403 The draft reassessment
completed external peer review.404
Based on external peer review
comments received, additional analyses
are being undertaken. This external
review draft does not represent official
agency opinion and was released solely
for the purposes of external peer review
and public comment. Once EPA
evaluates public and peer reviewer
comments, the document will be
revised. The National Toxicology
Program listed naphthalene as
‘‘reasonably anticipated to be a human
carcinogen’’ in 2004 on the basis of
bioassays reporting clear evidence of
carcinogenicity in rats and some
evidence of carcinogenicity in mice.405
California EPA has released a new risk
assessment for naphthalene, and the
IARC has reevaluated naphthalene and
re-classified it as Group 2B: possibly
carcinogenic to humans.406 Naphthalene
also causes a number of chronic noncancer effects in animals, including
abnormal cell changes and growth in
respiratory and nasal tissues.407
h. Peroxyacetyl Nitrate (PAN)
Peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) has not
been evaluated by EPA’s IRIS program.
Information regarding the potential
carcinogenicity of PAN is limited. As
noted in the EPA air quality criteria
403 U.S. EPA. 2004. Toxicological Review of
Naphthalene (Reassessment of the Inhalation
Cancer Risk), Environmental Protection Agency,
Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is
available electronically at https://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0436.htm.
404 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.
(2004). External Peer Review for the IRIS
Reassessment of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of
Naphthalene. August 2004. https://cfpub.epa.gov/
ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=84403.
405 National Toxicology Program (NTP). (2004).
11th Report on Carcinogens. Public Health Service,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Research Triangle Park, NC. Available from:
https://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov.
406 International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC). (2002). Monographs on the Evaluation of
the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals for Humans.
Vol. 82, Lyon, France.
407 U.S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of
Naphthalene, Environmental Protection Agency,
Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is
available electronically at https://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0436.htm.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
document for ozone and related
photochemical oxidants, cytogenetic
studies indicate that PAN is not a potent
mutagen, clastogen (a compound that
can cause breaks in chromosomes), or
DNA-damaging agent in mammalian
cells either in vivo or in vitro. Some
studies suggest that PAN may be a weak
bacterial mutagen at high concentrations
much higher than exist in present urban
atmospheres.408
Effects of ground-level smog causing
intense eye irritation have been
attributed to photochemical oxidants,
including PAN.409 Animal toxicological
information on the inhalation effects of
the non-ozone oxidants has been limited
to a few studies on PAN. Acute
exposure to levels of PAN can cause
changes in lung morphology, behavioral
modifications, weight loss, and
susceptibility to pulmonary infections.
Human exposure studies indicate minor
pulmonary function effects at high PAN
concentrations, but large interindividual variability precludes
definitive conclusions.410
i. Other Air Toxics
In addition to the compounds
described above, other compounds in
gaseous hydrocarbon and PM emissions
from vehicles will be affected by today’s
proposed action. Mobile source air toxic
compounds that will potentially be
impacted include ethylbenzene,
polycyclic organic matter,
propionaldehyde, toluene, and xylene.
Information regarding the health effects
of these compounds can be found in
EPA’s IRIS database.411
F. Environmental Effects of Criteria and
Air Toxic Pollutants
In this section we discuss some of the
environmental effects of PM and its
precursors, such as visibility
408 U.S. EPA. 2006. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Ozone CD).
Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center for
Environmental Assessment; report no. EPA/600/R–
05/004aF–cF.3v. page 5–78. Available at https://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/.
409 U.S. EPA. 2006. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA 600/R–05/004aF–cF. pages 5–63. This
document is available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2005–0161. This document may be accessed
electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/
standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html.
410 U.S. EPA. 2006. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA 600/R–05/004aF–cF. pages 5–78. This
document is available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2005–0161. This document may be accessed
electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/
standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html.
411 U.S. EPA. Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) database is available at: www.epa.gov/iris.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
impairment, atmospheric deposition,
and materials damage and soiling, as
well as environmental effects associated
with the presence of ozone in the
ambient air, such as impacts on plants,
including trees, agronomic crops and
urban ornamentals, and environmental
effects associated with air toxics.
1. Visibility
Visibility can be defined as the degree
to which the atmosphere is transparent
to visible light.412 Airborne particles
degrade visibility by scattering and
absorbing light. Visibility is important
because it has direct significance to
people’s enjoyment of daily activities in
all parts of the country. Individuals
value good visibility for the well-being
it provides them directly, where they
live and work, and in places where they
enjoy recreational opportunities.
Visibility is also highly valued in
natural areas such as national parks and
wilderness areas and special emphasis
is given to protecting visibility in these
areas. For more information on visibility
see the final 2004 PM AQCD as well as
the 2005 PM Staff Paper.413 414
EPA is pursuing a two-part strategy to
address visibility. First, to address the
welfare effects of PM on visibility, EPA
has set secondary PM2.5 standards
which act in conjunction with the
establishment of a regional haze
program. In setting this secondary
standard EPA has concluded that PM2.5
causes adverse effects on visibility in
various locations, depending on PM
concentrations and factors such as
chemical composition and average
relative humidity. Second, section 169
of the Clean Air Act provides additional
authority to address existing visibility
impairment and prevent future visibility
impairment in the 156 national parks,
forests and wilderness areas categorized
as mandatory class I federal areas (62 FR
38680–81, July 18, 1997).415 In July
412 National Research Council, 1993. Protecting
Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas.
National Academy of Sciences Committee on Haze
in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC. This document is
available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161.
This book can be viewed on the National Academy
Press Web site at https://www.nap.edu/books/
0309048443/html/.
413 U.S. EPA (2004) Air Quality Criteria for
Particulate Matter (Oct 2004), Volume I Document
No. EPA600/P–99/002aF and Volume II Document
No. EPA600/P–99/002bF. This document is
available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161.
414 U.S. EPA (2005) Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate
Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and
Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA–
452/R–05–005. This document is available in
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161.
415 These areas are defined in CAA section 162 as
those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres,
PO 00000
Frm 00167
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25069
1999 the regional haze rule (64 FR
35714) was put in place to protect
visibility in mandatory class I federal
areas. Visibility can be said to be
impaired in both PM2.5 nonattainment
areas and mandatory class I federal
areas.
2. Atmospheric Deposition
Wet and dry deposition of ambient
particulate matter delivers a complex
mixture of metals (e.g., mercury, zinc,
lead, nickel, aluminum, cadmium),
organic compounds (e.g., POM, dioxins,
furans) and inorganic compounds (e.g.,
nitrate, sulfate) to terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems. The chemical form of the
compounds deposited depends on a
variety of factors including ambient
conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity,
oxidant levels) and the sources of the
material. Chemical and physical
transformations of the particulate
compounds occur in the atmosphere as
well as the media onto which they
deposit. These transformations in turn
influence the fate, bioavailability and
potential toxicity of these compounds.
Atmospheric deposition has been
identified as a key component of the
environmental and human health
hazard posed by several pollutants
including mercury, dioxin and PCBs.416
Adverse impacts on water quality can
occur when atmospheric contaminants
deposit to the water surface or when
material deposited on the land enters a
waterbody through runoff. Potential
impacts of atmospheric deposition to
waterbodies include those related to
both nutrient and toxic inputs. Adverse
effects to human health and welfare can
occur from the addition of excess
particulate nitrate nutrient enrichment,
which contributes to toxic algae blooms
and zones of depleted oxygen, which
can lead to fish kills, frequently in
coastal waters. Particles contaminated
with heavy metals or other toxins may
lead to the ingestion of contaminated
fish, ingestion of contaminated water,
damage to the marine ecology, and
limits to recreational uses. Several
studies have been conducted in U.S.
coastal waters and in the Great Lakes
Region in which the role of ambient PM
deposition and runoff is
wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding
5,000 acres, and all international parks which were
in existence on August 7, 1977.
416 U.S. EPA (2000) Deposition of Air Pollutants
to the Great Waters: Third Report to Congress.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA–
453/R–00–0005. This document is available in
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25070
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
investigated.417 418 419 420 421 In addition,
the process of acidification affects both
freshwater aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. Acid deposition causes
acidification of sensitive surface waters.
The effects of acid deposition on aquatic
systems depend largely upon the ability
of the ecosystem to neutralize the
additional acid. As acidity increases,
aluminum leached from soils and
sediments, flows into lakes and streams
and can be toxic to both terrestrial and
aquatic biota. The lower pH
concentrations and higher aluminum
levels resulting from acidification make
it difficult for some fish and other
aquatic organisms to survive, grow, and
reproduce.
Adverse impacts on soil chemistry
and plant life have been observed for
areas heavily influenced by atmospheric
deposition of nutrients, metals and acid
species, resulting in species shifts, loss
of biodiversity, forest decline and
damage to forest productivity. Potential
impacts also include adverse effects to
human health through ingestion of
contaminated vegetation or livestock (as
in the case for dioxin deposition),
reduction in crop yield, and limited use
of land due to contamination. Research
on effects of acid deposition on forest
ecosystems has come to focus
increasingly on the biogeochemical
processes that affect uptake, retention,
and cycling of nutrients within these
ecosystems. Decreases in available base
cations from soils are at least partly
attributable to acid deposition. Base
cation depletion is a cause for concern
because of the role these ions play in
acid neutralization and because
calcium, magnesium and potassium are
essential nutrients for plant growth and
physiology. Changes in the relative
proportions of these nutrients,
especially in comparison with
aluminum concentrations, have been
associated with declining forest health.
417 U.S. EPA (2004) National Coastal Condition
Report II. Office of Research and Development/
Office of Water. EPA–620/R–03/002. This document
is available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161.
418 Gao, Y., E.D. Nelson, M.P. Field, et al. 2002.
Characterization of atmospheric trace elements on
PM2.5 particulate matter over the New York-New
Jersey harbor estuary. Atmos. Environ. 36: 1077–
1086.
419 Kim, G., N. Hussain, J.R. Scudlark, and T.M.
Church. 2000. Factors influencing the atmospheric
depositional fluxes of stable Pb, 210Pb, and 7Be
into Chesapeake Bay. J. Atmos. Chem. 36: 65–79.
420 Lu, R., R.P. Turco, K. Stolzenbach, et al. 2003.
Dry deposition of airborne trace metals on the Los
Angeles Basin and adjacent coastal waters. J.
Geophys. Res. 108(D2, 4074): AAC 11–1 to 11–24.
421 Marvin, C.H., M.N. Charlton, E.J. Reiner, et al.
2002. Surficial sediment contamination in Lakes
Erie and Ontario: A comparative analysis. J. Great
Lakes Res. 28(3): 437–450.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
The deposition of airborne particles
can reduce the aesthetic appeal of
buildings and culturally important
articles through soiling and can
contribute directly (or in conjunction
with other pollutants) to structural
damage by means of corrosion or
erosion.422 Particles affect materials
principally by promoting and
accelerating the corrosion of metals, by
degrading paints, and by deteriorating
building materials such as concrete and
limestone. Particles contribute to these
effects because of their electrolytic,
hygroscopic, and acidic properties and
their ability to adsorb corrosive gases
(principally sulfur dioxide). The rate of
metal corrosion depends on a number of
factors, including: The deposition rate
and nature of the pollutant; the
influence of the metal protective
corrosion film; the amount of moisture
present; variability in the
electrochemical reactions; the presence
and concentration of other surface
electrolytes; and the orientation of the
metal surface.
3. Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone
Ozone contributes to many
environmental effects, with impacts to
plants and ecosystems being of most
concern. Ozone can produce both acute
and chronic injury in sensitive species
depending on the concentration level
and the duration of the exposure. Ozone
effects also tend to accumulate over the
growing season of the plant, so that even
lower concentrations experienced for a
longer duration have the potential to
create chronic stress on vegetation.
Ozone damage to plants includes visible
injury to leaves and a reduction in food
production through impaired
photosynthesis, both of which can lead
to reduced crop yields, forestry
production, and use of sensitive
ornamentals in landscaping. In addition,
the reduced food production in plants
and subsequent reduced root growth
and storage below ground can result in
other, more subtle plant and ecosystems
impacts. These include increased
susceptibility of plants to insect attack,
disease, harsh weather, interspecies
competition and overall decreased plant
vigor. The adverse effects of ozone on
forest and other natural vegetation can
potentially lead to species shifts and
loss from the affected ecosystems,
resulting in a loss or reduction in
associated ecosystem goods and
services. Last, visible ozone injury to
422 U.S. EPA (2005). Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and
Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. This
document is available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2005–0161.
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
leaves can result in a loss of aesthetic
value in areas of special scenic
significance like national parks and
wilderness areas. The final 2006 Ozone
Air Quality Criteria Document presents
more detailed information on ozone
effects on vegetation and ecosystems.
4. Welfare Effects of Air Toxics
Fuel combustion emissions contribute
to ambient levels of pollutants that
contribute to adverse effects on
vegetation. PAN is a well-established
phytotoxicant causing visible injury to
leaves that can appear as metallic
glazing on the lower surface of leaves
with some leafy vegetables exhibiting
particular sensitivity (e.g., spinach,
lettuce, chard).423 424 425 PAN has been
demonstrated to inhibit photosynthetic
and non-photosynthetic processes in
plants and retard the growth of young
navel orange trees.426 427 In addition to
its oxidizing capability, PAN
contributes nitrogen to forests and other
vegetation via uptake as well as dry and
wet deposition to surfaces. As noted in
Section X, nitrogen deposition can lead
to saturation of terrestrial ecosystems
and research is needed to understand
the impacts of excess nitrogen
deposition experienced in some areas of
the country on water quality and
ecosystems.428
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
some of which are considered air toxics,
have long been suspected to play a role
in vegetation damage.429 In laboratory
experiments, a wide range of tolerance
to VOCs has been observed.430
Decreases in harvested seed pod weight
423 Nouchi I, S Toyama. 1998. Effects of ozone
and peroxyacetyl nitrate on polar lipids and fatty
acids in leaves of morning glory and kidney bean.
Plant Physiol. 87:638–646.
424 Oka E, Y Tagami, T Oohashi, N Kondo. 2004.
A physiological and morphological study on the
injury caused by exposure to the air pollutant,
peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN), based on the
quantitative assessment of the injury. J Plant Res.
117:27–36.
425 Sun E-J, M-H Huang. 1995. Detection of
peroxyacetyl nitrate at phytotoxic level and its
effects on vegetation in Taiwan. Atmos. Env.
29:2899–2904.
426 Koukol J, WM Dugger, Jr., RL Palmer. 1967.
Inhibitory effect of peroxyacetyl nitrate on cyclic
photophosphorylation by chloroplasts from black
valentine bean leaves. Plant Physiol. 42:1419–1422.
427 Thompson CR, G Kats. 1975. Effects of
ambient concentrations of peroxyacetyl nitrate on
navel orange trees. Env. Sci. Technol. 9:35–38.
428 Bytnerowicz A, ME Fenn. 1995. Nitrogen
deposition in California forests: A Review. Environ.
Pollut. 92:127–146.
429 U.S. EPA. 1991. Effects of organic chemicals
in the atmosphere on terrestrial plants. EPA/600/3–
91/001.
430 Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M
Donkin, M Skewes, DN Price, AR Brown, AD
Sharpe. 2003. Effects of VOCs on herbaceous plants
in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ.
Pollut. 124:341–343.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25071
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
have been reported for the more
sensitive plants, and some studies have
reported effects on seed germination,
flowering and fruit ripening. Effects of
individual VOCs or their role in
conjunction with other stressors (e.g.,
acidification, drought, temperature
extremes) have not been well studied. In
a recent study of a mixture of VOCs
including ethanol and toluene on
herbaceous plants, significant effects on
seed production, leaf water content and
photosynthetic efficiency were reported
for some plant species.431
Research suggests an adverse impact
of vehicle exhaust on plants, which has
in some cases been attributed to
aromatic compounds and in other cases
to nitrogen oxides.432 433 434 The impacts
of VOCs on plant reproduction may
have long-term implications for
biodiversity and survival of native
species near major roadways. Most of
the studies of the impacts of VOCs on
vegetation have focused on short-term
exposure and few studies have focused
on long-term effects of VOCs on
vegetation and the potential for
metabolites of these compounds to
affect herbivores or insects.
VIII. Impacts on Cost of Renewable
Fuels, Gasoline, and Diesel
We have assessed the impacts of the
renewable fuel volumes required by
EISA on their costs and on the costs of
the gasoline and diesel fuels into which
the renewable fuels will be blended.
More details of feedstock costs are
addressed in Section X.A.
A. Renewable Fuel Production Costs
1. Ethanol Production Costs
a. Corn Ethanol
A significant amount of work has
been done in the last decade surveying
and modeling the costs involved in
producing ethanol from corn in order 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 models
developed and maintained by USDA.
Their work has been described in a
peer-reviewed journal paper on cost
modeling of the dry-grind corn ethanol
process, and compares well with cost
information found in surveys of existing
plants.435 436
For our policy case scenario, we used
corn prices of $3.34/bu in 2022 with
corresponding DDGS prices of $139.78/
ton (all 2006$). These estimates are
taken from agricultural economics
modeling work done for this proposal
using the Forestry and Agricultural
Sector Optimization Model (see Section
IX.A).
For natural gas-fired ethanol
production producing dried co-product
(currently describes the largest fraction
of the industry), in the policy case corn
feedstock minus DDGS sale credit
represents about 57% of the final pergallon cost, while utilities, facility, and
labor comprise about 22%, 11%, and
4%, respectively. Thus, the cost of
ethanol production is most sensitive to
the prices of corn and the primary coproduct, DDGS, and relatively
insensitive to economy of scale over the
range of plant sizes typically seen (40–
100 MMgal/yr).
We expect that several process fuels
will be used to produce corn ethanol
(see DRIA Section 1.4), which are
presented by their projected 2022
volume production share in Table
VIII.A.1–1a and cost impacts for each in
Table VIII.A.1–1b.437 We request
comment on the projected mix of plant
fuel sources in the future as well as the
cost impacts of various technologies.
TABLE VIII.A.1–1a—PROJECTED 2022 BREAKDOWN OF FUEL TYPES USED TO ESTIMATE PRODUCTION COST OF CORN
ETHANOL, PERCENT SHARE OF TOTAL PRODUCTION VOLUME
Fuel type
Plant type
Total by
plant type
Biomass
(percent)
Coal
(percent)
Natural gas
(percent)
Biogas
(percent)
Coal/Biomass Boiler .............................................................
Coal/Biomass Boiler + CHP ................................................
Natural Gas Boiler ...............................................................
Natural Gas Boiler + CHP ...................................................
11
10
........................
........................
0
4
........................
........................
........................
........................
49
12
........................
........................
14
........................
11
14
63
12
Total by Fuel Type ........................................................
21
4
61
14
100
All fuels
(percent)
TABLE VIII.A.1–1b—PROJECTED 2022 BREAKDOWN OF COST IMPACTS BY FUEL TYPE USED IN ESTIMATING PRODUCTION
COST OF CORN ETHANOL, DOLLARS PER GALLON RELATIVE TO NATURAL GAS BASELINE
Fuel type
Total by
plant type
Plant type
Biomass a
Coal/Biomass Boiler .............................................................
Coal/Biomass Boiler + CHP ................................................
Natural Gas Boiler ...............................................................
431 Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M
Donkin, M Skewes, DN Price, AR Brown, AD
Sharpe. 2003. Effects of VOCs on herbaceous plants
in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ.
Pollut. 124:341–343.
432 Viskari E-L. 2000. Epicuticular wax of Norway
spruce needles as indicator of traffic pollutant
deposition. Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 121:327–
337.
433 Ugrekhelidze D, F Korte, G Kvesitadze. 1997.
Uptake and transformation of benzene and toluene
by plant leaves. Ecotox. Environ. Safety 37:24–29.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Coal
Natural gas
Biogas b
All fuels
¥$0.02
+$0.14
........................
¥$0.02
+$0.14
........................
........................
........................
baseline
........................
........................
+$0.00
........................
........................
........................
434 Kammerbauer H, H Selinger, R Rommelt, A
Ziegler-Jons, D Knoppik, B Hock. 1987. Toxic
components of motor vehicle emissions for the
spruce Pciea abies. Environ. Pollut. 48:235–243.
435 Kwaitkowski, J.R., Macon, A., Taylor, F.,
Johnston, D.B.; Industrial Crops and Products 23
(2006) 288–296.
436 Shapouri, H., Gallagher, P.; USDA’s 2002
Ethanol Cost-of-Production Survey (published July
2005).
PO 00000
Frm 00169
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
437 Projected fuel mix was taken from Mueller, S.,
Energy Research Center at the University of
Chicago; An Analysis of the Projected Energy Use
of Future Dry Mill Corn Ethanol Plants (2010–
2030); cost estimates were derived from
modifications to the USDA process models. We are
aware that the cost impacts of CHP are likely
overestimated here and will be revised in the final
rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25072
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.A.1–1b—PROJECTED 2022 BREAKDOWN OF COST IMPACTS BY FUEL TYPE USED IN ESTIMATING PRODUCTION
COST OF CORN ETHANOL, DOLLARS PER GALLON RELATIVE TO NATURAL GAS BASELINE—Continued
Fuel type
Total by
plant type
Plant type
Biomass a
Coal
Natural Gas Boiler + CHP ...................................................
........................
........................
Total by Fuel Type ........................................................
........................
........................
Biogas b
All fuels
+$0.16
........................
........................
........................
........................
$0.04
Natural gas
a Assumes
biomass has same plant-delivered cost as coal.
b Assumes biogas has same plant-delivered cost as natural gas.
Based on energy prices from EIA’s
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2008
baseline case ($53/bbl crude oil), we
arrive at a production cost of $1.49/gal.
In the case of EIA’s high price scenario
($92/bbl crude), this figure increases by
6 cents per gallon. More details on the
ethanol production cost estimates can
be found in Chapter 4 of the DRIA. This
estimate 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. The
capital cost for a 65 MMgal/yr natural
gas fired dry mill plant is estimated at
$89MM (this the projected average size
of such plants in 2022). Similarly, coal
and biomass fired plants were assumed
to be 110 MGY in capacity, with an
estimated capital cost of $200MM.438
On average, ethanol produced in a
facility using coal or biomass as a
primary energy source results in a pergallon cost $0.02/gal lower compared to
production using natural gas.
In this cost estimation work, we did
not assume any pelletizing of DDGS.
Pelletizing is expected to improve ease
of shipment to more distant markets,
which may become more important at
the larger volumes projected for the
future. However, while many in
industry are aware of this technology,
those we spoke with are not employing
it in their plants, and do not expect
widespread use in the foreseeable
future. According to USDA’s model,
pelletizing adds $0.035/gal to the
ethanol production cost. We request
comment on whether pelletizing should
be included in our program cost
estimates.
In support of our biodiesel and
renewable diesel volume feasibility
estimates, we included recovery of corn
oil from distillers’ grains streams in our
ethanol production cost estimates at a
438 Capital
costs for a natural gas fired plant were
taken from USDA cost model; incremental costs to
use coal as the primary energy source were derived
from conversations with ethanol plant construction
contractors.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
rate of 37% of ethanol production by
2022.439 According to economic
analyses done by USDA based on the GS
Cleantech corn oil extraction process,
the capital cost to install the system for
a 50 MMgal/yr ethanol plant is
approximately $6 million. The system is
capable of extracting about one third of
the corn oil entering the plant, and
produces a low-quality corn oil coproduct stream. In our analysis, we
assumed the value of this additional coproduct to be 70% that of soy oil (the
same as yellow grease, $0.27/lb),
resulting in a credit per gallon of
ethanol of $0.04 for a 50 MMgal/yr plant
operating such a system.
Note that the ethanol production cost
given here does not account for any
subsidies on production or sale of
ethanol, and is independent of the
market price of ethanol.
b. Cellulosic Ethanol
i. Feedstock Costs
Cellulosic Feedstock Costs
To estimate the cost of producing
cellulosic biofuels, it was first necessary
to estimate the cost of harvesting,
storing, processing and transporting the
feedstocks to the biofuel production
facilities. Ethanol or other cellulosic
biofuels can be produced from crop
residues such as corn stover, wheat,
rice, oat, and barley straw, sugar cane
bagasse, and sorghum, from other
cellulosic plant matter such as forest
thinnings and forest-fuel removal,
pulping residues, and from the
cellulosic portions of municipal solid
waste (MSW). Currently, there are no
energy crops such as switchgrass nor
short rotation woody crops (SRWC
poplars, etc.) grown specifically for
energy production.
Our feedstock supply analysis
projected that crop residue, primarily
corn stover, will be the most abundant
439 Although some oil extraction may be done as
front-end fractionation of the kernel, we believe the
majority will be produced via separation from
distillers’ grains streams. For more discussion of
corn oil extraction and fractionation, see Chapter 4
of the DRIA.
PO 00000
Frm 00170
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of the cellulosic feedstocks, comprising
about 61% of the total biomass
feedstock inventory. Forest residues
make up about 25% of the total, and
MSW makes up the remaining 14%. At
present, there are no commercial sized
cellulosic ethanol plants in the U.S.
Likewise, there are no commercially
proven, fully-integrated feedstock
supply systems dedicated to providing
any of the feedstocks we mentioned to
ethanol facilities of any size, although
certain biomass is harvested for other
purposes. For this reason, our feedstock
cost estimates are projections and not
based on any existing market data.
Our feedstock costs include an
additional preprocessing cost that many
other feedstock cost estimates do not
include—thus our costs may seem
higher. We used biofuel plant cost
estimates provided by NREL which no
longer includes the cost for finely
grinding the feedstock prior to feeding
it to the biofuel plant. Thus, our
feedstock costs include an $11 per dry
ton cost to account for the costs of this
grinding operation, regardless of
whether this operation occurs in the
field or at the plant gate.
Crop Residue and Energy Crops
Crop residue harvest is currently a
secondary harvest; that is they are
harvested or gathered only after the
prime crop has been harvested. In most
northern areas, the harvest periods will
be short due to the onset of winter
weather. In some cases, it may be
necessary to gather a full year’s worth of
residue within just a few weeks.
Consequently, to accomplish this
hundreds of pieces of farm equipment
will be required for a few weeks each
year to complete a harvest. Winter
conditions in the South make it
somewhat easier to extend the harvest
periods; in some cases, it may be
possible to harvest a residue on an as
needed basis.
During the corn grain harvest,
generally only the cob and the leaves
above the cob are taken into the
harvester. Thus, the stover harvest
would likely require some portion of the
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
standing-stalks be mowed or shredded,
following which the entire residue,
including that discharged from the
combine residue-spreader, would need
to be raked. Balers, likely a mix of large
round and large square balers, would
follow the rakes. The bales would then
be removed from the field, usually to
the field-side in the first operation of the
actual harvest, following which they
would then be hauled to a satellite
facility for intermediate storage. For our
analysis we assumed that bales would
then be hauled by truck and trailer to
the processing plant on an as needed
basis.
The small grain straws (wheat, rice,
oats, barley, sorghum) are cut near the
ground at the time of grain harvest and
thus likely won’t require further
mowing or shredding. They will likely
need to be raked into a windrow prior
to baling. Because small grain straws
have been baled and stored for many
years, we don’t expect unusual
requirements for handling these
residues. Their harvest and storage costs
will likely be less than those for corn
stover, but their overall quantity is
much less than corn stover (corn stover
makes up about 71% of all the crop
residues), so we don’t expect their lower
costs to have, individually or
collectively, a huge effect on the overall
feedstock costs. Thus, we project that
for several years, the feedstock costs
will be largely a function of the cost to
harvest, store, and haul corn stover.
For the crop residues, we relied on
the FASOM agricultural cost model for
farm harvesting and collection costs.
FASOM estimates it would cost $33 per
dry ton to mow, rake, bale, and field
haul the bales and replace nutrients. We
added $10 per dry ton as a farmer
payment, which we believe is a
necessary reimbursement to farmers to
cover their costs associated with this
additional harvest. Thus, $43 per dry
ton covers the cost of making the crop
residue available at the farm gate. This
farm gate cost could be lower if new
equipment is developed that would
allow the farmer to harvest the corn
stover at the same time as the corn. We
also conducted our own independent
analysis of the farm gate feedstock costs
for corn stover, and our farm gate cost
estimate for stover feedstock is very
similar to FASOM’s. For the steps
involved in moving the corn stover from
the farm gate to the cellulosic ethanol
plant, we relied upon our own cost
analysis. Our cost analysis estimates
that an additional $32 per dry ton
would be required to haul the bales to
satellite storage, pay for the storage
facilities, and grind the residue. Because
of the low density of corn stover and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
other crop residues, we estimate that 60
or more secondary storage sites would
be necessary to minimize the combined
transportation and storage costs for a
100 million gallon per year plant. We
estimated it would cost about $14 per
dry ton to haul the feedstock from the
satellite storage to the processing plant.
Adding up all the costs, corn stover is
estimated to cost $88 per dry ton
delivered to the cellulosic biofuel plant.
A more detailed discussion of our corn
stover feedstock cost analysis is
contained in Chapter 4.1 of the DRIA.
Energy crops such as switchgrass and
miscanthus would be harvested, baled,
stored and transported very similar to
crop residues. Because of their higher
production density per acre, though, we
would expect that the ‘‘farm gate’’ costs
to be slightly lower than crop residues
(we estimate the costs to be about $1 per
dry ton lower). Also, the higher
production density would allow for
fewer secondary storage facilities
compared to crop residue and a shorter
transportation distance. For example,
we estimate that switchgrass would
require less than 30 secondary storage
facilities which would help to lower the
feedstock costs for a 100 million gallon
per year plant compared to crop
residues. As a result the secondary
storage and transportation costs are
estimated to be $9 per ton lower than
crop residue such as corn stover. Thus,
we estimate that cellulosic feedstock
costs sourced from switchgrass would
be about $78 per dry ton. Chapter 4.1 of
the DRIA contains a more in-depth
discussion of the feedstock costs for
energy crops such as switchgrass.
Forestry Residue
Harvest and transport costs for woody
biomass in its different forms vary due
to tract size, tree species, volumes
removed, distance to the wood-using/
storage facility, terrain, road condition,
and other many other considerations.
There is a significant variation in these
factors within the United States, so
timber harvest and delivery systems
must be designed to meet constraints at
the local level. Harvesting costs also
depend on the type of equipment used,
season in which the operation occurs,
along with a host of other factors. Much
of the forest residue is already being
harvested by logging operations, or is
available from milling operations.
However, the smaller branches and
smaller trees proposed to be used for
biofuel production are not collected for
their lumber so they are normally left
behind. Thus, this forest residue would
have to be collected and transported out
of the forest, and then most likely
PO 00000
Frm 00171
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25073
chipped before transport to the biofuel
plant.
In general, most operators in the near
future would be expected to chip at
roadside in the forest, blowing the chips
directly into a chip van. When the van
is full it will be hauled to an end user’s
facility and a new van will be moved
into position at the chipper. The process
might change in the future as baling
systems become economically feasible
or as roll-off containers are proven as a
way to handle logging slash. At present,
most of the chipping for biomass
production is done in connection with
forest thinning treatments as part of a
forest fire prevention strategy. The
major problem associated with
collecting logging residues and biomass
from small trees is handling the material
in the forest before it gets to the chipper.
Specially-built balers and roll-off
containers offer some promise to reduce
this cost. Whether the material is
collected from a forest thinning
operation or a commercial logging
operation, chips from residues will be
dirty and will require screening or some
type of filtration at the end-user’s
facility.440
Results from a study in South Georgia
show that under the right conditions, a
small chipper could be added to a larger
operation to obtain additional chip
production without adversely impacting
roundwood production, and that the
chips could be produced from limbs and
tops of harvested trees at costs ranging
from $11 per ton and up. Harvesting
understory (the layer formed by grasses,
shrubs, and small trees under the
canopy of larger trees and plants) for use
in making fuel chips was estimated to
be about $1 per ton more expensive.
Per-ton costs decrease as the volume
chipped increases per acre. Some
estimates suggest that if no more than 10
loads of roundwood are produced before
a load of chips is made, that chippermodified system could break even. Cost
projections suggest that removing only
limbs and tops may be marginal in
terms of cost since one load of chips is
produced for about every 15 loads of
roundwood.
Instead of conducting our own
detailed cost estimate for making forest
residue chips available at the edge of the
harvested forests, we instead relied
upon the expertise of the U.S. Forest
Service. The U.S. Forest Service
provided us a cost curve for different
categories of forest residue, including
logging residue, other removals (i.e.,
clearing trees for new building
construction), timberland trimmings
440 Personal Communication, Eini C. Lowell,
Research Scientist, USDA Forest Service.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25074
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(forest fire prevention strategy) and mill
residues. They recommended that we
choose $45 per dry ton as the price
point for our cost analysis. This seemed
reasonable since this price point was
roughly the same as the farm gate crop
residue discussed above, and so we
used this price point for our analysis.
Assuming that the wood chips would be
ground further in the field adds an
additional $11 per dry ton to the
feedstock cost.
Delivery of woody biomass from the
harvesting site to a conversion facility,
like delivery of more conventional forest
products, accounts for a significant
portion of the delivered cost. In fact,
transportation of wood fiber (including
hauling within the forest) accounts for
about 25 to 50% of the total delivered
costs and highly depends on fuel prices,
haul distance, material moisture
content, and vehicle capacity and
utilization. Also, beyond a certain
distance, transportation becomes the
limiting factor and the costs become
directly proportional to haul
distance.441 Based on our own cost
analysis, we anticipate that hauling
woody biomass to plant will cost about
$14 per ton, for a total delivered price
of about $70 per dry ton. Chapter 4.1 of
the DRIA contains a more detailed
discussion on the feedstock costs for
forest residue.
Municipal Solid Waste
Millions of tons of municipal solid
waste (MSW) continue to be disposed of
in landfills across the country, despite
recent large gains in waste reduction
and diversion. The biomass fraction of
this total stream represents a potentially
significant resource for renewable
energy (including electricity and
biofuels). Because this waste material is
already being generated, collected and
transported (it would only need to be
transported to a different location), its
use is likely to be less expensive than
other cellulosic feedstocks. One
important difficulty facing those who
plan to use MSW fractions for fuel
production is that in many places, even
today, MSW is a mixture of all types of
wastes, including biomaterials such as
animal fats and grease, tin, iron,
aluminum, and other metals, painted
woods, plastics, and glass. Many of
these materials can’t be used in
biochemical and thermochemical
ethanol production, and, in fact, would
inflate the transportation costs, impede
the operations at the cellulosic ethanol
441 Ashton, S.; B. Jackson; R. Schroeder. Cost
Factors in Harvesting and Transporting Woody
Biomass, 2007. Module 4: Introduction to
Harvesting, Transportation, and Processing:: Fact
Sheet 4.7.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
plant and cause an expensive waste
stream for biofuel producers.
Thus, accessing sorted MSW would
likely be a requirement for firms
planning on using MSW for producing
cellulosic biofuels. In a confidential
conversation, a potential producer who
plans to use MSW to produce ethanol
indicated that their plant plans are
based on obtaining cellulosic biowaste
which has already been sorted at the
waste source (e.g., at the curbside,
where the refuse hauler picks up waste
already sorted by the generating homeowner or business). For example, in a
tract of homes, one refuse truck would
pick up glass, plastic, and perhaps other
types of waste destined for a specific
disposal depot, whereas a different
truck would follow to pick up wood,
paper, and other cellulosic materials to
be hauled to a depot that supplies an
ethanol plant. However, only a small
fraction of the MSW generated today is
sorted at the curbside.
Another alternative would be to sort
the waste either at a sorting facility, or
at the landfill, prior to dumping. There
are two prominent options here. The
first is that there is no sorting at the
waste creation site, the home or
business, and thus a single waste stream
must be sorted at the facility. This
operation would likely be done by hand
or by automated equipment at the
facility. To do so by hand is very labor
intensive and somewhat slower than
using an automated system. In most
cases the ‘by-hand’ system produces a
slightly cleaner stream, but the high cost
of labor usually makes the automated
system more cost-effective. Perhaps the
best approach for low cost and a clean
stream is the combination of hand
sorting with automated sorting.
The third option is a combination of
the two which requires that there is at
least some sorting at the home or
business which helps to prevent
contamination of the waste material, but
then the final sorting occurs
downstream at a sorting site, or at the
landfill.
We have little data and few estimates
for the cost to sort MSW. One estimate
generated by our Office of Solid Waste
for a combination of mechanically and
manually sorting a single waste stream
downstream of where the waste is
generated puts the cost in the $20 to $30
per ton range. There is a risk, though,
that the waste stream could still be
contaminated and this would increase
the cost of both transporting the
material and using this material at the
biofuel plant due to the toxic ash
produced which would require disposal
at a toxic waste facility. If a less
contaminated stream is desired it would
PO 00000
Frm 00172
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
probably require sorting at the
generation site—the home or business—
which would likely be more costly since
many more people in society would
then have to be involved and special
trucks would need to be used. Also,
widespread participation is difficult
when a change in human behavior is
required as some may not be so willing
to participate. Offering incentives could
help to speed the transition to curbside
recycling (i.e., charging a fee for
nonsorted waste, or paying a small
amount for sorted tree trimmings and
construction and demolition waste).
Assuming that curbside sorting is
involved, at least in a minor way, total
sorting costs might be in the $30 to $40
per ton range. We request comment on
the costs incurred for sorting cellulosic
material from the rest of MSW waste.
These sorting costs would be offset by
the cost savings for not disposing of the
waste material. Most landfills charge
tipping fees, the cost to dump a load of
waste into a landfill. In the United
States, the national average nominal
tipping fee increased fourfold from 1985
to 2000. The real tipping fee almost
doubled, up from a national average (in
1997 dollars) of about $12 per ton in
1985 to just over $30 in 2000. Equally
important, it is apparent that the tipping
fees are much higher in densely
populated regions and for areas along
the U.S. coast. For example, in 2004, the
tipping fees were $9 per ton in Denver
and $97 per ton in Spokane. Statewide
averages also varied widely, from $8 a
ton in New Mexico to $75 in New
Jersey. Tipping fees ranged from $21 to
98 per ton in 2006 for MSW and $18/
ton to $120/ton for construction and
demolition waste. It is likely that the
tipping fees are highest for
contaminated waste that requires the
disposal of the waste in more expensive
waste sites that can accept the
contaminated waste as opposed to a
composting site. However, this same
contaminated material would probably
not be desirable to biofuel producers.
Presuming that only the
noncontaminated cellulosic waste (yard
trimmings, building construction and
demolition waste and some paper) is
collected as feedstocks for biofuel
plants, the handling and tipping fees are
likely much lower, in the $30 per ton
range.442
The avoidance of tipping fees,
however, is a complex issue since
landfills are generally not owned by
municipalities anymore. Both large and
small municipalities recognized their
442 We plan on conducting a more thorough
analysis of tipping fees by waste type for the final
rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25075
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
inability to handle the new and complex
solid waste regulations at a reasonable
cost. Only 38 out of the 100 largest cities
own their own landfills. To deal with
the solid waste, large private companies
built massive amounts of landfill
capacity. The economic incentive is for
private landfill operators to fill their
landfills with garbage as early as
possible to pay off their capital
investment (landfill site) quickly. Also,
the longer the landfill is operating the
greater is its exposure to liability due to
leakages and leaching. Furthermore,
landfills can more cost-effectively
manage the waste as the scale of the
landfill is enlarged. As a result, there are
fewer landfills and landfill owners, and
an expansion of market share by large
private waste management firms, thus
decreasing the leverage a biofuel
producer may have.443 Many waste
management firms have been proactive
by using the waste material to produce
biogas, another fuel type that would
qualify under RFS2. Yet other parties
interested in procuring MSW are wasteto-energy (WTE) facilities, which burn
as much waste material as possible to
produce electricity. These three
different interests may compete for
MSW for producing biofuels. This
competition is desirable, resulting in
lower overall cost and the production of
the most cost-effective types of biofuels.
We request comment on the costs
avoided for diverting cellulosic material
from landfills.
Once the cellulosic biomass has been
sorted from the rest of MSW, it would
have to be transported to the biofuels
plant. Transporting is different for MSW
biomass compared to forest and crop
residues. Forest and crop residues are
collected from forests and farms, which
are both rural sites, and transported to
the biofuel plant which likely is located
at a rural site. The trucks which
transport the forest and crop residues
can be large over-the-road trucks which
can average moderate speeds because of
the lower amount of traffic that they
experience. Conversely, MSW is being
collected throughout urban areas and
would have to transported through
those urban areas to the plant site. If the
cellulosic biomass is being collected at
curbside, it would likely be collected in
more conventional refuse trucks. If the
plant is nearby, then the refuse trucks
could transport the cellulosic biomass
directly to the plant. However, if the
plant is located far away from a portion
of the urban area, then the refuse trucks
would probably have to be offloaded to
more conventional over-the-road trucks
with sizable trailers to make transport
more cost-effective. We estimate that the
cost to transport the cellulosic biomass
sourced from MSW to the biofuel plant
be $15 per ton.
A significant advantage of MSW over
other cellulosic biomass is that it can be
generated year-round in many parts of
the U.S. If a steady enough stream of
this material is available, then
secondary storage would not be
necessary, thus avoiding the need to
install secondary storage. We assumed
that no secondary storage costs would
be incurred for MSW-sourced cellulosic
biomass.
The total costs for MSW-sourced
cellulosic biomass is estimated to be $30
¥$40 per ton for sorting costs, a savings
of $30 per ton for tipping costs avoided,
$15 per ton for transportation costs and
$11 per ton for grinding the cellulose to
prepare it as a feedstock—resulting in a
total feedstock cost of $26 to $36 per
ton. In our cost analysis, we assumed an
average cost of $31 per ton. Chapter 4.1
of the DRIA contains a more detailed
discussion of the feedstock costs for
MSW.
Table VIII.A.1–2 below summarizes
major cost components for each
cellulosic feedstock.
TABLE VIII.A.1–2—SUMMARY OF CELLULOSIC FEEDSTOCK COSTS
[$53/ton crude oil costs]
Ag residue
Switchgrass
Forest residue
MSW
60% of total feedstock
1% of total feedstock
25% of total feedstock
14% of total feedstock
Mowing, Raking, Baling, Hauling,
Nutrients and Farmer Payment
$43/ton.
Hauling to Secondary Storage,
Secondary Storage, Hauling to
Plant $45/ton.
Mowing, Raking, Baling, Hauling,
Nutrients and Farmer Payment
$42/ton.
Hauling to Secondary Storage,
Secondary Storage, Hauling to
Plant $37/ton.
Harvesting, Hauling to Forest
Edge, Chipping $45/ton.
Sorting, Contaminant Removal,
Tipping Fees Avoided $0–$10/
ton.
Grinding, Hauling to Plant $26/
ton.
Total $88/ton ...........................
Total $77/ton .................................
Total $70/ton .................................
Grinding, Hauling to Plant $25/ton
Total Avg $31/ton.
In this section, we discuss the cost to
biochemically and thermochemically
convert cellulosic feedstocks into fuel
ethanol. At a DOE sponsored workshop
in 2005, a DOE biochemical expert
commented that the challenges of
converting cellulosic biomass to ethanol
are very closely linked to solving the
problems associated with both the
hydrolysis and the fermentation of the
carbohydrates in the feedstocks. He then
stated that the resistance of cellulosic
feedstock to bioprocessing will remain
the central problem and will likely be
the limiting factor in creating an
economy based on cellulosic ethanol
production.444
Notwithstanding the fact that all
cellulosic biomass is made up of some
combination of cellulose, hemicellulose,
lignin, and trace amounts of other
organic and inorganic chemicals and
minerals, there are significant
differences among the molecular
structures of different plants. For
example, a corn stalk is relatively
lighter, more porous, and much more
flexible than a tree branch of similar
diameter. The tree branch (in most
cases) is harder or denser and less
porous throughout the stem and the
443 Osamu Sakamoto, The Financial Feasibility
Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste to Ethanol
Conversion, Michigan State University, Plan B
Master Research Paper in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the degree of Master of Science,
Department of Agricultural Economics, 2004
444 Breaking the Biological Barriers to Cellulosic
Ethanol: A Joint Research Agenda, A Research
Roadmap Resulting from the Biomass to Biofuels
Workshop Sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Energy, December 7–9, 2005, Rockville, Maryland;
DOE/SC–0095, Publication Date: June 2006
Weighting the cellulosic feedstock
costs by their supply quantities results
in an average cellulosic feedstock cost of
$71 per ton which we used at the
reference crude oil price of $53/bbl. We
estimate that this average cost increases
to $76 per ton at the high crude oil price
of $92/bbl due to more expensive
harvesting and transportation costs.
ii. Production Costs
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00173
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25076
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
outside or bark is less permeable and
flexible.
These differences among the
cellulosic feedstock plant structures,
e.g., density, rigidity, hardness, etc.,
suggest that different conversion
processes, namely biochemical and
thermochemical may be necessary to
convert into ethanol as much of the
available plant material as possible. For
example, if wood chips, e.g., poplar
trees, are to be treated biochemically,
the chips must be reduced in size to 1mm or less in order to increase the
surface area for contact with acid,
enzymes, etc. Breaking up a 5-in stem to
such small pieces would consume a
large amount of energy. On the other
hand, processing corn stover into
cellulosic ethanol has a maximum size
of up to 1.5 inches (28 millimeters) in
length because corn stover is so thin.445
By comparison, the particle size
requirement for a thermochemical
process is around 10-mm to 100-mm in
diameter.446 Because of this, we believe
feedstocks such as corn stover, wheat
and rice straw, and switchgrass will
likely be feedstocks for biochemical
processes. Biochemical plants will
likely be constructed in those areas of
the country where these feedstocks are
most abundant, e.g., the corn belt and
upper Midwest. On the other hand,
thermochemical plants will likely be
constructed in those areas of the country
where forest thinnings, forest fuelremoval operations, lumber production,
and paper mills are most predominant,
e.g., the South. Thermochemical or
gasification units could be constructed
near starch or biochemical cellulosic
plants in order to take advantage of
byproduct streams. We expect
switchgrass (SG) will preferentially be
fed to biochemical units since it is
similar to straw, whereas short-rotation
woody crops (SRWC) such as willows or
445 A. Aden, M. Ruth, K. Ibsen, J. Jechura, K.
Neeves, J. Sheehan, and B. Wallace, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL); L. Montague,
A. Slayton, and J. Lukas Harris Group, Seattle,
Washington, Ethanol Process Design and
Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid
Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn
Stover; June 2002; NREL is a U.S. Department of
Energy Laboratory operated by Midwest Research
Institute • Battelle • Bechtel; Contract No. DE–
AC36–99–GO10337.
446 Lin Wei, Graduate Research Assistant, Lester
O. Pordesimo, Assistant Professor, Willam D.
Batchelor, Professor, Department of Agricultural
and Biological Engineering, Mississippi State
University, MS 39762, USA, Ethanol Production
from Wood: Comparison of Hydrolysis
Fermentation and Gasification Biosynthesis, Paper
Number: 076036, Written for presentation at the
2007 ASABE Annual International Meeting.
Minneapolis Convention Center, Minneapolis, MN,
17–20 June 2007.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
poplars will preferentially be fed to
thermochemical units.
Biochemically, it is much more
difficult to convert cellulosic plant
matter into ethanol than it is to convert
the starch from corn grain into ethanol.
Corn starch consists of long
polysaccharide chains that are weakly
attracted to each other, quite flexible,
and tend to curl up to form tiny particlelike bundles. This loose, flexible
structure permits water and water-borne
hydrolyzing enzymes to easily penetrate
the polymer during the process stage
known as hydrolysis. Once hydrolyzed,
the corn starch sugar residues are easily
fermentable.
The hydrolysis of cellulosic biomass
is much more challenging. Unlike
starch, cellulosic plant matter is made
up of three main constituents: Cellulose,
hemicellulose, lignin, and minor
amounts of various other organic and
inorganic chemicals.
Cellulose, the major constituent, is a
polymer made up of only b-linked
glucose monosaccharides. This
molecular arrangement allows intramolecular hydrogen bonds to develop
within each monomer and intermolecular hydrogen bonds to develop
between adjacent polymers to form
tight, rigid, strong, mostly straight
polymer bundles that are insoluble in
water and resistant to chemical attack.
The net result of the structural
characteristics makes cellulose much
more difficult to hydrolyze than is
hemicellulose.
Hemicellulose contributes
significantly to the total fermentable
sugars of the lignocellulosic biomass.
Unlike cellulose, hemicellulose is
chemically heterogeneous and highly
substituted. Compared to cellulose, this
branching renders it amorphous and
relatively easy to hydrolyze to its
constituent sugars.447
Lignin, the third principle
component, is a complex, cross-linked
polymeric, high molecular weight
substance derived principally from
coniferyl alcohol by extensive
condensation polymerization. While
cellulose and hemicellulose contribute
to the amount of fermentable sugars for
ethanol production, lignin is not so
readily digestable, but can be combusted
to provide process energy in a
biochemical plant or used as feedstock
to a thermochemical process.448
447 Hans P. Blaschek, Professor and Thaddeus C.
Ezeji, Research Assistant, Department of Food
Science and Human Nutrition, University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Science of Alternative
Feedstocks.
448 Glossary of Biomass Terms, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. https://
www.nrel.gov/biomass/glossary.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Because of the complexities in
digesting cellulosic biomass, the
residence time is longer to digest the
cellulose and perform the fermentation.
Thus, the cellulosic plant capital costs
are higher than those of corn (starch)
ethanol plants. However, because corn
is a food source with an intrinsic food
value, corn ethanol’s feedstock costs are
almost two times higher per ton (more
than two times higher in the case for
cellulose from MSW) than the
feedstocks of a cellulosic ethanol plant.
It is conceivable that depending on the
cellulosic plant technology which
drives its capital and operating costs
that cellulosic ethanol plants’ lower
feedstock costs could offset its higher
capital costs resulting in lower
production costs than corn-based
ethanol.
The National Renewable Energy
Laboratory has been evaluating the state
of biochemical cellulosic plant
technology over the past decade or so,
and it has identified principal areas for
improvement. In 1999, it released its
first report on the likely design concept
for an nth generation biochemical
cellulosic ethanol plant which projected
the state of technology in some future
year after the improvements were
adopted. In 2002, NREL released a
follow-up report which delved deeper
into biochemical plant design in areas
that it had identified in the 1999 report
as deserving for additional research.
Again, the 2002 report estimated the
ethanol production cost for an nth
generation biochemical cellulosic
ethanol plant. These reports not only
helped to inform policy makers on the
likely capability and cost for
biochemically converting cellulose to
ethanol, but it helped to inform
biochemical technology researchers on
the most likely technology
improvements that could be
incorporated into these plant designs.
To comply with the RFS 2
requirements, NREL assessed the likely
state of biochemical cellulosic plant
technology over the years that the RFS
standard is being phased in. The
specific years assessed by NREL were
2010, 2015 and 2022. The year 2010
technology essentially represents the
status of today’s biochemical cellulosic
plants. The year 2015 technology
captures the expected near-term
improvements including the rapid
improvements being made in enzyme
technology. The year 2022 technology
captures the cost of mature biochemical
cellulosic plant technology. Table
VIII.A.1–3 summarizes NREL’s
estimated and projected production
costs for biochemical cellulosic ethanol
plant technology in these three years
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25077
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
reflecting our average feedstock costs
and adjusting the capital costs to a 7
percent before tax rate of return.
TABLE VIII.A.1–3—BIOCHEMICAL CELLULOSIC ETHANOL PRODUCTION COSTS PROVIDED BY NREL
Year technology ...............................................................
Plant Size MMgal/yr .........................................................
Capital Cost $MM ............................................................
2010
56
232
$MM/yr
2015
69
220
c/gal
$MM/yr
2022
71
199
c/gal
$MM/yr
c/gal
Capital Cost 7% ROI before taxes ..................................
Fixed Costs ......................................................................
Feedstock Cost ................................................................
Other raw matl. costs .......................................................
Enzyme Cost ....................................................................
Enzyme nutrients .............................................................
Electricity ..........................................................................
Waste disposal .................................................................
25
9
55
17
18
8
¥6
1
46
16
99
30
32
14
¥10
2
24
9
55
4
7
2
¥7
3
35
12
79
5
10
3
¥9
4
22
8
55
16
5
2
¥12
1
31
12
77
16
8
2
¥16
1
Total Costs ................................................................
127
229
96
139
84
131
NREL’s projected improvements in
production costs over time are based on
improved reaction biochemistry. Before
discussing the expected improvements
in the reaction biochemistry, we will
discuss the reaction pathway for
cellulosic biochemical.
There are two primary reaction steps
in a biochemical cellulosic ethanol
plant. The first is hydrolysis. Hydrolysis
breaks the polysaccharides into their
sugar residues. The pretreated slurry is
fed to a hydrolysis reactor; there may be
multiple reactors, depending on the
desired production rate. Dilute sulfuric
acid is used to hydrolyze, primarily, the
hemicellulose polysaccharides, xylan,
mannan, arabinan, and galactan, to
produce the mixed sugars. Very little of
the cellulose polysaccharide, glucan, is
hydrolyzed.
The second is saccharification and cofermentation. Using a cellulase enzyme
cocktail, saccharification of the
cellulose to glucose occurs first at an
elevated temperature to take advantage
of increased enzyme activity, which
reduces the quantity of required enzyme
as well as the reaction time. Following
cellulose saccharification, both the
glucose and xylose sugars are cofermented. Although xylan, the
hemicellulose polysaccharide, is more
easily hydrolyzed than glucan (cellulose
polysaccharides), the xylose sugar is
more difficult to ferment than the
glucose sugar. Different microbes as
well as different residence times and
process conditions are required for each.
Therefore, it may be necessary to
separate the glucose and xylose
monomers before fermentation.
Because xylan can make up as much
as 25% of plant matter it is imperative
that most of be available for ethanol
production; the economic viability of
biochemically produced ethanol
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
depends heavily it. Good progress has
been toward that end during the past
few years.449
Also during the past few years,
researchers have been developing ways
to combine saccharification and
fermentation into a single step through
the use of enzyme/microbe cocktails.
DOE and the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) have also
supported research into more efficient,
less costly enzymes for SSF. With their
support, a less expensive, more efficient
enzyme cocktail for cellulosic biomass
fermentation has been developed.450
Others have also reported some success
in co-fermenting glucose and xylose.451
As the biochemical enzymatic
pathway is streamlined using more costeffective enzymes, and as these enzymes
can more comprehensively saccarify
and ferment the cellulose, the
conversion fraction of the cellulose to
ethanol will increase and the conversion
time will decrease. An important benefit
for these efficiency improvements is
that the number and size of reaction
vessels decrease, leading to lower
capital costs and lower fixed operating
449 Purdue yeast makes ethanol from agricultural
waste more effectively, Purdue News, June 28, 2004
https://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2004/
040628.Ho.ethanol.html.
450 GENENCOR LAUNCHES FIRST EVER
COMMERCIAL ENZYME PRODUCT FOR
CELLULOSIC ETHANOL, ROCHESTER, NY, WorldWire, October 22, 2007 Copyright© 2007. All rights
reserved. World-Wire is a resource provided by
Environment News Service. https://world-wire.com/
news/0710220001.html.
451 Ali Mohagheghi, Kent Evans, Yat-Chen Chou,
and Min Zhang, Biotechnology Division for Fuels
and Chemicals, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401, Co-fermentation of
Glucose, Xylose, and Arabinose by Genomic DNA–
Integrated Xylose/Arabinose Fermenting Strain of
Zymomonas mobilis AX101, Applied Biochemistry
and Biotechnology Vols. 98–100, 2002, Copyright©
2002 by Humana Press Inc., All rights of any nature
whatsoever reserved.
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
costs. It is also estimated that less
nutrients would be needed to maintain
the enzymes reactivity. Because the
production volume of ethanol will
increase relative to the quantity of
feedstock, it lowers the operating costs
per gallon of ethanol. Between these
various effects, the per-gallon costs for
producing cellulosic ethanol through
the biochemical pathway are expected
to decrease dramatically. It is through
these expected improvements that NREL
has estimated reduced production costs
for biochemical cellulosic ethanol
plants.
Thermochemical conversion is
another reaction pathway which exists
for converting cellulose to ethanol.
Thermochemical technology is based on
the heat and pressure-based gasification
or pyrolysis of nearly any biomass
feedstock, including those we’ve
highlighted as likely biochemical
feedstocks. The syngas is converted into
mixed alcohols, hydrocarbon fuels,
chemicals, and power. A
thermochemical unit can also
complement a biochemical processing
plant to enhance the economics of an
integrated biorefinery by converting
lignin-rich, non-fermentable material
left over from high-starch or cellulosic.
NREL has not yet estimated the cost of
thermochemically converting cellulose
to ethanol, so we did not include a cost
estimate using this potential conversion
pathway in our analysis and based our
cost analysis entirely on the
biochemical route.452 However, one
452 NREL has authored a thermochemical report:
Phillips, S Thermochemical Ethanol via Indirect
Gasification and Mixed Alcohol Synthesis of
Lignocellulosic Biomass; April, 2007, which does
provide a cost estimate. However, this report only
hypothesized how a thermochemical ethanol plant
could achieve production costs at $1 per gallon, and
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
Continued
26MYP2
25078
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
report estimated that the costs are
similar for converting cellulose to
ethanol either through either the
biochemical or thermochemical routes.
Thus, we believe that our cellulosic
ethanol costs are representative of both
technologies. In Section VIII.A.3 below,
we discuss the costs for a
thermochemical route for producing
diesel fuel, often referred to as biomassto-liquids (BTL) process.
c. Imported Sugarcane Ethanol
We based our imported ethanol fuel
costs on cost estimates of sugarcane
ethanol in Brazil. Generally, ethanol
from sugarcane produced in developing
countries with warm climates is much
cheaper to produce than ethanol from
grain or sugar beets. This is due to
favorable growing conditions, relatively
low cost feedstock and energy inputs,
and other cost reductions gained from
years of experience.
As discussed in Chapter 4 of the
DRIA, our literature search of
production costs for sugar cane ethanol
in Brazil indicates that production costs
tend to range from as low as $0.57 per
gallon of ethanol to as high as $1.48 per
gallon of ethanol. This large range for
estimating production costs is partly
due to the significant variations over
time in exchange rates, costs of
sugarcane and oil products, etc. For
example, earlier estimates may
underestimate current crude and natural
gas costs which influence the cost of
feedstock as well as energy costs at the
plant. Another possible difference in
production cost estimates is whether or
not the estimates are referring to
hydrous or anhydrous ethanol. Costs for
anhydrous ethanol (for blending with
gasoline) are typically several cents per
gallon higher than hydrous ethanol (for
use in dedicated ethanol vehicles in
Brazil).453 It is not entirely clear from
the majority of studies whether reported
costs are for hydrous or anhydrous
ethanol. Yet another difference could be
the slate of products the plant is
producing, for example, future plants
may be dedicated ethanol facilities
while others involve the production of
both sugar and ethanol in the same
facility. Due to economies of scale,
production costs are also typically
smaller per gallon for larger facilities.
The study by OECD (2008) entitled
‘‘Biofuels: Linking Support to
Performance’’, appears to provide the
most recent and detailed set of
assumptions and production costs. As
such, our estimate of sugarcane
production costs primarily relies on the
assumptions made for the study, which
are shown in Table VIII.A.1–4. The
estimate assumes an ethanol-dedicated
mill and is based off an internal rate of
return of 12%, a debt/equity ratio of
50% with an 8% interest rate and a
selling of surplus power at $57 per
MWh.
TABLE VIII.A.1–4—COST OF PRODUCTION IN A STANDARD ETHANOL PROJECT IN BRAZIL
Sugarcane Productivity ............................................................................................................................
Sugarcane Consumption ..........................................................................................................................
Harvesting days .......................................................................................................................................
Ethanol productivity ..................................................................................................................................
Ethanol production ...................................................................................................................................
Surplus power produced ..........................................................................................................................
Investment cost in mill .............................................................................................................................
Investment cost for sugarcane production ...............................................................................................
O & M (Operating & Maintenance) costs .................................................................................................
Sugarcane costs ......................................................................................................................................
Capital costs .............................................................................................................................................
Total production costs .......................................................................................................................
71.5 t/ha.
2 million tons/year.
167.
85 liters/ton (22.5 gal/ton).
170 million liters/year (45 MGY).
40 kWh/ton sugarcane.
USD 97 million.
USD 36 million.
$0.26/gal.
$0.64/gal.
$0.49/gal.
$1.40/gal.
The estimate above is based on the
costs of producing ethanol in Brazil on
average, today. However, we are
interested in how the costs of producing
ethanol will change by the year 2022.
Although various cost estimates exist,
analysis of the cost trends over time
shows that the cost of producing ethanol
in Brazil has been steadily declining
due to efficiency improvements in cane
production and ethanol conversion
processes. Between 1980 and 1998 (total
span of 19 years) ethanol cost declined
by approximately 30.8%.454 This change
in the cost of production over time in
Brazil is known as the ethanol cost
‘‘Learning Curve’’.
The change in ethanol costs will
depend on the likely productivity gains
and technological innovations that can
be made in the future. As the majority
of learning may have already occurred,
it is likely that the decline in sugarcane
ethanol costs will be less drastic as the
production process and cane practices
have matured. This is in contrast to
younger technologies such as those used
to produce cellulosic biofuels which
could likely have larger cost reductions
over the same period of time. In fact,
there are few perspectives for
substantial efficiency gains with the
sugarcane processing technology.
Industrial efficiency gains are already at
about 85% and are expected to increase
to 90% in 2015.455 Most of the
productivity growth is expected to come
from sugarcane production, where
yields are expected to grow from the
current 70 tons/ha, to 96 tons/ha in
2025.456 Sugarcane quality is also
expected to improve, with sucrose
content growing from 14.5% to 17.3%
in 2025.457 All productivity gains
together could allow the increase in the
production of ethanol from 6,000 liters/
ha (at 85 liters/ton sugarcane in 2005) to
10,400 liters/ha (at 109 liters/ton
sugarcane) by 2025.458 Although not
reflected here, there could also be cost
and efficiency improvements related to
feedstock collection, storage, and
distribution.
Assuming that ethanol productivity
increases to 100 liters/ton by 2015 and
109 liters/ton by 2025, sugarcane costs
are be expected to decrease to
approximately $0.51/gal from $0.64/gal
since less feedstock is needed to
produce the same volume of ethanol
thus it could not be relied upon for any part of our
real-world program cost analysis.
453 International Energy Agency (IEA), ‘‘Biofuels
for Transport: An International Perspective,’’ 2004.
454 Goldemberg, J. as sited in Rothkopf, Garten,
‘‘A Blueprint for Green Energy in the Americas,’’
2006.
455 Unicamp ‘‘A Expansao do Proalcool como
¯
Programa de Desenvolvimento Nacional’’.
Powerpoint presentation at Ethanol Seminar in
BNDES, 2006. As sited in OECD, ‘‘Biofuels: Linking
Support to Performance,’’ ITF Round Tables No.
138, March 2008.
456 Ibid.
457 Ibid.
458 Ibid.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00176
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25079
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
using the estimates from Table VIII.A.1–
4, above. We assumed a linear decrease
between data points for 2005, 2015, and
2025. Adding operating ($0.26/gal) and
capital costs ($0.49/gal) from Table
VIII.A.1–4, to a sugarcane cost of $0.51/
gal, total production costs are $1.26/gal
in 2022.
Brazil sugarcane producers are also
expected to move from burned cane
manual harvesting to mechanical
harvesting. As a result, large amounts of
straw are expected to be available. Costs
of mechanical harvesting are lower
compared to manually harvesting,
therefore, we would expect costs for
sugarcane to decline as greater
sugarcane producers move to
mechanical harvesting. However, it is
important to note that diesel use
increases with mechanical harvesting,
and with diesel fuel prices expected to
increase in the future, costs may be
higher than expected. Therefore, we
have not assumed any changes to
harvesting costs due to the switchover
from manual harvesting to mechanical
harvesting.
As more straw is expected to be
collected at future sugarcane ethanol
facilities, there is greater potential for
production of excess electricity. The
production costs estimates in the OECD
study assumes an excess of 40kWh per
ton sugarcane, however, future
sugarcane plants are expected to
produce 135 kWh per ton sugarcane.459
Assuming excess electricity is sold for
$57 per MWh, the production of 95 kWh
per ton would be equivalent to a credit
of $0.22 per gallon ethanol produced.
We did not include this potential
additional credit from greater use of
bagasse and straw in our estimates at
this time. Our cost estimates do include,
however, the excess electricity
produced from bagasse that is currently
used today (40 kWh/ton). We are asking
for comment on whether such a credit
should be included in our production
cost estimates.
It is also important to note that
ethanol production costs can increase if
the costs of compliance with various
sustainability criteria are taken into
account. For instance, using organic or
green cane production, adopting higher
wages, etc. could increase production
costs for sugarcane ethanol.460 Such
sustainability criteria could also be
applicable to other feedstocks, for
example, those used in corn- or soybased biofuel production. If these
measures are adopted in the future,
production costs will be higher than we
have projected.
In addition to production costs, there
are also logistical and port costs. We
used the report from AgraFNP to
estimate such costs since it was the only
resource that included both logistical
and port costs. The total average
logistical and port cost for sugarcane
ethanol is $0.19/gal and $0.09/gal,
respectively, as shown in Table
VIII.A.1–5.
TABLE VIII.A.1–5—IMPORTED ETHANOL COST AT PORT IN BRAZIL (2006 $)
Logistical
costs U.S.
($/gal)
Region
Port cost U.S.
($/gal)
NE Sao Paulo ..........................................................................................................................................................
W Sao Paulo ............................................................................................................................................................
SE Sao Paulo ..........................................................................................................................................................
S Sao Paulo .............................................................................................................................................................
N Parana ..................................................................................................................................................................
S Goias ....................................................................................................................................................................
E Mato Grosso do sul ..............................................................................................................................................
Triangulo mineiro .....................................................................................................................................................
NE Cost ...................................................................................................................................................................
Sao Francisco Valley ...............................................................................................................................................
0.146
0.204
0.100
0.170
0.232
0.328
0.322
0.201
0.026
0.188
0.094
0.094
0.094
0.094
0.094
0.094
0.094
0.094
0.058
0.058
Average ............................................................................................................................................................
0.192
0.087
Total fuel costs must also include the
cost to ship ethanol from Brazil to the
U.S. In 2006, this cost was estimated to
be approximately $0.15 per gallon of
ethanol.461 Costs were estimated as the
difference between the unit value cost of
insurance and freight (CIF) and the unit
value customs price. The average cost to
ship ethanol from Caribbean countries
(e.g., El Salvador, Jamaica, etc.) to the
U.S. in 2006 was approximately $0.12
per gallon of ethanol. Although this may
seem to be an advantage for Caribbean
countries, it should be noted that there
would be some additional cost for
shipping ethanol from Brazil to the
Caribbean country. Therefore, we
assume all costs for shipping ethanol to
be $0.15 per gallon regardless of the
country importing ethanol to the U.S.
Total imported ethanol fuel costs (at
U.S. ports) prior to tariff and tax for
2022 is shown in Table VIII.A.1–6, at
$1.69/gallon. Direct Brazilian imports
are also subject to an additional $0.54
per gallon tariff, whereas those imports
arriving in the U.S. from Caribbean
Basin Initiative (CBI) countries are
exempt from the tariff. In addition, all
imports are given an ad valorem tax of
2.5% for undenatured ethanol and a
1.9% tax for denatured ethanol. We
assumed an ad valorem tax of 2.5% for
all ethanol. Thus, including tariffs and
ad valorem taxes, the average cost of
imported ethanol is shown in Table
VIII.A.1–7 in the ‘‘Brazil Direct w/Tax &
Tariff’’ and ‘‘CBI w/Tax’’ columns for
2022.
459 Macedo. I.C., ‘‘Green house gases emissions in
the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane
in Brazil: The 2005/2006 Averages and a Prediction
for 2020,’’ Biomass and Bioenergy, 2008.
460 Smeets E, Junginger M, Faaij A, Walter A,
Dolzan P, Turkenburg W, ‘‘The sustainability of
Brazilian ethanol—An Assessment of the
possibilities of certified production,’’ Biomass and
Bioenergy, 2008.
461 Official Statistics of the U.S. Department of
Commerce, USITC.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25080
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.A.1–6—AVERAGE IMPORTED ETHANOL COSTS PRIOR TO TARIFF AND TAXES IN 2022
Sugarcane production cost
($/gal)
Operating cost
($/gal)
0.51 ..........................................................
Capital cost
($/gal)
0.26
Logistical cost
($/gal)
0.49
Port cost
($/gal)
0.19
Transport cost
from port to
U.S.
($/gal)
0.09
Total cost
($/gal)
0.15
1.69
TABLE VIII.A.1–7—AVERAGE IMPORTED ETHANOL COSTS IN 2022
Brazil direct w/tax & tariff
($/gal)
Brazil direct ($/gal)
1.69 ................................................................
2. Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel
Production Costs
Biodiesel and renewable diesel
production costs are primarily a
function of the feedstock cost, and to a
much lesser extent, the capital and other
operating costs of the facility.
a. Biodiesel
Biodiesel production costs for this
rule were estimated using two versions
of a biodiesel production facility model
obtained from USDA, one using
degummed soy oil as a feedstock and
the other using yellow grease. The
biodiesel from yellow grease model
includes the acid pre-treatment steps
required to utilize feedstocks with high
free fatty acid content.
This production model simulates a 10
million gallon per year plant operating
a continuous flow transesterification
process. USDA used the SuperPro
Designer chemical process simulation
software to estimate heat and material
flowrates and equipment sizing.
Outputs from this software were then
combined in a spreadsheet with
equipment, energy, labor, and chemical
costs to generate a final estimate of
production cost. The model is described
in a 2006 publication in Bioresource
Technology, peer-reviewed scientific
journal.462 Table VIII.A.2–1 shows the
production cost allocation for the soy
oil-to-biodiesel facility as modeled in
the 2022 policy case.
TABLE VIII.A.2–1—PRODUCTION COST
ALLOCATION FOR SOY BIODIESEL
DERIVED FROM THIS ANALYSIS
Contribution to
cost
(percent)
Cost category
Soy Oil .........................................
Other Materials a .........................
87
5
462 Haas, M.J., A process model to estimate
biodiesel production costs, Bioresource Technology
97 (2006) 671–678.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
CBI ($/gal)
CBI w/tax ($/gal)
2.27
1.69
TABLE VIII.A.2–1—PRODUCTION COST
ALLOCATION FOR SOY BIODIESEL
DERIVED FROM THIS ANALYSIS—
Continued
Contribution to
cost
(percent)
Cost category
Capital & Facility .........................
Labor ...........................................
Utilities .........................................
a Includes
4
3
1
acids, bases, methanol, catalyst.
Soy oil costs were generated by the
FASOM agricultural model (described
in more detail in Section IX.A).
Historically, the majority of biodiesel
production in the U.S. has used soy oil,
a relatively high-value feedstock, but a
growing fraction of biodiesel is being
made from yellow grease, the name
given to reclaimed or highly-processed
oil (including corn oil extracted from
distillers’ grains) that is not suitable for
use in food products. This material
typically sells for about 70% of the
value of virgin soy oil. Conversion of
yellow grease into biodiesel requires an
additional acid pretreatment step, and
therefore the processing costs are higher
than for virgin soy oil (about $0.40/gal
at equal feedstock costs). Table VIII.A.2–
2 shows the feedstock and biodiesel
costs used in our cost analysis.
TABLE VIII.A.2–2—BIODIESEL FEEDSTOCK AND PRODUCTION COSTS
USED IN THIS ANALYSIS (2006$)
Soy oil
Reference
Case ......
Feedstock
$/lb
Biodiesel
$/gal
Policy Case
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Yellow
grease a
........................
........................
$0.23
$0.16
$2.11
........................
$1.99
........................
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1.73
TABLE VIII.A.2–2—BIODIESEL FEEDSTOCK AND PRODUCTION COSTS
USED IN THIS ANALYSIS (2006$)—
Continued
Soy oil
Feedstock
$/lb
Biodiesel
$/gal
Yellow
grease a
$0.32
$0.22
$2.75
$2.47
a Includes
corn oil extracted from thin
stillage/DGS, rendered fats, recycled greases,
etc.
A co-product of transesterification is
crude glycerin. With the upswing in
worldwide biodiesel production in
recent years, its market price is
relatively low: In our modeling we
assume its value to be $0.03/lb. As a
result, the sale of this material as a coproduct only reduces biodiesel
production cost by about $0.02/gal.
b. Renewable Diesel
Renewable diesel is produced in one
of three general configurations: (1) A
new standalone unit located within a
refinery, (2) co-processing in an existing
refinery diesel hydrotreater, or (3) a
standalone unit at a rendering plant or
another location outside of a refinery.
We expect that the largest fraction of the
capacity for refinery installation will be
produced using the co-processing
method, as the production costs are
lower than those for a new standalone
unit in a refinery. Thus, we speculate
that about 50% of renewable diesel
being produced by the refinery coprocessing route, 17% from a new stand
alone unit at a refinery and 33% at
rendering plants or as a new site
installation. Recent business
partnership and construction
announcements related to renewable
diesel production (such as involving
ConocoPhillips facilities in Texas, and
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25081
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Tyson-Syntroleum facilities in
Louisiana) generally support such a
split.
We derived our production cost
estimates from documents made
available publicly by UOP, Inc., to make
renewable diesel in a grass roots
standalone production process inside a
refinery.463 The process has a pretreating unit that removes alkali and
acidic producing compounds from feed
streams, which removes the catalyst
poisons. We also used the UOP
engineering estimate to derive costs for
co-processing renewable diesel in an
existing refinery’s diesel hydrotreater.
For this, we assumed that refiners will:
(1) revamp their existing diesel
hydrotreater to add capacity and (2) add
a pre-treater to remove feedstock
contaminants. Lastly, we derived costs
for a standalone unit at a location
outside a refinery at a rendering plant
other facility, using a capital cost
estimate from Syntroleum Corp.464
The extent of the depolymerization
and hydrotreating reactions depend on
the process conditions, as some of the
carbon backbone of the oils can be
cracked to naphtha and lighter products
with higher severity. For our analysis,
we assume no such cracking and predict
yields resulting in ninety-nine percent
diesel fuel with the balance as propane
(which could also be considered
renewable fuel) and water. We assume
that all of the renewable diesel
production will take place in PADD 2,
as feedstock shipping costs are reduced
since most of the sources for feedstock
supply are located primarily in the
Midwest. Average processing cost per
gallon (in addition to the feedstock) is
41 cents for making renewable diesel
from yellow grease/animal fats, based
on our cost methodology.
As with biodiesel, renewable diesel
cost estimates were based on soy oil
feedstock prices taken from the FASOM
modeling work, given in Section IX.A.
Our cost estimates for renewable diesel
were focused on use of yellow grease as
a feedstock, given the project
announcements mentioned above, as
well as the relative insensitivity of the
hydrotreating process to fatty acids and
other contaminates relative to the
transesterification process. Oil from
corn fractionation, yellow grease, and
animal fat prices were assumed to be
70% the price of soy oil (consistent with
historical market trends). For our 2022
policy case, with a yellow grease price
of $0.23/lb, the production cost is $2.47/
gal for biodiesel and $2.10/gal for
renewable diesel (2006$). Table
VIII.A.2–3 shows the projected volume
contribution to the biodiesel and
renewable diesel total volume, their
production costs, and the weighted
average production cost used for
biodiesel and renewable diesel in this
proposal. These results assume
feedstock prices are plant-gate and do
not include any product transportation
costs. Note also that the volumes here
include co-processed renewable diesel
which does not qualify as biomassbased diesel but which may be counted
as advanced biofuel.
TABLE VIII.A.2–3—PROJECTED COSTS AND VOLUME CONTRIBUTION FOR BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL
[Policy case, 2006$ and million gallons]
Fuel
Cost
Biodiesel from virgin plant oil ..................................................................................................................................
Biodiesel from oil extraction at ethanol plants, yellow grease ................................................................................
Renewable diesel from fat, oil, yellow grease .........................................................................................................
Weighted average cost & total volume ...................................................................................................................
Although the per-gallon cost for
making renewable diesel from yellow
grease is significantly less than using
the biodiesel process, there are a
number of reasons why we believe the
latter will still be used to process some
yellow grease (and most of the virgin oil
feedstocks). The primary reason is that
there is already sufficient biodiesel
capacity existing or under construction
to cover the projected volumes.
Secondly, the per-gallon capital cost to
build new hydroprocessing capacity for
renewable diesel is expected to be
significantly higher than for the
biodiesel process. The low per-gallon
renewable diesel cost given here is
based on the majority of the production
being done by co-processing at existing
petroleum refineries.
3. BTL Diesel Production Costs
Biofuels-to-Liquids (BTL) processes,
which are also thermochemical
processes, convert biomass to liquid
fuels via a syngas route. The primary
463 A New Development in Renewable Fuels:
Green Diesel, AM–07–10 Annual Meeting NPRA,
March 18–20, 2007.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
product produced by this process is
diesel fuel.
There are many steps involved in a
BTL process which makes this a capitalintensive process. The first step, like all
the cellulosic processes, requires that
the feedstocks be processed to be dried
and ground to a fine size. The second
step is the syngas step, which
thermochemically reacts the biomass to
carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Since
carbon monoxide production exceeds
the stoichiometric ideal fraction of the
mixture, a water shift reaction must be
carried out to increase the relative
balance of hydrogen. The syngas
products must then be cleaned to
facilitate the following Fischer-Tropsch
reaction. The Fischer-Tropsch reaction
reacts the syngas to a range of
hydrocarbon compounds—a type of
synthetic crude oil. This hydrocarbon
mixture is then hydrocracked to
maximize the production of high cetane
diesel fuel, although some low octane
naphtha is also produced. The many
Frm 00179
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2.75
2.47
2.10
2.51
660
150
375
1,185
steps of the BTL process contribute to
its high capital cost.
One estimate made by Iowa State
University estimates the total cost for a
cellulosic Fischer-Tropsch plant that
produces 35 million gallons per year
diesel fuel at $2.37 per gallon. This cost
estimated the capital costs to be $341
million. These costs were estimated in
the year 2002. We adjusted the
operating and capital costs to a 2006
investment environment and to 2006
dollars based the costs on our average
$71/dry ton feedstock costs which
increases the total cost to $2.85 per
gallon of diesel fuel.
Initially, the estimated cost of $2.85
per gallon seems high relative to the
projected cost for a year 2015
biochemical cellulosic plant, which is
$1.39 per gallon of ethanol in 2006
dollars. However, ethanol provides
about half the energy content as FischerTropsch diesel fuel. So if we double the
biochemical cellulosic ethanol costs to
$2.78 per diesel fuel-equivalent gallon,
464 From Securities and Exchange Commission
Form 8–K for Syntroleum Corp, June 25th 07.
PO 00000
Volume
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25082
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
the estimated costs are very consistent
between the two. The cellulosic biofuel
tax subsidy favors the biochemical
ethanol plant, though, because it is a
per-gallon subsidy regardless of the
energy content, and it therefore offsets
twice as much cost as the BTL plant
producing diesel fuel. There is one more
issue worth considering and that is the
relative price of diesel fuel to that of
E85. Recently diesel fuel has been
priced much higher than gasoline, and
if this trend continues to hold, it would
provide a better market for selling the
BTL diesel fuel than for selling
biochemical ethanol into the E85
market, which we believe will be a
challenging pricing market for refiners.
4. Catalytic Depolymerization Costs
A new technology was developed by
Cello Energy which catalytically
depolymerizes cellulose, and then
repolymerizes it to produce synthetic
hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline, jet
fuel and diesel fuel The company claims
that they can produce diesel fuel for
about $0.40 per gallon by processing
hay, wood chips and used tires. Based
on our projections of future cellulosic
feedstock costs, their production costs
for using only cellulosic feedstocks and
assuming the cellulosic feedstock costs
developed above would likely be about
$1.00 per gallon. In late 2008 the
company started up a 20 million gallon
per year commercial demonstration
plant as a first step towards
commercializing their process. We
discuss this technology and its costs in
more detail in the DRIA.
B. Distribution Costs
Our analysis of the costs associated
with distributing the volumes of
renewable fuels that we project will be
used under RFS2 focuses on: (1) The
capital cost of making the necessary
upgrades to the fuel distribution
infrastructure system directly related to
handling these fuels, and (2) the
ongoing additional freight costs
associated with shipping renewable
fuels to the point where they are
blended with petroleum-based fuels.465
The following sections outline our
estimates of the distribution costs for
the additional volumes of ethanol,
FAME biodiesel, and renewable diesel
fuel that would be used in response to
the RFS2 standards.466
465 The anticipated ways that the renewable fuels
projected to be used in response to the EISA will
be distributed is discussed in Section V.C. of
today’s preamble.
466 Please refer to Section 4.2 of the DRIA for
additional discussion of how these estimates were
derived.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
A discussion of the capability of the
transportation system to accommodate
the volumes of renewable fuels
projected to be used under RFS2 is
contained in Section V.C. of today’s
preamble. There will be ancillary costs
associated with upgrading the basic rail,
marine, and road transportation nets to
handle the increase in freight volume
due to the RFS2. We have not sought to
quantify these ancillary costs because
(1) the growth in freight traffic that is
attributable to RFS2 represents a
minimal fraction of the total anticipated
increase in freight tonnage
(approximately 2% by 2022, see Section
V.C.4.), and (2) we do not believe there
is an adequate way to estimate such
non-direct costs. We will continue to
evaluate issues associated with the
expansion of the basic transportation
net to accommodate the volumes of
renewable fuels projected under RFS2
and will update our analysis for the
final rule based on our findings.
1. Ethanol Distribution Costs
a. Capital Costs To Upgrade the
Distribution System for Increased
Ethanol Volume
Table VIII.B.1–1 contains our
estimates of the infrastructure changes
and associated capital costs to support
the use of the additional 21 BGY of
ethanol that we project will be used
under RFS2 by 2022 relative to the AEO
2007 forecast of 13 BGY.467 The total
estimated capital costs are estimated at
$12.1 billion which when amortized
equates to approximately 6.9 cents per
gallon of this additional ethanol
volume.468
TABLE VIII.B.1–1—ESTIMATED ETHANOL DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL COSTS A—Continued
Million $
Ethanol Blending & Misc.
Equipment .........................
Retail .........................................
Mobile Facilities:
Rail Cars ...................................
Barges ......................................
Tank Trucks ..............................
Total Capital Costs ...............
a Relative
545
2,957
2,938
183
223
12,066
to a 13.18 BGY 2022 reference
case.
We request comment on our basis for
these estimates as detailed in chapter
4.2 of the DRIA. Comment is specifically
requested on the extent to which
ethanol rail receipt would be
accommodated within petroleum
terminals rather than being cited at rail
hub terminals (to be further shipped by
tank truck to petroleum terminals). Our
current analysis estimated that half of
the new ethanol rail receipt capability
needed to support the use of the
projected ethanol volumes under the
EISA would be installed at petroleum
terminals, and half would be installed at
rail terminals. A recently completed
study by ORNL estimated that all new
ethanol rail receipt capability would be
installed at existing rail terminals given
the limited ability to install such
capability at petroleum terminals.469
b. Ethanol Freight Costs
We estimate that ethanol freight costs
would be 11.3 cents per gallon on a
national average basis. Ethanol freight
costs are based on those we derived for
the Renewable Fuel Standard final rule
TABLE VIII.B.1–1—ESTIMATED ETH- updated to reflect the projected ethanol
ANOL DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUC- use patterns and effect on distribution
TURE CAPITAL COSTS A
patterns of increased imports and more
dispersed domestic ethanol production
Million $
locations.470 Specifically, we estimated
freight costs by assessing the location of
Fixed Facilities:
production and import volumes, where
Marine Import Facilities ............
49
ethanol would be used, and the modes
Ethanol Receipt Rail Hub Terand distances for transportation
minals:
between production and use.471 We
Rail Car Handling & Misc.
Equipment .........................
1,264 intend to update our estimate of ethanol
Ethanol Storage Tanks .........
354 freight costs for the final rule based on
a recently completed analysis
Petroleum Terminals:
Rail Receipt Facilities ...........
2,482 conducted for EPA by Oak Ridge
Ethanol Storage Tanks .........
1,611 National Laboratory (ORNL). The ORNL
467 See Section V.C. of today’s preamble for
discussion of the upgrades we project will be
needed to the distribution system to handle the
increase in ethanol volumes under EISA.
468 These capital costs will be incurred
incrementally through 2022 as ethanol volumes
increase. Capital costs for tank trucks were
amortized over 10 years with a 7% cost of capital.
Other capital costs were amortized over 15 years
with a 7% return on capital.
PO 00000
Frm 00180
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
469 ‘‘Analysis of Fuel Ethanol Transportation
Activity and Potential Distribution Constraints’’,
prepared for EPA by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, March 2009.
470 Please refer to Section 4.2 of the DRIA for
additional discussion of ethanol freight costs.
471 Our projections regarding the location of
ethanol production/import volumes and where
ethanol would be used is discussed in Sections V.B.
and V.D. of today’s preamble respectively.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
analysis contains more detailed
projections of which transportation
modes and combination of modes (e.g.,
unit train to barge) are best suited for
delivery of ethanol to specific markets
considering ethanol source and end use
locations, the current configuration and
projected evolution of the distribution
system, and cost considerations for the
different transportation modes.
2. Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel
Distribution Costs
a. Capital Costs To Upgrade the
Distribution System for Increased FAME
Biodiesel Volume
Table VIII.B.2–1 contains our
estimates of the infrastructure changes
and associated capital costs to support
the use of the additional 430 MGY of
FAME biodiesel that we project will be
used under RFS2 by 2022.472 The total
capital costs are estimated at $381
million which equates to approximately
9.8 cents per gallon of additional
biodiesel volume.473
TABLE VIII.B.2–1—ESTIMATED FAME
BIODIESEL DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL COSTS a
Million $
Fixed Facilities:
Petroleum Terminals:
Storage Tanks .......................
Biodiesel Blending & Misc.
Equipment .........................
Mobile Facilities:
Rail Cars ...................................
Barges ......................................
Tank Trucks ..............................
129
192
35
17
8
Total Capital Costs ...............
a Relative
381
to a 380 MGY 2022 reference
case.
b. Biodiesel Freight Costs
We estimate that biodiesel freight
costs would be 9.3 cents per gallons on
a national average basis. Priority
regional demand for biodiesel was
estimated by reviewing State biodiesel
mandates/incentives and assuming a
demand for 2% biodiesel in most
heating oil used in the Northeast by
2022. This priority regional demand was
assumed to be filled first from local
plants that could ship economically by
tank truck. The remaining fraction of
472 We project that by 2022 380 MGY of FAME
biodiesel would be used absent the requirements
under EISA and that a total of 810 MGY of FAME
biodiesel would be used under the EISA.
473 These capital costs will be incurred
incrementally through 2022 as FAME biodiesel
volumes increase. Capital costs for tank trucks were
amortized over 10 years with a 7% cost of capital.
Other capital costs were amortized over 15 years
with a 7% return on capital.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
priority regional demand was assumed
to be satisfied from more distant plants
via shipment by manifest rail car.
Overall shipping distances were
minimized in selecting which plants
would satisfy the demand for a given
area. The amount of biodiesel that we
project would be consumed which
would not be directed to priority
demand was assumed to be used within
trucking distance of the production
plant to the extent possible while
maintaining biodiesel blend
concentrations below 5%. The
remaining volume needed to match our
estimated production volume was
assumed to be shipped via manifest rail
car to the nearest areas where diesel fuel
use was not already saturated with
biodiesel to the 5% level.
c. Renewable Diesel Distribution System
Capital and Freight Costs
We project that there would be no
additional costs associated with
distributing the 250 MGY of renewable
diesel fuel that we estimate will be
produced at refineries by 2022.474 This
renewable diesel fuel will be blended
into finished diesel fuel at the refinery
and be distributed to petroleum
terminals in the same way 100%
petroleum-based distillate fuel is
distributed. This is based on our belief
that renewable diesel will be confirmed
to be sufficiently similar to petroleumbased diesel with respect to distribution
system compatibility.
We project that 125 MGY of
renewable diesel will be produced at
stand-alone facilities that are not
connected to a refinery or petroleum
terminal. We estimate that such
renewable diesel will be trucked to
nearby petroleum terminals at a cost of
5 cents per gallon. We estimate that 8
additional tank trucks would be needed
to carry this renewable diesel to
terminals at a total cost of
approximately $1.3 million dollars.
Amortized over 10 years with a 7% cost
of capital, the total capital costs equate
to approximately 0.2 cents per gallon of
renewable diesel fuel produced at standalone facilities. We estimate that no
further capital costs would need to be
incurred to handle renewable diesel
fuel. This is based on the assumption
that renewable diesel delivered to
terminals from stand-alone production
facilities can be mixed directly into
storage tanks that contain petroleumbased diesel fuel or can be stored
separately in existing storage tanks for
later blending with petroleum-based
474 This includes co-processed renewable diesel
fuel as well as renewable diesel fuel produced in
separate processing units located at refineries.
PO 00000
Frm 00181
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25083
diesel fuel. We further estimate the
terminals that receive renewable diesel
will not need to install additional
facilities to allow the receipt by tank
truck.
C. Reduced Refining Industry Costs
As renewable and alternative fuel use
increases, the volume of petroleumbased products, such as gasoline and
diesel fuel, would decrease. This
reduction in finished refinery petroleum
products is associated with reduced
refinery industry costs. The reduced
costs would essentially be the volume of
fuel displaced multiplied by the cost for
producing the fuel. There is also a
reduction in capital costs which is
important because by not investing in
new refinery capital, more resources are
freed up to build plants that produce
renewable and alternative fuels.
Although we conducted refinery
modeling for estimating the cost of
blending ethanol, we did not rely on the
refinery model results for estimating the
volume of displaced petroleum. Instead
we conducted an energy balance around
the increased use of renewable fuels,
estimating the energy-equivalent
volume of gasoline or diesel fuel
displaced. This allowed us to more
easily apply our best estimates for how
much of the petroleum would displace
imports of finished products versus
crude oil for our energy security
analysis which is discussed in Section
IX.B of this preamble.
As part of this analysis we accounted
for the change in petroleum demanded
by upstream processes related to
additional production of the renewable
fuels as well as reduced production of
petroleum fuels. For example, growing
corn used for ethanol production
requires the use of diesel fuel in
tractors, which reduces the volume of
petroleum displaced by the ethanol.
Similarly, the refining of crude oil uses
by-product hydrocarbons for heating
within the refinery, therefore the overall
effect of reduced gasoline and diesel
fuel consumption is actually greater
because of the additional upstream
effect. We used the lifecycle petroleum
demand estimates provided for in
GREET model to account for the
upstream consumption of petroleum for
each of the renewable and alternative
fuels, as well as for gasoline and diesel
fuel. Although there may be some
renewable fuel used for upstream
energy, we assumed that this entire
volume is petroleum because the
volume of renewable and alternative
fuels is fixed as described in Section V
above.
For this proposed rule, we assumed
that a portion of the gasoline displaced
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25084
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
by ethanol is imported, while the other
portion is produced from domestic
refineries. The assumption we made is
that one half of the ethanol market in
the Northeast, which comprises about
half of the nation’s gasoline demand,
would displace imported gasoline or
gasoline blend stocks. Therefore, to
derive the portion of the new renewable
fuels which would offset imports (and
not impact domestic refinery
production), we multiplied the total
volume of petroleum fuel displaced by
50% to represent that portion of the
ethanol which would be used in the
Northeast, and 50% again to only
account for that which would offset
imports. The rest of the ethanol,
including half of the ethanol presumed
to be used in the Northeast, is presumed
to offset domestic gasoline production.
In the case of biodiesel and renewable
diesel, all of it is presumed to offset
domestic diesel fuel production. For
ethanol, biodiesel and renewable diesel,
the amount of petroleum fuel displaced
is estimated based on the relative energy
contents of the renewable fuels to the
fuels which they are displacing. The
savings due to lower imported gasoline
and diesel fuel is accounted for in the
energy security analysis contained in
Section IX.B.
For estimating the U.S. refinery
industry cost reductions, we multiplied
the estimated volume of domestic
gasoline and diesel fuel displaced by the
wholesale price for each of these fuels,
which are $157 per gallon for gasoline,
and $161 per gallon for diesel fuel at
$53/bbl crude oil, and $267 per gallon
for gasoline, and $335 per gallon for
diesel fuel at $92/bbl crude oil. For the
volume of petroleum displaced
upstream, we valued it using the
wholesale diesel fuel price. Table
VIII.C.1–1 shows the net volumetric
impact on the petroleum portion of
gasoline and diesel fuel demand, as well
as the reduced refining industry costs
for 2022.
TABLE VIII.C.1–1—REDUCED U.S. REFINERY INDUSTRY COSTS FOR THE RFS2 PROGRAM IN 2022
Total volume
displaced
(billion gallons)
Cost savings at
$53/bbl crude oil
price
(billion dollars)
Cost savings at
$92/bbl crude oil
price
(billion dollars)
Petroleum ..............................................
Gasoline ................................................
Diesel Fuel ............................................
0.8
10.4
0.6
¥$1.3
16.3
0.9
¥$2.7
27.7
1.9
Total ...............................................
Upstream ................................................
End Use .................................................
..............................
15.9
26.9
D. Total Estimated Cost Impacts
The previous sections of this chapter
presented estimates of the cost of
producing and distributing corn-based
and cellulosic-based ethanol, imported
ethanol, biodiesel, and renewable
diesel. In this section, we briefly
summarize the methodology used and
the results of our analysis to estimate
the cost and other implications for
increased use of renewable fuels to
displace gasoline and diesel fuel. An
important aspect of this analysis is
refinery modeling which primarily was
used to estimate the costs of blending
ethanol into gasoline, as well as the
overall refinery industry impacts of the
proposed fuel program. The refinery
modeling was conducted by Jacobs
Consultancy under subcontract to
Southwest Research Institute. A detailed
discussion of how the renewable fuel
volumes affect refinery gasoline
production volumes and cost is
contained in Chapter 4 of the DRIA.
1. Refinery Modeling Methodology
The refinery modeling was conducted
in three distinct steps. The first step
involved the establishment of a 2004
base case which calibrated the refinery
model against 2004 volumes, gasoline
quality, and refinery capital in place.
The EPA and ASTM fuel quality
constraints in effect by 2004 are
imposed on the products.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
For the second step, we established a
2022 future year reference case which
represents a business-as-usual case as
estimated by the 2007Annual Energy
Outlook (AEO). The refinery model
assumed that the price of crude oil
would average about $51 per barrel,
though the results were later adjusted to
reflect $53 and $92 per barrel crude oil
prices. We also modeled the
implementation of several new
environmental programs that will have
required changes in fuel quality by
2022, including the 30 part per million
(ppm) average gasoline sulfur standard,
the 15 ppm cap standards on highway
and nonroad diesel fuel, the Mobile
Source Air Toxics (MSAT) 0.62 volume
percent benzene standard. We modeled
the implementation of EPAct of 2005,
which by rescinding the reformulated
gasoline oxygenate standard, resulted in
the discontinued use of MTBE, and a
large increase in the amount of ethanol
blended into reformulated gasoline. We
also modeled the EISA Energy Bill
´
corporate average fuel economy (cafe)
standards in the reference case because
it will be phasing-in, and affect the
phase-in of the RFS2. We modeled 13.2
billion gallons of ethanol in the gasoline
pool and 0.4 billion gallons of biodiesel
in the diesel pool for 2022, which is the
‘‘business-as-usual’’ volume as projected
by AEO 2007.
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The third step, or the control case,
involved the modeling of the 34 billion
gallons of ethanol and 1 billion gallons
of biodiesel and renewable diesel in
2022 to comply with EISA when the
proposed renewable fuels program is
fully phased-in. All the other
environmental and ASTM fuel quality
constraints are assumed to apply to the
control case as well to solely model the
impact of the RFS2 standards.
The price of ethanol and E85 used in
the refinery modeling is a critical
determinant of the overall economics of
using ethanol. Ethanol was priced
initially based on the historical average
price spread between regular grade
conventional gasoline and ethanol, but
then adjusted post-modeling to reflect
the projected production cost for both
corn and cellulosic-based ethanol. The
refinery modeling assumed that all
ethanol added to gasoline for E10 is
match-blended for octane by refiners in
the reference and control cases,
although splash blending of ethanol was
assumed to be appropriate for the
conventional gasoline for the base case
based on EPA gasoline data. For the
control case, E85 was assumed to be
priced much lower than gasoline to
reflect its lower energy content, longer
refueling time and lower availability
(see Chapter 4 of the DRIA for a detailed
discussion for how we projected E85
prices). E85 is assumed to be blended
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
with gasoline blendstock designed for
blending with E10, and a small amount
of butane to bring the RVP of E85 up to
that of gasoline. Thus, unlike current
practices today where E85 is blended at
85% in the summer and E70 in the
winter, we assumed that E85 is blended
at 85% year-round. E85 use in any one
market is limited to levels which we
estimated would reflect the ability of
FFV vehicles in the area to consume the
E85 volume.
The refinery model was provided
some flexibility and also was
constrained with respect to the
applicable gasoline volatility standards
for blending up E10. The refinery model
allowed conventional gasoline and most
low RVP control programs to increase
by 1.0 pounds per square inch (psi) in
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) waiver
during the summer. However,
wintertime conventional gasoline was
assumed to comply with the wintertime
ASTM RVP and Volume/Liquid (V/L)
standards.
The costs for producing, distributing
and using biodiesel and renewable
diesel are accounted for outside the
refinery modeling. Their production and
distribution costs are estimated first,
compared to the costs of producing
diesel fuel, and then are added to the
costs estimated by the refinery cost
model for blending the ethanol.
The costs were adjusted to reflect the
crude oil prices estimated by EIA in its
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). The
AEO 2008 reference case projects that
crude oil will be $53 per barrel in 2022,
so we adjusted our costs slightly to
reflect that slightly higher crude oil
price. We also evaluated a higher crude
oil price case. The high crude oil case
price modeled for the AEO projects that
crude oil will be $92 per barrel in 2022,
so we adjusted our cost model to also
estimate the program costs based on this
higher crude oil cost. We estimated the
program costs based on these different
crude oil prices by adjusting the
gasoline and diesel fuel prices to reflect
the cost of crude oil. The crude oil costs
also have a secondary impact on the
production costs of various renewable
and alternative fuels (e.g., petroleum
used to grow corn which also has been
reflected in our cost analysis).
2. Overall Impact on Fuel Cost
Based on the refinery modeling
conducted for today’s proposed rule, we
calculated the costs for consuming the
additional 22 billion gallons of
renewable fuels in 2022 relative to the
reference case. The costs are reported
separately for blending ethanol into
gasoline as E10 and E85, and for
blending biodiesel and renewable diesel
with diesel fuel. The costs are expressed
two different ways. First, we express the
full ‘‘engineering’’ cost of the program
without the ethanol consumption tax
subsidies in which the costs are based
on the total accumulated costs of each
of the fuels changes, at both reference
25085
case and high crude oil prices. Second,
we express the costs subtracting the
ethanol and biodiesel and renewable
diesel consumption tax subsidies since
some or perhaps most of the cost of the
tax subsidy may not be reflected in the
price consumers pay at retail. In all
cases, the capital costs are amortized at
seven percent return on investment
(ROI) before taxes, and based on 2006
dollars.
a. Costs Without Federal Tax Subsidies
Table VIII.D.2–1 summarizes the costs
without ethanol tax subsidies for each of
the two 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.475 This
estimate of costs reflects the changes in
gasoline that are occurring with the
expanded use of renewable and
alternative fuels. These costs include
the labor, utility and other operating
costs, fixed costs and the capital costs
for all the fuel changes expected. The
per-gallon costs are derived by dividing
the total costs over all U.S. gasoline and
diesel fuel projected to be consumed in
2022. Note that these costs are
incremental only to the reference case
volumes of renewable fuels (costing out
about 20 billion gallons of new
renewable fuels) and does not reflect the
costs of the renewable fuel volumes in
the reference case.
TABLE VIII.D.2–1—ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE RFS2 PROGRAM IN 2022
[2006 dollars, 7% ROI before taxes]
$53 per barrel of crude
oil incremental to reference case
$92 per barrel of crude
oil incremental to reference case
Diesel Fuel Impacts ................................................................
$billion/yr ................................
c/gal .......................................
$billion/yr ................................
c/gal .......................................
17.0
10.91
0.78
1.20
4.1
2.65
¥0.05
¥0.07
Total Impact .....................................................................
$billion/yr ................................
17.8
4.1
Gasoline Impacts ....................................................................
Our analysis shows, as expected, that
the RFS2 program is more cost effective
at the higher assumed price of crude oil.
At our assumed crude oil price of $53
per barrel, the gasoline and diesel fuel
costs are projected to increase by $17.0
billion and $0.78 billion, respectively,
or $17.8 billion in total. Expressed as
per-gallon costs, these fuel changes
would increase the cost of producing
gasoline and diesel fuel by 10.91 and
1.20 cents per gallon, respectively. At
the assumed crude oil price of $92 per
barrel, the gasoline costs are projected to
increase by $4.1 billion and the diesel
fuel costs are projected to decrease by
$0.05 billion, or increase by $4.1 billion
in total. Expressed as per-gallon costs,
these fuel changes would increase
gasoline costs by 2.65 and decrease
diesel fuel costs by 0.07 cents per gallon
at the higher crude oil price. Our
analysis shows that at the higher crude
oil price, ethanol, biodiesel and
renewable diesel fuel use would be
much less costly to use.
The increased use of renewable and
alternative fuels would require capital
investments in corn and cellulosic
ethanol plants, and renewable diesel
fuel plants. In addition to producing the
fuels, storage and distribution facilities
along the whole distribution chain,
including at retail, will have to be
constructed for these new fuels.
Conversely, as these renewable and
475 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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25086
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
alternative fuels are being produced,
they supplant gasoline and diesel fuel
demand which results in less new
investments in refineries compared to
business as usual. In Table VIII.D.2–2,
we list the total incremental capital
investments that we project would be
made for this proposed RFS2
rulemaking incremental to the AEO
2007 reference case.
attributed to this program for 2022 are
$58.9 billion. One contributing reason
why the capital investments made for
renewable fuels technologies is so much
more than the decrease in refining
industry capital investments is that a
large part of the decrease in petroleum
gasoline supply was from reduced
imports. In addition, renewable fuels
technologies are more capital intensive
per gallon of fuel produced than
TABLE VIII.D.2–2—TOTAL PROJECTED incremental increases in gasoline and
U.S. CAPITAL INVESTMENTS FOR THE diesel fuel production at refineries.
RFS2 PROGRAM
b. Gasoline and Diesel Costs Reflecting
the Tax Subsidies
[billion dollars]
Plant Type
Capital Costs
Corn Ethanol ...........................
Cellulosic Ethanol ...................
Ethanol Distribution ................
Bio/Renew Diesel Fuel Production and Distribution ......
Refining ...................................
Total ....................................
4.0
50.1
12.4
0.25
¥7.9
58.9
Table VIII.D.2–2 shows that the total
U.S. incremental capital investments
Table VIII.D.2–3 below expresses the
total and per-gallon gasoline costs for
the two control scenarios showing the
effect of the Federal tax subsidies. The
Federal tax subsidy is 45 cents per
gallon for each gallon of new corn
ethanol blended into gasoline and $1.01
per gallon for each gallon of cellulosic
ethanol. Imported ethanol also receives
the 45 cents per gallon Federal tax
subsidy, although the portion of
imported ethanol which exceeds the
volume of imported ethanol exempted
through the Caribbean Basin Initiative
(CBI) would have to pay a 51 cents per
gallon tariff. We estimate that in 2022
imported ethanol would receive a net 23
cents per gallon subsidy after we
account for both the subsidy and
projected volume of imported ethanol
subjected to the tariff. While there are
also state ethanol tax subsidies we did
not consider those subsidies. A $1 per
gallon subsidy currently applies to
biodiesel produced from virgin plant
oils (i.e., soy) and a 50 cent per gallon
subsidy applies to biodiesel and
renewable diesel fuel produced from
waste fats and oils; we assume that
these subsidies continue.476 The
subsidies, if passed along to the
consumer, reduce the apparent cost of
the program to the consumer at retail
since part of the program cost is being
paid through taxes. The cost reduction
attributed to the subsidies is estimated
by multiplying the value of the
subsidies times the volume of new corn
and cellulosic ethanol used in
transportation fuels.
TABLE VIII.D.2–3—ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE RFS2 PROGRAM IN 2022
[Reflecting Tax Subsidies, 2006 dollars, 7% ROI before taxes]
$53 per barrel of crude
oil incremental to reference case
$93 per barrel of crude
oil incremental to reference case
Diesel Fuel Impacts ................................................................
$billion/yr ................................
c/gal .......................................
$billion/yr ................................
c/gal .......................................
¥0.74
¥0.48
0.25
0.39
¥13.6
¥8.74
¥0.57
¥0.88
Total Impact .....................................................................
$billion/yr ................................
¥0.49
¥14.2
Gasoline Impacts ....................................................................
Our analysis shows, as expected, that
the overall costs of the RFS2 program
appears to be lower when considering
the ethanol consumption subsidies. At
the assumed crude oil price of $53 per
barrel, the gasoline and diesel fuel costs
are projected to decrease by $0.74
billion and increase $0.25 billion,
respectively, or $¥0.49 billion in total.
Expressed as per-gallon costs, these fuel
changes would decrease gasoline costs
by ¥0.48 cents per gallon and increase
diesel fuel costs by 0.39 cents per
gallon. At the assumed crude oil price
of $92 per barrel, the gasoline and diesel
fuel costs are projected to decrease by
$13.6 billion and $0.57 billion,
respectively, or $14.2 billion in total.
Expressed as per-gallon costs, these fuel
changes would decrease gasoline and
diesel fuel by 8.74 and 0.88 cents per
gallon, respectively. Reducing the cost
by the tax subsidies, which more closely
represents the prices paid by consumers
at the pump, our analysis shows that at
lower crude oil prices that the cost of
the program would be very small.
However, at the higher oil prices and
including the subsidies, the program’s
costs are very negative.
476 The recent economic bailout law increased the
subsidy provided to renewable diesel fuel to $1 per
gas impacts of renewable fuels. The
Food and Agricultural Policy Research
Institute (FAPRI) at Iowa State
University and the University of
Missouri-Columbia maintains a number
of econometric models that are capable
of providing detailed information on
impacts on international agricultural
markets from the wider use of
renewable fuels in the U.S.
FASOM is a long-term economic
model of the U.S. agriculture sector that
attempts to maximize total revenues for
producers while meeting the demands
of consumers. FASOM can be utilized to
estimate which crops, livestock, and
processed agricultural products would
be produced in the U.S. given RFS2
biofuel requirements. In each model
simulation, crops compete for price
sensitive inputs such as land and labor
at the regional level and the cost of
gallon, but we were not able incorporate this change
in time for this proposed rulemaking.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
IX. Economic Impacts and Benefits of
the Proposal
A. Agricultural Impacts
EPA used two principal tools to
model the potential domestic and
international impacts of the RFS2 on the
U.S. and global agricultural sectors. The
Forest and Agricultural Sector
Optimization Model (FASOM),
developed by Professor Bruce McCarl of
Texas A&M University and others,
provides detailed information on
domestic agricultural and greenhouse
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25087
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
these and other inputs are used to
determine the price and level of
production of primary commodities
(e.g., field crops, livestock, and biofuel
products). FASOM also estimates prices
using costs associated with the
processing of primary commodities into
secondary products (e.g., converting
livestock to meat and dairy, crushing
soybeans to soybean meal and oil, etc.).
FASOM does not capture short-term
fluctuations (i.e., month-to-month,
annual) in prices and production,
however, as it is designed to identify
long-term trends (i.e., five to ten years).
The domestic results provided
throughout this analysis incorporate the
agricultural sector component of the
FASOM model.
The FASOM model also contains a
forestry component. Running both the
forestry and agriculture components of
the model would show the interaction
between these two sectors. However, the
analysis for this proposal only shows
the results from the agriculture
component with no interaction from the
forestry sector, as the forestry
component of the model is in the
process of being updated. We plan to
utilize a complete version of the model
for our analysis in the final rule, where
agricultural land use impacts also affect
forestry land use, and cellulosic ethanol
produced from the forestry sector will
affect cellulosic ethanol production in
the agriculture sector.
The FAPRI models are econometric
models covering many agricultural
commodities. These models capture the
biological, technical, and economic
relationships among key variables
within a particular commodity and
across commodities. They are based on
historical data analysis, current
academic research, and a reliance on
accepted economic, agronomic, and
biological relationships in agricultural
production and markets. The
international modeling system includes
international grains, oilseeds, ethanol,
sugar, and livestock models. In general,
for each commodity sector, the
economic relationship that supply
equals demand is maintained by
determining a market-clearing price for
the commodity. In countries where
domestic prices are not solved
endogenously, these prices are modeled
as a function of the world price using a
price transmission equation. Since
econometric models for each sector can
be linked, changes in one commodity
sector will impact other sectors.
Elasticity values for supply and demand
responses are based on econometric
analysis and on consensus estimates.
Additional information on the FASOM
and FAPRI models is included in the
Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (DRIA
Chapter 5).
For the agricultural sector analysis
using the FASOM and FAPRI models of
the RFS2 biofuel volumes, we assumed
15 billion gallons (Bgal) of corn ethanol
would be produced for use as
transportation fuel by 2022, an increase
of 2.7 Bgal from the Reference Case.
Also, we modeled 1.0 Bgal of biodiesel
used as fuel in 2022, an increase of 0.6
Bgal from the Reference Case. In
addition, we modeled an increase of 10
Bgal of cellulosic ethanol in 2022. In
FASOM, this volume consists of 7.5
billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol
coming from corn residue in 2022, 1.3
billion gallons from switchgrass and 1.4
billion gallons from sugarcane bagasse.
Though these volumes differ slightly
from those analyzed in Section
V.B.2.c.iv, we will work to align the
volumes for the final rulemaking.
Given the short timeframe for
conducting this analysis, some of the
projected sources of biofuels analyzed
in the RFS2 proposal are not currently
modeled in FASOM and FAPRI. For
example, biodiesel from corn oil
fractionation is not currently accounted
for in FASOM. In addition, since
FASOM is a domestic agricultural sector
model, it can’t be utilized to examine
the impacts of the wider use of biofuel
imports into the U.S. Also, neither of
the two models used for this analysis—
FASOM or FAPRI—include biofuels
derived from domestic municipal solid
waste or from the U.S. forestry sector.
Thus, for the RFS2 agricultural sector
analysis, these biofuel sources are
analyzed outside of the agricultural
sector models.
All the results presented in this
section are relative to the AEO 2007
Reference Case renewable fuel volumes,
which include 12.3 Bgal of grain-based
ethanol, 0.4 Bgal of biodiesel, and 0.3
Bgal of cellulosic ethanol in 2022. The
domestic figures are provided by
FASOM, and all of the international
numbers are provided by FAPRI. The
detailed FASOM results, detailed FAPRI
results, and additional sensitivity
analyses are described in more detail in
the DRIA. We seek comment on this
analysis of the agricultural sector
impacts resulting from the wider use of
renewable fuels.
TABLE IX.A.1–1—BIOFUEL VOLUMES MODELED IN 2022
[Billions of Gallons]
Biofuel
Reference Case
Control Case
Change
Corn Ethanol ..................................................................................................................
Corn Residue Cellulosic Ethanol ...................................................................................
Sugarcane Bagasse Cellulosic Ethanol ........................................................................
Switchgrass Cellulosic Ethanol ......................................................................................
Other Ethanol .................................................................................................................
Biodiesel ........................................................................................................................
12.3
0
0.3
0
0
0.4
1. Commodity Price Changes
TABLE IX.A.1–2—CHANGE IN U.S.
COMMODITY PRICES FROM THE REFERENCE CASE
For the scenario modeled, FASOM
predicts that in 2022 U.S. corn prices
would increase by $0.15 per bushel
(4.6%) above the Reference Case price of
$3.19 per bushel. By 2022, U.S. soybean
prices would increase by $0.29 per
bushel (2.9%) above the Reference Case
price of $9.97 per bushel. The price of
sugarcane would increase $13.34/ton
(41%) above the Reference Case price of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
$32.49 per ton by 2022. In 2022, beef
prices would increase $0.93 per
hundred pounds (1.4%), relative to the
Reference Case price of $67.72 per
hundred pounds. Additional price
impacts are included in Section 5.1.1 of
the DRIA.
PO 00000
15.0
7.5
1.4
1.3
0.2
1.0
[2006$]
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Commodity
Change
Corn ...........
Soybeans ..
Sugarcane
Frm 00185
2.7
7.5
1.1
1.3
0.2
0.6
$0.15/bushel .........
$0.29/bushel .........
$13.34/ton .............
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
%
Change
4.6
2.9
41
25088
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
in Section 4.1.1 of the DRIA) for the
TABLE IX.A.1–2—CHANGE IN U.S.
COMMODITY PRICES FROM THE REF- final rule and invite comment on these
assumptions.
ERENCE CASE—Continued
[2006$]
Commodity
Fed Beef ....
%
Change
Change
$0.93/hundred
pounds.
1.4
By 2022, the price of switchgrass is
$30.18 per wet ton and the farm gate
feedstock price of corn stover is $32.74/
wet ton. These prices do not include the
storage, handling, or delivery costs,
which would result in a delivered price
to the ethanol facility of at least twice
the farm gate cost, depending on the
region. We intend to update the costs
assumptions (described in more detail
2. Impacts on U.S. Farm Income
The increase in renewable fuel
production provides a significant
increase in net farm income to the U.S.
agricultural sector. FASOM predicts that
net U.S. farm income would increase by
$7.1 billion dollars in 2022 (10.6%),
relative to the AEO 2007 Reference
Case.
3. Commodity Use Changes
Changes in the consumption patterns
of U.S. corn can be seen by the
increasing percentage of corn used for
ethanol. FASOM estimates the amount
of domestically produced corn used for
ethanol in 2022 would increase to 33%,
relative to the 28% usage rate under the
Reference Case. The rising price of corn
and soybeans in the U.S. would also
have a direct impact on how corn is
used. Higher domestic corn prices
would lead to lower U.S. exports as the
world markets shift to other sources of
these products or expand the use of
substitute grains. FASOM estimates that
U.S. corn exports would drop 263
million bushels (¥9.9%) to 2.4 billion
bushels by 2022. In value terms, U.S.
exports of corn would fall by $487
million (¥5.7%) to $8 billion in 2022.
U.S. exports of soybeans would also
decrease under this proposal. FASOM
estimates that U.S. exports of soybeans
would decrease 96.6 million bushels
(¥9.3%) to 943 million bushels by
2022. In value terms, U.S. exports of
soybeans would decrease by $691
million (¥6.7%) to $9.7 billion in 2022.
TABLE IX.A.3–1—REDUCTIONS IN U.S. EXPORTS FROM THE REFERENCE CASE IN 2022
Exports
Change
Corn in Bushels ..........................................................................
Soybeans in Bushels ..................................................................
263 million ..................................................................................
96.6 million .................................................................................
Total Value of Exports
Change
Corn (2006$) ..............................................................................
Soybeans (2006$) ......................................................................
$487 million ................................................................................
$691 million ................................................................................
Higher U.S. demand for corn for
ethanol production would cause a
decrease in the use of corn for U.S.
livestock feed. Substitutes are available
for corn as a feedstock, and this market
is price sensitive. Several ethanol
processing byproducts could also be
used to replace a portion of the corn
used as feed, depending on the type of
animal. Distillers dried grains with
solubles (DDGS) are a byproduct of dry
milling ethanol production, and gluten
meal and gluten feed are byproducts of
wet milling ethanol production. By
2022, FASOM predicts ethanol
byproducts used in feed would increase
19% to 30 million tons, compared to 25
million tons under the Reference Case.
million tons of switchgrass. Sugarcane
bagasse for cellulosic ethanol
production increases by 15.7 million
tons to 19.7 million tons in 2022 relative
to the Reference Case.
4. U.S. Land Use Changes
Higher U.S. corn prices would have a
direct impact on the value of U.S.
agricultural land. As demand for corn
and other farm products increases, the
price of U.S. farm land would also
increase. Our analysis shows that land
prices would increase by about 21% by
2022, relative to the Reference Case.
FASOM estimates an increase of 3.2
million acre increase (3.9%) in
harvested corn acres, relative to 83.4
million acres harvested under the
TABLE IX.A.3–2—PERCENT CHANGE Reference Case by 2022.477 Most of the
IN ETHANOL BYPRODUCTS USE IN new corn acres come from a reduction
FEED RELATIVE TO THE REFERENCE in existing crop acres, such as rice,
wheat, and hay.
CASE
Though demand for biodiesel
increases, FASOM predicts a fall in U.S.
Category
2022
soybean acres harvested, assuming
Ethanol Byproducts ..................
19% soybean-based biodiesel meets the EISA
GHG emission reduction thresholds.
The EISA cellulosic ethanol
According to the model, harvested
requirements result in the production of soybean acres would decrease by
residual agriculture products as well as
dedicated energy crops. By 2022,
477 Total U.S. planted acres increases to 92.2
FASOM predicts production of 90
million acres from the Reference Case level of 89
million tons of corn residue and 18
million acres in 2022.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
% Change
¥9.9
¥9.3
% Change
¥5.7
¥6.7
approximately 0.4 million acres
(¥0.5%), relative to the Reference Case
acreage of 71.5 million acres in 2022.
Despite the decrease in soybean acres in
2022, soybean oil production would
increase by 0.4 million tons (4.0%) by
2022 over the Reference Case.
Additionally, FASOM predicts that
soybean oil exports would decrease 1.3
million tons by 2022 (¥52%) relative to
the Reference Case.
As the demand for cellulosic ethanol
increases, most of the production is
derived from corn residue harvesting.
As demand for cellulosic ethanol from
bagasse increases, sugarcane acres
increase by 0.7 millions acres (55%) to
1.9 million acres by 2022. In addition,
some of the cellulosic ethanol comes
from switchgrass, which is not
produced under the Reference Case. In
the scenario analyzed, 2.8 million acres
of switchgrass will be planted by 2022.
As described in Section V, for both the
Reference Case and the Control Case, we
assume 32 million acres would remain
in the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP). Therefore, some of the new corn,
soybean, and switchgrass acres may be
indirectly coming from former CRP land
that is not re-enrolled in the program.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
costs 478 would increase by roughly $10
TABLE IX.A.4–1—CHANGE IN U.S.
CROP ACRES RELATIVE TO THE per person per year by 2022, relative to
the Reference Case.479 Total effective
REFERENCE CASE IN 2022
[Millions of acres]
Crop
Change
Corn ..................
Soybeans ..........
Sugarcane ........
Switchgrass ......
3.2
¥0.4
0.7
2.8
farm gate food costs would increase by
$3.3 billion (0.2%) in 2022.480 To put
these changes in perspective, average
% Change
U.S. per capita food expenditures in
3.9 2007 were $3,778 or approximately 10%
¥0.5 of personal disposable income. The total
55 amount spent on food in the U.S. in
N/A 2007 was $1.14 trillion dollars.481
The additional demand for corn and
other crops for biofuel production also
results in increased use of fertilizer in
the U.S. In 2022, FASOM estimates that
U.S. nitrogen fertilizer use would
increase 897 million pounds (3.4%)
over the Reference Case nitrogen
fertilizer use of 26.2 billion pounds. In
2022, U.S. phosphorous fertilizer use
would increase by 496 million pounds
(8.6%) relative to the Reference Case
level of 5.8 billion pounds.
TABLE IX.A.4–2—CHANGE IN U.S.
FERTILIZER USE RELATIVE TO THE
REFERENCE CASE
[Millions of pounds]
Fertilizer
Change
Nitrogen ............
Phosphorous .....
% Change
897
496
3.4
8.6
5. Impact on U.S. Food Prices
Due to higher commodity prices,
FASOM estimates that U.S. food
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
6. International Impacts
Changes in the U.S. agriculture
economy are likely to have effects in
other countries around the world in
terms of trade, land use, and the global
478 FASOM does not calculate changes in price to
the consumer directly. The proxy for aggregate food
price change is an indexed value of all food prices
at the farm gate. It should be noted, however, that
according to USDA, approximately 80% of
consumer food expenditures are a result of handling
after it leaves the farm (e.g., processing, packaging,
storage, marketing, and distribution). These costs
consist of a complex set of variables, and do not
necessarily change in proportion to an increase in
farm gate costs. In fact, these intermediate steps can
absorb price increases to some extent, suggesting
that only a portion of farm gate price changes are
typically reflected at the retail level. See https://
www.ers.usda.gov/publications/foodreview/
septdec00/FRsept00e.pdf.
479 These estimates are based on U.S. Census
population projections of 318 million people in
2017 and 330 million people in 2022. See https://
www.census.gov/population/www/projections/
natsum.html.
480 Farm Gate food prices refer to the prices that
farmers are paid for their commodities.
481 See www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/
CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/table15.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00187
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25089
price and consumption of fuel and food.
We utilized the FAPRI model to assess
the impacts of the increased use of
renewable fuels in the U.S. on world
agricultural markets.
The FAPRI modeling shows that
world corn prices would increase by
7.5% to $3.69 per bushel in 2022,
relative to the Reference Case. The
impact on world soybean prices is
somewhat smaller, increasing 5.6% to
$9.94 per bushel in 2022.
Changes to the global commodity
trade markets and world commodity
prices result in changes in international
land use. The FAPRI model provides
international change in crop acres as a
result of the RFS2 proposal. Brazil has
the largest positive change in crop acres
in 2022, followed by the U.S., Nigeria,
India, Paraguay, and China. The FAPRI
model estimates that Brazil crop acres
increase by 3.1 million acres (2.0%) to
153.6 million acres relative to the
Reference Case. Total U.S. acres
increase by 2.3 million acres (1.0%) in
2022 to 232.6 million acres. Nigeria has
an increase in crop acres of 1.5 million
acres (5.9%) to 27.3 million acres in
2022. India’s total crop acres increase by
1.0 million acres (0.3%) to 326 million
acres in 2022. Total crop acres in
Paraguay increase by 0.8 million acres
(6.9%) to 12 million acres. China’s total
crop acres increase by 0.4 million acres
(0.2%) to 257.8 million acres in 2022.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
The RFS2 proposal results in higher
international commodity prices, which
would impact world food
consumption.482 The FAPRI model
indicates that world consumption of
corn for food would decrease by 1.1
million metric tons in 2022 relative to
the Reference Case. Similarly, the
FAPRI model estimates that world
consumption of wheat for food would
decrease by 0.6 million metric tons in
2022. World consumption of oil for food
(e.g., vegetable oils) decreases 1.8
million metric tons by 2022. The model
also estimates a small change in world
meat consumption, decreasing by 0.3
million metric tons in 2022. When
considering all the food uses included
in the model, world food consumption
decreases by 0.9 million metric tons by
2022 (¥0.04%). While FAPRI provides
estimates of changes in world food
consumption, estimating effects on
global nutrition is beyond the scope of
this analysis.
482 The food commodities included in the FAPRI
model include corn, wheat, sorghum, barley,
soybeans, sugar, peanuts, oils, beef, pork, poultry,
and dairy products.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
TABLE IX.A.6–1—CHANGE IN WORLD renewable fuels on U.S. oil imports and
FOOD CONSUMPTION RELATIVE TO avoided U.S. oil import expenditures. In
the second section, a methodology is
THE REFERENCE CASE
[Millions of metric tons]
Category
2022
Corn ..........................................
Wheat .......................................
Vegetable Oils ..........................
Meat ..........................................
¥1.1
¥0.6
¥1.8
¥0.3
Total Food .............................
¥0.9
Additional information on the U.S.
agricultural sector and international
trade impacts of this proposal is
described in more detail in the DRIA
(Chapter 5).
B. Energy Security Impacts
Increasing usage of renewable fuels
helps to reduce U.S. petroleum imports.
A reduction of U.S. petroleum imports
reduces both financial and strategic
risks associated with a potential
disruption in supply or a spike in cost
of a particular energy source. This
reduction in risks is a measure of
improved U.S. energy security. In this
section, we estimate the monetary value
of the energy security benefits of the
RFS2 mandated volumes in comparison
to the Reference Case by estimating the
impact of the expanded use of
PO 00000
Frm 00188
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
described for estimating the energy
security benefits of reduced U.S. oil
imports. The final section summarizes
the energy security benefits to the U.S.
associated with this proposal.
1. Implications of Reduced Petroleum
Use on U.S. Imports
In 2007, U.S. petroleum imports
represented 19.5% of total U.S. imports
of all goods and services.483 In 2005, the
United States imported almost 60% of
the petroleum it consumed. This
compares roughly to 35% of petroleum
from imports in 1975.484 Transportation
accounts for 70% of the U.S. petroleum
consumption. It is clear that petroleum
imports have a significant impact on the
U.S. economy. Diversifying
transportation fuels in the U.S. is
expected to lower U.S. petroleum
imports. To estimate the impacts of this
proposal on the U.S.’s dependence on
483 Bureau of Economic Affairs: ‘‘U.S.
International Transactions, Fourth Quarter of 2007’’
by Elena L. Nguyen and Jessica Melton Hanson,
April 2008.
484 Davis, Stacy C.; Diegel, Susan W.,
Transportation Energy Data Book: 25th Edition, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of
Energy, ORNL–6974, 2006.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
EP26MY09.011
25090
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
imported oil, we calculate avoided U.S.
expenditures on petroleum imports.
For the proposal, EPA analyzed two
approaches to estimate the reductions in
U.S. petroleum imports. The first
approach utilizes a model of the U.S.
energy sector, the National Energy
Modeling System (NEMS), to quantify
the type and volume of reduced
petroleum imports based on supply and
demand for specific fuels in a given
year. The National Energy Modeling
System (NEMS) is a computer-based,
energy-economy modeling system of
U.S. energy markets through the 2030
time period. NEMS projects U.S.
production, imports, conversion,
consumption, and prices of energy;
subject to assumptions on world energy
markets, resource availability and costs,
behavioral and technological choice
criteria, cost and performance
characteristics of energy technologies,
and demographics. NEMS is designed
and implemented by the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) of the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). For
this analysis, the NEMS model was run
with the 2007 AEO levels of biofuels in
the Reference Case compared with the
biofuel volume RFS2 requirements.
Considering the regional nature of
U.S. imports of petroleum imports, a
second approach was utilized as well to
estimate the impacts of the RFS2
proposal on U.S. oil imports. This
approach is labeled ‘‘Regional Gasoline
Market’’ approach. This approach makes
the assumption that one half of the
ethanol market is in the Northeast
region of the U.S., which also comprises
about half of the nation’s gasoline
demand. For this analysis, it is
estimated that ethanol would displace
imported gasoline or gasoline blend
stocks in the Northeast, but not
elsewhere in the country. Therefore, to
derive the portion of the new renewable
fuels which would offset U.S. petroleum
imports (and not impact domestic
refinery production), we multiplied the
total volume of petroleum fuel
displaced by 50 percent to represent
that portion of the ethanol which would
be used in the Northeast, and 50 percent
again to only account for that which
would offset imports. The rest of the
ethanol, including half of the ethanol
presumed to be used in the Northeast,
is presumed to offset domestic gasoline
production, which ultimately offsets
crude oil inputs at refineries. Biodiesel
and renewable diesel are presumed to
offset domestic diesel fuel production.
The results shown in Table IX.B.1–1
below reflect the net lifecycle
reductions in U.S. oil imports projected
by NEMS. The net lifecycle reductions
include the upstream petroleum used to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
25091
gasoline, diesel, and ethanol net imports
by the respective AEO 2008 wholesale
gasoline and distillate price forecasts,
and ethanol price forecasts from the
TABLE IX.B.1–1—NET REDUCTIONS IN Food and Agricultural Policy Research
OIL IMPORTS IN 2022 (NEMS Institute (FAPRI) for the specific
analysis years. In Table IX.B.1–3, the net
MODEL RESULTS)
expenditures in reduced petroleum
[Millions of barrels per day]
imports and increased ethanol imports
are compared to the total value of U.S.
Category of reduction
2022
net exports of goods and services for the
whole economy for 2022. The U.S. net
Imports of Finished Petroleum
Products ................................
0.823 exports of goods and services estimates
Imports of Crude Oil .................
(0.007) are taken from Energy Information
Total Reduction ........................
0.815 Administration’s Annual Energy
Percent Reduction ....................
6.15% Outlook 2008. We project that avoided
expenditures on imported petroleum
The NEMS model projects that for the
products due to this proposal would be
year 2022 all of the reduction in
roughly $16 billion in 2022. Relative to
petroleum imports comes out of
the 2022 projection, the total avoided
finished petroleum products. NEMS
expenditures on liquid transportation
projects that 91% of the reductions in
fuels are projected to be $12.4 billion
2022 come from reduced net imports of
with the RFS2 proposal.
crude oil and finished petroleum
products (as compared to a 9%
TABLE IX.B.1–3—CHANGES IN EXreduction in domestic U.S. production).
PENDITURES ON TRANSPORTATION
The results shown in Table IX.B.1–2
FUEL NET IMPORTS
below reflect the net lifecycle
[Billions of 2006$]
reductions in U.S. oil imports projected
by the use of the Regional Gasoline
Category
2022
Market approach detailed above.
produce renewable fuels, gasoline and
diesel, as well as the petroleum directly
used by end-users.
TABLE IX.B.1–2—NET REDUCTIONS IN
OIL IMPORTS IN 2022 (REGIONAL
GASOLINE MARKET APPROACH RESULTS)
[Millions of barrels per day]
Category of reduction
AEO Total Net Exports ...........
Expenditures on Net Petroleum Imports .......................
Expenditures on Net Ethanol
and Biodiesel Imports .........
Net Expenditures on Transportation Fuel Imports .........
16
(15.96)
3.52
(12.44)
2022
2. Energy Security Implications
Imports of Finished Petroleum
Products ................................
Imports of Crude Oil .................
Total Reduction ........................
Percent Reduction ....................
0.250
0.637
0.887
6.17%
The Regional Gasoline Market
approach projects that for 2022, 72% of
the petroleum supply displacement (on
a volume basis) comes out of reduced
net crude oil imports, and 28% out of
net imports of finished petroleum
products (excluding biofuels). Using our
two approaches for projecting total
petroleum import reductions (the NEMS
and the Regional Gasoline Market), we
estimate that petroleum product imports
will fall between 0.815 to 0.887 million
barrels per day in 2022 as a result of the
RFS2 proposal.
Using the NEMS model, we also
calculated the change in expenditures in
both U.S. petroleum and ethanol
imports with the RFS2 proposal and
compared these with the U.S. trade
position measured as U.S. net exports of
all goods and services economy-wide.
Changes in fuel expenditures were
estimated by multiplying the changes in
PO 00000
Frm 00189
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
In order to understand the energy
security implications of reducing U.S.
oil imports, EPA has worked with Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),
which has developed approaches for
evaluating the social costs and energy
security implications of oil use. In a
new study entitled ‘‘The Energy Security
Benefits of Reduced Oil Use, 2006–
2015,’’ completed in February, 2008,
ORNL has updated and applied the
analytical approach used in the 1997
Report ‘‘Oil Imports: An Assessment of
Benefits and Costs.’’ 485 486 This new
study is included as part of the record
in this rulemaking.487
485 Leiby, 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, 1997.
486 The 1997 ORNL paper was cited and its
results used in DOT/NHTSA’s rules establishing
CAFE standards for 2008 through 2011 model year
light trucks. See DOT/NHTSA, Final Regulatory
Impacts Analysis: Corporate Average Fuel Economy
and CAFE Reform MY 2008–2011, March 2006.
487 Leiby, Paul N. ‘‘Estimating the Energy Security
Benefits of Reduced U.S. Oil Imports,’’ Oak Ridge
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
Continued
26MYP2
25092
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
The approach developed by ORNL
estimates the incremental benefits to
society, in dollars per barrel, of reducing
U.S. oil imports, called the ‘‘oil
premium.’’ Since the 1997 publication
of the ORNL Report, changes in oil
market conditions, both current and
projected, suggest that the magnitude of
the oil premium has changed.
Significant driving factors that have
been revised include: Oil prices, current
and anticipated levels of OPEC
production, U.S. import levels, the
estimated responsiveness of regional oil
supplies and demands to price, and the
likelihood of oil supply disruptions. For
this analysis, oil prices from the AEO
2007 were used. Using the ‘‘oil
premium’’ approach, the analysis
calculates estimates of benefits of
improved energy security from reduced
U.S. oil imports due to this proposal.
When conducting this analysis, ORNL
considered the full economic cost of
importing petroleum into the U.S. The
full economic cost of importing
petroleum into the U.S. is defined for
this analysis to include two components
in addition to the purchase price of
petroleum itself. These are: (1) The
higher costs for oil imports resulting
from the effect of U.S. import demand
on the world oil price and OPEC market
power (i.e., the ‘‘demand’’ or
‘‘monopsony’’ costs); and (2) the risk of
reductions in U.S. economic output and
disruption of the U.S. economy caused
by sudden disruptions in the supply of
imported oil to the U.S. (i.e.,
macroeconomic disruption/adjustment
costs). Maintaining a U.S. military
presence to help secure stable oil supply
from potentially vulnerable regions of
the world was excluded from this
analysis because its attribution to
particular missions or activities is
difficult.
Also excluded from the prior analysis
was risk-shifting that might occur as the
U.S. reduces its dependency on
petroleum and increases its use of
biofuels. The analysis to date focused on
the potential for biofuels to reduce oil
imports, and the resulting implications
of lower imports for energy security.
The Agency recognizes that as the U.S.
relies more heavily on biofuels, such as
corn-based ethanol, there could be
adverse consequences from a supplydisruption associated with, for example,
a long-term drought. While the causal
factors of a supply-disruption from
imported petroleum and, alternatively,
biofuels, are likely to be unrelated,
diversifying the sources of U.S.
transportation fuel will provide energy
National Laboratory, ORNL/TM–2007/028, Final
Report, 2008.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
security benefits. The Agency was not
able to conduct an analysis of biofuel
supply disruption issue for this
proposal.
Between today’s proposal and the
final rulemaking, EPA will attempt to
broaden our energy security analysis to
incorporate estimates of overall motor
fuel supply and demand flexibility and
reliability, and impacts of possible
agricultural sector market disruptions
(for example, a drought) for presentation
in the final rule. The expanded analysis
will also consider how the use of
biofuels can alter short and long run
elasticity (flexibility) in the motor fuel
market, with implications for robustness
of the fuel system in the face of diverse
supply shocks. As part of this analysis,
the Agency plans on analyzing those
factors that can cause shifts in the prices
of biofuels, and the impact these factors
have on the energy security estimate.
EPA sponsored an independentexpert peer review of the most recent
ORNL study. A report compiling the
peer reviewers’ comments is provided
in the docket.488 In addition, EPA has
worked with ORNL to address
comments raised in the peer review and
develop estimates of the energy security
benefits associated with a reduction in
U.S. oil imports for this proposal. In
response to peer reviewer comments,
EPA modified the ORNL model by
changing several key parameters
involving OPEC supply behavior, the
responsiveness of oil demand and
supply to a change in the world oil
price, and the responsiveness of U.S.
economic output to a change in the
world oil price. EPA is soliciting
comments on how to incorporate
additional peer reviewer comments into
the ORNL energy security analysis. (See
the DRIA, Chapter 5, for more
information on how EPA responded to
peer reviewer comments.)
With these changes for this proposal,
ORNL has estimated that the total
energy security benefits associated with
a reduction of imported oil is $12.38/
barrel. Based upon alternative
sensitivities about OPEC supply
behavior and the responsiveness of oil
demand and supply to a change in the
world oil price, the energy security
premium ranged from $7.65 to $17.23/
barrel. Highlights of the analysis are
described below.
488 Peer Review Report Summary: Estimating the
Energy Security Benefits of Reduced U.S. Oil
Imports, ICF, Inc., September 2007.
PO 00000
Frm 00190
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
a. Effect of Oil Use on Long-Run Oil
Price, U.S. Import Costs, and Economic
Output
The first component of the full
economic costs of importing petroleum
into the U.S. follows from the effect of
U.S. import demand on the world oil
price over the long-run. Because the
U.S. is a sufficiently large purchaser of
foreign oil supplies, its purchases can
affect the world oil price. This
monopsony power means that increases
in U.S. petroleum demand can cause the
world price of crude oil to rise, and
conversely, that reduced U.S. petroleum
demand can reduce the world price of
crude oil. Thus, one benefit of
decreasing U.S. oil purchases is the
potential decrease in the crude oil price
paid for all crude oil purchased. ORNL
estimates this component of the energy
security benefit to be $7.65/barrel of
U.S. oil imports reduced. A number of
the peer reviewers suggested a variety of
ways OPEC and other oil market
participants might react to a decrease in
the quantity of oil purchased by the U.S.
ORNL has attempted to reflect a variety
of possible market reactions in the
analysis, but continues to evaluate ways
to more explicitly model OPEC and
other market participants’ behavior.
EPA welcomes comments on this issue.
Based upon alternative sensitivities
about OPEC supply behavior, the priceresponsiveness of combined non-OPEC,
non-U.S. supply and demand and a
lower GDP elasticity with respect to
disrupted oil prices, the monopsony
premium ranged from $3.35–$12.45/
barrel of U.S. imported oil reduced.
EPA recognizes that as the world
price of oil falls in response to lower
U.S. demand for oil, there is the
potential for an increase in oil use
outside the U.S. This so-called
international oil ‘‘take back’’ or
‘‘rebound’’ effect is hard to estimate.
Given that oil consumption patterns
vary across countries, there will be
different demand responses to a change
in the world price of crude oil. For
example, in Europe, the price of crude
oil comprises a much smaller portion of
the overall fuel prices seen by
consumers than in the U.S. Since
Europeans pay significantly more than
their U.S. counterparts for
transportation fuels, a decline in the
price of crude oil is likely to have a
smaller impact on demand. In many
other countries, particularly developing
countries, such as China and India, oil
is used more widely in industrial and
even electricity applications, although
China and India’s energy picture is
evolving rapidly. In addition, many
countries around the world subsidize
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
their oil consumption. It is not clear
how oil consumption would change due
to changes in the market price of oil
with the current pattern of subsidies.
Emerging trends in worldwide oil
consumption patterns illustrates the
difficulty in trying to estimate the
overall effect of a reduction in world oil
price. However, the Agency recognizes
that this effect is important to capture
and is examining methodologies for
quantifying this effect. EPA is exploring
the development of this effect at the
regional and country level in an effort
to capture the net effect of different
drivers. For example, a lower world oil
price might encourage consumption of
oil, but a country might deploy
programs and policies discouraging oil
consumption, which would have the net
effect of lowering oil consumption to
some level less than otherwise would be
expected. EPA solicits comments on
how to estimate this effect.
b. Short-Run Disruption Premium From
Expected Costs of Sudden Supply
Disruptions
The second component of the external
economic costs resulting from U.S. oil
imports arises from the vulnerability of
the U.S. economy to oil shocks. The cost
of shocks depends on their likelihood,
size, and length; the capabilities of the
market and U.S. Strategic Petroleum
Reserve (SPR), the largest stockpile of
government-owned emergency crude oil
in the world, to respond; and the
sensitivity of the U.S. economy to
sudden price increases. While the total
vulnerability of the U.S. economy to oil
price shocks depends on the levels of
both U.S. petroleum consumption and
imports, variation in import levels or
demand flexibility can affect the
magnitude of potential increases in oil
price due to supply disruptions.
Disruptions are uncertain events, so the
costs of alternative possible disruptions
are weighted by disruption
probabilities. The probabilities used by
the ORNL study are based on a 2005
Energy Modeling Forum 489 synthesis of
expert judgment and are used to
determine an expected value of
disruption costs, and the change in
those expected costs given reduced U.S.
oil imports. ORNL estimates this
component of the energy security
benefit to be $4.74/barrel of U.S.
imported oil reduced. Based upon
alternative sensitivities about OPEC
supply behavior, the priceresponsiveness of combined non-OPEC,
489 Stanford Energy Modeling Forum, Phillip C.
Beccue and Hillard G. Huntington, ‘‘An Assessment
of Oil Market Disruption Risks,’’ Final Report, EMF
SR 8, October, 2005.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
non-U.S. supply and demand and a
lower GDP elasticity with respect to
disrupted oil prices, the macroeconomic
disruption premium ranged from $2.64–
$6.96/barrel of U.S. imported oil
reduced. EPA continues to review
recent literature on the macroeconomic
disruption premium and welcomes
comment on this issue.
c. Costs of Existing U.S. Energy Security
Policies
Another often-identified component
of the full economic costs of U.S. oil
imports is the cost to the U.S. taxpayers
of existing U.S. energy security policies.
The two primary examples are
maintaining a military presence to help
secure stable oil supply from potentially
vulnerable regions of the world and
maintaining the SPR to provide buffer
supplies and help protect the U.S.
economy from the consequences of
global oil supply disruptions.
U.S. military costs are excluded from
the analysis performed by ORNL
because their attribution to particular
missions or activities is difficult. Most
military forces serve a broad range of
security and foreign policy objectives.
Attempts to attribute some share of U.S.
military costs to oil imports are further
challenged by the need to estimate how
those costs might vary with incremental
variations in U.S. oil imports. Similarly,
while the costs for building and
maintaining the SPR are more clearly
related to U.S. oil use and imports,
historically these costs have not varied
in response to changes in U.S. oil
import levels. Thus, while SPR is
factored into the ORNL analysis, the
cost of maintaining the SPR is excluded.
A majority of the peer reviewers
agreed with the exclusion of military
expenditures from the current premium
analysis primarily because of the
difficulty in defining and measuring
how military programs and
expenditures might respond to
incremental changes in U.S. oil imports.
One reviewer clearly opposed including
military costs on principle, and one peer
reviewer clearly supported their
inclusion if they could be shown to vary
with import levels. The matter of
whether military needs and programs
can and do vary with U.S. oil imports
or consumption levels would require
careful consideration and analysis. It
also calls for expertise in areas outside
the scope of the peer review such as
national security and military affairs.
EPA solicits comment in this area.
d. Anticipated Future Effort
Between the proposal and the final
rule, EPA intends to undertake a variety
of actions to improve its energy security
PO 00000
Frm 00191
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25093
premium estimates. For the monopsony
premium, we intend to develop energy
security premiums with alternative AEO
oil price cases (e.g., Reference, High,
Low), develop a dynamic analysis
methodology (i.e., how the energy
security premium evolves through
time), and assess and apply literature on
OPEC strategic behavior/gaming models
where possible. For the macroeconomic
disruption impacts, EPA intends to
examine recent literature on the
elasticity of GDP to the oil price. Based
upon that literature review, we intend to
determine whether there is a difference
in macro disruption impacts in the pre2000 and post-2000 time period.
Further, we intend to break down the
macroeconomic disruption costs by GDP
losses and oil import costs.
EPA solicits comments on the energy
security analysis in a number of areas.
Specifically, EPA is requesting comment
on its interpretation of ORNL’s results,
ORNL’s methodology, the monopsony
effect, and the macroeconomic
disruption effect.
e. Total Energy Security Benefits
Total annual energy security benefits
associated with this proposal were
derived from the estimated reductions
in imports of finished petroleum
products and crude oil using an energy
security premium price of $12.38/barrel
of reduced U.S. oil imports. Based on
these values, we estimate that the total
annual energy security benefits would
be $3.7 billion in 2022 (in 2006 dollars).
C. Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions
1. Introduction
The wider use of renewable fuels from
this proposal results in reductions in
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs
mix well in the atmosphere, regardless
of the location of the source, with each
unit of emissions affecting global
regional climates; and therefore,
influencing regional biophysical
systems. The effects of changes in GHG
emissions are felt for decades to
centuries given the atmospheric
lifetimes of GHGs. This section provides
estimates for the marginal and total
benefits that could be monetized for the
projected GHG emissions reductions of
the proposal. EPA requests comment on
the approach utilized to estimate the
GHG benefits associated with the
proposal.
2. Marginal GHG Benefits Estimates
The projected net GHG emissions
reductions associated with the proposal
reflect an incremental change to
projected total global emissions.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25094
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Therefore, as shown in Section VI.G, the
projected global climate signal will be
small but discernable (i.e.,
incrementally lower projected
distribution of global mean surface
temperatures). Given that the climate
response is projected to be a marginal
change relative to the baseline climate,
it is conceptually appropriate to use an
approach that estimates the marginal
value of changes in climate change
impacts over time as an estimate for the
monetized marginal benefit of the GHG
emissions reductions projected for this
proposal. The marginal value of carbon
is equal to the net present value of
climate change impacts over hundreds
of years of one additional net global
metric ton of GHGs emitted to the
atmosphere at a particular point in time.
This marginal value (i.e., cost) of carbon
is sometimes referred to as the ‘‘social
cost of carbon.’’
Based on the global implications of
GHGs and the economic principles that
follow, EPA has developed ranges of
global, as well as U.S., marginal benefits
estimates (Table IX.C.2–1).490 It is
important to note at the outset that the
estimates are incomplete since current
methods are only able to reflect a partial
accounting of the climate change
impacts identified by the IPCC
(discussed more below). Also, domestic
estimates omit potential impacts on the
United States (e.g., economic or national
security impacts) resulting from climate
change impacts in other countries. The
global estimates were developed from a
survey analysis of the peer reviewed
literature (i.e., meta analysis). U.S.
estimates, and a consistent set of global
estimates, were developed from a single
model and are highly preliminary,
under evaluation, and likely to be
revised. The latter set of estimates was
developed because the peer reviewed
literature does not currently provide
regional (i.e., at the U.S. or China level)
marginal benefits estimates, and it was
important to have a consistent set of
regional and global estimates. Ranges of
estimates are provided to capture some
of the uncertainties associated with
modeling climate change impacts.
The range of estimates is wide due to
the uncertainties relating to socioeconomic futures, climate
responsiveness, impacts modeling, as
well as the choice of discount rate. For
instance, for 2007 emission reductions
and a 2% discount rate the global meta
analysis estimates range from $¥3 to
$159/tCO2, while the U.S. estimates
range from $0 to $16/tCO2. For 2007
emission reductions and a 3% discount
rate, the global meta-estimates range
from $¥4 to $106/tCO2, and the U.S.
estimates range from $0 to $5/tCO2.491
The global meta analysis mean values
for 2007 emission reductions are $68
and $40/tCO2 for discount rates of 2%
and 3%, respectively (in 2006 real
dollars), while the domestic mean value
from a single model are $4 and $1/tCO2
for the same discount rates. The
estimates for future year emission
changes will be higher as future
marginal emissions increases are
expected to produce larger incremental
damages as physical and economic
systems become more stressed as the
magnitude of climate change
increases.492
TABLE IX.C.2–1—MARGINAL GHG BENEFITS ESTIMATES FOR DISCOUNT RATES OF 2%, 3%, AND 7% AND YEAR OF
EMISSIONS CHANGE IN 2022
[All values are reported in 2006$/tCO2]
2%
Low
Meta global ..................................
FUND global ................................
FUND domestic ............................
Central
¥2
¥4
a0
105
136
7
7% b
3%
High
247
1083
26
Low
¥2
¥4
a0
Central
High
62
26
2
Low
165
206
9
n/a
¥2
a0
Central
n/a
¥1
a0
High
n/a
9
a0
a These estimates, if explicitly estimated, may be greater than zero, especially in later years. They are currently reported as zero because the
explicit estimates for an earlier year were zero and were grown at 3% per year. However, we do not anticipate that the explicit estimates for
these later years would be significantly above zero given the magnitude of the current central estimates for discount rates of 2% and 3% and the
effect of the high discount rate in the case of 7%.
b Except for illustrative purposes, the marginal benefits estimates in the peer reviewed literature do not use consumption discount rates as high
as 7%.
The meta analysis ranges were
developed from the Tol (2008) meta
analysis. The meta analysis range only
includes global estimates generated by
more recent peer reviewed studies (i.e.,
published after 1995). In addition, the
ranges only consider regional
aggregations using simple summation
and intergenerational consumption
discount rates of approximately 2% and
3%.493 Discount rates of 2% and 3% are
consistent with EPA and OMB guidance
on intergenerational discount rates
(EPA, 2000; OMB, 2003).494 The
estimated distributions of the meta
global estimates are right skewed with
long right tails, which is consistent with
characterizations of the low probability
high impact damages (see the DRIA for
the estimated probability density
functions by discount rate).495 The
central meta estimates in Table IX.C.2–
1 are means, and the low and high are
the 5th and 95th percentiles. Means are
490 For background on economic principles and
the marginal benefit estimates, see Technical
Support Document on Benefits of Reducing GHG
Emissions, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
June 12, 2008, www.regulations.gov (search phrase
‘‘Technical Support Document on Benefits of
Reducing GHG Emissions’’).
491 See Table IX.C.1 for global (FUND) estimates
consistent with the U.S. estimates.
492 The IPCC suggests an increase of 2–4% per
year (IPCC WGII, 2007. Climate Change 2007—
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the IPCC, https://
www.ipcc.ch/). For Table IX.C.1., we assumed the
estimates increased at 3% per year. For the final
rule, we anticipate that we will explicitly estimate
FUND marginal benefits values for each emissions
reduction year.
493 Tol (2008) is an update of the Tol (2005) meta
analysis. Tol (2005) was used in the IPCC Working
Group II’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC WGII,
2007).
494 OMB and EPA guidance on inter-generational
discounting suggests using a low but positive
discount rate if there are important
intergenerational benefits/costs. Consumption
discount rates of 1–3% are given by OMB and 0.5–
3% by EPA (OMB Circular A–4, 2003; EPA
Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, 2000).
495 E.g., Webster, M., C. Forest, J.M. Reilly, M.H.
Babiker, D.W. Kicklighter, M. Mayer, R.G. Prinn, M.
Sarofim, A.P. Sokolov, P.H. Stone & C. Wang, 2003.
Uncertainty Analysis of Climate Change and Policy
Response, Climatic Change 61(3): 295–320. Also,
see Weitzman, M., 2007, ‘‘The Stern Review of the
Economics of Climate Change,’’ Journal of
Economic Literature. Weitzman, M., 2007,
‘‘Structural Uncertainty and the Statistical Life in
the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change,’’
Working paper https://econweb.fas.harvard.edu/
faculty/weitzman/papers/ValStatLifeClimate.pdf.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00192
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
presented because, as a central statistic,
they better represent the skewed shape
of these distributions compared to
medians.
The consistent domestic and global
estimates were developed using the
FUND integrated assessment model (i.e.,
the Climate Framework for Uncertainty,
Negotiation, and Distribution).496 The
ranges were generated from sensitivity
analyses where we varied assumptions
with respect to climate sensitivity (1.5
to 6.0 degrees Celsius),497 the socioeconomic and emissions baseline
scenarios (the FUND default baseline
and three baselines from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) Special Report on
Emissions Scenarios, SRES),498 and the
consumption discount rates of
approximately 2%, 3%, and 7%, where
2% and 3% are consistent with
intergenerational discounting.499
Furthermore, the model was calibrated
to the EPA value of a statistical life of
$7.4 million (in 2006 real dollars).500
The FUND global estimates are the sum
of the regional estimates within FUND.
The FUND global and domestic central
values in Table IX.C.2–1 are weighted
averages of the FUND estimates from the
sensitivity analysis (see the DRIA for
details). The low and high values are the
496 FUND is a spatially and temporally consistent
framework—across regions of the world (e.g., U.S.,
China), impacts sectors, and time. FUND explicitly
models impacts sectors in 16 global regions. FUND
is one of the few models in the world that explicitly
models global and regional marginal benefits
estimates. Numerous applications of FUND have
been published in the peer reviewed literature
dating back to 1997. See https://www.fnu.zmaw.de/
FUND.5679.0.html.
497 In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate
sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in the
annual mean global surface temperature following
a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon
dioxide concentration. The IPCC states that climate
sensitivity is ‘‘likely’’ to be in the range of 2 °C to
4.5 °C and described 3 °C as a ‘‘best estimate’’,
which is the mode (or most likely) value. The IPCC
goes on to note that climate sensitivity is ‘‘very
unlikely’’ to be less than 1.5 °C and ‘‘values
substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be
excluded.’’ IPCC WGI, 2007, Climate Change 2007—
The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the IPCC, https://www.ipcc.ch/.
498 The IMAGE model SRES baseline data was
used for the A1b, A2, and B2 scenarios (IPCC, 2000.
Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. A special
report of Working Group III of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
499 The EPA guidance on intergenerational
discounting states that ‘‘[e]conomic analyses should
present a sensitivity analysis of alternative discount
rates, including discounting at two to three percent
and seven percent as in the intra-generational case,
as well as scenarios using rates in the interval onehalf to three percent as prescribed by optimal
growth models.’’ (EPA, 2000).
500 This number may be updated to be consistent
with recent EPA regulatory impact analyses that
have used a value of $6.4 million (in 2006 real
dollars).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
low and high estimates across the
sensitivity runs.
From Table IX.C.2–1, we see that, in
terms of the current monetized benefits,
the domestic marginal benefits are a
fraction of the global marginal benefits.
Given uncertainties and omitted
impacts, it is difficult to estimate the
actual ratio of total domestic benefits to
total global benefits. The estimates
suggest that an emissions reduction will
have direct benefits for current and
future U.S. populations and large
benefits for global populations. The
long-run and intergenerational
implications of GHG emissions are
evident in the difference in results
across discount rates. In the current
modeling, there are substantial long-run
benefits (beyond the next two decades
to over 100 years) and some near-term
benefits as well as negative effects (e.g.,
agricultural productivity and heating
demand). High discount rates give less
weight to the distant benefits in the net
present value calculations, and more
weight to near-term effects. While not
obvious in Table IX.C.2–1, an additional
unit of emissions in the higher climate
sensitivity scenarios, versus the lower
climate sensitivity scenarios, is
estimated to have a proportionally larger
effect on the rest of the world compared
to the U.S. (see more detailed results in
DRIA). These points are discussed more
below.
3. Discussion of Marginal GHG Benefits
Estimates
This section briefly discusses
important issues relevant to the
marginal benefits estimates in Table
IX.C.2–1 (see the DRIA for more
extensive discussion). The broad range
of estimates in Table IX.C.2–1 reflects
some of the uncertainty associated with
estimating monetized marginal benefits
of climate change. The meta analysis
range reflects differences in these
assumptions as well as differences in
the modeling of changes in climate and
impacts considered and how they were
modeled. EPA considers the meta
analysis results to be more robust than
the single model estimates in that the
meta results reflect uncertainties in both
models and assumptions.
The current state-of-the-art for
estimating benefits is important to
consider when evaluating policies.
There are significant partially
unquantified and omitted impact
categories not captured in the estimates
provided above. The IPCC WGII (2007)
concluded that current estimates are
‘‘very likely’’ to be underestimated
because they do not include significant
impacts that have yet to be
PO 00000
Frm 00193
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25095
monetized.501 Current estimates do not
capture many of the main reasons for
concern about climate change, including
nonmarket damages (e.g., species
existence value and the value of having
the option for future use), the effects of
climate variability, risks of potential
extreme weather (e.g., droughts, heavy
rains and wind), socially contingent
effects (such as violent conflict or
humanitarian crisis), and thresholds (or
tipping points) associated with species,
ecosystems, and potential long-term
catastrophic events (e.g., collapse of the
West Antarctic Ice Sheet, slowing of the
Atlantic Ocean Thermohaline
Circulation). Underestimation is even
more likely when one considers that the
current trajectory for GHG emissions is
higher than typically modeled, which
when combined with current regional
population and income trajectories that
are more asymmetric than typically
modeled, imply greater climate change
and vulnerability to climate change. See
the DRIA for an initial, partial list of
impacts that are currently not modeled
in the FUND model and are thus not
reflected in the FUND estimates. EPA is
planning to develop a full assessment of
what is not currently being captured in
FUND for the final rule. In addition,
EPA plans to quantify omitted impacts
and update impacts currently
represented to the maximum extent
possible for the final rule.
The current estimates are also
deterministic in that they do not
account for the value people have for
changes in risk due to changes in the
likelihood of potential impacts
associated with reductions in CO2 and
other GHG emissions (i.e., a risk
premium). This is an issue that has
concerned Weitzman and other
economists.502 We plan to conduct a
formal uncertainty analysis for the final
rule to attempt to account for, to the
extent possible, these and other changes
in uncertainty.
The estimates in Table IX.C.2–1 are
only relevant for incremental policies
relative to the projected baselines (that
do not reflect potential future climate
policies) and there is substantial
uncertainty associated with the
estimates themselves both in terms of
what is being modeled and what is not
being modeled, with many uncertainties
outside of observed variability.503 Both
501 IPCC WGII, 2007. In the IPCC report, ‘‘very
likely’’ was defined as a greater than 90%
likelihood based on expert judgment.
502 E.g, Webster et al., 2003; Weitzman, M., 2007.
https://econweb.fas.harvard.edu/faculty/weitzman/
papers/ValStatLifeClimate.pdf.
503 Because some types of potential climate
change impacts may occur suddenly or begin to
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
Continued
26MYP2
25096
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
of these points are important for nonmarginal emissions changes and
estimating total benefits. Also, the
uncertainties inherent in this kind of
modeling, including the omissions of
many important impacts categories,
present problems for approaches
attempting to identify an economically
efficient level of GHG reductions and to
positive net benefit criteria in general,
and point to the importance of
considering factors beyond monetized
benefits and costs. In uncertain
situations such as that associated with
climate, EPA typically recommends that
analysis consider a range of benefit and
cost estimates, and the potential
implications of non-monetized and nonquantified benefits.
Economic principles suggest that
global benefits should also be
considered when evaluating alternative
GHG reduction policies.504 Typically,
because the benefits and costs of most
environmental regulations are
predominantly domestic, EPA focuses
on benefits that accrue to the U.S.
population when quantifying the
impacts of domestic regulation.
However, OMB’s guidance for economic
analysis of federal regulations
specifically allows for consideration of
international effects.505 GHGs are global
and very long-run public goods, and
economic principles suggest that the full
costs to society of emissions should be
considered in order to identify the
policy that maximizes the net benefits to
society, i.e., achieves an efficient
outcome (Nordhaus, 2006).506 As such,
estimates of global benefits capture
more of the full value to society than
domestic estimates and will result in
increase at a much faster rate, rather than increasing
gradually or smoothly, different approaches are
necessary for quantifying the benefits of ‘‘large’’
(non-incremental) versus ‘‘small’’ (incremental)
reductions in global GHGs. Marginal benefits
estimates, like those presented above, can be useful
for estimating benefits for small changes in
emissions. See the DRIA for additional discussion
of this point. Note that even small reductions in
global GHG emissions are expected to reduce
climate change risks, including catastrophic risks.
504 Recently, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) issued the final
Environmental Impact Statement for their proposed
rulemaking for average fuel economy standards for
passenger cars and light trucks in which the
preferred alternative is based upon a domestic
marginal benefit estimate for carbon dioxide
reductions. See Average Fuel Economy Standards,
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, MY 2011–2015,
Final Environmental Impact Statement https://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/
menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/.
505 OMB (2003), page 15.
506 Nordhaus, W., 2006, ‘‘Paul Samuelson and
Global Public Goods,’’ in M. Szenberg, L.
Ramrattan, and A. Gottesman (eds), Samuelsonian
Economics, Oxford.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
higher global net benefits for GHG
reductions when considered.507
Furthermore, international effects of
climate change may also affect domestic
benefits directly and indirectly to the
extent U.S. citizens value international
impacts (e.g., for tourism reasons,
concerns for the existence of
ecosystems, and/or concern for others);
U.S. international interests are affected
(e.g., risks to U.S. national security, or
the U.S. economy from potential
disruptions in other nations); and/or
domestic mitigation decisions affect the
level of mitigation and emissions
changes in general in other countries
(i.e., the benefits realized in the U.S.
will depend on emissions changes in
the U.S. and internationally). The
economics literature also suggests that
policies based on direct domestic
benefits will result in little appreciable
reduction in global GHGs (e.g.,
Nordhaus, 1995).508 While these
marginal benefits estimates are not
comprehensive or economically
optimal, the global estimates in Table
IX.C.2–1 internalize a larger portion of
the global and intergenerational
externalities of reducing a unit of
emissions.
A key challenge facing EPA is the
appropriate discount rate over the
longer timeframe relevant for GHGs.
With the benefits of GHG emissions
reductions distributed over a very long
time horizon, benefit and cost
estimations are likely to be very
sensitive to the discount rate. When
considering climate change investments,
they should be compared to similar
alternative investments (via the
discount rate). Changes in GHG
emissions—both increases and
reductions—are essentially long-run
investments in changes in climate and
the potential impacts from climate
change, which includes the potential for
significant impacts from climate change,
where the exact timing and magnitude
of these impacts are unknown.
When there are important benefits or
costs that affect multiple generations of
the population, EPA and OMB allow for
low but positive discount rates (e.g.,
0.5–3% noted by U.S. EPA, 1–3% by
507 Both the United Kingdom and the European
Commission following these economic principles in
consideration of the global social cost of carbon
(SCC) for valuing the benefits of GHG emission
reductions in regulatory impact assessments and
cost-benefit analyses (Watkiss et al. 2006).
508 Nordhaus, William D. (1995). ‘‘Locational
Competition and the Environment: Should
Countries Harmonize Their Environmental
Policies?’’ in Locational Competition in the World
Economy, Symposium 1994, ed., Horst Siebert, J. C.
B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tuebingen, 1995.
PO 00000
Frm 00194
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
OMB).509 In this multi-generation
context, the three percent discount rate
is consistent with observed interest rates
from long-term investments available to
current generations (net of risk
premiums) as well as current estimates
of the impacts of climate change that
reflect potential impacts on consumers.
In addition, rates of three percent or
lower are consistent with long-run
uncertainty in economic growth and
interest rates, considerations of issues
associated with the transfer of wealth
between generations, and the risk of
high impact climate damages. Given the
uncertain environment, analysis could
also consider evaluating uncertainty in
the discount rate (e.g., Newell and Pizer,
2001, 2003).510
For the final rulemaking, we will be
developing and updating the FUND
model as best as possible based on the
latest research and peer reviewing the
estimates. To improve upon our
estimates, we hope to evaluate several
factors not currently captured in the
proposed estimates due to time
constraints. For example, we will
quantify additional impact categories as
is possible and provide a qualitative
evaluation of the implications of what is
not monetized. We also plan to conduct
an uncertainty analysis, consider
complementary bottom-up analyses, and
develop estimates of the marginal
benefits associated with non-CO2 GHGs
relevant to the rule (e.g., CH4, N2O, and
HFC–134a).511
EPA solicits comment on the
appropriateness of using U.S. and global
values in quantifying the benefits of
GHG reductions and the appropriate
application of benefits estimates given
the state of the art and overall
uncertainties. We also seek comment on
our estimates of the global and U.S.
marginal benefits of GHG emissions
reductions that EPA has developed,
including the scientific and economic
foundations, the methods employed in
developing the estimates, the discount
509 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency),
2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses.
EPA 240–R–00–003. See also OMB (U.S. Office of
Management and Budget), 2003. Circular A–4.
September 17, 2003. These documents are the
guidance used when preparing economic analyses
for all EPA rulemakings.
510 Newell, R. and W. Pizer, 2001. Discounting the
benefits of climate change mitigation: How much do
uncertain rates increase valuations? PEW Center on
Global Climate Change, Washington, DC. Newell, R.
and W. Pizer, 2003. Discounting the distant future:
how much do uncertain rates increase valuations?
Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 46:52–71.
511 Due to differences in atmospheric lifetime and
radiative forcing, the marginal benefit values of
non-CO2 GHG reductions and their growth rates
over time will not be the same as the marginal
benefits of CO2 emissions reductions (IPCC WGII,
2007).
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
rates considered, current and proposed
future consideration of uncertainty in
the estimates, marginal benefits
estimates for non-CO2 GHG emissions
reductions, and potential opportunities
for improving the estimates. We are also
interested in comments on methods for
quantifying benefits for non-incremental
reductions in global GHG emissions.
Because the literature on SCC and our
understanding of that literature
continues to evolve, EPA will continue
to assess the best available information
on the social cost of carbon and climate
benefits, and may adjust its approaches
to quantifying and presenting
information on these areas in future
rulemakings.
4. Total Monetized GHG Benefits
Estimates
As described in Section VI.F,
annualized equivalent GHG emissions
reductions associated with the RFS2
proposal in 2022 would be 160 million
metric tons of CO2 equivalent
(MMTCO2eq) with a 2% discount rate,
and 155 and 136 MMCO2eq with
discount rates of 3% and 7%,
respectively. This section provides the
monetized total GHG benefits estimates
associated with the proposal in 2022. As
discussed above in Section IX.C.3, these
estimates do not include significant
impacts that have yet to be monetized.
Total monetized benefits in 2022 are
calculated by multiplying the marginal
25097
benefits per metric ton of CO2 in that
year by the annualized equivalent
emissions reductions. For the final
rulemaking, we plan to separate the
emissions reductions by gas and use
CO2 and non-CO2 marginal benefits
estimates. Non-CO2 GHGs have different
climate and atmospheric implications
and therefore different marginal climate
impacts.
Table IX.C.4–1 provides the estimated
monetized GHG benefits of the proposal
for 2022. The large range of values in
the Table reflects some of the
uncertainty captured in the range of
monetized marginal benefits estimates
presented in Table IX.C.2–1.512 All
values in this section are presented in
2006 real dollars.
TABLE IX.C.4–1—MONETIZED GHG BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE IN 2022
[Billion 2006$]
Marginal benefit
Meta global .....................................................
FUND global ...................................................
FUND domestic ...............................................
2%
Low .................................................................
Central ............................................................
High ................................................................
Low .................................................................
Central ............................................................
High ................................................................
Low .................................................................
Central ............................................................
High ................................................................
3%
¥$0.3
16.8
39.4
¥0.6
21.7
172.8
0.0
1.1
4.1
¥$0.3
9.6
25.5
¥0.6
4.0
31.9
0.0
0.3
1.4
7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
¥0.3
¥0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
This section describes EPA’s analysis
of the co-pollutant health and
environmental impacts that can be
expected to occur as a result of this
renewable fuels proposal throughout the
period from initial implementation
through 2030. GHG emissions are
predominantly the byproduct of fossil
fuel combustion processes that also
produce criteria and hazardous air
pollutants. The fuels that are subject to
the proposed standard are also
significant sources of mobile source air
pollution such as direct PM, NOX, VOCs
and air toxics. The proposed standard
would affect exhaust and evaporative
emissions of these pollutants from
vehicles and equipment. They would
also affect emissions from upstream
sources such as fuel production, storage,
and distribution and agricultural
emissions. Any decrease or increase in
ambient ozone, PM2.5, and air toxics
associated with the proposal would
impact human health in the form of
avoided or incurred premature deaths
and other serious human health effects,
as well as other important public health
and welfare effects.
As can be seen in Section II.B, we
estimate that the proposal would lead to
both increased and decreased criteria
and air toxic pollutant emissions.
Making predictions about human health
and welfare impacts based solely on
emissions changes, however, is
extremely difficult. Full-scale
photochemical modeling is necessary to
provide the needed spatial and temporal
detail to more completely and
accurately estimate the changes in
ambient levels of these pollutants. EPA
typically quantifies and monetizes the
PM- and ozone-related health and
environmental impacts in its regulatory
impact analyses (RIAs) when possible.
However, we were unable to do so in
time for this proposal. EPA attempts to
make emissions and air quality
modeling decisions early in the
analytical process so that we can
complete the photochemical air quality
modeling and use that data to inform
the health and environmental impacts
analysis. Resource and time constraints
precluded the Agency from completing
this work in time for the proposal. EPA
will, however, provide a complete
characterization of the health and
environmental impacts, both in terms of
incidence and valuation, for the final
rulemaking.
This section explains what PM- and
ozone-related health and environmental
impacts EPA will quantify and monetize
in the analysis for the final rules. EPA
will base its analysis on peer-reviewed
studies of air quality and health and
welfare effects and peer-reviewed
studies of the monetary values of public
health and welfare improvements, and
will be consistent with benefits analyses
performed for the recent analysis of the
proposed Ozone NAAQS and the final
PM NAAQS analysis.513 514 These
methods will be described in detail in
the DRIA prepared for the final rule.
Though EPA is characterizing the
changes in emissions associated with
toxic pollutants, we will not be able to
512 EPA notes, however, that the Ninth Circuit
recently rejected an approach of assigning no
monetized value to greenhouse gas reductions
resulting from vehicular fuel economy. Center for
Biodiversity v. NHTSA, F. 3d, (9th Cir. 2007).
513 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July
2007. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed
Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ground-Level Ozone. Prepared by:
Office of Air and Radiation. EPA–452/R–07–008.
514 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
October 2006. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared
by: Office of Air and Radiation.
D. Co-pollutant Health and
Environmental Impacts
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00195
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25098
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
quantify or monetize the human health
effects associated with air toxic
pollutants for either the proposal or the
final rule analyses. This is primarily
because available tools and methods to
assess air toxics risk from mobile
sources at the national scale are not
adequate for extrapolation to benefits
assessment. In addition to inherent
limitations in the tools for national-scale
modeling of air quality and exposure,
there is a lack of epidemiology data for
air toxics in the general population. For
a more comprehensive discussion of
these limitations, please refer to the
final Mobile Source Air Toxics rule.515
Please refer to Section VII for more
information about the air toxics
emissions impacts associated with the
proposed standard.
1. Human Health and Environmental
Impacts
To model the ozone and PM air
quality benefits of the final rules, EPA
will use the Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) model (see Section
VII.D.2 for a description of the CMAQ
model). The modeled ambient air
quality data will serve as an input to the
Environmental Benefits Mapping and
Analysis Program (BenMAP).516
BenMAP is a computer program
developed by EPA that integrates a
number of the modeling elements used
in previous DRIAs (e.g., interpolation
functions, population projections,
health impact functions, valuation
functions, analysis and pooling
methods) to translate modeled air
concentration estimates into health
effects incidence estimates and
monetized benefits estimates.
Table IX.D.1–1 lists the co-pollutant
health effect exposure-response
functions (PM2.5 and ozone) we will use
to quantify the co-pollutant incidence
impacts associated with the proposal.
TABLE IX.D.1–1—HEALTH IMPACT FUNCTIONS USED IN BENMAP TO ESTIMATE IMPACTS OF PM2.5 AND OZONE
REDUCTIONS
Endpoint
Pollutant
Premature Mortality:
Premature mortality—daily time series ..........
O3
Premature mortality—cohort study, all-cause .......
PM2.5
Premature mortality, total exposures ....................
Premature mortality—all-cause .............................
Chronic Illness:
Chronic Bronchitis ..........................................
Nonfatal heart attacks ....................................
Hospital Admissions:
Respiratory .....................................................
All ages.
PM2.5
PM2.5
PM2.5
PM2.5
Abbey et al. (1995) ...............................................
Peters et al. (2001) ...............................................
>26 years.
Adults (>18 years).
O3
Pooled estimate ....................................................
Schwartz (1995)—ICD 460–519 (all resp).
Schwartz (1994a; 1994b)—ICD 480–486
(pneumonia).
Moolgavkar et al. (1997)—ICD 480–487
(pneumonia).
Schwartz (1994b)—ICD 491–492, 494–496
(COPD).
Moolgavkar et al. (1997)—ICD 490–496
(COPD).
Burnett et al. (2001) ..............................................
Pooled estimate ....................................................
Moolgavkar (2003)—ICD 490–496 (COPD).
Ito (2003)—ICD 490–496 (COPD).
Moolgavkar (2000)—ICD 490–496 (COPD) .........
Ito (2003)—ICD 480–486 (pneumonia) ................
Sheppard (2003)—ICD 493 (asthma) ...................
Pooled estimate ....................................................
Moolgavkar (2003)—ICD 390–429 (all Cardiovascular).
Ito
(2003)—ICD
410–414,
427–428
(ischemic heart disease, dysrhythmia,
heart failure).
Moolgavkar (2000)—ICD 390–429 (all Cardiovascular).
Pooled estimate ....................................................
Jaffe et al. (2003) ..........................................
Peel et al. (2005) ...........................................
Wilson et al. (2005).
Norris et al. (1999) ................................................
>64 years.
PM2.5
PM2.5
PM2.5
PM2.5
PM2.5
Asthma-related ER visits ...............................
Study population
Multi-city ................................................................
Bell et al. (2004)—Non-accidental ........................
Huang et al. (2005)—Cardiopulmonary.
Schwartz (2005)—Non-accidental.
Meta-analyses:
Bell et al. (2005)—All cause.
Ito et al. (2005)—Non-accidental.
Levy et al. (2005)—All cause.
Pope et al. (2002) .................................................
Laden et al. (2006) ...............................................
Expert Elicitation (IEc, 2006) ................................
Woodruff et al. (1997) ...........................................
PM2.5
Cardiovascular ...............................................
Study
O3
PM2.5
>29 years.
>25 years.
>24 years.
Infant (<1 year).
<2 years.
>64 years.
20–64 years.
>64 years.
<65 years.
>64 years.
20–64 years.
5–34 years.
All ages.
All ages.
0–18 years.
Other Health Endpoints:
515 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
February 2007. Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants
from Mobile Sources: Final Regulatory Impact
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Analysis. Office of Air and Radiation. Office of
Transportation and Air Quality. EPA420–R–07–002.
PO 00000
Frm 00196
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
516 Information on BenMAP, including
downloads of the software, can be found at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benmodels.html.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25099
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IX.D.1–1—HEALTH IMPACT FUNCTIONS USED IN BENMAP TO ESTIMATE IMPACTS OF PM2.5 AND OZONE
REDUCTIONS—Continued
Endpoint
Pollutant
Acute bronchitis .............................................
Upper respiratory symptoms ..........................
Lower respiratory symptoms ..........................
Asthma exacerbations ...................................
PM2.5
PM2.5
PM2.5
PM2.5
Work loss days ..............................................
School absence days .....................................
PM2.5
O3
Minor Restricted Activity Days (MRADs) .......
O3
PM2.5
2. Monetized Impacts
Table IX.D.2–1 presents the monetary
values we will apply to changes in the
Study
Study population
Dockery et al. (1996) ............................................
Pope et al. (1991) .................................................
Schwartz and Neas (2000) ...................................
Pooled estimate ....................................................
Ostro et al. (2001) (cough, wheeze and
shortness of breath).
Vedal et al. (1998) (cough).
Ostro (1987) ..........................................................
Pooled estimate ....................................................
Gilliland et al. (2001).
Chen et al. (2000).
Ostro and Rothschild (1989) .................................
Ostro and Rothschild (1989) .................................
8–12 years.
Asthmatics, 9–11 years.
7–14 years.
6–18 years.
18–65 years.
5–17 years.
18–65 years.
18–65 years.
incidence of health and welfare effects
associated with the RFS2 standard.
TABLE IX.D.2–1—VALUATION METRICS USED IN BENMAP TO ESTIMATE MONETARY BENEFITS
Valuation
(2000$)
Endpoint
Valuation method
Premature mortality .................................
Chronic Illness
Chronic Bronchitis ............................
Myocardial Infarctions, Nonfatal .......
Assumed Mean VSL ................................................................................................
$5,500,000
WTP: Average Severity ...........................................................................................
Medical Costs Over 5 Years. Varies by age and discount rate. Russell (1998) ....
Medical Costs Over 5 Years. Varies by age and discount rate. Wittels (1990) .....
340,482
..............................
..............................
COI: Medical Costs + Wage Lost ............................................................................
COI: Medical Costs ..................................................................................................
COI: Medical Costs + Wage Lost ............................................................................
18,353
7,741
12,378
COI:
COI:
COI:
COI:
COI:
COI:
Medical Costs + Wage Lost ............................................................................
Medical Costs + Wage Lost ............................................................................
Medical Costs + Wage Lost (20–64) ..............................................................
Medical Costs + Wage Lost (65–99) ..............................................................
Smith et al. (1997) ..........................................................................................
Standford et al. (1999) ....................................................................................
14,693
6,634
22,778
21,191
312
261
WTP: 6 Day Illness, CV Studies .............................................................................
WTP: 1 Day, CV Studies .........................................................................................
WTP: 1 Day, CV Studies .........................................................................................
WTP: Bad Asthma Day, Rowe and Chestnut (1986) ..............................................
Median Daily Wage, County-Specific ......................................................................
WTP: 1 Day, CV Studies .........................................................................................
Median Daily Wage, Women 25+ ...........................................................................
Median Daily Wage, Outdoor Workers, County-Specific, Crocker and Horst
(1981).
WTP: 86 Class I Areas ............................................................................................
356
25
16
43
..............................
51
75
..............................
Hospital Admissions
Respiratory, Age 65+ .......................
Respiratory, Ages 0–2 .....................
Chronic Lung Disease (less Asthma).
Pneumonia .......................................
Asthma .............................................
Cardiovascular .................................
ER Visits, Asthma ...................................
Other Health Endpoints
Acute Bronchitis ...............................
Upper Respiratory Symptoms ..........
Lower Respiratory Symptoms ..........
Asthma Exacerbation .......................
Work Loss Days ...............................
Minor Restricted Activity Days .........
School Absence Days ......................
Worker Productivity ..........................
Environmental Endpoints Recreational
Visibility.
..............................
Source: Dollar amounts for each valuation method were extracted from BenMAP version 2.4.5.
3. Other Unquantified Health and
Environmental Impacts
In addition to the co-pollutant health
and environmental impacts we will
quantify for the analysis of the RFS2
standard, there are a number of other
health and human welfare endpoints
that we will not be able to quantify
because of current limitations in the
methods or available data. These
impacts are associated with emissions of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
air toxics (including benzene, 1,3butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,
acrolein, and ethanol), ambient ozone,
and ambient PM2.5 exposures. For
example, we have not quantified a
number of known or suspected health
effects linked with ozone and PM for
which appropriate health impact
functions are not available or which do
not provide easily interpretable
outcomes (i.e., changes in heart rate
variability). Additionally, we are
PO 00000
Frm 00197
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
currently unable to quantify a number of
known welfare effects, including
reduced acid and particulate deposition
damage to cultural monuments and
other materials, and environmental
benefits due to reductions of impacts of
eutrophication in coastal areas. For air
toxics, the available tools and methods
to assess risk from mobile sources at the
national scale are not adequate for
extrapolation to benefits assessment. In
addition to inherent limitations in the
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25100
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
tools for national-scale modeling of air
toxics and exposure, there is a lack of
epidemiology data for air toxics in the
general population. Table IX.D.3–1 lists
these unquantified health and
environmental impacts.
TABLE IX.D.3–1—UNQUANTIFIED AND
NON-MONETIZED POTENTIAL EFWhile there will be impacts
associated with air toxic pollutant
FECTS—Continued
Pollutant/Effects
TABLE IX.D.3–1—UNQUANTIFIED AND
NON-MONETIZED POTENTIAL EFFECTS
Pollutant/Effects
Effects not included in analysis—changes in:
Ozone Health a
Chronic respiratory damage.
Premature aging of the
lungs.
Non-asthma respiratory
emergency room visits.
Exposure to UVb (±) d.
Yields for:
—commercial forests.
—some fruits and vegetables.
—non-commercial crops.
Damage to urban ornamental plants.
Impacts on recreational demand from damaged forest aesthetics.
Ecosystem functions.
Exposure to UVb (±).
Premature mortality—short
term exposures.c
Low birth weight.
Pulmonary function.
Chronic respiratory diseases
other than chronic bronchitis.
Non-asthma respiratory
emergency room visits.
Exposure to UVb (±).
Residential and recreational
visibility in non-Class I
areas.
Soiling and materials damage.
Damage to ecosystem functions.
Exposure to UVb (±).
Commercial forests due to
acidic sulfate and nitrate
deposition.
Ozone Welfare
PM Health b ....
PM Welfare ....
Nitrogen and
Sulfate Deposition Welfare.
CO Health ......
Hydrocarbon
(HC)/Toxics
Health e.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Commercial freshwater fishing due to acidic deposition.
Recreation in terrestrial ecosystems due to acidic deposition.
Existence values for currently healthy ecosystems.
Commercial fishing, agriculture, and forests due to
nitrogen deposition.
Recreation in estuarine ecosystems due to nitrogen
deposition.
Ecosystem functions.
Passive fertilization.
Behavioral effects.
Cancer (benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, ethanol).
Anemia (benzene).
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
HC/Toxics
Welfare f.
Effects not included in analysis—changes in:
Disruption of production of
blood components (benzene).
Reduction in the number of
blood platelets (benzene).
Excessive bone marrow formation (benzene).
Depression of lymphocyte
counts (benzene).
Reproductive and developmental effects (1,3-butadiene, ethanol).
Irritation of eyes and mucus
membranes (formaldehyde).
Respiratory irritation (formaldehyde).
Asthma attacks in
asthmatics (formaldehyde).
Asthma-like symptoms in
non-asthmatics (formaldehyde).
Irritation of the eyes, skin,
and respiratory tract (acetaldehyde).
Upper respiratory tract irritation and congestion (acrolein).
Direct toxic effects to animals.
Bioaccumulation in the food
chain.
Damage to ecosystem function.
Odor.
emission changes that result from the
RFS2 standard, we will not attempt to
monetize those impacts. This is
primarily because currently available
tools and methods to assess air toxics
risk from mobile sources at the national
scale are not adequate for extrapolation
to incidence estimations or benefits
assessment. The best suite of tools and
methods currently available for
assessment at the national scale are
those used in the National-Scale Air
Toxics Assessment (NATA). The EPA
Science Advisory Board specifically
commented in their review of the 1996
NATA that these tools were not yet
ready for use in a national-scale benefits
analysis, because they did not consider
the full distribution of exposure and
risk, or address sub-chronic health
effects.517 While EPA has since
improved the tools, there remain critical
limitations for estimating incidence and
assessing benefits of reducing mobile
source air toxics. EPA continues to work
to address these limitations; however,
we do not anticipate having methods
and tools available for national-scale
application in time for the analysis of
the final rules. Please refer to the final
Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule RIA for
more discussion.518
E. Economy-Wide Impacts
It is anticipated that this proposed
rulemaking will have impacts on the
U.S. economy that extend beyond the
a In addition to primary economic endpoints,
two sectors most directly affected—the
there are a number of biological responses transportation and agriculture sectors.
that have been associated with ozone health Consider how the proposed rulemaking
effects including increased airway responsiveness to stimuli, inflammation in the lung, acute will affect the overall U.S. economy. By
inflammation and respiratory cell damage, and requiring 36 billion gallons of renewable
increased susceptibility to respiratory infection. transportation fuels in the U.S.
The public health impact of these biological re- transportation sector by 2022, it is
sponses may be partly represented by our
anticipated that the cost of motor
quantified endpoints.
b In addition to primary economic endpoints,
vehicle fuels will increase. This cost
there are a number of biological responses increase will impact all sectors of the
that have been associated with PM health ef- economy that use motor vehicles fuels,
fects including morphological changes and altered host defense mechanisms. The public as intermediate inputs to production.
health impact of these biological responses For example, manufacturing firms will
may be partly represented by our quantified see an increase in their shipping costs.
endpoints.
Households will also be impacted as
c While some of the effects of short-term exposures are likely to be captured in the esti- consumers of these goods, and directly
mates, there may be premature mortality due as consumers of motor vehicle fuels.
to short-term exposure to PM not captured in Additionally, it is anticipated that the
the cohort studies used in this analysis. How- production of renewable fuels will
ever, the PM mortality results derived from the
expert elicitation do take into account pre- increase the demand for U.S. farm
mature mortality effects of short term exposures.
d May result in benefits or disbenefits.
e Many of the key hydrocarbons related to
this rule are also hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act. Please refer to Section VII.E.4 for additional information on the
health effects of air toxics.
f Please refer to Section VII.E for additional
information on the welfare effects of air toxics.
PO 00000
Frm 00198
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
517 Science Advisory Board. 2001. NATA—
Evaluating the National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment for 1996—an SAB Advisory. https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/sab/sabrev.html.
518 U.S. EPA. 2007. Control of Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Mobile Sources—Regulatory
Impact Analysis. Assessment and Standards
Division. Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
EPA420R–07–002. February.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
products, and increase farm incomes.
This will have ripple effects for sectors
that supply inputs to the U.S. farm
sector (e.g. tractors), and sectors that
demand outputs from the farm sector.
The sum of all of these impacts will
affect the total levels of output and
consumption in the U.S. economy.
Because multiple markets beyond the
transportation sector will be affected by
the proposed rulemaking, a general
equilibrium analysis is required to
provide a more accurate picture of the
social cost of the policy than a partial
equilibrium analysis. (A partial
equilibrium analysis looks at the
impacts in one market of the economy
but does not attempt to capture the full
interaction of a policy change in all
markets simultaneously, as a general
equilibrium model does).
In order to estimate the impacts of the
RFS2 rule on U.S. gross domestic
product (GDP) and consumption, EPA
intends to use an economy-wide,
computable general equilibrium (CGE)
model between proposal and the final
rule. This model will use detailed fuel
sector cost estimates provided in
Section VIII as inputs to determine the
economy-wide impacts of the
rulemaking. The economy-wide model
to be utilized for this analysis is the
Intertemporal General Equilibrium
Model (IGEM). IGEM is a model of the
U.S. economy with an emphasis on the
energy and environmental aspects. It is
a dynamic model, which depicts growth
of the economy due to capital
accumulation, technical change and
population change. It is a detailed
multi-sector model covering thirty-five
industries of the U.S. economy. It also
depicts changes in consumption
patterns due to demographic changes,
price and income effects. The
substitution possibilities for both
producers and consumers in IGEM are
driven by model parameters that are
based on observed market behavior
revealed over the past forty to fifty
years. EPA seeks comment on the
modeling approach to be utilized to
estimate the economy-wide impacts of
the RFS2 proposal.
An additional issue that arises is how
biofuel subsidies are considered from an
economy-wide perspective. The
Renewable Fuels Standard, by
encouraging the use of biofuels, will
result in an expansion of subsidy
payments by the U.S. For example, each
gallon of corn-based ethanol sold in the
U.S. qualifies for a $0.45/gallon subsidy.
One assumption that could be made is
that biofuel subsidies, which are a loss
in revenue to the U.S. government, are
offset by an increase in taxes by the U.S.
In this case, the Renewable Fuels
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Standard program becomes revenue
neutral. If taxes are raised to offset the
revenue loss from the subsidies, the
taxes could have a distortionary impact
on the economy. For example, if taxes
are raised on labor and capital, then
there will less output. To account for
the potential distortionary impacts of
increased taxes, as a rule of thumb, it is
sometimes assumed that for each dollar
of tax revenue raised, there is a $0.25
loss in output in the economy. We
intend to consider the impact of the
expansion of biofuel subsidies from the
RFS2 in the context of the economywide modeling.
X. Impacts on Water
A. Background
As the production and price of corn
and other biofuel feedstocks increase,
there may be substantial impacts to both
water quality and water quantity. To
analyze the potential water-related
impacts, EPA focused on agricultural
corn production for several reasons.
Corn acres have increased dramatically,
20% in 2007. Although corn acres
declined seven percent in 2008, total
corn acres remained the second highest
since 1946.519 Corn has the highest
fertilizer and pesticide use per acre and
accounts for the largest share of nitrogen
fertilizer use among all crops.520 Corn
generally utilizes only 40 to 60% of the
applied nitrogen fertilizer. The
remaining nitrogen is available to leave
the field and runoff to surface waters,
leach into ground water, or volatilize to
the air where it can return to water
through depositional processes.
There are three major pathways for
contaminants to reach water from
agricultural lands: run off from the
land’s surface, subsurface tile drains, or
leaching to ground water. A variety of
management factors influence the
potential for contaminants such as
fertilizers, sediment, and pesticides to
reach water from agricultural lands.
These factors include nutrient and
pesticide application rates and
application methods, use of
conservation practices and crop
rotations by farmers, and acreage and
intensity of tile drained lands.
Historically, corn has been grown in
rotation with other crops, especially
soybeans. As corn prices increase
519 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, ‘‘Acreage’’, 2008,
available online at: https://
usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Acre/Acre06–30–2008.pdf.
520 Committee on Water Implications of Biofuels
Production in the United States, National Research
Council, 2008, Water implications of biofuels
production in the United States, The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, 88 p.
PO 00000
Frm 00199
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25101
relative to prices for other crops, more
farmers are choosing to grow corn every
year (continuous corn). Continuous corn
production results in significantly
greater nitrogen losses annually than a
corn-soybean rotation and lower yields
per acre. In response, farmers may add
higher rates of nitrogen fertilizer to try
to match yields of corn grown in
rotation. Growing continuous corn also
increases the viability of pests such as
corn rootworm. Farmers may increase
use of pesticides to control these pests.
As corn acres increase, use of the
common herbicides like atrazine and
glyphosate (e.g. Roundup) may also
increase.
High corn prices may encourage
farmers to grow corn on lands that are
marginal for row production such as hay
land or pasture. Typically, agricultural
producers apply far less fertilizer and
pesticide on pasture land than land in
row crops. Corn yield on these marginal
lands will be lower and may require
higher fertilizer rates. However since
nitrogen fertilizer prices are tied to oil
prices, fertilizer costs have increased
significantly recently. It is unclear how
agricultural producers have responded
to these increases in both corn and
fertilizer prices. EPA solicits comments
on the impact of corn and fertilizer
prices on nitrogen fertilizer use.
Tile drainage is another important
factor in determining the losses of
fertilizer from cropland. Tile drainage
consists of subsurface tiles or pipes that
move water from wet soils to surface
waters quickly so crops can be planted.
Tile drainage has transformed large
expanses of historic wetland soils into
productive agriculture lands. However,
the tile drains also move fertilizers and
pesticides more quickly to surface
waters without any of the attenuation
that would occur if these contaminants
moved through soils or wetlands. The
highest proportion of tile drainage
occurs in the Upper Mississippi and the
Ohio-Tennessee River basins.521
The increase in corn production and
prices may also have significant impacts
on voluntary conservation programs
funded by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) that are important
to protect water quality. As land values
increase due to higher crop prices,
USDA payments may not keep up with
the need for farmers and tenant farmers,
to make an adequate return. For
example, farmland in Iowa increased an
521 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Science Advisory Board, Hypoxia in the northern
Gulf of Mexico, EPA–SAB–08–003, 275 p, available
online at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/
C3D2F27094E03F90852573B800601D93/$File/EPA–
SAB–08–003complete.unsigned.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25102
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
average of 18% in 2007 from 2006
prices.
Both land retirement programs like
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
and working land programs like the
Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) can be affected. Under
CRP, USDA contracts with farmers to
take land out of agricultural production
and plant grasses or trees. Generally
farmers put land into CRP because it is
not as productive and has other
characteristics that make the cropland
more environmentally sensitive, such as
high erosion rates. CRP provides
valuable environmental benefits both for
water quality and for wildlife habitat.
Midwestern states, where much of U.S.
corn is grown, tend to have lower CRP
reenrollment rates than the national
average. Under EQIP, USDA makes costshare payments to farmers to implement
conservation practices. Some of the
most cost-effective practices include:
Riparian buffers; crop rotation;
appropriate rate, timing, and method of
fertilizer application; cover crops; and,
on tile-drained lands, treatment
wetlands and controlled drainage.
Producers may be less willing to
participate and require higher payments
to offset perceived loss of profits
through implementation of conservation
practices.
1. Ecological Impacts
Nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment
due to human activities is one of the
leading problems facing our nation’s
lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries. Nutrient
enrichment also has negative impacts on
aquatic life in streams; adverse health
effects on humans and domestic
animals; and impairs aesthetic and
recreational use. Excess nutrients can
lead to excessive growth of algae in
rivers and streams, and aquatic plants in
all waters. For example, declines in
invertebrate community structure have
been correlated directly with increases
in phosphorus concentration. High
concentrations of nitrogen in the form of
ammonia are known to be toxic to
aquatic animals. Excessive levels of
algae have also been shown to be
damaging to invertebrates. Finally, fish
and invertebrates will experience
growth problems and can even die if
either oxygen is depleted or pH
increases are severe; both of these
conditions are symptomatic of
eutrophication. As a biologic system
becomes more enriched by nutrients,
different species of algae may spread
and species composition can shift.
Nutrient pollution is widespread. The
most widely known examples of
significant nutrient impacts include the
Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
There are also known impacts in over 80
estuaries/bays, and thousands of rivers,
streams, and lakes. Waterbodies in
virtually every state and territory in the
U.S. are impacted by nutrient-related
degradation. Reducing nutrient
pollution is a priority for EPA. The
combustion of transportation fuels
results in significant loadings of
nitrogen from air deposition to
waterbodies around the country,
including the Chesapeake Bay, Long
Island Sound, and Lake Tahoe.
2. Gulf of Mexico
Production of corn for ethanol may
exacerbate existing serious water quality
problems in the Gulf of Mexico.
Nitrogen fertilizer applications to corn
are already the major source of total
nitrogen loadings to the Mississippi
River. A large area of low oxygen, or
hypoxia, forms in the Gulf of Mexico
every year, often called the ‘‘dead
zone.’’ The primary cause of the
hypoxia is excess nutrients (nitrogen
and phosphorus) from the Upper
Midwest flowing into the Mississippi
River to the Gulf. These nutrients trigger
excessive algal growth (or
eutrophication) resulting in reduced
sunlight, loss of aquatic habitat, and a
decrease in oxygen dissolved in the
water. Hypoxia threatens commercial
and recreational fisheries in the Gulf
because fish and other aquatic species
cannot live in the low oxygen waters.
In 2008, the hypoxic zone was the
second largest since measurements
began in 1985—8,000 square miles, an
area larger than the state of
Massachusetts, and slightly larger than
the 2007 measurement.522 The
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task Force’s ‘‘Gulf
Hypoxia Action Plan 2008’’ calls for a
45% reduction in both nitrogen and
phosphorus reaching the Gulf to reduce
the size of the zone.523 An additional
reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus
reduction would be necessary as a result
of increased corn production for ethanol
and climate change impacts.
Alexander, et al.524 modeled the
sources of nutrient loadings to the Gulf
522 Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium,
2008, ‘Dead zone’ again rivals record size, available
online at: https://www.gulfhypoxia.net/research/
shelfwidecruises/2008/PressRelease08.pdf.
523 Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed
Nutrient Task Force, 2008, Gulf hypoxia action plan
2008 for reducing, mitigating, and controlling
hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico and
improving water quality in the Mississippi River
basin, 61 p., Washington, DC, available online at:
https://www.epa.gov/msbasin/actionplan.htm.
524 Alexander, R.B., Smith, R.A., Schwarz, G.E.,
Boyer, E.W., Nolan, J.V., and Brakebill, J.W., 2008,
Differences in phosphorus and nitrogen delivery to
the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River basin,
PO 00000
Frm 00200
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of Mexico using the USGS SPARROW
model. They estimated that agricultural
sources contribute more than 70% of the
delivered nitrogen and phosphorus.
Corn and soybean production accounted
for 52% of nitrogen delivery and 25%
of the phosphorus.
Several recent scientific reports have
estimated the impact of increasing corn
acres for ethanol in the Gulf of Mexico
watershed. Donner and Kucharik’s 525
study showed increases in nitrogen
export to the Gulf as a result of
increasing corn ethanol production from
2007 levels to 15 billion gallons in 2022.
They concluded that the expansion of
corn-based ethanol production could
make it almost impossible to meet the
Gulf of Mexico nitrogen reduction goals
without a ‘‘radical shift’’ in feed
production, livestock diet, and
management of agricultural lands. The
study estimated a mean dissolved
inorganic nitrogen load increase of 10 to
18% from 2007 to 2022 to meet the 15
billion gallon corn ethanol goal. EPA’s
Science Advisory Board report to the
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Task Force estimated that
corn grown for ethanol will result in an
additional national annual loading of
almost 300 million pounds of nitrogen.
An estimated 80% of that nitrogen
loading or 238 million pounds will
occur in the Mississippi-Atchafalaya
River basin and contribute nitrogen to
the hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.526
B. Upper Mississippi River Basin
Analysis
To provide a quantitative estimate of
the impact of this proposal and
production of corn ethanol generally on
water quality, EPA conducted an
analysis that modeled the changes in
loadings of nitrogen, phosphorus, and
sediment from agricultural production
in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
(UMRB). The UMRB drains
approximately 189,000 square miles,
including large parts of the states of
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and
Wisconsin. Small portions of Indiana,
Michigan, and South Dakota are also
within the basin. EPA selected the
UMRB because it is representative of the
many potential issues associated with
ethanol production, including its
connection to major water quality
Environmental Science and Technology, v. 42, no.
3, p. 822–830, available online at: https://
pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2008/42/
i03/abs/es0716103.html.
525 Donner, S. D. and Kucharik, C. J., 2008, Cornbased ethanol production compromises goal of
reducing nitrogen export by the Mississippi River,
PNAS, v. 105, no. 11, p. 4513–4518, available
online at: https://www.pnas.org/content/105/11/
4513.full.
526 U.S. EPA, supra note 4.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25103
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
concerns such as Gulf of Mexico
hypoxia, large corn production, and
numerous ethanol production plants.
For more details on the analysis, see
Chapter 6 in the DRIA.
On average the UMRB contributes
about 39% of the total nitrogen loads
and 26% of the total phosphorus loads
to the Gulf of Mexico.527 The high
percentage of nitrogen from the UMRB
is primarily due to the large inputs of
fertilizer for agriculture and the 60% of
cropland that is tile drained. Although
nitrogen inputs to the UMRB in recent
years is fairly level, there is a 21%
decline in net inputs from humans. The
Science Advisory Board report
attributes this decline to higher amount
of nitrogen removed during harvest, due
to higher crop yields. For the same time
period, phosphorus inputs increased
12%.
1. SWAT Model
EPA selected the SWAT (Soil and
Water Assessment Tool) model to assess
nutrient loads from changes in
agricultural production in the UMRB.
Models are the primary tool that can be
used to predict future impacts based on
alternative scenarios. SWAT is a
physical process model developed to
quantify the impact of land management
practices in large, complex
watersheds.528
2. Baseline Model Scenario
In order to assess alternative potential
future conditions within the UMRB,
EPA developed a SWAT model of a
Baseline Scenario against which to
analyze the impact of increased corn
production for biofuel. For simplicity’s
sake, we refer to the baseline as 2005,
but like most water quality modeling,
we had to use a range of data sets for
the inputs. As noted above corn acres
did not increase significantly until the
2007 crop year. While this baseline does
not directly quantify the impacts of this
proposal on water quality, it is useful in
understanding the magnitude of the
impacts of corn production for biofuels.
EPA plans to conduct additional
analyses for the final rule that will
compare the reference case biofuel
volumes to the RFS2 volumes.
The SWAT model was applied (i.e.,
calibrated) to the UMRB using 1960 to
2001 weather data and flow and water
quality data from 13 USGS gages on the
mainstem of the Mississippi River. The
42-year SWAT model runs were
performed and the results analyzed to
establish runoff, sediment, nitrogen, and
phosphorous loadings from each of the
131 8-digit HUC subwatersheds and the
larger 4-digit subbasins, along with the
total outflow from the UMRB and at the
various USGS gage sites along the
Mississippi River. These results
provided the Baseline Scenario model
values to which the future alternatives
are compared.
3. Alternative Scenarios
SWAT scenario analyses were
performed for the years 2010, 2015,
2020, and 2022 with corn ethanol
volumes of 12 billion gallons a year
(BGY) for 2010, and 15 BGY for 2015 to
2022. These volumes were adjusted for
the UMRB based on a 42.3% ratio of
ethanol production capacity within the
UMRB compared to national capacity.
The resulting UMRB ethanol production
goals were converted into the
corresponding required corn production
acreage, i.e. the extent of corn acreage
needed to meet those ethanol
production goals. Annual increases in
corn yield of 1.23% were built into the
future scenarios. Fewer corn acres were
needed to meet ethanol production
goals after the 2015 scenario due to
those yield increases.
Table X.B.3–1 and Table X.B.3–2
summarize the model outputs both
within the UMRB and at the outlet of
the UMRB in the Mississippi River at
Grafton, Illinois for each of the four
scenario years: 2010, 2015, 2020, and
2022. It is important to note that these
results only estimate loadings from the
Upper Mississippi River basin, not the
entire Mississippi River watershed. As
noted earlier, the UMRB contributes
about 39% of the total nitrogen loads
and 26% of total phosphorus loads to
the Gulf of Mexico. Due to the timing of
this proposal, we were not able to assess
the local impact in smaller watersheds
within the UMRB. Those impacts may
be significantly different. The
decreasing nitrogen load over time is
likely attributed to the increased corn
yield production, resulting in greater
plant uptake of nitrogen.
TABLE X.B.3–1—CHANGES IN NUTRIENT LOADINGS WITHIN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN FROM THE 2005
BASELINE SCENARIO
2005 Baseline
2010
Nitrogen ............................................................
Phosphorus .......................................................
1897.0 million lbs .............................................
176.6 million lbs ...............................................
About 24% of nitrogen and 25% of
phosphorus leaving agricultural fields
was assimilated (taken by aquatic plants
or volatilized) before reaching the outlet
of the UMRB. The assimilated nitrogen
is not necessarily eliminated as an
environmental concern. Five percent or
more of the nitrogen can be converted
to nitrous gas, a powerful greenhouse
gas that has 300 times the climatewarming potential of carbon dioxide,
the major greenhouse. Thus, a water
pollutant becomes an air pollutant until
it is either captured through biological
sequestration or converted fully to
elemental nitrogen.
2015
+5.1%
+2.3%
+4.2%
+1.1%
2020
+2.2%
+0.6%
2022
+1.6%
+0.4%
Total sediment outflow showed very
little change over all scenarios. This is
likely due to the corn being modeled as
well-managed crop in terms of sediment
loss, primarily due to the corn stover
remaining on the fields following
harvest.
TABLE X.B.3–2—CHANGES FROM THE 2005 BASELINE TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT GRAFTON, ILLINOIS FROM THE
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN
2005 Baseline
2010
Average corn yield (bushels/acre) ....................
141 ....................................................................
527 Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed
Nutrient Task Force, supra note 6.
528 Gassman, P.W., Reyes, M.R., Green, C.H.,
Arnold, J.G., 2007, The soil and water assessment
tool: Historical development, applications, and
future research directions. Transactions of the
American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Engineers, v. 50, no. 4, p. 1211–1240. https://
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00201
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2015
150
158
2020
168
www.card.iastate.edu/environment/items/
asabe_swat.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
2022
171
25104
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE X.B.3–2—CHANGES FROM THE 2005 BASELINE TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT GRAFTON, ILLINOIS FROM THE
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN—Continued
2005 Baseline
2010
Nitrogen ............................................................
Phosphorus .......................................................
Sediment ...........................................................
1,433.5 million lbs ............................................
132.4 million lbs ...............................................
6.4 million tons .................................................
After evaluating comments on this
proposal, if time and resources permit,
EPA may conduct additional water
quality analyses using the SWAT model
in the UMRB. Potential future analyses
could include: (1) Determination of the
most sensitive assumptions in the
model, (2) water quality impacts from
the changes in ethanol volumes between
the reference case and this proposal, (3)
removing corn stover for cellulosic
ethanol, and (4) a case study of a smaller
watershed to evaluate local water
quality impacts that are impossible to
ascertain at the scale of the UMRB.
EPA solicits comments on the
scenarios developed for this proposal
and additional future analyses. At this
time, we are not able to assess the
impact of these additional loadings on
the size of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia
zone or water quality within the UMRB.
EPA also solicits comments on the
significance of the modeled increases in
nitrogen and phosphorus loads.
2. Ethanol Production
C. Additional Water Issues
Water quality and quantity impacts
resulting from corn ethanol production
go beyond our ability to model. The
following issues are summarized to
provide additional context about the
broader range of potential impacts. See
Chapter 6 in the DRIA for more
discussion of these issues.
1. Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agricultural lands contribute more
nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay than
any other land use. Chesapeake Bay
Program partners have pledged to
significantly reduce nutrients to the Bay
to meet water quality goals. To estimate
the increase in nutrient loads to the Bay
from changes to agricultural crop
production from 2005 to 2008, the
Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed
Model Phase 4.3 and Vortex models
were utilized. Total nitrogen loads
increased by almost 2.4 million pounds
from an increase of almost 66,000 corn
acres. As agriculture land use shifts
from hay and pasture to more
intensively fertilized row crops, this
analysis estimates that nitrogen loads
increase by 8.8 million pounds.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
There are three principal sources of
discharges to water from ethanol plants:
Reject water from water purification,
cooling water blowdown, and off-batch
ethanol. Most ethanol facilities use onsite wells to produce the process water
for the ethanol process. Groundwater
sources are generally not suitable for
process water because of their mineral
content. Therefore, the water must be
treated, commonly by reverse osmosis.
For every two gallons of pure water
produced, about a gallon of brine is
discharged as reject water from this
process. Most estimates of water
consumption in ethanol production are
based on the use of clean process water
and neglect the water discharged as
reject water.
The largest source of wastewater
discharge is reverse osmosis reject water
from process water purification. The
reverse osmosis process concentrates
groundwater minerals to levels where
they can have water quality impacts.
There is really no means of ‘‘treating’’
these ions to reduce toxicity, other than
further concentration and disposal, or
use of instream dilution. Some facilities
have had to construct long pipelines to
get access to dilution so they can meet
water quality standards. Ethanol plants
also discharge cooling water blowdown,
where some water is discharged to avoid
the buildup of minerals in the cooling
system. These brines are similar to the
reject water described above. In
addition, if off-batch ethanol product or
process water is discharged, the waste
stream can have high Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD) levels. BOD
directly affects the amount of dissolved
oxygen in rivers and streams. The
greater the BOD, the more rapidly
oxygen is depleted in the stream. The
consequences of high BOD are the same
as those for low dissolved oxygen:
Aquatic organisms become stressed,
suffocate, and die.
Older generation production facilities
used four to six gallons of process water
to produce a gallon of ethanol, but
newer facilities use less than three
gallons of water in the production
process. Most of this water savings is
gained through improved recycling of
water and heat in the process. Water
PO 00000
Frm 00202
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2015
+5.5%
+2.8%
+0.5%
+4.7%
+1.7%
+0.3%
2020
+2.5%
+0.98%
+0.2%
2022
+1.8%
+0.8%
+0.1%
supply is a local issue, and there have
been concerns with water consumption
as new plants go online. Some facilities
are tapping into deeper aquifers as a
source of water. These deeper water
resources tend to contain higher levels
of minerals and this can further increase
the concentration of minerals in reverse
osmosis reject water. Geographic
impacts of water use vary. A typical
plant producing 50 million gallons of
ethanol per year uses a minimum of 175
million gallons of water annually. In
Iowa, water consumption from ethanol
refining accounts for about seven
percent of all industrial water use, and
is projected to be 14% by 2012—or
about 50 million gallons per day.
a. Distillers Grain with Solubles
Distillers grain with solubles (DGS) is
an important co-product of ethanol
production. About one-third of the corn
processed into ethanol is converted into
DGS. DGS has become an increasingly
important feed component for confined
livestock. DGS are higher in crude
protein (nitrogen) and three to four
times higher in phosphorus relative to
traditional feeds. When nitrogen and
phosphorus are fed in excess of the
animal’s needs, these nutrients are
excreted in the manure. When manure
is applied to crops at rates above their
nutrient needs or at times the crop can
not use the nutrients, the nutrients can
runoff to surface waters or leach into
ground waters.
Livestock producers can limit the
potential pollution from manure
applications to crops by implementing
comprehensive nutrient management.
Due to the substantially higher
phosphorus content of manure from
livestock fed DGS, producers will
potentially need significantly more
acres to apply the manure so that
phosphorus will not be applied at rates
above the needs of the crops. This is a
particularly important concern in areas
where concentrated livestock
production already produces more
phosphorus in the manure than can be
taken up by crops or pasture land in the
vicinity.
Several recent studies have indicated
that DGS may have an impact on food
safety. Cattle fed DGS have a higher
prevalence of a major food-borne
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pathogen, E. coli O157, than cattle
without DGS in their diets.529 More
research is needed to confirm these
studies and devise methods to eliminate
the potential risks.
b. Ethanol Leaks and Spills
The potential for exposure to fuel
components and/or additives can occur
when underground fuel storage tanks
leak fuel into ground water that is used
for drinking water supplies or when
spills occur that contaminate surface
drinking water supplies. Ethanol
biodegrades quickly and is not
necessarily the pollutant of greatest
concern in these occurrences. Instead,
ethanol’s high biodegradability can
cause the plume of BTEX (benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes)
compounds in fuel to extend farther (by
as much as 70%) 530 and persist longer
in ground water, thereby increasing
potential exposures to these
compounds.
With the increasing use of ethanol in
the fuel supply nationwide, it is
important to understand the impact of
ethanol on the existing tank
infrastructure. Given the corrosivity of
ethanol, there is concern regarding the
increased potential for leaks from
existing gas stations and subsequent
impacts on drinking water supplies. In
2007, there were 7,500 reported releases
from underground storage tanks.
Therefore, EPA is undertaking analyses
designed to assess the potential impacts
of ethanol blends on tank infrastructure
and leak detection systems and
determine the resulting water quality
impacts.
3. Biodiesel Plants
Biodiesel plants use much less water
than ethanol plants. Water is used for
washing impurities from the finished
product. Water use is variable, but is
usually less than one gallon of water for
each gallon of biodiesel produced.
Larger well-designed plants use water
more sparingly, while smaller producers
use more water. Some facilities recycle
washwater, which reduces water
consumption. The strength of process
wastewater from biodiesel plants is
highly variable. Most production
529 Jacob, M. D., Fox, J. T., Drouillard, J. S.,
Renter, D. G., Nagaraja, T. G., 2008, Effects of dried
distillers’ grain on fecal prevalence and growth of
Escherichia coli O157 in batch culture
fermentations from cattle, Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, v. 74, no. 1, p. 38–43,
available online at: https://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/
abstract/74/1/38
530 Ruiz-Aguilar, G. M. L.; O’Reilly, K.; Alvarez,
P. J. J., 2003, Forum: A comparison of benzene and
toluene plume lengths for sites contaminated with
regular vs. ethanol-amended gasoline, Ground
Water Monitoring and Remediation, v. 23, p. 48–53.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
processes produce washwater that has
very high BOD levels. The high strength
of these wastes can overload and disrupt
municipal treatment plants.
Crude glycerin is an important side
product from the biodiesel process and
is about 10% of the final product. The
rapid development of the biodiesel
industry has caused a glut of glycerin
production and many facilities dispose
of glycerin. Poor handling of crude
glycerin has resulted in upset of sewage
treatment plants and fish kills.
4. Water Quantity
Water demand for crop production for
ethanol could potentially be much
larger than biorefinery demand.
According to the National Research
Council, the demand for water to
irrigate crops for biofuels will not have
an impact on national water use, but it
is likely to have significant local and
regional impacts.531 The impact is crop
and region specific, but could be
especially great in areas where new
acres are irrigated.
5. Drinking Water
Increased corn production for ethanol
may increase the occurrence of nitrate,
nitrite, and the herbicide atrazine in
sources of drinking water. Under the
Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA has
established enforceable standards for
these contaminants to protect public
health. Increases in occurrence of these
contaminants may raise costs to public
water systems through increased
treatment needs or increased pumping
costs where ethanol production is
accelerating the long running depletion
of aquifers. There is also a risk of
decreased supplies of drinking water in
communities where aquifers are being
depleted and potential contamination
due to leaks from gasoline stations using
higher blends of ethanol.
D. Request for Comment on Options for
Reducing Water Quality Impacts
EPA is seeking comment on how best
to reduce the impacts of biofuels on
water quality. EPA is seeking comment
on the use of section 211(c) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended by EISA, to address
these water quality issues. Section
211(c) gives the EPA administrator the
discretion to ‘‘control’’ the manufacture
and sale of a motor vehicle
transportation fuel based on a finding
that the fuel, or its emission product,
‘‘causes or contributes’’ to air pollution
or water pollution that may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger the public
health or welfare.
531 Committee on Water Implications of Biofuels
Production in the United States, supra note 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00203
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25105
In evaluating this option, EPA is
seeking comment on whether it would
be appropriate to find that emission
products from such transportation fuels,
including renewable fuels, are ‘‘causing
or contributing’’ to ‘‘water pollution’’
and that this water pollution ‘‘may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
the public health or welfare.’’ EPA is
also seeking comment on whether it
would be allowable and appropriate to
‘‘control or prohibit the manufacture
* * * ’’ of a fuel by requiring that
manufacturers of such fuels, such as
manufacturers of a biofuel, use, or
certify that they used, only corn
feedstocks grown using farming
practices designed to reduce nutrient
water pollution. For example, is this a
reasonable way to ‘‘offset’’ water
pollution caused, in part, by air
deposition of nitrogen to water from
combustion of transportation fuels with
reductions of nitrogen runoff to water
from corn feedstock by means of such
‘‘controls’’ on the manufacture of
biofuels adopted pursuant to section
211(c). In the alternative, would this be
a reasonable way to attempt to offset
water pollution caused by the
production of the feedstock associated
with the production of the biofuel based
on section 211(c).
EPA is seeking comment and
suggestions on how biofuel
manufacturers might establish that their
biofuel feedstock was grown with
appropriate practices to control nutrient
runoff (e.g., require a program similar to
the one used for compliance with the
restrictions in the definition of
renewable biomass on previously
cleared agricultural land). Finally, EPA
is seeking comments on other
approaches, mechanisms, or authorities
that might be adopted in the renewable
fuels rule that are likely to have the
effect of reducing the water quality
impacts of biofuels.
XI. Public Participation
We request comment on all aspects of
this proposal. This section describes
how you can participate in this process.
A. How Do I Submit Comments?
We are opening a formal comment
period by publishing this document. We
will accept comments during the period
indicated under DATES in the first part
of this proposal. If you have an interest
in the proposed program described in
this document, we encourage you to
comment on any aspect of this
rulemaking. We also request comment
on specific topics identified throughout
this proposal.
Your comments will be most useful if
you include appropriate and detailed
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25106
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
supporting rationale, data, and analysis.
Commenters are especially encouraged
to provide specific suggestions for any
changes to any aspect of the regulations
that they believe need to be modified or
improved. You should send all
comments, except those containing
proprietary information, to our Air
Docket (see ADDRESSES in the first part
of this proposal) before the end of the
comment period.
You may submit comments
electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper
receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate
docket identification number in the
subject line on the first page of your
comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment
period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not
required to consider these late
comments. If you wish to submit
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or information that is otherwise
protected by statute, please follow the
instructions in Section XI.B.
B. How Should I Submit CBI to the
Agency?
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI electronically
through the electronic public docket,
www.regulations.gov, or by e-mail.
Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Assessment and Standards Division,
2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI,
48105, Attention Docket ID EPA–HQ–
OAR–2005–0161. You may claim
information that you submit to EPA as
CBI by marking any part or all of that
information as CBI (if you submit CBI
on disk or CD–ROM, 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 CBI). Information so marked will not
be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of
the comments that include any
information claimed as CBI, a copy of
the comments that does not contain the
information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public
docket. If you submit the copy that does
not contain CBI on disk orCD–ROM,
mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM
clearly that it does not contain CBI.
Information not marked as CBI will be
included in the public docket without
prior notice. If you have any questions
about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?
We will hold a public hearing in
Washington DC on June 9, 2009 at the
location shown below. The hearing will
start at 10 a.m. local time and continue
until everyone has had a chance to
speak.
The Dupont Hotel, 1500 New
Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20036, Phone# 202–483–6000.
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 in
the first part of this proposal at least 8
days before the hearing. 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 make a tentative schedule for
the order of testimony based on the
notifications we receive. This schedule
will be available on the morning of the
hearing. In addition, we will reserve a
block of time for anyone else in the
audience who wants to give testimony.
We will conduct the hearing
informally, and technical rules of
evidence will not apply. We will
arrange for a written transcript of the
hearing and keep the official record of
the hearing open for 30 days to allow
you to submit supplementary
information. You may make
arrangements for copies of the transcript
directly with the court reporter.
D. Comment Period
The comment period for this rule will
end on July 27, 2009.
E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
You may find the following
suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible.
• Describe any assumptions that you
used.
• Provide any technical information
and/or data you used that support your
views.
• If you estimate potential burden or
costs, explain how you arrived at your
estimate.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns.
• Offer alternatives.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
• To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
identify the appropriate docket
PO 00000
Frm 00204
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
identification number in the subject line
on the first page of your response. It
would also be helpful if you provided
the name, date, and Federal Register
citation related to your comments.
XII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October
4, 1993), this action is an ‘‘economically
significant regulatory action’’ because it
is likely to have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more.
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.
In addition, EPA prepared an analysis
of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action. This
analysis is contained in the Draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis, which is
available in the docket for this
rulemaking and at the docket internet
address listed under ADDRESSES in the
first part of this proposal. A more
complete assessment of the costs and
benefits associated with this Action will
be completed for the Final Rule.
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
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2333.01. A
draft Supporting Statement has been
placed in the docket for public
comment.
The Agency proposes to collect
information to ensure compliance with
the provisions in this rule. This
includes a variety of requirements for
transportation fuel refiners, blenders,
marketers, distributors, importers, and
exporters. The types of information
proposed to be collected includes, but is
not limited to: registrations, periodic
compliance reports, product transfer
documentation, transactional
information involving RINs and
associated volumes of renewable fuel,
and attest engagements. We invite
comment on the proposed collection of
information associated with this
proposed rule.
Section 208(a) of the Clean Air Act
requires that fuel producers provide
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
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.
As shown in Table XII.B–1, the total
annual burden associated with this
proposal is about 323,922 hours and
$27,073,827, based on a projection of
20,216 respondents. The estimated
burden for fuel producers is a total
estimate for both new and existing
reporting requirements. Burden means
the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal
agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting,
25107
validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
TABLE XII.B–1—ESTIMATED BURDEN FOR REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
Number of
respondents
Industry sector
Annual burden
hours
Annual
costs
($)
Fuels:
Producers of renewable fuels ......................................................................................................
Importers of renewable fuelsa .....................................................................................................
Obligated parties, exportersb .......................................................................................................
RIN ownersc .................................................................................................................................
Foreign refinersd ..........................................................................................................................
Foreign RIN owners .....................................................................................................................
Retail stations (pump label) .........................................................................................................
5,472
1,131
1,410
12,083
65
30
25
112,461
22,503
36,796
148,542
3,460
135
25
8,893,531
1,824,913
2,868,116
13,102,447
364,940
18,105
1,775
Total ......................................................................................................................................
20,216
323,922
27,073,827
a Includes
foreign producers.
exporters fall under this category.
c Includes blenders, brokers, marketers, etc. Anyone can own RINs.
d Includes small foreign refiners.
b Refiners,
In addition to the estimates shown
above, we have separately estimated the
costs of potential third party disclosure
that is associated with the proposed
registration requirements explained in
this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Potentially affected parties include
farmers, private forest owners, and other
biofuel feedstock producers. We
estimate a total of 43,466 respondents,
83,633 annual burden hours, and
$5,937,943 in annual burden cost
associated with the proposed third party
disclosure. These estimates are
explained in an addendum to the draft
Supporting Statement, which has also
been placed in the public docket.
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 proposed ICR,
under Docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OAR–2005–0161. Submit any comments
related to the ICR for this proposed rule
to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES at 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 May 26, 2009, a
comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it
by June 25, 2009. 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
Industry a
Defined as small entity by SBA if:
Gasoline and diesel fuel refiners .............................................................................
a North
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:
≤1,500 employees ....................................
American Industrial Classification System.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00205
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
NAICS a codes
324110
25108
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
2. Background
Section 1501 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (EPAct) amended section 211 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) by adding
section 211(o) which required the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to promulgate regulations implementing
a renewable fuel program. EPAct
specified that the regulations must
ensure a specific volume of renewable
fuel to be used in gasoline sold in the
U.S. each year, with the total volume
increasing over time. The goal of the
program was to reduce dependence on
foreign sources of petroleum, increase
domestic sources of energy, and help
transition to alternatives to petroleum in
the transportation sector.
The final Renewable Fuels Standard
(RFS1) program rule was published on
May 1, 2007, and the program began on
September 1, 2007. Per EPAct, the RFS1
program created a specific annual level
for minimum renewable fuel use that
increases over time—resulting in a
requirement that 7.5 billion gallons of
renewable fuel be blended into gasoline
(for highway use only) by 2012. Under
the RFS1 program, compliance is based
on meeting the required annual
renewable fuel volume percent standard
(published annually in the Federal
Register by EPA) through the use of
Renewable Identification Numbers, or
RINs, 38-digit serial numbers assigned
to each batch of renewable fuel
produced. For obligated parties (those
who must meet the annual volume
percent standard), RINs must be
acquired to show compliance.
The Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA) amended
section 211(o), and the RFS program, by
requiring higher volumes of renewable
fuels, to result in 36 billion gallons of
renewable fuel by 2022. EISA also
expanded the purview of the RFS1
program by requiring that these
renewable fuels be blended into
gasoline and diesel fuel (both highway
and nonroad). This expanded the pool
of regulated entities, so the obligated
parties under this RFS2 NPRM will now
include certain refiners, importers, and
blenders of these fuels that were not
previously covered by the RFS1
program. In addition to the total
renewable fuel standard required by
EPAct, EISA added standards for three
additional types of renewable fuels to
the program (advanced biofuel,
cellulosic biofuel, and biomass-based
diesel) and requires compliance with all
four standards.
Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA,
EPA prepared an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines
the impact of the proposed rule on small
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
entities along with regulatory
alternatives that could reduce that
impact. The IRFA is available for review
in the docket (in Chapter 7 of the Draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis) and is
summarized below.
As required by section 609(b) of the
RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA also
conducted outreach to small entities
and convened a Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice
and recommendations of representatives
of the small entities that potentially
would be subject to the rule’s
requirements.
Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA
requirements, the Panel evaluated the
assembled materials and small-entity
comments on issues related to elements
of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel Report
is included in the docket for this
proposed rule, and a summary of the
Panel process, and subsequent Panel
recommendations, is summarized
below.
3. Summary of Potentially Affected
Small Entities
The small entities that will potentially
be subject to the renewable fuel
standard include: Domestic refiners that
produce gasoline and/or diesel and
importers of gasoline and/or diesel into
the United States. Based on 2007 data,
EPA believes that there are about 95
refiners of gasoline and diesel fuel. Of
these, EPA believes that there are
currently 21 refiners producing gasoline
and/or diesel fuel that meet the SBA
small entity definition of having 1,500
employees or less. Further, we believe
that three of these refiners own
refineries that do not meet the
Congressional ‘‘small refinery’’
definition.532 It should be noted that
because of the dynamics in the refining
industry (i.e., mergers and acquisitions),
the actual number of refiners that
ultimately qualify for small refiner
status under the RFS2 program could be
different than this initial estimate.
4. Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping,
and Compliance
For any fuel control program, EPA
must have assurance that any fuel
produced meets all applicable standards
and requirements, and that the fuel
532 EPAct defined a ‘‘small refinery’’ as a refinery
with a crude throughput of no more than 75,000
barrels of crude per day (at CAA section
211(o)(1)(K)). This definition is based on facility
size and is different than SBA’s small refiner
definition (which is based on company size). A
small refinery could be owned by a larger refiner
that exceeds SBA’s small entity standards. SBA’s
size standards were established to set apart those
businesses which are most likely to be at an
inherent economic disadvantage relative to larger
businesses.
PO 00000
Frm 00206
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
continues to meet those standards and
requirements as it passes downstream
through the distribution system to the
ultimate end user. Registration,
reporting, and recordkeeping are
necessary to track compliance with the
RFS2 requirements and transactions
involving RINs. As discussed above in
Sections III.J and IV.E, the proposed
compliance requirements under the
RFS2 program are in many ways similar
to those required under the RFS1
program, with some modifications to
account for the new requirements of
EISA.
5. Related Federal Rules
We are aware of a few other current
or proposed Federal rules that are
related to the upcoming proposed rule.
The primary federal rules that are
related to the proposed RFS2 rule under
consideration are the first Renewable
Fuel Standard (RFS1) rule (72 FR 23900,
May 1, 2007) and the RFS1 Technical
Amendment Direct Final Rulemaking
(73 FR 57248, October 2, 2008).533
6. Summary of SBREFA Panel Process
and Panel Outreach
a. Significant Panel Findings
The Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel (SBAR Panel, or the Panel)
considered regulatory options and
flexibilities to help mitigate potential
adverse effects on small businesses as a
result of this rule. During the SBREFA
Panel process, the Panel sought out and
received comments on the regulatory
options and flexibilities that were
presented to SERs and Panel members.
The recommendations of the Panel are
described below and are also located in
Section 9 of the SBREFA Final Panel
Report, which is available in the public
docket.
b. Panel Process
As required by section 609(b) of the
RFA, as amended by SBREFA, we also
conducted outreach to small entities
and convened an SBAR Panel to obtain
advice and recommendations of
representatives of the small entities that
potentially would be subject to the
rule’s requirements. On July 9, 2008,
EPA’s Small Business Advocacy
Chairperson convened a Panel under
Section 609(b) of the RFA. In addition
to the Chair, the Panel consisted of the
Division Director of the Assessment and
Standards Division of EPA’s Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration, and the
533 This Direct Final Rule corrects minor
typographical errors and provides clarification on
existing provisions in the RFS1 regulations.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
within the Office of Management and
Budget. As part of the SBAR Panel
process, we conducted outreach with
representatives from representatives of
small businesses that would potentially
be affected by the proposed rulemaking.
We met with these Small Entity
Representatives (SERs) to discuss the
potential rulemaking approaches and
potential options to decrease the impact
of the rulemaking on their industries.
We distributed outreach materials to the
SERs; these materials included
background on the rulemaking, possible
regulatory approaches, and possible
rulemaking alternatives. The Panel met
with SERs from the industries that
would be directly affected by the RFS2
rule on July 30, 2008 to discuss the
outreach materials and receive feedback
on the approaches and alternatives
detailed in the outreach packet (the
Panel also met with SERs on June 3,
2008 for an initial outreach meeting).
The Panel received written comments
from the SERs following the meeting in
response to discussions had at the
meeting and the questions posed to the
SERs by the Agency. The SERs were
specifically asked to provide comment
on regulatory alternatives that could
help to minimize the rule’s impact on
small businesses.
In general, SERs stated that they
believed that small refiners would face
challenges in meeting the new
standards. More specifically, they
voiced concerns with respect to the RIN
program itself, uncertainty (with the
required renewable fuel volumes, RIN
availability, and cost), and the desire for
a RIN system review.
The Panel’s findings and discussions
were based on the information that was
available during the term of the Panel
and issues that were raised by the SERs
during the outreach meetings and in
their comments. One concern that was
raised by EPA with regard to provisions
for small refiners in the RFS2 rule is
that this rule presents a very different
issue than the small refinery versus
small refiner concept from RFS1. This
issue deals with whether EPA has the
authority to provide small refineries that
are operated by a small refiner with an
extension of time that would be
different from (and more than) the
temporary exemption specified by
Congress in section 211(o)(9) for small
refineries. For those small refiners who
are covered by the small refinery
provisions, Congress has specifically
adopted a relief provision aimed at their
refineries. This provides a temporary
extension through December 31, 2010
and allows for further extensions only if
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
certain criteria are met. EPA believes
that providing small refineries (and
thus, small refiners who own small
refineries) with an additional exemption
different from that provided by section
211(o)(9) raises concerns about
inconsistency with the intent of
Congress. Congress spoke directly to the
relief that EPA may provide for small
refineries, including those small
refineries operated by small refiners,
and limited it to a blanket exemption
through December 31, 2010, with
additional extensions if the criteria
specified by Congress were met. An
additional or different extension, relying
on a more general provision in section
211(o)(3), would raise questions about
consistency with the intent of Congress.
It was agreed that EPA should
consider the issues raised by the SERs
and discussions had by the Panel itself,
and that EPA should consider
comments on flexibility alternatives that
would help to mitigate negative impacts
on small businesses to the extent legally
allowable by the Clean Air Act.
Alternatives discussed throughout the
Panel process included those offered in
previous or current EPA rulemakings, as
well as alternatives suggested by SERs
and Panel members. A summary of
these recommendations is detailed
below, and a full discussion of the
regulatory alternatives and hardship
provisions discussed and recommended
by the Panel can be found in the
SBREFA Final Panel Report. A complete
discussion of the provisions for which
we are requesting comment and/or
proposing in this action can be found in
Section IV.B of this preamble. Also, the
Panel Report includes all comments
received from SERs (Appendix B of the
Report) and summaries of the two
outreach meetings that were held with
the SERs. In accordance with the RFA/
SBREFA requirements, the Panel
evaluated the aforementioned materials
and SER comments on issues related to
the IRFA. The Panel’s recommendations
from the Final Panel Report are
discussed below.
c. Panel Recommendations
The purpose of the Panel process is to
solicit information as well as suggested
flexibility options from the SERs, and
the Panel recommended that EPA
continue to do so during the
development of the RFS2 rule.
Recognizing the concerns about EPA’s
authority to provide extensions to a
subset of small refineries (i.e., those that
are owned by small refiners) different
from that provided to small refineries in
section 211(o)(9), the Panel
recommended that EPA continue to
evaluate this issue, and that EPA request
PO 00000
Frm 00207
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25109
comment on its authority and the
appropriateness of providing extensions
beyond those authorized by section
211(o)(9) for small refineries operated
by a small refiner. The Panel also
recommended that EPA propose to
provide the same extension provision of
211(o)(9) to small refiners who do not
own small refineries as is provided for
small refiners who do own small
refineries.
i. Delay in Standards
The RFS1 program regulations
provide small refiners who operate
small refineries as well as small refiners
who do not operate small refineries with
a temporary exemption from the
standard through December 31, 2010.
Small refiner SERs suggested that an
additional temporary exemption for the
RFS2 program would be beneficial to
them in meeting the standards. EPA
evaluated a temporary exemption for at
least some of the four required RFS2
standards for small refiners. The Panel
recommended that EPA propose a delay
in the effective date of the standards
until 2014 for small entities, to the
maximum extent allowed by the statute.
However, the Panel recognized that EPA
has serious concerns about its authority
to provide an extension of the
temporary exemption for small
refineries that is different from that
provided in CAA section 211(o)(9),
since Congress specifically addressed an
extension for small refineries in that
provision.
The Panel did recommend that EPA
propose other avenues through which
small refineries and small refiners could
receive extensions of the temporary
exemption. These avenues, as discussed
in greater detail in Sections XII.C.6.c.v
and vi below, are a possible extension
of the temporary exemption for an
additional two years following a study
of small refineries by the Department of
Energy (DOE) and provisions for caseby-case economic hardship relief.
ii. Phase-in
Small refiner SERs’ suggested that a
phase-in of the obligations applicable to
small refiners would be beneficial for
compliance, such that small refiners
would comply by gradually meeting the
standards on an incremental basis over
a period of time, after which point they
would comply fully with the RFS2
standards, EPA has serious concerns
about its authority to allow for such a
phase-in of the standards. CAA section
211(o)(3)(B) states that the renewable
fuel obligation shall ‘‘consist of a single
applicable percentage that applies to all
categories of persons specified’’ as
obligated parties. This kind of phase-in
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25110
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
approach would result in different
applicable percentages being applied to
different obligated parties. Further, as
discussed above, such a phase-in
approach would provide more relief to
small refineries operated by small
refiners than that provided under the
small refinery provision. Thus the Panel
recommended that EPA should invite
comment on a phase-in, but not propose
such a provision.
iii. RIN-Related Flexibilities
The small refiner SERs requested that
the proposed rule contain provisions for
small refiners related to the RIN system,
such as flexibilities in the RIN rollover
cap percentage and allowing all small
refiners to use RINs interchangeably.
Currently in the RFS1 program, EPA
allows for 20% of a previous year’s RINs
to be ‘‘rolled over’’ and used for
compliance in the following year. A
provision to allow for flexibilities in the
rollover cap could include a higher RIN
rollover cap for small refiners for some
period of time or for at least some of the
four standards. Since the concept of a
rollover cap was not mandated by
section 211(o), EPA believes that there
may be an opportunity to provide
appropriate flexibility in this area to
small refiners under the RFS2 program
but only if it is determined in the DOE
small refinery study that there is a
disproportionate effect warranting relief.
The Panel recommended that EPA
request comment on increasing the RIN
rollover cap percentage for small
refiners, and further that EPA should
request comment on an appropriate
level of that percentage.
The Panel recommended that EPA
invite comment on allowing RINs to be
used interchangeably for small refiners,
but not propose this concept because
under this approach small refiners
would arguably be subject to a different
applicable percentage than other
obligated parties. This concept would
also fail to require the four different
standards mandated by Congress (e.g.,
conventional biofuel could not be used
instead of cellulosic biofuel or biomassbased diesel).
iv. Program Review
With regard to the suggested program
review, EPA raised the concern that this
could lead to some redundancy since
EPA is required to publish a notice of
the applicable RFS standards in the
Federal Register annually, and that this
annual process will inevitably include
an evaluation of the projected
availability of renewable fuels.
Nevertheless, the SBA and OMB Panel
members stated that they believe that a
program review could be helpful to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
small entities in providing them some
insight to the RFS program’s progress
and alleviate some uncertainty
regarding the RIN system. As EPA will
be publishing a Federal Register notice
annually, the Panel recommended that
EPA include an update of RIN system
progress (e.g., RIN trading, RIN
availability, etc.) in this notice and that
the results of this evaluation be
considered in any request for case-bycase hardship relief.
v. Extensions of the Temporary
Exemption Based on a Study of Small
Refinery Impacts
The Panel recommended that EPA
propose in the RFS2 program the
provision at 40 CFR 80.1141(e)
extending the RFS1 temporary
exemption for at least two years for any
small refinery that DOE determines
would be subject to disproportionate
economic hardship if required to
comply with the RFS2 requirements.
Section 211(o)(9)(A)(ii) required that
by December 31, 2008, DOE was to
perform a study of the economic
impacts of the RFS requirements on
small refineries to assess and determine
whether the RFS requirements would
impose a disproportionate economic
hardship on small refineries, and submit
this study to EPA. Section 211(o)(9) also
provided that small refineries found to
be in a disproportionate economic
hardship situation would receive an
extension of the temporary exemption
for at least two years.
The Panel also recommended that
EPA work with DOE in the development
of the small refinery study, specifically
to communicate the comments that
SERs raised during the Panel process.
vi. Extensions of the Temporary
Exemption Based on Disproportionate
Economic Hardship
While SERs did not specifically
comment on the concept of hardship
provisions for the upcoming proposal,
the Panel noted that under CAA section
211(o)(9)(B) small refineries may
petition EPA for case-by-case extensions
of the small refinery temporary
exemption on the basis of
disproportionate economic hardship.
Refiners may petition EPA for this caseby-case hardship relief at any time.
The Panel recommended that EPA
propose in the RFS2 program a case-bycase hardship provision for small
refineries similar to that provided at 40
CFR 80.1141(e)(1). The Panel also
recommended that EPA propose a caseby-case hardship provision for small
refiners that do not operate small
refineries that is comparable to that
provided for small refineries under
PO 00000
Frm 00208
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
section 211(o)(9)(B), using its discretion
under CAA section 211(o)(3)(B). This
would apply if EPA does not adopt an
automatic extension for small refiners,
and would allow those small refiners
that do not operate small refineries to
apply for the same kind of extension as
a small refinery. The Panel
recommended that EPA take into
consideration the results of the annual
update of RIN system progress and the
DOE small refinery study in assessing
such hardship applications.
We invite comments on all aspects of
the proposal and its impacts on small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 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.
Today’s proposal contains no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
State, local, or tribal governments. The
rule imposes no enforceable duty on any
State, local or tribal governments. EPA
has determined that this rule contains
no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. EPA has determined that
this proposal contains a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for the private
sector in any one year. EPA believes that
the proposal represents the least costly,
most cost-effective approach to achieve
the statutory requirements of the rule.
The costs and benefits associated with
the proposal are discussed above and in
the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, as
required by the UMRA.
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.
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 will be
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
implemented at the Federal level and
impose compliance costs only on
transportation fuel refiners, blenders,
marketers, distributors, importers, and
exporters. Tribal governments would be
affected only 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.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern
health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5–501 of
the EO has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action is not subject to
EO 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.
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. In
fact, this rule has a positive effect on
energy supply and use. By promoting
the diversification of transportation
fuels, this rule enhances energy supply.
Therefore, we have concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse
energy effects. Our energy effects
analysis is described above in Section
IX.
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No.
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
PO 00000
Frm 00209
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25111
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
This rulemaking proposes changes to
the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
program at Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Subpart K which
already contains voluntary consensus
standard ASTM D6751–06a ‘‘Standard
Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend
Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate
Fuels’’. This standard was developed by
ASTM International (originally known
as the American Society for Testing and
Materials), Subcommittee D02.E0, and
was approved in August 2006. The
standard may be obtained through the
ASTM Web site (www.astm.org) or by
calling ASTM at (610) 832–9585.
This proposed rulemaking does not
propose to change this voluntary
consensus standard, and does not
involve any other technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the
use of any voluntary consensus
standards other than that described
above.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA
lacks the discretionary authority to
address environmental justice in this
proposed rulemaking since the Agency
is implementing specific standards
established by Congress in statutes.
Although EPA lacks authority to modify
today’s regulatory decision on the basis
of environmental justice considerations,
EPA nevertheless determined that this
proposed rule does not have a
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental impact
on minority or low-income populations.
XIII. Statutory Authority
Statutory authority for this action
comes from 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,
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25112
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
208, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 7414, 7542, and 7601(a).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Diesel fuel, Fuel
additives, Gasoline, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling,
Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 5, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 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).
2. A new Subpart M is added to part
80 to read as follows:
Subpart M—Renewable Fuel Standard
Sec.
80.1400 Applicability.
80.1401 Definitions.
80.1402 [Reserved]
80.1403 Which fuels are not subject to the
20% GHG thresholds?
80.1404 [Reserved]
80.1405 What are the Renewable Fuel
Standards?
80.1406 To whom do the Renewable
Volume Obligations apply?
80.1407 How are the Renewable Volume
Obligations calculated?
80.1408–80.1414 [Reserved]
80.1415 How are equivalence values
assigned to renewable fuel?
80.1416 Treatment of parties who produce
or import new renewable fuels and
pathways.
80.1417–80.1424 [Reserved]
80.1425 Renewable Identification Numbers
(RINs).
80.1426 How are RINs generated and
assigned to batches of renewable fuel by
renewable fuel producers or importers?
80.1427 How are RINs used to demonstrate
compliance?
80.1428 General requirements for RIN
distribution.
80.1429 Requirements for separating RINs
from volumes of renewable fuel.
80.1430 Requirements for exporters of
renewable fuels.
80.1431 Treatment of invalid RINs.
80.1432 Reported spillage or disposal of
renewable fuel.
80.1433–80.1439 [Reserved]
80.1440 What are the provisions for
blenders who handle and blend less than
125,000 gallons of renewable fuel per
year?
80.1441 Small refinery exemption.
80.1442 What are the provisions for small
refiners under the RFS program?
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
80.1443 What are the opt-in provisions for
noncontiguous states and territories?
80.1444–80.1448 [Reserved]
80.1449 What are the Production Outlook
Report requirements?
80.1450 What are the registration
requirements under the RFS program?
80.1451 What are the recordkeeping
requirements under the RFS program?
80.1452 What are the reporting
requirements under the RFS program?
80.1453 What are the product transfer
document (PTD) requirements for the
RFS program?
80.1454 What are the provisions for
renewable fuel production facilities and
importers who produce or import less
than 10,000 gallons of renewable fuel per
year?
80.1455 What are the provisions for
cellulosic biofuel allowances?
80.1456–80.1459 [Reserved]
80.1460 What acts are prohibited under the
RFS program?
80.1461 Who is liable for violations under
the RFS program?
80.1462 [Reserved]
80.1463 What penalties apply under the
RFS program?
80.1464 What are the attest engagement
requirements under the RFS program?
80.1465 What are the additional
requirements under this subpart for
foreign small refiners, foreign small
refineries, and importers of RFS–
FRFUEL?
80.1466 What are the additional
requirements under this subpart for
foreign producers and importers of
renewable fuels?
80.1467 What are the additional
requirements under this subpart for a
foreign RIN owner?
80.1468 [Reserved]
80.1469 What are the labeling requirements
that apply to retailers and wholesale
purchaser-consumers of ethanol fuel
blends that contain greater than 10
volume percent ethanol?
Subpart M—Renewable Fuel Standard
§ 80.1400
Applicability.
The provisions of this Subpart M shall
apply for all renewable fuel produced
on or after January 1, 2010, for all RINs
generated after January 1, 2010, and for
all renewable volume obligations and
compliance periods starting with
January 1, 2010. Except as provided
otherwise in this Subpart M, the
provisions of Subpart K of this Part 80
shall not apply for such renewable fuel,
RINs, renewable volume obligations, or
compliance periods.
§ 80.1401
Definitions.
The definitions of § 80.2 and of this
section apply for the purposes of this
subpart M. The definitions of this
section do not apply to other subparts
unless otherwise noted. Note that many
terms defined here are common terms
that have specific meanings under this
PO 00000
Frm 00210
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
subpart M (such as the terms ‘‘coprocessed,’’ ‘‘cropland,’’ and ‘‘yard
waste’’). The definitions follow:
Actual peak capacity means the
maximum annual volume of renewable
fuels produced from a specific
renewable fuel production facility on an
annual basis.
(1) For facilities that commenced
construction prior to December 19, 2007
the maximum annual volume is for any
year prior to 2008.
(2) For facilities that commenced
construction after December 19, 2007,
and are fired with natural gas, biomass,
or a combination thereof, the maximum
annual volume may be for any year after
startup over the first three years of
operation.
Advanced biofuel means renewable
fuel, other than ethanol derived from
cornstarch, that qualifies for a D code of
3 pursuant to § 80.1426(d).
Areas at risk of wildfire are areas
located within, or within one mile of,
forestland, tree plantation, or any other
generally undeveloped tract of land that
is at least one acre in size with
substantial vegetative cover.
Baseline volume means the greater of
nameplate capacity or actual peak
capacity of a specific renewable fuel
production facility.
(1) For facilities that commenced
construction on or before December 19,
2007, the actual peak capacity may be
for any year prior to 2008.
(2) For facilities that commenced
construction after December 19, 2007,
and are fired with natural gas, biomass,
or a combination thereof, the actual
peak capacity may be for any year after
startup for the facility over the first
three years of operation.
Biomass-based diesel means a
renewable fuel which meets the
requirements in paragraph (1) or (2) of
this definition:
(1) A transportation fuel or fuel
additive which is all of the following:
(i) Registered as a motor vehicle fuel
or fuel additive under 40 CFR part 79.
(ii) A mono-alkyl ester and meets
ASTM D–6751–07, entitled ‘‘Standard
Specification for Biodiesel Fuel
Blendstock (B100) for Middle Distillate
Fuels.’’ ASTM D–6751–07 is
incorporated by reference. This
incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. A copy may
be obtained from the American Society
for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania. A copy may be inspected
at the EPA Docket Center, Docket No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC, or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 866–272–6272,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
(iii) Intended for use in engines that
are designed to run on conventional
diesel fuel.
(iv) Qualifies for a D code of 2
pursuant to § 80.1426(d).
(2) A non-ester renewable diesel.
(3) Renewable fuel that is coprocessed is not biomass-based diesel.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is
the process of capturing carbon dioxide
from an emission source, (typically)
converting it to a supercritical state,
transporting it to an injection site, and
injecting it into deep subsurface rock
formations for long-term storage.
Cellulosic biofuel means renewable
fuel derived from any cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin that is derived from
renewable biomass and that qualifies for
a D code of 1 pursuant to § 80.1426(d).
Combined heat and power (CHP), also
known as cogeneration, refers to
industrial processes in which byproduct
heat that would otherwise be released
into the environment is used for process
heating and/or electricity production.
Commence construction, as applied to
facilities that produce renewable fuel,
means that the owner or operator has all
necessary preconstruction approvals or
permits (as defined at 40 CFR
52.21(a)(10)), that for multi-phased
projects, the commencement of
construction of one phase does not
constitute commencement of
construction of any later phase, unless
each phase is mutually dependent for
physical and chemical reasons only, and
has satisfied either of the following:
(1) Begun, or caused to begin, a
continuous program of actual
construction on-site (as defined in 40
CFR 52.21(a)(11)) of the facility to be
completed within a reasonable time.
(2) Entered into binding agreements or
contractual obligations, which cannot be
cancelled or modified without
substantial loss to the owner or
operator, to undertake a program of
actual construction of the facility to be
completed within a reasonable time.
Co-processed means that renewable
biomass was simultaneously processed
with petroleum feedstock in the same
unit or units to produce a fuel that is
partially renewable.
Crop residue is the residue left over
from the harvesting of planted crops.
Cropland is land used for production
of crops for harvest and includes
cultivated cropland, such as for row
crops or close-grown crops, and non-
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
cultivated cropland, such as for
horticultural crops.
Diesel refers to any and all of the
products specified at § 80.1407(f).
Ecologically sensitive forestland
means forestland that is:
(1) An ecological community listed in
a document entitled ‘‘Listing of Forest
Ecological Communities Pursuant to 40
CFR 80.1401,’’ (available in public
docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161); or
(2) Old growth or late successional,
characterized by trees at least 200 years
in age.
Existing agricultural land is cropland,
pastureland, or land enrolled in the
Conservation Reserve Program
(administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency) that
was cleared or cultivated prior to
December 19, 2007, and that, since
December 19, 2007, has been
continuously:
(1) Nonforested; and
(2) Actively managed as agricultural
land or fallow, as evidenced by any of
the following:
(i) Records of sales of planted crops,
crop residue, or livestock, or records of
purchases for land treatments such as
fertilizer, weed control, or reseeding.
(ii) A written management plan for
agricultural purposes.
(iii) Documented participation in an
agricultural management program
administered by a Federal, state, or local
government agency.
(iv) Documented management in
accordance with a certification program
for agricultural products.
Export of renewable fuel means:
(1) Transfer of any renewable fuel to
a location outside the contiguous 48
states and Hawaii; and
(2) Transfer of any renewable fuel
from a location in the contiguous 48
states to Alaska 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 § 80.1443.
Facility means all of the activities and
equipment associated with the
production of renewable fuel starting
from the point of delivery of feedstock
material to the point of final storage of
the end product, which are located on
one property, and are under the control
of the same party (or parties under
common control).
Fallow means cropland, pastureland,
or land enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program (administered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm
Service Agency) that is intentionally left
idle to regenerate for future agricultural
purposes with no seeding or planting,
harvesting, mowing, or treatment during
the fallow period.
PO 00000
Frm 00211
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25113
Forestland is generally undeveloped
land covering a minimum area of 1 acre
upon which the primary vegetative
species are trees, including land that
formerly had such tree cover and that
will be regenerated. Forestland does not
include tree plantations.
Gasoline refers to any and all of the
products specified at § 80.1407(c).
Importers. An importer of
transportation fuel or renewable fuel is:
(1) Any party who brings
transportation fuel or renewable fuel
into the 48 contiguous states of the
United States and Hawaii, from a
foreign country or from an area that has
not opted in to the program
requirements of this subpart pursuant to
§ 80.1443; and
(2) Any party who brings
transportation fuel or renewable fuel
into an area that has opted in to the
program requirements of this subpart
pursuant to § 80.1443.
Motor vehicle has the meaning given
in Section 216(2) of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7550(2)).
Nameplate capacity means:
(1) The maximum rated annual
volume output of renewable fuel
produced by a renewable fuel
production facility under specific
conditions as indicated in applicable air
permits issued by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, state,
or local air pollution control agencies
and that govern the construction and/or
operation of the renewable fuel facility.
(2) If the maximum rated annual
volume output of renewable fuel is not
specified in any applicable air permits
issued by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, state, or local air
pollution control agencies, then
nameplate capacity is the actual peak
capacity of the facility.
Neat renewable fuel is a renewable
fuel to which only a de minimis amount
of gasoline (as defined in Section
211(k)(10)(F) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7550)) or diesel fuel has been
added.
Non-ester renewable diesel means
renewable fuel which is all the
following:
(1) Registered as a motor vehicle fuel
or fuel additive under 40 CFR Part 79.
(2) Not a mono-alkyl ester.
(3) Intended for use in engines that
are designed to run on conventional
diesel fuel.
(4) Derived from nonpetroleum
renewable resources.
(5) Qualifies for a D code of 3 as
defined in § 80.1426(d).
Nonforested land means land that is
not forestland.
Nonpetroleum renewable resources
include, but are not limited to the
following:
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25114
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(1) Plant oils.
(2) Animal fats and animal wastes,
including poultry fats and poultry
wastes, and other waste materials.
Nonroad vehicle has the meaning
given in Section 216(11) of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7550(11)).
Ocean-going vessel means, for this
subpart only, a vessel propelled by a
Category 3 (C3) (as defined in 40 CFR
1042.901) marine engine that uses
residual fuel (as defined at § 80.2(bbb))
or operates internationally. Note that
ocean-going vessels may also include
smaller engines such as Category 2
auxiliary engines.
Pastureland is land managed for the
production of indigenous or introduced
forage plants for livestock grazing or hay
production, and to prevent succession
to other plant types.
Planted crops are all annual or
perennial agricultural crops that may be
used as feedstocks for renewable fuel,
such as grains, oilseeds, sugarcane,
switchgrass, prairie grass, and other
species providing that they were
intentionally applied to the ground by
humans either by direct application as
seed or nursery stock, or through
intentional natural seeding by mature
plants left undisturbed for that purpose.
Planted trees are trees planted by
humans from nursery stock or by seed
either through direct application to the
ground or by intentional natural seeding
by mature trees left undisturbed for that
purpose.
Pre-commercial thinnings are trees,
including unhealthy or diseased trees,
primarily removed to reduce stocking to
concentrate growth on more desirable,
healthy trees.
Renewable biomass means each of the
following:
(1) Planted crops and crop residue
harvested from existing agricultural
land.
(2) Planted trees and slash from a tree
plantation located on non-federal land
(including land belonging to an Indian
tribe or an Indian individual that is held
in trust by the U.S. or subject to a
restriction against alienation imposed
by the U.S.) that was cleared at any time
prior to December 19, 2007, and has
been continuously actively managed
since December 19, 2007. Active
management is evidenced by any of the
following:
(i) Records of sales of planted trees or
slash, or records of purchases of seeds,
seedlings, or other nursery stock.
(ii) A written management plan for
silvicultural purposes.
(iii) Documented participation in a
silvicultural program administered by a
Federal, state, or local government
agency.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
(iv) Documented management in
accordance with a certification program
for silvicultural products.
(3) Animal waste material and animal
byproducts.
(4) Slash and pre-commercial
thinnings from non-federal forestland
(including forestland belonging to an
Indian tribe or an Indian individual,
that are held in trust by the United
States or subject to a restriction against
alienation imposed by the United
States) that is not ecologically sensitive
forestland.
(5) Biomass (organic matter that is
available on a renewable or recurring
basis) obtained from within 200 feet of
buildings, campgrounds, and other areas
regularly occupied by people, or of
public infrastructure, such as utility
corridors, bridges, and roadways, in
areas at risk of wildfire.
(6) Algae.
(7) Separated yard waste or food
waste, including recycled cooking and
trap grease.
Renewable fuel means a fuel which
meets all of the following:
(1) Fuel that is produced from
renewable biomass.
(2) Fuel that is used to replace or
reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present
in a transportation fuel, home heating
oil, or jet fuel.
(3) Ethanol covered by this definition
shall be denatured as required and
defined in 27 CFR parts 19 through 21.
Any volume of denaturant added to the
undenatured ethanol by a producer or
importer in excess of 5 volume percent
shall not be included in the volume of
ethanol for purposes of determining
compliance with the requirements
under this subpart.
Renewable Identification Number
(RIN), is a unique number generated to
represent a volume of renewable fuel
pursuant to §§ 80.1425 and 80.1426.
(1) Gallon-RIN is a RIN that represents
an individual gallon of renewable fuel;
and
(2) Batch-RIN is a RIN that represents
multiple gallon-RINs.
Slash is the residue, including
treetops, branches, and bark, left on the
ground after logging or accumulating as
a result of a storm, fire, delimbing, or
other similar disturbance.
Small refinery means a refinery for
which the average aggregate daily crude
oil throughput for calendar year 2006
(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.
Transportation fuel means fuel for use
in motor vehicles, motor vehicle
engines, nonroad vehicles, or nonroad
engines (except for ocean-going vessels).
PO 00000
Frm 00212
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Tree plantation is a stand of no fewer
than 100 planted trees of similar age
comprising one or two tree species or an
area managed for growth of such trees
covering a minimum of 1 acre.
Yard waste is leaves, sticks, pine
needles, grass and hedge clippings, and
similar waste from residential,
commercial, or industrial areas.
§ 80.1402
[Reserved]
§ 80.1403 Which fuels are not subject to
the 20% GHG thresholds?
(a) Pursuant to the definition of
baseline volume in § 80.1401, the
baseline volume of renewable fuel that
is produced from facilities which
commenced construction on or before
December 19, 2007, shall not be subject
to the 20 percent reduction in GHG
emissions and shall be deemed
grandfathered for purposes of generating
RINs pursuant to § 80.1426(d)(7)(ii) if
the owner or operator:
(1) Did not discontinue construction
for a period of 18 months or more after
December 19, 2007; and
(2) Completed construction within 36
months of December 19, 2007.
(b) The volume of ethanol that is
produced from facilities which
commenced construction after
December 19, 2007 and on or before
December 31, 2009, shall not be subject
to the 20 percent reduction in GHG
emissions and shall be deemed
grandfathered for purposes of generating
RINs pursuant to § 80.1426(d)(7)(ii) only
if such facilities are fired with natural
gas, biomass, or a combination thereof.
(c) The annual volume of renewable
fuel during a calendar year from
facilities described in paragraph (a) of
this section that is beyond the baseline
volume shall be subject to the 20
percent reduction in GHG emissions
and such volume shall not be deemed
grandfathered for purposes of generating
RINs pursuant to § 80.1426(d)(7)(ii).
(d) For those facilities described in
paragraph (a) of this section which
produce ethanol and are fired with
natural gas, biomass, or a combination
thereof, increases in the annual volume
of ethanol above the baseline volume
during a calendar year shall not be
subject to the 20 percent reduction in
GHG emissions and shall be deemed
grandfathered for purposes of generating
RINs pursuant to § 80.1426(d)(7)(ii),
provided that:
(1) The facility continues to be fired
only with natural gas, biomass, or a
combination thereof; and
(2) If the increases in volume at the
facility are due to new construction,
such new construction must have
commenced on or before December 31,
2009.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(e) If there are any changes in the mix
of renewable fuels produced by those
facilities described in paragraph (d) of
this section, only the ethanol volume
will not be subject to the 20 percent
reduction in GHG emissions and shall
be deemed grandfathered for purposes
of generating RINs pursuant to
§ 80.1426(d)(7)(ii).
[Reserved]
§ 80.1405 What are the Renewable Fuel
Standards?
(a) Renewable Fuel Standards for
2010. (1) The value of the cellulosic
(c) EPA will base the calculation of
the standards on information provided
by the Energy Information
Administration regarding projected
gasoline and diesel volumes and
projected volumes of renewable fuels
expected to be used in gasoline and
diesel blending for the upcoming year.
(d) EPA will calculate the annual
renewable fuel standards using the
following equations:
RFVCB, i
Std CB, i = 100% ∗
( Gi − RGi ) + ( GSi − RGSi ) − GEi + ( Di − RDi ) + ( DSi − RDSi ) − DEi
Std BBD, i = 100% ∗
RFVBBD, i
( Gi − RGi ) + ( GSi − RGSi ) − GEi + ( Di − RDi ) + ( DSi − RDSi ) − DEi
Std AB, i = 100% ∗
RFVAB, i
( Gi − RGi ) + ( GSi − RGSi ) − GEi + ( Di − RDi ) + ( DSi − RDSi ) − DEi
Std RF, i = 100% ∗
RFVRF, i
( Gi − RGi ) + ( GSi − RGSi ) − GEi + ( Di − RDi ) + ( DSi − RDSi ) − DEi
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00213
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(a)(1) An obligated party is any refiner
that produces gasoline or diesel fuel
within the 48 contiguous states or
Hawaii, or any importer that imports
gasoline or diesel fuel into the 48
contiguous states or Hawaii. A party
that simply adds renewable fuel to
gasoline or diesel fuel, as defined in
§ 80.1407(c) or (f), is not an obligated
party.
(2) If the Administrator approves a
petition of Alaska or a United States
territory to opt-in to the renewable fuel
program under the provisions in
§ 80.1443, then ‘‘obligated party’’ shall
also include any refiner that produces
gasoline or diesel fuel within that state
or territory, or any importer that imports
gasoline or diesel fuel into that state or
territory.
(b) For each compliance period
starting with 2010, an obligated party is
required to demonstrate, pursuant to
§ 80.1427, that it has satisfied the
Renewable Volume Obligations for that
compliance period, as specified in
§ 80.1407(a).
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
EP26MY09.015
§ 80.1406 To whom do the Renewable
Volume Obligations apply?
EP26MY09.014
in the 48 contiguous states and Hawaii,
in year i, in gallons.
GSi = Amount of gasoline projected to be
used in Alaska or a U.S. territory, in year
i, if the state or territory has opted-in or
opts-in, in gallons.
RGSi = Amount of renewable fuel blended
into gasoline that is projected to be
consumed in Alaska or a U.S. territory,
in year i, if the state or territory opts-in,
in gallons.
DSi = Amount of diesel projected to be used
in Alaska or a U.S. territory, in year i, if
the state or territory has opted-in or optsin, in gallons.
RDSi = Amount of renewable fuel blended
into diesel that is projected to be
consumed in Alaska or a U.S. territory,
in year i, if the state or territory opts-in,
in gallons.
GEi = The amount of gasoline projected to be
produced by exempt small refineries and
small refiners, in year i, in gallons in any
year they are exempt per §§ 80.1441 and
80.1442, respectively. Assumed to equal
0.119 * (Gi¥RGi).
DEi = The amount of diesel fuel projected to
be produced by exempt small refineries
and small refiners in year i, in gallons,
in any year they are exempt per
§§ 80.1441 and 80.1442, respectively.
Assumed to equal 0.152 * (Di–RDi).
EP26MY09.013
Where:
StdCB,i = The cellulosic biofuel standard for
year i, in percent.
StdBBD,i = The biomass-based diesel standard
for year i, in percent.
StdAB,i = The advanced biofuel standard for
year i, in percent.
StdRF,i = The renewable fuel standard for year
i, in percent.
RFVCB,i = Annual volume of cellulosic
biofuel required by section 211(o)(2)(B)
of the Clean Air Act for year i, in gallons.
RFVBBD,i = Annual volume of biomass-based
diesel required by section 211(o)(2)(B) of
the Clean Air Act for year i, in gallons.
RFVAB,i = Annual volume of advanced
biofuel required by section 211(o)(2)(B)
of the Clean Air Act for year i, in gallons.
RFVRF,i = Annual volume of renewable fuel
required by section 211(o)(2)(B) of the
Clean Air Act for year i, in gallons.
Gi = Amount of gasoline projected to be used
in the 48 contiguous states and Hawaii,
in year i, in gallons.
Di = Amount of diesel projected to be used
in the 48 contiguous states and Hawaii,
in year i, in gallons.
RGi = Amount of renewable fuel blended into
gasoline that is projected to be consumed
in the 48 contiguous states and Hawaii,
in year i, in gallons.
RDi = Amount of renewable fuel blended into
diesel that is projected to be consumed
EP26MY09.012
§ 80.1404
biofuel standard for 2010 shall be 0.06
percent.
(2) The value of the biomass-based
diesel standard for 2010 shall be 0.71
percent.
(3) The value of the advanced biofuel
standard for 2010 shall be 0.59 percent.
(4) The value of the renewable fuel
standard for 2010 shall be 8.01 percent.
(b) Beginning with the 2011
compliance period, EPA will calculate
the value of the annual standards and
publish these values in the Federal
Register by November 30 of the year
preceding the compliance period.
25115
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(c) An obligated party may comply
with the requirements of paragraph (b)
of this section for all of its refineries in
the aggregate, or for each refinery
individually.
(d) An obligated party must comply
with the requirements of paragraph (b)
of this section for all of its imported
gasoline or diesel fuel in the aggregate.
(e) An obligated party that is both a
refiner and importer must comply with
the requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section for its imported gasoline or
diesel fuel separately from gasoline or
diesel fuel produced by its refinery or
refineries.
(f) Where a refinery or import facility
is jointly owned by two or more parties,
the requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section may be met by one of the joint
owners for all of the gasoline or diesel
fuel produced/imported at the facility,
or each party may meet the
requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section for the portion of the gasoline or
diesel fuel that it owns, as long as all of
the gasoline or diesel fuel produced/
imported at the facility is accounted for
in determining the Renewable Volume
Obligations under § 80.1407.
(g) The requirements in paragraph (b)
of this section apply to the following
compliance periods: Beginning in 2010,
and every year thereafter, the
compliance period is January 1 through
December 31.
(h) A party that exports renewable
fuel (pursuant to the definition of an
exporter of renewable fuel in § 80.1401)
shall demonstrate, pursuant to
§ 80.1427, that it has satisfied the
Renewable Volume Obligations for each
compliance period as specified in
§ 80.1430(b).
§ 80.1407 How are the Renewable Volume
Obligations calculated?
(a) The Renewable Volume
Obligations for an obligated party are
determined according to the following
formulas:
(1) Cellulosic biofuel.
RVOCB,i = (RFStdCB,i * (GVi + DVi)) +
DCB,i–1
Where:
RVOCB,i = The Renewable Volume Obligation
for cellulosic biofuel for an obligated
party for calendar year i, in gallons.
RFStdCB,i = The standard for cellulosic
biofuel for calendar year i, determined
by EPA pursuant to § 80.1405, in
percent.
GVi = The non-renewable gasoline volume,
determined in accordance with
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this
section, which is produced in or
imported into the 48 contiguous states or
Hawaii by an obligated party in calendar
year i, in gallons.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
DVi = The diesel non-renewable volume,
determined in accordance with
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section,
produced in or imported into the 48
contiguous states or Hawaii by an
obligated party in calendar year i, in
gallons.
DCB,i–1 = Deficit carryover from the previous
year for cellulosic biofuel, in gallons.
(2) Biomass-based diesel.
RVOBBD,i = (RFStdBBD,i * (GVi + DVi))
+ DBBD,i–1
Where:
RVOBBD,i = The Renewable Volume
Obligation for biomass-based diesel for
an obligated party for calendar year i, in
gallons.
RFStdBBD,i = The standard for biomass-based
diesel for calendar year i, determined by
EPA pursuant to § 80.1405, in percent.
GVi = The non-renewable gasoline volume,
determined in accordance with
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this
section, which is produced in or
imported into the 48 contiguous states or
Hawaii by an obligated party in calendar
year i, in gallons.
DVi = The diesel non-renewable volume,
determined in accordance with
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section,
produced in or imported into the 48
contiguous states or Hawaii by an
obligated party in calendar year i, in
gallons.
DBBD,i-1 = Deficit carryover from the previous
year for biomass-based diesel, in gallons.
(3) Advanced biofuel.
RVOAB,i = (RFStdAB,i * (GVi + DVi)) +
DAB,i–1
Where:
RVOAB,i = The Renewable Volume Obligation
for advanced biofuel for an obligated
party for calendar year i, in gallons.
RFStdAB,i = The standard for advanced
biofuel for calendar year i, determined
by EPA pursuant to § 80.1405, in
percent.
GVi = The non-renewable gasoline volume,
determined in accordance with
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this
section, which is produced in or
imported into the 48 contiguous states or
Hawaii by an obligated party in calendar
year i, in gallons.
DVi = The diesel non-renewable volume,
determined in accordance with
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section,
produced in or imported into the 48
contiguous states or Hawaii by an
obligated party in calendar year i, in
gallons.
DAB,i-1 = Deficit carryover from the previous
year for advanced biofuel, in gallons.
(4) Renewable fuel.
RVORF,i = (RFStdRF,i * (GVi + DVi)) +
DRF,i-1
Where:
RVORF,i = The Renewable Volume Obligation
for renewable fuel for an obligated party
for calendar year i, in gallons.
RFStdRF,i = The standard for renewable fuel
for calendar year i, determined by EPA
pursuant to § 80.1405, in percent.
PO 00000
Frm 00214
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
GVi = The non-renewable gasoline volume,
determined in accordance with
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this
section, which is produced in or
imported into the 48 contiguous states or
Hawaii by an obligated party in calendar
year i, in gallons.
DVi = The diesel non-renewable volume,
determined in accordance with
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section,
produced in or imported into the 48
contiguous states or Hawaii by an
obligated party in calendar year i, in
gallons.
DRF,i-1 = Deficit carryover from the previous
year for renewable fuel, in gallons.
(b) The non-renewable gasoline
volume for an obligated party for a given
year, GVi, specified in paragraph (a) of
this section is calculated as follows:
n
m
x =1
y =1
GVi = ∑ Gx − ∑ RBG y
Where:
x = Individual batch of gasoline produced or
imported in calendar year i.
n = Total number of batches of gasoline
produced or imported in calendar year i.
Gx = Volume of batch x of gasoline produced
or imported, as defined in paragraph (c)
of this section, in gallons.
y = Individual batch of renewable fuel
blended into gasoline in calendar year i.
m = Total number of batches of renewable
fuel blended into gasoline in calendar
year i.
RBGy = Volume of batch y of renewable fuel
blended into gasoline, in gallons.
(c) All of the following products that
are produced or imported during a
compliance period, collectively called
‘‘gasoline’’ for the purposes of this
section (unless otherwise specified), are
to be included (but not double-counted)
in the volume used to calculate a party’s
Renewable Volume Obligations under
paragraph (a) of this section, except as
provided in paragraph (d) of this
section:
(1) Reformulated gasoline, whether or
not renewable fuel is later added to it.
(2) Conventional gasoline, whether or
not renewable fuel is later added to it.
(3) Reformulated gasoline blendstock
that becomes finished reformulated
gasoline upon the addition of oxygenate
(RBOB).
(4) Conventional gasoline blendstock
that becomes finished conventional
gasoline upon the addition of oxygenate
(CBOB).
(5) Blendstock (including butane and
gasoline treated as blendstock (GTAB))
that has been combined with other
blendstock and/or finished gasoline to
produce gasoline.
(6) Any gasoline, or any unfinished
gasoline that becomes finished gasoline
upon the addition of oxygenate, that is
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
EP26MY09.016
25116
produced or imported to comply with a
state or local fuels program.
(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
§ 80.1401.
(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, 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 § 80.1443.
(4) Gasoline produced by a small
refinery that has an exemption under
§ 80.1441 or an approved small refiner
that has an exemption under § 80.1442
until January 1, 2011 (or later, for small
refineries, if their exemption is
extended pursuant to § 80.1441(h)).
(5) Gasoline exported for use outside
the 48 United States and Hawaii, and
gasoline exported for use outside
Alaska, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern
Marianas, if the area has opted into the
RFS program under § 80.1443.
(6) For blenders, the volume of
finished gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB to
which a blender adds blendstocks.
(7) The gasoline portion of transmix
produced by a transmix processor, or
the transmix blended into gasoline by a
transmix blender, under § 80.84.
(e) The diesel non-renewable volume
for an obligated party for a given year,
DVi, specified in paragraph (a) of this
section is calculated as follows:
n
m
x =1
y =1
DVi = ∑ Dx − ∑ RBDy
Where:
x = Individual batch of diesel produced or
imported in calendar year i.
n = Total number of batches of diesel
produced or imported in calendar year i.
Dx = Volume of batch x of diesel produced
or imported, as defined in paragraph (f)
of this section, in gallons.
y = Individual batch of renewable fuel
blended into diesel in calendar year i.
m = Total number of batches of renewable
fuel blended into diesel in calendar year
i.
RBDy = Volume of batch y of renewable fuel
blended into diesel, in gallons.
(f) All products meeting the definition
of MVNRLM diesel fuel at § 80.2(qqq)
that are produced or imported during a
compliance period, collectively called
‘‘diesel fuel’’ for the purposes of this
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
section (unless otherwise specified), are
to be included (but not double-counted)
in the volume used to calculate a party’s
Renewable Volume Obligations under
paragraph (a) of this section.
§§ 80.1408–80.1414
[Reserved]
§ 80.1415 How are equivalence values
assigned to renewable fuel?
(a)(1) Each gallon of a renewable fuel,
or gallon equivalent pursuant to
paragraph (c) of this section, shall be
assigned an equivalence value by the
producer or importer pursuant to
paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
(2) The equivalence value is a number
that is used to determine how many
gallon–RINs can be generated for a batch
of renewable fuel according to
§ 80.1426.
(b) All renewable fuels shall have an
equivalence value of 1.0.
(c) A gallon of renewable fuel is a
physically measured unit of volume for
any fuel that exists as a liquid at 60 °F
and 1 atm, but represents 77,930 Btu
(lower heating value) for any fuel that
exists as a gas at 60 °F and 1 atm.
§ 80.1416 Treatment of parties who
produce or import new renewable fuels and
pathways.
(a)(1) Each renewable fuel producer or
importer that produces or imports a new
renewable fuel, or uses a new pathway
that can not qualify for a D code as
defined in § 80.1426(d), must apply to
use a D code as specified in paragraph
(b) of this section.
(2) EPA will review the application
and may allow the use of an appropriate
D code for the combination of fuel type,
feedstock, and production process.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph
(c) of this section, parties that must
apply to use a D code pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this section may not
generate RINs for that new fuel or new
combination fuel type, feedstock, and
production process until the Agency has
reviewed the application and updated
Table 1 to § 80.1426.
(b)(1) The application for a new
renewable fuel or pathway shall include
all the following:
(i) A completed facility registration
under § 80.1450(b).
(ii) A technical justification that
includes a description of the renewable
fuel, feedstock(s) used to make it, and
the production process.
(iii) Any additional information that
the Agency needs to complete a
lifecycle Greenhouse Gas assessment of
the new fuel or pathway.
(2) A company may only submit one
application per pathway. If EPA
determines the application to be
incomplete, per paragraph (b)(4) of this
PO 00000
Frm 00215
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25117
section, then the company may
resubmit.
(3) The application must be signed
and certified as meeting all the
applicable requirements of this subpart
by a responsible corporate officer of the
applicant organization.
(4) If EPA determines that the
application is incomplete then EPA will
notify the applicant in writing that the
application is incomplete and will not
be reviewed further. However, an
amended application that corrects the
omission may be re-submitted for EPA
review.
(5) If the fuel or pathway described in
the application does not meet the
definition of renewable fuel in
§ 80.1401, then EPA will notify the
applicant in writing that the application
is denied and will not be reviewed
further.
(c)(1) A producer may use a
temporary D code pending EPA review
of an application under paragraph (b) of
this section if the producer is producing
renewable fuel from a fuel type and
feedstock combination listed in Table 1
to § 80.1426, but where the renewable
fuel producer’s production process is
not listed. A producer using a temporary
D code, must do all the following:
(i) Provide information necessary
under paragraph (b) of this section and
register under 40 CFR part 79 before
introducing the fuel into commerce.
(ii) Generate RINs using the temporary
D code for all renewable fuel produced
using this combination fuel type,
feedstock, and production process.
(iii) When Table 1 to § 80.1426 has
been updated to include the new fuel
pathway, cease to use the temporary D
code and use the applicable D code in
the table.
(iv) For existing fuel type and
feedstock combinations that apply to
more than one D code, the producer
must use the highest numerical value
from the applicable D codes as the
temporary D code.
(2) Except if the application is
deemed incomplete or denied pursuant
to paragraph (b)(3) or (b)(4) of this
section, if Table 1 to § 80.1426 is not
updated within 5 years of the initial
receipt of a company’s application, the
company must stop using the temporary
D code.
(3) A producer whose fuel pathway is
ethanol made from starches in a process
that uses natural gas or coal for process
heat may not use a temporary D code for
their fuel pathway.
(4) EPA may revoke the authority
provided by this section for use of a
temporary D code at any time if any of
the following occur:
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
EP26MY09.017
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
25118
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(i) EPA determines that the fuel or
pathway described in the application
does not meet the definition of
renewable fuel in § 80.1401.
(ii) EPA discovers adverse health
effects unique to the fuel or pathway.
(iii) The information provided by the
applicant on the pathway in paragraph
(b) of this section is deemed false or
incorrect.
(d) The application under this section
shall be submitted on forms and
following procedures as prescribed by
EPA.
§§ 80.1417–80.1424
[Reserved]
§ 80.1425 Renewable Identification
Numbers (RINs).
Each RIN is a 38-character numeric
code of the following form:
KYYYYCCCCFFFFFBBBBBRRDSSSS
SSSSEEEEEEEE
(a) K is a number identifying the type
of RIN as follows:
(1) K has the value of 1 when the RIN
is assigned to a volume of renewable
fuel pursuant to §§ 80.1426(e) and
80.1428(a).
(2) K has the value of 2 when the RIN
has been separated from a volume of
renewable fuel pursuant to § 80.1429.
(b) 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.
(c) CCCC is the registration number
assigned, according to § 80.1450, to the
producer or importer of the batch of
renewable fuel.
(d) FFFFF is the registration number
assigned, according to § 80.1450, to the
facility at which the batch of renewable
fuel was produced or imported.
(e) BBBBB is a serial number assigned
to the batch which is chosen by the
producer or importer of the batch such
that no two batches have the same value
in a given calendar year.
(f) RR is a number representing 10
times the equivalence value of the
renewable fuel as specified in § 80.1415.
(g) D is a number determined
according to § 80.1426(d) and
identifying the type of renewable fuel,
as follows:
(1) D has the value of 1 to denote fuel
categorized as cellulosic biofuel.
(2) D has the value of 2 to denote fuel
categorized as biomass-based diesel.
(3) D has the value of 3 to denote fuel
categorized as advanced biofuel.
(4) D has the value of 4 to denote fuel
categorized as renewable fuel.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
(h) SSSSSSSS is a number
representing the first gallon-RIN
associated with a batch of renewable
fuel.
(i) EEEEEEEE is a number
representing the last gallon-RIN
associated with a batch of renewable
fuel. EEEEEEEE will be identical to
SSSSSSSS if the batch-RIN represents a
single gallon-RIN. Assign the value of
EEEEEEEE as described in § 80.1426.
§ 80.1426 How are RINs generated and
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, a RIN must be generated by a
renewable fuel producer or importer for
every batch of fuel that meets the
definition of renewable fuel that is
produced or imported for use as
transportation fuel, home heating oil, or
jet fuel in the 48 contiguous states or
Hawaii.
(2) If the Administrator approves a
petition of Alaska or a United States
territory to opt-in to the renewable fuel
program under the provisions in
§ 80.1443, then the requirements of
paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall also
apply to renewable fuel produced or
imported for use as transportation fuel,
home heating oil, or jet fuel in that state
or territory beginning in the next
calendar year.
(b) Cases in which RINs are not
generated. (1) Volume threshold.
Renewable fuel producers 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
§§ 80.1450 through 80.1452, and the
attest engagement requirements of
§ 80.1464. However, for those producers
and importers that own RINs or
voluntarily generate and assign RINs, all
the requirements of this subpart apply.
(2) Fuel producers and importers shall
not generate RINs for fuel that they
produce or import for which they have
made a demonstration under
§ 80.1451(c) that the feedstocks used to
produce the fuel are not renewable
biomass (as defined in § 80.1401).
(3) Fuel producers and importers may
not generate RINs for fuel that is not
renewable fuel.
PO 00000
Frm 00216
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(4) Importers shall not import or
generate RINs for fuel imported from a
foreign producer that is not registered
with EPA as required in § 80.1450.
(5) Importers shall not generate RINs
for renewable fuel that has already been
assigned RINs by a foreign producer.
(c) Definition of batch. For the
purposes of this section and § 80.1425,
a ‘‘batch of renewable fuel’’ is a volume
of renewable fuel that has been assigned
a unique RIN code BBBBB within a
calendar year by the producer or
importer of the renewable fuel in
accordance with the provisions of this
section and § 80.1425.
(1) The number of gallon-RINs
generated for a batch of renewable fuel
may not exceed 99,999,999.
(2) A batch of renewable fuel cannot
represent renewable fuel produced or
imported in excess of one calendar
month.
(d) Generation of RINs. (1) Producers
and importers of fuel made from
renewable feedstocks must determine
for each batch of fuel produced or
imported whether or not the fuel is
renewable fuel (as defined in § 80.1401),
including a determination of whether or
not the feedstock used to make the fuel
is renewable biomass (as defined
§ 80.1401). Except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section, the
producer or importer of a batch of
renewable fuel must generate a RIN for
that batch.
(i) Domestic producers must generate
RINs for all renewable fuel that they
produce.
(ii) Importers must generate RINs for
all renewable fuel that they import that
has not been assigned RINs by a foreign
producer, including any renewable fuel
contained in imported transportation
fuel.
(iii) Foreign producers may generate
RINs for any renewable fuel that they
export to the 48 contiguous states of the
United States or Hawaii.
(2) A party generating a RIN shall
specify the appropriate numerical
values for each component of the RIN in
accordance with the provisions of
§ 80.1425(a) and this paragraph (d).
(3) Applicable pathways. D codes
shall be used in RINs generated by
producers or importers of renewable
fuel according to the pathways listed in
Table 1 to this section.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25119
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 TO § 80.1426—APPLICABLE D CODES FOR EACH FUEL PATHWAY FOR USE IN GENERATING RINS
Fuel type
Feedstock
Production process requirements
D code
Ethanol ................
Starch from corn, wheat, barley, oats, rice, or sorghum ............................
4
Ethanol ................
Starch from corn, wheat, barley, oats, rice, or sorghum ............................
Ethanol ................
Starch from corn, wheat, barley, oats, rice, or sorghum ............................
Ethanol ................
Starch from corn, wheat, barley, oats, rice, or sorghum ............................
Ethanol ................
Starch from corn, wheat, barley, oats, rice, or sorghum ............................
Ethanol ................
Cellulose and hemicellulose from corn stover, switchgrass, miscanthus,
wheat straw, rice straw, sugarcane bagasse, slash, pre-commercial
thinnings, yard waste, or planted trees.
Cellulose and hemicellulose from corn stover, switchgrass, miscanthus,
wheat straw, rice straw, sugarcane bagasse, slash, pre-commercial
thinnings, yard waste, or planted trees.
Sugarcane sugar .........................................................................................
Biodiesel (mono
alkyl ester).
Biodiesel (mono
alkyl ester).
Cellulosic diesel ..
Waste grease, waste oils, tallow, chicken fat, or non-food-grade corn oil
—Process heat derived from biomass
—Dry mill plant .................................
—Process heat derived from natural
gas
—Combined heat and power (CHP)
—Fractionation of feedstocks
—Some or all distillers grains are
dried
—Dry mill plant .................................
—Process heat derived from natural
gas
—All distillers grains are wet
—Dry mill plant .................................
—Process heat derived from coal
—Combined heat and power (CHP)
—Fractionation of feedstocks
—Membrane separation of ethanol
—Raw starch hydrolysis ..................
—Some or all distillers grains are
dried
—Dry mill plant .................................
—Process heat derived from coal
—Combined heat and power (CHP)
—Fractionation of feedstocks
—Membrane separation of ethanol
—All distillers grains are wet
—Enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose
—Fermentation of sugars ................
—Process heat derived from lignin
—Thermochemical gasification of
biomass.
—Fischer-Tropsch process
—Process heat derived from sugarcane bagasse
—Transesterification ........................
Soybean oil and other virgin plant oils .......................................................
—Transesterification ........................
4
Cellulose and hemicellulose from corn stover, switchgrass, miscanthus,
wheat straw, rice straw, sugarcane bagasse, slash, pre-commercial
thinnings, yard waste, or planted trees.
1 or 2
Non-ester renewable diesel.
Waste grease, waste oils, tallow, chicken fat, or non-food-grade corn oil
Non-ester renewable diesel.
Waste grease, waste oils, tallow, chicken fat, or non-food-grade corn oil
Non-ester renewable diesel.
Cellulosic gasoline
Soybean oil and other virgin plant oils .......................................................
—Thermochemical gasification of
biomass.
—Fischer-Tropsch process
—Catalytic depolymerization
—Hydrotreating ................................
—Dedicated facility that processes
only renewable biomass.
—Hydrotreating ................................
—Co-processing facility that also
processes petroleum feedstocks.
—Hydrotreating ................................
Ethanol ................
Ethanol ................
Cellulose and hemicellulose from corn stover, switchgrass, miscanthus,
wheat straw, rice straw, sugarcane bagasse, slash, pre-commercial
thinnings, yard waste, or planted trees.
(4) Producers whose operations can be
described by a single pathway.
(i) The number of gallon-RINs that
shall be generated for a given batch of
renewable fuel shall be equal to a
volume calculated according to the
following formula:
VRIN = EV * Vs
Where:
VRIN = RIN volume, in gallons, for use in
determining the number of gallon-RINs
that shall be generated.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
EV = Equivalence value for the renewable
fuel per § 80.1415.
Vs = Standardized volume of the batch of
renewable fuel at 60 °F, in gallons,
calculated in accordance with paragraph
(d)(10) of this section.
(ii) The D code that shall be used in
the RINs generated shall be the D code
specified in Table 1 to this section
which corresponds to the pathway that
describes the producer’s operations.
(5) Producers whose operations can be
described by two or more pathways. (i)
PO 00000
Frm 00217
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
—Thermochemical gasification
biomass.
—Fischer-Tropsch process
—Catalytic depolymerization
of
4
4
4
4
1
1
3
2
2
3
4
1
The D codes that shall be used in the
RINs generated within a calendar year
shall be the D codes specified in Table
1 to this section which correspond to
the pathways that describe the
producer’s operations throughout that
calendar year.
(ii) If all the pathways describing the
producer’s operations have the same D
code, then that D code shall be used in
all the RINs generated. The number of
gallon-RINs that shall be generated for a
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25120
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Vs = Standardized volume of the batch of
renewable fuel at 60 °F, in gallons,
calculated in accordance with paragraph
(d)(10) of this section.
given batch of renewable fuel in this
case shall be equal to a volume
calculated according to the following
formula:
VRIN = EV * Vs
Where:
VRIN = RIN volume, in gallons, for use in
determining the number of gallon-RINs
that shall be generated.
EV = Equivalence value for the renewable
fuel per § 80.1415.
Vs = Standardized volume of the batch of
renewable fuel at 60 °F, in gallons,
calculated in accordance with paragraph
(d)(10) of this section.
(iii) If the pathway applicable to a
producer changes on a specific date,
such that one pathway applies before
the date and another pathway applies
on and after the date, then the
applicable D code used in generating
RINs must change on the date that the
change in pathway occurs. The number
of gallon-RINs that shall be generated
for a given batch of renewable fuel in
this case shall be equal to a volume
calculated according to the following
formula:
VRIN = EV * Vs
(iv) If a producer produces two or
more different types of renewable fuel
whose volumes can be measured
separately, then separate values for VRIN
shall be calculated for each batch of
each type of renewable fuel according to
formulas in Table 2 to this section:
TABLE 2 TO § 80.1426—NUMBER OF
GALLON-RINS TO ASSIGN TO
BATCH-RINS WITH D CODES DEPENDENT ON FUEL TYPE
D code to use in
batch-RIN
Number of gallonRINs
D = 1 .........................
D = 2 .........................
VRIN,
VRIN,
D = 3 .........................
D = 4 .........................
VRIN,
VRIN,
CB
= EV *Vs, CB
= EV *Vs,
BBD
BBD
AB
RF
= EV *Vs, RF
= EV *Vs, RF
that shall be generated for a batch of
advanced biofuel with a D code of 3.
VRIN,RF = RIN volume, in gallons, for use
determining the number of gallon-RINs
that shall be generated for a batch of
renewable fuel with a D code of 4.
EV = Equivalence value for the renewable
fuel per § 80.1415.
Vs,CB = Standardized volume of the batch of
renewable fuel at 60 °F that must be
assigned a D code of 1 based on its fuel
type, in gallons, calculated in accordance
with paragraph (d)(10) of this section.
Vs,BBD = Standardized volume of the batch of
renewable fuel at 60 °F that must be
assigned a D code of 2 based on its fuel
type, in gallons, calculated in accordance
with paragraph (d)(10) of this section.
Vs,AB = Standardized volume of the batch of
renewable fuel at 60 °F that must be
assigned a D code of 3 based on its fuel
type, in gallons, calculated in accordance
with paragraph (d)(10) of this section.
Vs,RF = Standardized volume of the batch of
renewable fuel at 60 °F that must be
assigned a D code of 4 based on its fuel
type, in gallons, calculated in accordance
with paragraph (d)(10) of this section.
(v) If a producer produces a single
type of renewable fuel using two or
more different feedstocks which are
processed simultaneously, then the
number of gallon-RINs that shall be
generated for each batch of renewable
fuel and assigned a particular D code
shall be determined according to the
formulas in Table 3 to this section.
Where:
VRIN,CB = RIN volume, in gallons, for use in
determining the number of gallon-RINs
that shall be generated for a batch of
cellulosic biofuel with a D code of 1.
VRIN,BBD = RIN volume, in gallons, for use in
determining the number of gallon-RINs
that shall be generated for a batch of
biomass-based diesel with a D code of 2.
VRIN,AB = RIN volume, in gallons, for use in
determining the number of gallon-RINs
that shall be generated for a batch of
advanced biofuel with a D code of 3.
VRIN,RF = RIN volume, in gallons, for use in
determining the number of gallon-RINs
that shall be generated for a batch of
renewable fuel with a D code of 4.
EV = Equivalence value for the renewable
fuel per § 80.1415.
Vs = Standardized volume of the batch of
renewable fuel at 60 °F, in gallons,
calculated in accordance with paragraph
(d)(10) of this section.
FE1 = Feedstock energy from all feedstocks
whose pathways have been assigned a D
code of 1 under Table 1 to this section,
in Btu.
FE2 = Feedstock energy from all feedstocks
whose pathways have been assigned a D
code of 2 under Table 1 to this section,
in Btu.
FE3 = Feedstock energy from all feedstocks
whose pathways have been assigned a D
code of 3 under Table 1 to this section,
in Btu.
FE4 = Feedstock energy from all feedstocks
whose pathways have been assigned a D
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00218
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
EP26MY09.018
Where:
VRIN = RIN volume, in gallons, for use in
determining the number of gallon-RINs
that shall be generated for a batch with
a single applicable D code.
EV = Equivalence value for the renewable
fuel per § 80.1415.
Where:
VRIN,CB = RIN volume, in gallons, for use
determining the number of gallon-RINs
that shall be generated for a batch of
cellulosic biofuel with a D code of 1.
VRIN,BBD = RIN volume, in gallons, for use
determining the number of gallon-RINs
that shall be generated for a batch of
biomass-based diesel with a D code of 2.
VRIN,AB = RIN volume, in gallons, for use
determining the number of gallon-RINs
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
code of 4 under Table 1 to this section,
in Btu.
Feedstock energy values, FE, shall be
calculated according to the following
formula:
FE = M * CF * E
Where:
FE = Feedstock energy, in Btu.
M = Mass of feedstock, in pounds.
CF = Converted Fraction in annual average
mass percent, representing that portion
of the feedstock that is estimated to be
converted into renewable fuel by the
producer.
E = Energy content of the fuel precursor
fraction for the feedstock in annual
average Btu/lb.
(6) Producers who co-process
renewable biomass and fossil fuels
simultaneously to produce a
transportation fuel that is partially
renewable. (i) The number of gallonRINs that shall be generated for a given
batch of partially renewable
transportation fuel shall be equal to a
volume calculated according to the
following formula:
VRIN = EV * Vs * FER/(FER + FEF)
Where:
VRIN = RIN volume, in gallons, for use in
determining the number of gallon-RINs
that shall be generated.
EV = Equivalence value for the renewable
fuel per § 80.1415.
Vs = Standardized volume of the batch of
renewable fuel at 60 °F, in gallons,
calculated in accordance with paragraph
(d)(10) of this section.
FER = Feedstock energy from renewable
biomass used to make the transportation
fuel, in Btu.
FEF = Feedstock energy from fossil fuel used
to make the transportation fuel, in Btu.
(ii) The value of FE for use in
paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this section shall
be calculated from the following
formula:
FE = M * CF * E
Where:
FE = Feedstock energy, in Btu.
M = Mass of feedstock, in pounds.
CF = Converted Fraction in annual average
mass percent, representing that portion
of the feedstock that is estimated to be
converted into transportation fuel by the
producer.
E = Energy content of the fuel precursor
fraction for the feedstock, in annual
average Btu/lb.
(iii) The D code that shall be used in
the RINs generated to represent partially
renewable transportation fuel shall be
the D code specified in Table 1 to this
section which corresponds to the
pathway that describes a producer’s
operations. In determining the
appropriate pathway, the contribution
of fossil fuel feedstocks to the
production of partially renewable fuel
shall be ignored.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
(7) Producers without an applicable
pathway. (i) If none of the pathways
described in Table 1 to this section
apply to a producer’s operations, a party
generating a RIN may nevertheless use
a pathway in Table 1 to this section if
EPA allows the use of a temporary D
code pursuant to § 80.1416(c).
(ii) If none of the pathways described
in Table 1 to this section apply to a
producer’s operations and the party
generating the RIN does not qualify to
use a temporary D code according to the
provisions of § 80.1416(c), the party
must generate RINs if the fuel from its
facility qualifies for grandfathering as
provided in § 80.1403.
(A) The number of gallon-RINs that
shall be generated for a given batch of
grandfathered renewable fuel shall be
equal to a volume calculated according
to the following formula:
VRIN = EV * Vs
Where:
VRIN = RIN volume, in gallons, for use in
determining the number of gallon-RINs
that shall be generated.
EV = Equivalence value for the renewable
fuel per § 80.1415.
Vs = Standardized volume of the batch of
renewable fuel at 60°F, in gallons,
calculated in accordance with paragraph
(d)(10) of this section.
(B) A D code of 4 shall be used in the
RINs generated under paragraph
(d)(7)(ii)(A) of this section.
(8) Provisions for importers of
renewable fuel. (i) The number of
gallon-RINs that shall be generated for a
given batch of renewable fuel shall be
equal to a volume calculated according
to the following formula:
VRIN = EV * Vs
Where:
VRIN = RIN volume, in gallons, for use in
determining the number of gallon-RINs
that shall be generated.
EV = Equivalence value for the renewable
fuel per § 80.1415.
Vs = Standardized volume of the batch of
renewable fuel at 60 °F, in gallons,
calculated in accordance with paragraph
(d)(10) of this section.
(ii) The D code that shall be used in
the RINs generated by an importer of
renewable fuel shall be determined from
information provided by the foreign
producer specifying the applicable
pathway or pathways for the renewable
fuel and the provisions of this paragraph
(d).
(9) Multiple gallon-RINs generated to
represent a given volume of renewable
fuel can be represented by a single
batch-RIN through the appropriate
designation of the RIN volume codes
SSSSSSSS and EEEEEEEE.
(i) The value of SSSSSSSS in the
batch-RIN shall be 00000001 to
PO 00000
Frm 00219
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25121
represent the first gallon-RIN associated
with the volume of renewable fuel.
(ii) The value of EEEEEEEE in the
batch-RIN shall represent the last
gallon-RIN associated with the volume
of renewable fuel, based on the RIN
volume determined pursuant to
paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
(10) Standardization of volumes. In
determining the standardized volume of
a batch of renewable fuel for purposes
of generating RINs under this paragraph
(d), 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. Formulas used must be reported to
EPA, and may be reviewed for
appropriateness.
(11)(i) A party is prohibited from
generating RINs for a volume of fuel that
it produces if:
(A) The fuel has been produced from
a chemical conversion process that uses
another renewable fuel as a feedstock,
and the renewable fuel used as a
feedstock was produced by another
party; or
(B) The fuel is not produced from
renewable biomass.
(ii) Parties who produce renewable
fuel made from a feedstock which itself
was a renewable fuel with RINs, shall
assign the original RINs to the new
renewable fuel.
(e) Assignment of RINs to batches. (1)
The producer or importer of renewable
fuel must assign all RINs generated to
volumes of renewable fuel.
(2) A RIN is assigned to a volume of
renewable fuel when ownership of the
RIN is transferred along with the
transfer of ownership of the volume of
renewable fuel, pursuant to § 80.1428(a).
(3) All assigned RINs shall have a K
code value of 1.
(4) Any RINs generated but not
assigned to a volume of renewable fuel
must be counted with assigned RINs in
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25122
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
the quarterly RIN and volume inventory
balance check calculation required in
§ 80.1428.
§ 80.1427 How are RINs used to
demonstrate compliance?
(a) Renewable Volume Obligations. (1)
Except as specified in paragraph (b) of
this section or § 80.1455, each party that
is obligated to meet the Renewable
Volume Obligations under § 80.1407, or
each party that is an exporter of
renewable fuels that is obligated to meet
Renewable Volume Obligations under
§ 80.1430, must demonstrate pursuant to
§ 80.1452(a)(1) that it owns sufficient
RINs to satisfy the following equations:
(i) Cellulosic biofuel.
(SRINNUM)CB,i + (SRINNUM)CB,i¥1 =
RVOCB,i
Where:
(SRINNUM)CB,i = Sum of all owned gallonRINs that are valid for use in complying
with the cellulosic biofuel RVO, were
generated in year i, and are being applied
towards the RVOCB,i, in gallons.
(SRINNUM)CB,i¥1 = Sum of all owned gallonRINs that are valid for use in complying
with the cellulosic biofuel RVO, were
generated in year i¥1, and are being
applied towards the RVOCB,i, in gallons.
RVOCB,i = The Renewable Volume Obligation
for cellulosic biofuel for the obligated
party or renewable fuel exporter for
calendar year i, in gallons, pursuant to
§ 80.1407 or § 80.1430.
(ii) Biomass-based diesel.
(SRINNUM)BBD,i + (SRINNUM)BBD,i¥1 =
RVOBBD,i
Where:
(SRINNUM)BBD,i = Sum of all owned gallonRINs that are valid for use in complying
with the biomass-based diesel RVO, were
generated in year i, and are being applied
towards the RVOBBD,i, in gallons.
(SRINNUM)BBD,i¥1 = Sum of all owned
gallon-RINs that are valid for use in
complying with the biomass-based diesel
RVO, were generated in year i¥1, and
are being applied towards the RVOBBD,i,
in gallons.
RVOBBD,i = The Renewable Volume
Obligation for biomass-based diesel for
the obligated party or renewable fuel
exporter for calendar year i after 2010, in
gallons, pursuant to § 80.1407 or
§ 80.1430.
(iii) Advanced biofuel.
(SRINNUM)AB,i + (SRINNUM)AB,i¥1 =
RVOAB,i
Where:
(SRINNUM)AB,i = Sum of all owned gallonRINs that are valid for use in complying
with the advanced biofuel RVO, were
generated in year i, and are being applied
towards the RVOAB,i, in gallons.
(SRINNUM)AB,i¥1 = Sum of all owned gallonRINs that are valid for use in complying
with the advanced biofuel RVO, were
generated in year i¥1, and are being
applied towards the RVOAB,i, in gallons.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
RVOAB,i = The Renewable Volume Obligation
for advanced biofuel for the obligated
party or renewable fuel exporter for
calendar year i, in gallons, pursuant to
§ 80.1407 or § 80.1430.
(iv) Renewable fuel.
(SRINNUM)RF,i + (SRINNUM)RF,i¥1 =
RVORF,i
Where:
(SRINNUM)RF,i = Sum of all owned gallonRINs that are valid for use in complying
with the renewable fuel RVO, were
generated in year i, and are being applied
towards the RVORF,i, in gallons.
(SRINNUM)RF,i¥1 = Sum of all owned gallonRINs that are valid for use in complying
with the renewable fuel RVO, were
generated in year i¥1, and are being
applied towards the RVORF,i, in gallons.
RVORF,i = The Renewable Volume Obligation
for renewable fuel for the obligated party
or renewable fuel exporter for calendar
year i, in gallons, pursuant to § 80.1407
or § 80.1430.
(2) Except as described in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section, RINs that are valid
for use in complying with each
Renewable Volume Obligation are
determined by their D codes.
(i) RINs with a D code of 1 are valid
for compliance with the cellulosic
biofuel RVO.
(ii) RINs with a D code of 2 are valid
for compliance with the biomass-based
diesel RVO.
(iii) RINs with a D code of 1, 2, or 3
are valid for compliance with the
advanced biofuel RVO.
(iv) RINs with a D code of 1, 2, 3, or
4 are valid for compliance with the
renewable fuel RVO.
(3) For purposes of demonstrating
compliance for calendar year 2010, RINs
generated in 2009 pursuant to § 80.1126
that are not used for compliance
purposes for calendar year 2009 may be
used for compliance in 2010, insofar as
permissible pursuant to paragraphs
(a)(5) and (a)(7)(iv) of this section, as
follows:
(i) A 2009 RIN with an RR code of 15
or 17 is deemed equivalent to a RIN
generated pursuant to § 80.1426 having
a D code of 2.
(ii) A 2009 RIN with a D code of 1 is
deemed equivalent to a RIN generated
pursuant to § 80.1426 having a D code
of 1.
(iii) All other 2009 RINs are deemed
equivalent to RINs generated pursuant
to § 80.1426 having D codes of 4.
(iv) A 2009 RIN that is retired
pursuant to § 80.1129(e) because the
associated volume of fuel is not used as
motor vehicle fuel may be reinstated
pursuant to § 80.1429(f)(1).
(4) A party may use the same RIN to
demonstrate compliance with more than
one RVO so long as it is valid for
PO 00000
Frm 00220
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
compliance with all RVOs to which it is
applied.
(5) Except as provided in paragraph
(a)(7)(iv) of this section, the value of
(SRINNUM)i–1 may not exceed values
determined by the following
inequalities:
(SRINNUM)CB,i–1 ≤ 0.20 * RVOCB,i
(SRINNUM)BBD,i–1 ≤ 0.20 * RVOBBD,i
(SRINNUM)AB,i–1 ≤ 0.20 * RVOAB,i
(SRINNUM)RF,i–1 ≤ 0.20 * RVORF,i
(6) Except as provided in paragraphs
(a)(7)(ii) and (iii) of this section, RINs
may only be used to demonstrate
compliance with the RVOs 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.
(7) Biomass-based diesel in 2010. (i)
Prior to determining compliance with
the 2010 biomass-based diesel RVO,
obligated parties may reduce the value
of RVOBBD,2010 by an amount equal to
the sum of all 2008 and 2009 RINs used
for compliance purposes for calendar
year 2009 which have an RR code of 15
or 17.
(ii) For calendar year 2010 only, the
following equation shall be used to
determine compliance with the
biomass-based diesel RVO instead of the
equation in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this
section:
(SRINNUM)BBD,2010 +
(SRINNUM)BBD,2009 +
(SRINNUM)BBD,2008 = RVOBBD,2010
Where:
(SRINNUM)BBD,2010 = Sum of all owned
gallon-RINs that are valid for use in
complying with the biomass-based diesel
RVO, were generated in year 2010, and
are being applied towards the
RVOBBD,2010, in gallons.
(SRINNUM)BBD,2009 = Sum of all owned
gallon-RINs that are valid for use in
complying with the biomass-based diesel
RVO, were generated in year 2009, have
not previously been used for compliance
purposes, and are being applied towards
the RVOBBD,2010, in gallons.
(SRINNUM)BBD,2008 = Sum of all owned
gallon-RINs that are valid for use in
complying with the biomass-based diesel
RVO, were generated in year 2008, have
not previously been used for compliance
purposes, and are being applied towards
the RVOBBD,2010, in gallons.
RVOBBD,2010 = The Renewable Volume
Obligation for biomass-based diesel for
the obligated party or renewable fuel
exporter for calendar year 2010, in
gallons, pursuant to § 80.1407 or
§ 80.1430, as adjusted by paragraph
(a)(7)(i) of this section.
(iii) RINs generated in 2008 or 2009
which have not been used for
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
compliance purposes for calendar years
2008 or 2009 and which have an RR
code of 15 or 17 may be used to
demonstrate compliance with the 2010
biomass-based diesel RVO.
(iv) For compliance with the biomassbased diesel RVO in calendar year 2010
only, the values of (SRINNUM)2008 and
(SRINNUM)2009 may not exceed values
determined by both of the following
inequalities:
(SRINNUM)BBD,2008 ≤ 0.087 *
RVOBBD,2010
(SRINNUM)BBD,2008 +
(SRINNUM)BBD,2009 ≤ 0.20 * RVOBBD,2010
(8) A party may only use a RIN for
purposes of meeting the requirements of
paragraph (a)(1) of this section if that
RIN is a separated RIN with a K code of
2 obtained in accordance with
§§ 80.1428 and 80.1429.
(9) The number of gallon-RINs
associated with a given batch-RIN that
can be used for compliance with the
RVOs shall be calculated from the
following formula:
RINNUM = EEEEEEEE¥SSSSSSSS + 1
Where:
RINNUM = Number of gallon-RINs associated
with a batch-RIN, where each gallon-RIN
represents one gallon of renewable fuel
for compliance purposes.
EEEEEEEE = Batch-RIN component
identifying the last gallon-RIN associated
with the batch-RIN.
SSSSSSSS = Batch-RIN component
identifying the first gallon-RIN
associated with the batch-RIN.
(b) Deficit carryovers. (1) An obligated
party or an exporter of renewable fuel
that fails to meet the requirements of
paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(5) 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 for the same RVO.
(ii) The party subsequently meets the
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this
section for calendar year i+1 and carries
no deficit into year i+2 for the same
RVO.
(iii) For compliance with the biomassbased diesel RVO in calendar year 2011,
the deficit which is carried over from
2010 is no larger than 57% of the party’s
2010 biomass-based diesel RVO as
determined prior to any adjustment
applied pursuant to paragraph (a)(7)(i)
of this section.
(2) A deficit is calculated according to
the following formula:
Di = RVOi¥[(SRINNUM)i +
(SRINNUM)i¥1]
Where:
Di = The deficit, in gallons, generated in
calendar year i that must be carried over
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
to year i+1 if allowed to do so pursuant
to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
RVOi = The Renewable Volume Obligation
for the obligated party or renewable fuel
exporter for calendar year i, in gallons.
(ΣRINNUM)i = Sum of all acquired gallonRINs that were generated in year i and are
being applied towards the RVOi, in gallons.
(ΣRINNUM)i¥1 = Sum of all acquired
gallon-RINs that were generated in year i-1
and are being applied towards the RVOi, in
gallons.
§ 80.1428 General requirements for RIN
distribution.
(a) RINs assigned to volumes of
renewable fuel and RINs generated, but
not assigned. (1) Definitions. (i)
Assigned RIN, for the purposes of this
subpart, means a RIN assigned to a
volume of renewable fuel pursuant to
§ 80.1426(e) with a K code of 1.
(ii) RINS generated, but not assigned
are those RINs that have been generated
pursuant to 80.1426(a), but have not
been assigned to a volume of renewable
fuel pursuant to 80.1426(e).
(2) Except as provided in § 80.1429,
no party can separate a RIN that has
been assigned to a batch pursuant to
§ 80.1426(e).
(3) An assigned RIN cannot be
transferred to another party without
simultaneously transferring a volume of
renewable fuel to that same party.
(4) No more than 2.5 assigned gallonRINs with a K code of 1 can be
transferred to another party with every
gallon of renewable fuel transferred to
that same party.
(5)(i) On each of the dates listed in
paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section in any
calendar year, the following equation
must be satisfied for assigned RINs and
volumes of renewable fuel owned by a
party:
Σ(RIN)D ≤ Σ(Vsi * 2.5)D
Where:
D = Applicable date.
Σ(RIN)D = Sum of all assigned gallon-RINs
with a K code of 1 and all RINs
generated, but not assigned that are
owned on date D.
(Vsi)D = Volume i of renewable fuel owned on
date D, standardized to 60 °F, in gallons.
Σ(Vsi * 2.5)D = Sum of all volumes of
renewable fuel owned on date D,
multiplied by an equivalence value of
2.5.
(ii) The applicable dates are March 31,
June 30, September 30, and December
31.
(6) Any transfer of ownership of
assigned RINs must be documented on
product transfer documents generated
pursuant to § 80.1453.
(i) The RIN must be recorded on the
product transfer document used to
transfer ownership of the volume of
renewable fuel to another party; or
PO 00000
Frm 00221
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25123
(ii) The RIN must be recorded on a
separate product transfer document
transferred to the same party on the
same day as the product transfer
document used to transfer ownership of
the volume of renewable fuel.
(b) RINs separated from volumes of
renewable fuel. (1) Separated RIN, for
the purposes of this subpart, means a
RIN with a K code of 2 that has been
separated from a volume of renewable
fuel pursuant to § 80.1429.
(2) Any party that has registered
pursuant to § 80.1450 can hold title to
a separated RIN.
(3) Separated RINs can be transferred
from one party to another any number
of times.
(c) RIN expiration. A RIN is valid for
compliance during the year in which it
was generated, or the following year.
Any RIN that is not used for compliance
purposes during the year that it was
generated, or during the following year,
will be considered an expired RIN.
Pursuant to § 80.1431(a)(3), an expired
RIN that is used for compliance will be
considered an invalid RIN.
(d) Any batch-RIN can be divided by
its owner into multiple batch-RINs, each
representing a smaller number of gallonRINs, if all of the following conditions
are met:
(1) All RIN components other than
SSSSSSSS and EEEEEEEE are identical
for the original parent and newly
formed daughter RINs.
(2) The sum of the gallon-RINs
associated with the multiple daughter
batch-RINs is equal to the gallon-RINs
associated with the parent batch-RIN.
§ 80.1429 Requirements for separating
RINs from volumes of renewable fuel.
(a)(1) Separation of a RIN from a
volume of renewable fuel means
termination of the assignment of the RIN
to a volume of renewable fuel.
(2) RINs that have been separated
from volumes of renewable fuel become
separated RINs subject to the provisions
of § 80.1428(b).
(b) A RIN that is assigned to a volume
of renewable fuel is separated from that
volume only under one of the following
conditions:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(b)(6) of this section, a party that is an
obligated party according to § 80.1406
must separate any RINs that have been
assigned to a volume of renewable fuel
if they own that volume.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph
(b)(5) of this section, any party that
owns a volume of renewable fuel must
separate any RINs that have been
assigned to that volume once the
volume is blended with gasoline or
diesel to produce a transportation fuel,
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25124
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
home heating oil, or jet fuel. A party
may separate up to 2.5 RINs per gallon
of renewable fuel.
(3) Any party that exports a volume of
renewable fuel must separate any RINs
that have been assigned to the exported
volume.
(4) Any party that produces, imports,
owns, sells, or uses a volume of neat
renewable fuel, or a blend of renewable
fuel and diesel fuel, must separate any
RINs that have been assigned to that
volume of neat renewable fuel or that
blend if:
(i) The party designates the neat
renewable fuel or blend as
transportation fuel, home heating oil, or
jet fuel: and
(ii) The neat renewable fuel or blend
is used without further blending, in the
designated form, as transportation fuel,
home heating oil, or jet fuel.
(5) RINs assigned to a volume of
biodiesel (mono-alkyl ester) can only be
separated from that volume pursuant to
paragraph (b)(2) of this section if such
biodiesel is blended into diesel fuel at
a concentration of 80 volume percent
biodiesel (mono-alkyl ester) or less.
(i) This paragraph (b)(5) shall not
apply to obligated parties or exporters of
renewable fuel.
(ii) This paragraph (b)(5) shall not
apply to parties meeting the
requirements of paragraph (b)(4) of this
section.
(6) For RINs that an obligated party
generates for renewable fuel that has not
been blended into gasoline or diesel to
produce a transportation fuel, the
obligated party can only separate such
RINs from volumes of renewable fuel if
the number of gallon-RINs separated in
a calendar year is less than or equal to
a limit set as follows:
(i) For RINs with a D code of 1, the
limit shall be equal to RVOCB.
(ii) For RINs with a D code of 2, the
limit shall be equal to RVOBBD.
(iii) For RINs with a D code of 3, the
limit shall be equal to RVOAB —
RVOCB—RVOBBD.
(iv) For RINs with a D code of 4, the
limit shall be equal to RVORF — RVOAB.
(7) For a party that has received a
small refinery exemption under
§ 80.1441 or a small refiner exemption
under § 80.1442, and is not otherwise an
obligated party, during the period of
time that the small refinery or small
refiner exemptions are in effect, the
party may only separate RINs that have
been assigned to volumes of renewable
fuel that the party blends into gasoline
or diesel to produce transportation fuel,
or that the party used as home heating
oil or jet fuel.
(c) The party responsible for
separating a RIN from a volume of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
renewable fuel shall change the K code
in the RIN from a value of 1 to a value
of 2 prior to transferring the RIN to any
other party.
(d) Upon and after separation of a RIN
from its associated volume of renewable
fuel, the separated RIN must be
accompanied by documentation when
transferred.
(1) When transferred, the separated
RIN shall appear on documentation that
includes all the following information:
(i) The name and address of the
transferor and transferee.
(ii) The transferor’s and transferee’s
EPA company registration numbers.
(iii) The date of the transfer.
(iv) A list of separated RINs
transferred.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) Upon and after separation of a RIN
from its associated volume of renewable
fuel, product transfer documents used to
transfer ownership of the volume must
continue to meet the requirements of
§ 80.1453(a)(5)(iii).
(f) Any party that uses a renewable
fuel in a commercial or industrial boiler
or ocean-going vessel (as defined in
§ 80.1401), or designates a renewable
fuel for use in a boiler or ocean-going
vessel, must retire any RINs received
with that renewable fuel and report the
retired RINs in the applicable reports
under § 80.1452. Any 2009 RINs retired
pursuant to § 80.1129(e) may be
reinstated by the retiring party for sale
or use to demonstrate compliance with
a 2010 RVO.
§ 80.1430 Requirements for exporters of
renewable fuels.
(a) Any party that owns any amount
of renewable fuel, whether in its neat
form or blended with gasoline or diesel,
that is exported from any of the regions
described in § 80.1426(a) shall acquire
sufficient RINs to offset all applicable
Renewable Volume Obligations
representing the exported renewable
fuel.
(b) Renewable Volume Obligations.
An exporter of renewable fuel shall
determine its Renewable Volume
Obligations from the volumes of the
renewable fuel exported.
(1) For exported volumes of biodiesel
(mono-alkyl ester) or non-ester
renewable diesel, a renewable fuel
exporter’s Renewable Volume
Obligation for biomass-based diesel
shall be calculated according to the
following formula:
RVOBBD,i = S(VOLk * EVk)i + DBBD,i-1
Where:
RVOBBD,i = The Renewable Volume
Obligation for biomass-based diesel for
the exporter for calendar year i, in
gallons.
PO 00000
Frm 00222
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
k = A discrete volume of biodiesel (monoalkyl ester) or non-ester renewable diesel
fuel.
VOLk = The standardized volume of discrete
volume k of exported biodiesel (monoalkyl ester) or non-ester renewable
diesel, in gallons, calculated in
accordance with § 80.1426(d)(10).
EVk = The equivalence value associated with
discrete volume k.
S = Sum involving all volumes of biodiesel
(mono-alkyl ester) or non-ester
renewable diesel exported.
DBBD,i-1 = Deficit carryover from the previous
year for biomass-based diesel, in gallons.
(2) For exported volumes of all
renewable fuels, a renewable fuel
exporter’s Renewable Volume
Obligation for total renewable fuel shall
be calculated according to the following
formula:
RVORF,i = S(VOLk * EVk)i + DRF,i-1
Where:
RVORF,i = The Renewable Volume Obligation
for renewable fuel for the exporter for
calendar year i, in gallons of renewable
fuel.
k = A discrete volume of renewable fuel.
VOLk = The standardized volume of discrete
volume k of exported renewable fuel, in
gallons, calculated in accordance with
§ 80.1426(d)(10).
EVk = The equivalence value associated with
discrete volume k.
S = Sum involving all volumes of renewable
fuel exported.
DRF,i-1 = Deficit carryover from the previous
year for renewable fuel, in gallons.
(3)(i) If the equivalence value for a
volume of renewable fuel can be
determined pursuant to § 80.1415 based
on its composition, then the appropriate
equivalence value shall be used in the
calculation of the exporter’s Renewable
Volume Obligations.
(ii) If the equivalence value for a
volume of renewable fuel cannot be
determined, the value of EVk shall be
1.0.
(c) Each exporter of renewable fuel
must demonstrate compliance with its
RVOs using RINs it has acquired,
pursuant to § 80.1427.
§ 80.1431
Treatment of invalid RINs.
(a) Invalid RINs. An invalid RIN is a
RIN that is any of the following:
(1) Is a duplicate of a valid RIN.
(2) Was based on volumes that have
not been standardized to 60 °F.
(3) Has expired, except as provided in
§ 80.1428(c).
(4) Was based on an incorrect
equivalence value.
(5) Is deemed invalid under
§ 80.1467(g).
(6) Does not represent renewable fuel
as defined in § 80.1401.
(7) Was assigned an incorrect ‘‘D’’
code value under § 80.1426(d)(3) for the
associated volume of fuel.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(8) In the event that the same RIN is
transferred to two or more parties, all
such RINs are deemed invalid, unless
EPA in its sole discretion determines
that some portion of these RINs is valid.
(9) Was otherwise improperly
generated.
(b) In the case of RINs that are invalid,
the following provisions apply:
(1) Upon determination by any party
that RINs owned are invalid, the party
must adjust its records, reports, and
compliance calculations in which the
invalid RINs were used as necessary to
reflect the deletion of the invalid RINs.
The party must retire the invalid RINs
in the applicable RIN transaction reports
under § 80.1452(c)(2) for the quarter in
which the RINs were determined to be
invalid.
(2) Invalid RINs cannot be used to
achieve compliance with the Renewable
Volume Obligations of an obligated
party or exporter, regardless of the
party’s good faith belief that the RINs
were valid at the time they were
acquired.
(3) Any valid RINs remaining after
deleting invalid RINs must first be
applied to correct the transfer of invalid
RINs to another party before applying
the valid RINs to meet the party’s
Renewable Volume Obligations at the
end of the compliance year.
§ 80.1432 Reported spillage or disposal of
renewable fuel.
(a) A reported spillage or disposal
under this subpart means a spillage or
disposal of renewable fuel associated
with a requirement by a federal, state, or
local authority to report the spillage or
disposal.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph
(c) of this section, in the event of a
reported spillage or disposal of any
volume of renewable fuel, the owner of
the renewable fuel must retire a number
of RINs corresponding to the volume of
spilled or disposed of renewable fuel
multiplied by its equivalence value.
(1) If the equivalence value for the
spilled or disposed of volume may be
determined pursuant to § 80.1415 based
on its composition, then the appropriate
equivalence value shall be used.
(2) If the equivalence value for a
spilled or disposed of volume of
renewable fuel cannot be determined,
the equivalence value shall be 1.0.
(c) If the owner of a volume of
renewable fuel that is spilled or
disposed of and reported establishes
that no RINs were generated to represent
the volume, then no RINs shall be
retired.
(d) A RIN that is retired under
paragraph (b) of this section:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
(1) Must be reported as a retired RIN
in the applicable reports under
§ 80.1452.
(2) May not be transferred to another
party or used by any obligated party to
demonstrate compliance with the
party’s Renewable Volume Obligations.
§§ 80.1433–80.1439
[Reserved]
§ 80.1440 What are the provisions for
blenders who handle and blend less than
125,000 gallons of renewable fuel per year?
(a) Renewable fuel blenders who
handle and blend less than 125,000
gallons of renewable fuel per year, and
who do not have Renewable Volume
Obligations, are permitted to delegate
their RIN-related responsibilities to the
party directly upstream of them who
supplied the renewable fuel for
blending.
(b) The RIN-related responsibilities
that may be delegated directly upstream
include all the following:
(1) The RIN separation requirements
of § 80.1429.
(2) The recordkeeping requirements of
§ 80.1451.
(3) The reporting requirements of
§ 80.1452.
(4) The attest engagement
requirements of § 80.1464.
(c) For upstream delegation of RINrelated responsibilities, both parties
must agree on the delegation, and a
quarterly written statement signed by
both parties must be included with the
reporting party’s reports under
§ 80.1452.
(1) If EPA finds that a renewable fuel
blender improperly delegated its RINrelated responsibilities under this
subpart M, the blender will be held
accountable for any RINs separated and
will be subject to all RIN-related
responsibilities under this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) Renewable fuel blenders who
handle and blend less than 125,000
gallons of renewable fuel per year and
who do not opt to delegate their RINrelated responsibilities will be subject to
all requirements stated in paragraph (b)
of this section, and all other applicable
requirements of this subpart M.
§ 80.1441
Small refinery exemption.
(a)(1) Transportation fuel produced at
a refinery by a refiner, or foreign refiner
(as defined at § 80.1465(a)), is exempt
through December 31, 2010 from the
renewable fuel standards of § 80.1405;
and the refinery, or foreign refinery, is
exempt from the requirements that
apply to obligated parties under this
subpart M if that refinery meets the
definition of a small refinery under
§ 80.1401 for calendar year 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00223
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25125
(2) This exemption shall apply unless
a refiner chooses to waive this
exemption (as described in paragraph (f)
of this section), or the exemption is
extended (as described in paragraph (e)
of this section).
(3) For the purposes of this section,
the term ‘‘refiner’’ shall include foreign
refiners.
(4) This exemption shall only apply to
refineries that process crude oil through
refinery processing units.
(5) The small refinery exemption is
effective immediately, except as
specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section.
(b)(1) A refiner owning a small
refinery must submit a verification letter
to EPA containing all of the following
information:
(i) The annual average aggregate daily
crude oil throughput for the period
January 1, 2006 through December 31,
2006 (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 letter is true to the best of his/her
knowledge, and that the refinery was
small as of December 31, 2006.
(iii) Name, address, phone number,
facsimile number, and e-mail address of
a corporate contact person.
(2) Verification letters must be
submitted by January 1, 2010 to one of
the addresses listed in paragraph (h) of
this section.
(3) For foreign refiners the small
refinery exemption shall be effective
upon approval, by EPA, of a small
refinery application. The application
must contain all of the elements
required for small refinery verification
letters (as specified in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section), must satisfy the
provisions of § 80.1465(f) through (h)
and (o), and must be submitted by
January 1, 2010 to one of the addresses
listed in paragraph (h) of this section.
(4) Small refinery verification letters
are not required for those refiners who
have already submitted a verification
letter under subpart K of this Part 80.
(c) If EPA finds that a refiner provided
false or inaccurate information
regarding a refinery’s crude throughput
(pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section) in its small refinery verification
letter, the exemption will be void as of
the effective date of these regulations.
(d) If a refiner is complying on an
aggregate basis for multiple refineries,
any such refiner may exclude from the
calculation of its Renewable Volume
Obligations (under § 80.1407)
transportation fuel from any refinery
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25126
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
receiving the small refinery exemption
under paragraph (a) of this section.
(e)(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 a small refinery.
(2) A refiner may petition the
Administrator for an extension of its
small refinery exemption, based on
disproportionate economic hardship, at
any time.
(i) 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 hardship the refinery
would face in producing transportation
fuel meeting the requirements of
§ 80.1405 and the date the refiner
anticipates that compliance with the
requirements can reasonably be
achieved at the small refinery.
(ii) The Administrator shall act on
such a petition not later than 90 days
after the date of receipt of the petition.
(f) 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 to be effective in the next
compliance year.
(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 § 80.1405 and all other
requirements that apply to obligated
parties under this Subpart M.
(3) The waiver must be sent to EPA
at one of the addresses listed in
paragraph (h) of this section.
(g) A refiner that acquires a refinery
from either an approved small refiner
(as defined under § 80.1442(a)) 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.
(h) Verification letters under
paragraph (b) of this section, petitions
for small refinery hardship extensions
under paragraph (e) of this section, and
small refinery exemption waivers under
paragraph (f) of this section shall be sent
to one of the following addresses:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
(1) For US mail: U.S. EPA, Attn: RFS2
Program, 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
(2) For overnight or courier services:
U.S. EPA, Attn: RFS2 Program, 6406J,
1310 L Street, NW, 6th floor,
Washington, DC 20005. (202) 343–9038.
§ 80.1442 What are the provisions for
small refiners under the RFS program?
(a)(1) To qualify as a small refiner
under this section, a refiner must meet
all of the following criteria:
(i) The refiner produced
transportation fuel at its refineries by
processing crude oil through refinery
processing units from January 1, 2006
through December 31, 2006.
(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 2006 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 2006.
(2) For the purposes of this section,
the term ‘‘refiner’’ shall include foreign
refiners.
(b) Applications for small refiner
status. (1) Applications for small refiner
status under this section must be
submitted to EPA by January 1, 2010.
(2) Small refiner status applications
under this section must include all 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:
(i) A listing of the name and address
of each company location where any
employee worked for the period January
1, 2006 through December 31, 2006.
(ii) The average number of employees
at each location based on the number of
employees for each pay period for the
period January 1, 2006 through
December 31, 2006.
(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.
(vi) 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, 2006
through December 31, 2006. The
information submitted to EIA is
PO 00000
Frm 00224
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
(vii) 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.
(viii) Name, address, phone number,
facsimile number, and e-mail address of
a corporate contact person.
(3) In the case of a refiner who
acquires or reactivates a refinery that
was shut down or non-operational
between January 1, 2005 and January 1,
2006, the information required in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section must be
provided for the time period since the
refiner acquired or reactivated the
refinery.
(4) EPA will notify a refiner of its
approval or disapproval of the
application for small refiner status by
letter.
(5) For foreign refiners the small
refiner exemption shall be effective
upon approval, by EPA, of a small
refiner application. The application
must contain all of the elements
required for small refiner status
applications (as specified in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section), must satisfy the
provisions of § 80.1465(f) through (h)
and (o), must demonstrate compliance
with the crude oil capacity criterion of
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, and
must be submitted by January 1, 2010 to
one of the addresses listed in paragraph
(i) of this section.
(c) Small refiner temporary
exemption. (1) Transportation fuel
produced by a refiner, or foreign refiner
(as defined at § 80.1465(a)), is exempt
through December 31, 2010 from the
renewable fuel standards of § 80.1405
and the requirements that apply to
obligated parties under this subpart if
the refiner or foreign refiner meets all of
the following criteria:
(i) The refiner produced
transportation fuel at its refineries by
processing crude oil through refinery
processing units from January 1, 2006
through December 31, 2006.
(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 2006 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
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
equal to 155,000 barrels per calendar
day (bpcd) for 2006.
(2) The small refiner exemption shall
apply to an approved small refiner
unless that refiner chooses to waive this
exemption (as described in paragraph
(d) of this section).
(d)(1) A refiner with approved small
refiner status may, at any time, waive
the small refiner exemption under
paragraph (c) of this section upon
notification to EPA.
(2) A refiner’s notice to EPA that it
intends to waive the small refiner
exemption must be received by
November 1 of a given year 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 fuel standards of § 80.1405
and the requirements that apply to
obligated parties under this subpart.
(3) The waiver must be sent to EPA
at one of the addresses listed in
paragraph (j) of this section.
(e) Refiners who qualify as small
refiners under this section and
subsequently fail to meet all of the
qualifying criteria as set out in
paragraph (a) of this section are
disqualified as small refiners as of the
effective date of this subpart, except as
provided under paragraphs (d) and
(e)(2) of this section.
(1) In the event such disqualification
occurs, the refiner shall notify EPA in
writing no later than 20 days following
the disqualifying event.
(2) Disqualification under this
paragraph (e) shall not apply in the case
of a merger between two approved small
refiners.
(f) If EPA finds that a refiner provided
false or inaccurate information in its
application for small refiner status
under this subpart M, the refiner will be
disqualified as a small refiner as of the
effective date of this subpart.
(g) Any 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.
(h) Extensions of the small refiner
temporary exemption. (1) A small
refiner may apply for an extension of
the temporary exemption of paragraph
(c)(1) of this section based on a showing
of all the following:
(i) Circumstances exist that impose
disproportionate economic hardship on
the refiner and significantly affect the
refiner’s ability to comply with the RFS
standards.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
(ii) The refiner has made best efforts
to comply with the requirements of this
subpart.
(2) A refiner must apply, and be
approved, for small refiner status under
this section.
(3) A small refiner’s hardship
application must include all the
following information:
(i) A plan demonstrating how the
refiner will comply with the
requirements of § 80.1405 (and all other
requirements of this subpart applicable
to obligated parties), as expeditiously as
possible.
(ii) A detailed description of the
refinery configuration and operations
including, at a minimum, all the
following information:
(A) The refinery’s total crude
capacity.
(B) Total crude capacity of any other
refineries owned by the same entity.
(C) Total volume of gasoline and
diesel produced at the refinery.
(D) Detailed descriptions of efforts to
comply.
(E) Bond rating of the entity that owns
the refinery.
(F) Estimated investment needed to
comply with the requirements of this
subpart.
(4) A small refiner shall notify EPA in
writing of any changes to its situation
between approval of the extension
application and the end of its approved
extension period.
(5) EPA may impose reasonable
conditions on extensions of the
temporary exemption, including
reducing the length of such an
extension, if conditions or situations
change between approval of the
application and the end of the approved
extension period.
(i) Applications for small refiner
status, small refiner exemption waivers,
or extensions of the small refiner
temporary exemption under this section
must be sent to one of the following
addresses:
(1) For US Mail: U.S. EPA, Attn: RFS2
Program, 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
(2) For overnight or courier services:
U.S. EPA, Attn: RFS2 Program, 6406J,
1310 L Street, NW., 6th floor,
Washington, DC 20005. (202) 343–9038.
§ 80.1443 What are the opt-in provisions
for noncontiguous states and territories?
(a) Alaska or a United States territory
may petition the Administrator to optin to the program requirements of this
subpart.
(b) The Administrator will approve
the petition if it meets the provisions of
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(c) The petition must be signed by the
Governor of the state or his authorized
PO 00000
Frm 00225
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25127
representative (or the equivalent official
of the territory).
(d)(1) A petition submitted under this
section must be received by EPA by
November 1 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 either of the
following addresses:
(i) For US Mail: U.S. EPA, Attn: RFS
Program, 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
(ii) For overnight or courier services:
U.S. EPA, Attn: RFS Program, 6406J,
1310 L Street, NW., 6th floor,
Washington, DC 20005. (202) 343–9038.
(e) Upon approval of the petition by
the Administrator:
(1) EPA shall calculate the standards
for the following year, including the
total gasoline and diesel fuel volume for
the state or territory in question.
(2) Beginning on January 1 of the next
calendar year, all gasoline and diesel
fuel refiners and importers in the state
or territory for which a petition has been
approved shall be obligated parties as
defined in § 80.1406.
(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 § 80.1426(a)(2), be
required to generate RINs and comply
with other requirements of this subpart
M that are applicable to producers of
renewable fuel.
§ 80.1444–80.1448
[Reserved]
§ 80.1449 What are the Production Outlook
Report requirements?
(a) A renewable fuel producer or
importer, for each of its facilities, must
submit all the following information, as
applicable, to EPA annually beginning
February 28, 2010:
(1) The type, or types, of renewable
fuel expected to be produced or
imported at each facility owned by the
renewable fuel producer or importer.
(2) The volume of each type of
renewable fuel expected to be produced
or imported at each facility.
(3) The number of RINs expected to be
generated by the renewable fuel
producer or importer for each type of
renewable fuel.
(4) Information about all the
following:
(i) Existing and planned production
capacity.
(ii) Long-range plans.
(iii) Feedstocks and production
processes to be used at each production
facility.
(iv) Changes to the facility that would
raise or lower emissions of any
greenhouse gases from the facility.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25128
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(5) For expanded production capacity
that is planned or underway at each
existing facility, or new production
facilities that are planned or underway,
information on all the following:
(i) Strategic planning.
(ii) Planning and front-end
engineering.
(iii) Detailed engineering and
permitting.
(iv) Procurement and construction.
(v) Commissioning and startup.
(6) Whether capital commitments
have been made or are projected to be
made.
(b) The information listed in
paragraph (a) of this section shall
include the reporting party’s best
estimates for the five following calendar
years.
(c) Production outlook reports must
provide an update of the progress in
each of the areas listed in paragraph
(a)(5) of this section.
(d) Production outlook reports shall
be sent to one of the following
addresses:
(1) For US Mail: U.S. EPA, Attn: RFS2
Program-Production Outlook Reports,
6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
(2) For overnight or courier services:
U.S. EPA, Attn: RFS2 ProgramProduction Outlook Reports, 6406J,
1310 L Street, NW., 6th floor,
Washington, DC 20005. (202) 343–9038.
§ 80.1450 What are the registration
requirements under the RFS program?
(a) Obligated Parties and Exporters.
Any obligated party described in
§ 80.1406, and any exporter of
renewable fuel described in § 80.1430,
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. An obligated party or an exporter
of renewable fuel must receive EPAissued identification numbers prior to
engaging in any transaction involving
RINs. Registration information must be
submitted to EPA by January 1, 2010 or
60 days prior to engaging in any
transaction involving RINs, whichever
is later.
(b) Producers. Except as provided in
§ 80.1426(b)(1), any foreign or domestic
producer of renewable fuel, regardless
of whether RINs will be generated for
that renewable fuel, 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 generating or assigning
any RINs. All the following registration
information must be submitted to EPA
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
by January 1, 2010 or 60 days prior to
the production of any renewable fuel
subject to this subpart, whichever is
later:
(1) A description of the types of
renewable fuels and co-products
produced at the facility and all the
following for each product type:
(i) A list of the feedstocks capable of
being utilized by the facility.
(ii) A description of the facility’s
renewable fuel production processes.
(iii) The facility’s renewable fuel
production capacity.
(iv) A list of the facility’s process
energy sources.
(v) For a producer of renewable fuel
with a facility that commenced
construction on or before December 19,
2007 per § 80.1403:
(A) The location of the facility.
(B) Record of costs of additions,
replacements, and repairs inclusive of
labor costs conducted at the facility
since December 19, 2007.
(C) The estimated life of the facility.
(D) A discussion of any economic or
technical limitations the facility may
have in using a fuel production pathway
that will achieve a 20 percent reduction
in GHG as compared to baseline fuel.
(2) An independent third party
engineering review and written
verification of the descriptions made
pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(i) The verifications required under
this section must be conducted by a
licensed Professional Engineer who
works in the chemical engineering field
and who is licensed by the appropriate
state agency.
(ii) To be considered an independent
third party under this paragraph (b)(2):
(A) The third party shall not be
operated by the renewable fuel producer
or any subsidiary or employee of the
renewable fuel producer.
(B) The third party shall be free from
any interest in the renewable fuel
producer’s business.
(C) The renewable fuel producer shall
be free from any interest in the third
party’s business.
(D) Use of a third party that is
debarred, suspended, or proposed for
debarment pursuant to the Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension
regulations, 40 CFR part 32, or the
Debarment, Suspension and Ineligibility
provisions of the Federal Acquisition
Regulations, 48 CFR, part 9, subpart 9.4,
shall be deemed noncompliance with
the requirements of this section.
(iii) The independent third party shall
retain all records pertaining to the
verification required under this section
for a period of five years from the date
of creation and shall deliver such
PO 00000
Frm 00226
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
records to the Administrator upon
request.
(iv) The renewable fuel producer must
retain records of the review and
verification, as required in
§ 80.1451(b)(7).
(c) Importers. Importers of renewable
fuel 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 an EPA-issued
company identification number prior to
owning any RINs. Registration
information may be submitted to EPA
by January 1, 2010 or 60 days prior to
engaging in any transaction involving
RINs, whichever is later.
(d) Registration updates. Except as
provided in § 80.1426(b)(1):
(1) Any producer of renewable fuel
who makes changes to his facility that
will qualify his renewable fuel for a
renewable fuel category or D code as
defined in § 80.1425(g) that is not
reflected in the producer’s registration
information on file with EPA must
update his registration information and
submit a copy of an updated
independent engineering review at least
60 days prior to producing the new type
of renewable fuel.
(2) Any producer of renewable fuel
who makes any other changes to a
facility not affecting the renewable fuel
category for which the producer is
registered must update his registration
information within 7 days of the change.
(e) Parties who own RINs or who
intend to own RINs. Any party who
owns or intends to own RINs, but who
is not covered by paragraphs (a), (b), or
(d) 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 an EPA-issued
company identification number prior to
owning any RINs. Registration
information must be submitted to EPA
by January 1, 2010 or 60 days prior to
engaging in any transaction involving
RINs, whichever is later.
(f) Registration shall be on forms, and
following policies, established by the
Administrator.
§ 80.1451 What are the recordkeeping
requirements under the RFS program?
(a) Beginning January 1, 2010, any
obligated party (as described at
§ 80.1406) or exporter of renewable fuel
(as described at § 80.1430) must keep all
of the following records:
(1) Product transfer documents
consistent with § 80.1453 and associated
with the obligated party’s activity, if
any, as transferor or transferee of
renewable fuel.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(2) Copies of all reports submitted to
EPA under §§ 80.1449 and 80.1452(a).
(3) Records related to each RIN
transaction, including all the following:
(i) A list of the RINs owned,
purchased, sold, retired, or reinstated.
(ii) The parties involved in each RIN
transaction including the transferor,
transferee, and any broker or agent.
(iii) The 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, if applicable) for
compliance, including all the following:
(i) Methods and variables used to
calculate the Renewable Volume
Obligations pursuant to § 80.1407 or
§ 80.1430.
(ii) List of RINs used to demonstrate
compliance.
(iii) Additional information related to
details of RIN use for compliance.
(b) Beginning January 1, 2010, any
foreign or domestic producer of a
renewable fuel as defined in § 80.1401
must keep all of the following records:
(1) Product transfer documents
consistent with § 80.1453 and associated
with the renewable fuel producer’s
activity, if any, as transferor or
transferee of renewable fuel.
(2) Copies of all reports submitted to
EPA under §§ 80.1449 and 80.1452(b).
(3) Records related to the generation
and assignment of RINs for each facility,
including all of the following:
(i) Batch volume in gallons.
(ii) Batch number.
(iii) RIN as assigned under § 80.1426.
(iv) Identification of batches by
renewable category.
(v) Date of production.
(vi) Results of any laboratory analysis
of batch chemical composition or
physical properties.
(vii) Additional information related to
details of RIN generation.
(4) Records related to each RIN
transaction, including all of the
following:
(i) A list of the RINs owned,
purchased, sold, retired, or reinstated.
(ii) The parties involved in each
transaction including the transferor,
transferee, and any broker or agent.
(iii) The date of the transfer of the
RIN(s).
(iv) Additional information related to
details of the transaction and its terms.
(5) Records related to the production,
importation, ownership, sale or use of
any volume of renewable fuel or blend
of renewable fuel and gasoline or diesel
fuel that any party designates for use as
transportation fuel, jet fuel, or home
heating oil and the use of the fuel or
blend as transportation fuel, jet fuel, or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
home heating oil without further
blending, in the designated form.
(6) Documents associated with
feedstock purchases and transfers that
identify where the feedstocks were
produced and are sufficient to verify
that feedstocks used are renewable
biomass (as defined in § 80.1401) if RINs
are generated, or sufficient to verify that
feedstocks used are not renewable
biomass if no RINs are generated.
(i) Renewable fuel producers who use
planted crops or crop residue from
existing agricultural land, or who use
planted trees or slash from actively
managed tree plantations must keep
records that serve as evidence that the
land from which the feedstock was
obtained was continuously actively
managed or fallow, and nonforested,
since December 19, 2007. The records
must be provided by the feedstock
producer and consist of at least one of
the following documents: Sales records
for planted crops or trees, crop residue,
livestock, or slash; purchasing records
for fertilizer, weed control, or reseeding,
including seeds, seedlings, or other
nursery stock; a written management
plan for agricultural or silvicultural
purposes; documentation of
participation in an agricultural, or
silvicultural program sponsored by a
Federal, state or local government
agency; or documentation of land
management in accordance with an
agricultural or silvicultural product
certification program.
(ii) Renewable fuel producers who use
any other type of renewable biomass
must have written certification from
their feedstock supplier that the
feedstock qualifies as renewable
biomass.
(iii) Renewable fuel producers who do
not use renewable biomass must have
written certification from their feedstock
supplier that the feedstock does not
qualify as renewable biomass.
(7) Copies of registration documents
required under § 80.1450, including
information on fuels and products,
feedstocks, facility production processes
and capacity, energy sources, and
independent third party engineering
review.
(c) Beginning January 1, 2010, any
importer of a renewable fuel (as defined
in § 80.1401) must keep all of the
following records:
(1) Product transfer documents
consistent with § 80.1453 and associated
with the renewable fuel importer’s
activity, if any, as transferor or
transferee of renewable fuel.
(2) Copies of all reports submitted to
EPA under §§ 80.1449 and 80.1452(b);
however, duplicate records are not
required.
PO 00000
Frm 00227
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25129
(3) Records related to the generation
and assignment of RINs for each facility,
including all of the following:
(i) Batch volume in gallons.
(ii) Batch number.
(iii) RIN as assigned under § 80.1426.
(iv) Identification of batches by
renewable category.
(v) Date of import.
(vi) Results of any laboratory analysis
of batch chemical composition or
physical properties.
(vii) Additional information related to
details of RIN generation.
(4) Records related to each RIN
transaction, including all of the
following:
(i) A list of the RINs owned,
purchased, sold, retired, or reinstated.
(ii) The parties involved in each
transaction including the transferor,
transferee, and any broker or agent.
(iii) The date of the transfer of the
RIN(s).
(iv) Additional information related to
details of the transaction and its terms.
(5) Documents associated with
feedstock purchases and transfers,
sufficient to verify that feedstocks used
are renewable biomass (as defined in
§ 80.1401) if the importer generates
RINs.
(6) Documents associated with
feedstock purchases and transfers,
sufficient to verify that feedstocks used
are not renewable biomass as defined in
§ 80.1401 if the importer does not
generate RINs.
(7) Copies of registration documents
required under § 80.1450.
(8) Records related to the import of
any volume of renewable fuel that the
importer designates for use as
transportation fuel, jet fuel, or home
heating oil.
(d) Beginning January 1, 2010, any
production facility with a baseline
volume of fuel that is not subject to the
20% GHG threshold, pursuant to
§ 80.1403(a), must keep all of the
following:
(1) Detailed engineering plans for the
facility.
(2) Federal, State, and local
preconstruction approvals and
permitting.
(3) Procurement and construction
contracts and agreements.
(4) Records of electricity consumption
and energy use.
(5) Records showing costs of
additions, replacements, and repairs
inclusive of labor costs conducted at the
facility since December 19, 2007.
(6) Records estimating the life of the
existing facility.
(e) Beginning January 1, 2010, any
party, other than those parties covered
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25130
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
that owns RINs must keep all of the
following records:
(1) Product transfer documents
consistent with § 80.1453 and associated
with the party’s activity, if any, as
transferor or transferee of renewable
fuel.
(2) Copies of all reports submitted to
EPA under § 80.1452(c).
(3) Records related to each RIN
transaction by renewable fuel category,
including all of the following:
(i) A list of the RINs owned,
purchased, sold, retired, or reinstated.
(ii) The parties involved in each RIN
transaction including the transferor,
transferee, and any broker or agent.
(iii) The date of the transfer of the
RIN(s).
(iv) Additional information related to
details of the transaction and its terms.
(4) Records related to any volume of
renewable fuel that the party designated
for use as transportation fuel, jet fuel, or
home heating oil and from which RINs
were separated pursuant to
§ 80.1429(b)(4).
(f) The records required under
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section
and under § 80.1453 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.
(g) The records required under
paragraph (d) of this section shall be
kept through calendar year 2022.
(h) On request by EPA, the records
required under this section and under
§ 80.1453 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.
(i) The records required in paragraphs
(b)(6) and (b)(7) of this section must be
provided to the importer of the
renewable fuel by any foreign producer
not generating RINs for his renewable
fuel.
§ 80.1452 What are the reporting
requirements under the RFS program?
(a) Obligated parties and exporters.
Any obligated party described in
§ 80.1406 or exporter of renewable fuel
described in § 80.1430 must submit to
EPA reports according to the schedule,
and containing all the information, that
is set forth in this paragraph (a).
(1) Annual compliance demonstration
reports for the previous compliance
period shall be submitted on February
28 of each year and shall include all of
the following information:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
(i) The obligated party’s name.
(ii) The EPA company registration
number.
(iii) Whether the party is complying
on a corporate (aggregate) or facility-byfacility basis.
(iv) The EPA facility registration
number, if complying on a facility-byfacility basis.
(v) The production volume of all of
the products listed in § 80.1407(c) and
(f) for the reporting year.
(vi) The RVOs, as defined in
§ 80.1427(a) for obligated parties and
§ 80.1430(b) for exporters of renewable
fuel, for the reporting year.
(vii) Any deficit RVOs carried over
from the previous year.
(viii) The total current-year RINs by
type of renewable fuel, as those fuels are
defined in § 80.1401 (i.e., cellulosic
biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced
biofuels, and renewable fuels), used for
compliance.
(ix) The total prior-year RINs by
renewable fuel type, as those fuels are
defined in § 80.1401, used for
compliance.
(x) A list of all RINs used for
compliance in the reporting year.
(A) For the 2010 reporting year only
(January 1—December 31, 2010), a list of
all 38-digit RINs used to demonstrate
compliance.
(B) Starting January 1, 2011, RINs
used to meet compliance will be
conveyed via the EPA Moderated
Transaction System (EMTS) as set forth
in paragraph (e) of this section.
(xi) Any deficit RVO(s) carried into
the subsequent year.
(xii) Any additional information that
the Administrator may require.
(2) The RIN transaction reports
required under paragraph (c)(1) of this
section.
(3) The quarterly RIN activity reports
required under paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
(4) Reports required under this
paragraph (a) 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) Renewable fuel producers
(domestic and foreign) and importers.
Any domestic producer or importer of
renewable fuel, or foreign renewable
fuel producer who generates RINs, must
submit to EPA reports according to the
schedule, and containing all the
information, that is set forth in this
paragraph (b).
(1)(i) Until December 31, 2010,
renewable fuel production reports for
each facility owned by the renewable
fuel producer or importer shall be
submitted monthly, according to the
PO 00000
Frm 00228
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
schedule specified in paragraph (d)(1) of
this section.
(ii) Starting January 1, 2011,
renewable fuel production reports for
each facility owned by the renewable
fuel producer or importer shall be
submitted in accordance with paragraph
(e)(2) of this section.
(iii) The renewable fuel production
reports shall include all the following
information for each batch of renewable
fuel produced, where ‘‘batch’’ means a
discrete quantity of renewable fuel
produced and either assigned or not
assigned a unique batch-RIN per
§ 80.1426(b)(2):
(A) The renewable fuel producer’s
name.
(B) The EPA company registration
number.
(C) The EPA facility registration
number.
(D) The applicable monthly reporting
period.
(E) Whether RINs were generated for
each batch according to § 80.1426.
(F) The production date of each batch.
(G) The type of renewable fuel of each
batch, as defined in § 80.1401.
(H) Information related to the volume
of denaturant and applicable
equivalence value of each batch.
(I) The volume of each batch
produced.
(J) The process(es) and feedstock(s)
used and proportion of renewable
volume attributable to each process and
feedstock.
(K) The type and volume of coproducts produced with each batch of
renewable fuel.
(L) In the case that RINs were
generated for the batch, a list of the RINs
generated and a certification that the
feedstock(s) used for each batch meets
the definition of renewable biomass as
defined in § 80.1401.
(M) In the case that RINs were not
generated for the batch, an explanation
as to the reason for not generating RINs.
(N) Any additional information the
Administrator may require.
(2) The RIN transaction reports
required under paragraph (c)(1) of this
section.
(3) The quarterly RIN activity reports
required under paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
(4) Reports required under this
paragraph (b) 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.
(c) All RIN-owning parties. Any party,
including any party specified in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
that owns RINs during a reporting
period, must submit reports to EPA
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
according to the schedule, and
containing all the information, that is
set forth in this paragraph (c).
(1)(i) Until December 31, 2010, RIN
transaction reports listing each RIN
transaction shall be submitted monthly
according to the schedule in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section.
(ii) Starting January 1, 2011, RIN
transaction reports listing each RIN
transaction shall be submitted in
accordance with paragraph (e)(3) of this
section.
(iii) Each report required by paragraph
(c)(1)(i) of this section shall include all
of the following information:
(A) The submitting party’s name.
(B) The party’s EPA company
registration number.
(C) [Reserved]
(D) The applicable monthly reporting
period.
(E) Transaction type (i.e., RIN
purchase, RIN sale, retired RIN,
reinstated 2009 RIN).
(F) Transaction date.
(G) For a RIN purchase or sale, the
trading partner’s name.
(H) For a RIN purchase or sale, the
trading partner’s EPA company
registration number. For all other
transactions, the submitting party’s EPA
company registration number.
(I) RIN subject to the transaction.
(J) For a RIN purchase or sale, the per
gallon RIN price and/or the per gallon
renewable price if the RIN price is
included.
(K) For a retired RIN, the reason for
retiring the RIN (e.g., invalid RIN under
§ 80.1431, reportable spill under
§ 80.1432, foreign producer volume
correction under § 80.1466(e),
renewable fuel used in a boiler or oceangoing vessel under § 80.1429(f),
enforcement obligation, or use for
compliance (per paragraph (a)(1)(x) of
this section), etc.).
(L) Any additional information that
the Administrator may require.
(2) Quarterly RIN activity reports shall
be submitted to EPA according to the
schedule specified in paragraph (d)(2) of
this section. Each report shall
summarize RIN activities for the
reporting period, separately for RINs
separated from a renewable fuel volume
and the sum of both RINs assigned to a
renewable fuel volume and RINs
generated, but not assigned to a
renewable fuel volume. The quarterly
RIN activity reports shall include all of
the following information:
(i) The submitting party’s name.
(ii) The party’s EPA company
registration number.
(iii) The number of current-year RINs
owned at the start of the month.
(iv) The number of prior-year RINs
owned at the start of the month.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
(v) The total current-year RINs
purchased.
(vi) The total prior-year RINs
purchased.
(vii) The total current-year RINs sold.
(viii) The total prior-year RINs sold.
(ix) The total current-year RINs
retired.
(x) The total prior-year RINs retired.
(xi) The number of current-year RINs
owned at the end of the quarter.
(xii) The number of prior-year RINs
owned at the end of the quarter.
(xiii) For parties reporting RIN
activity under this paragraph for RINs
generated, but not assigned to a
renewable fuel volume and/or RINs
assigned to a volume of renewable fuel,
and the volume of renewable fuel (in
gallons) owned at the end of the quarter.
(xiv) The total 2009 retired RINs
reinstated.
(xv) Any additional information that
the Administrator may require.
(3) All reports required under this
paragraph (c) must be signed and
certified as meeting all the applicable
requirements of this subpart by the RIN
owner or a responsible corporate officer
of the RIN owner.
(d) Report submission deadlines. The
submission deadlines for monthly and
quarterly reports shall be as follows:
(1) Monthly reports shall be submitted
to EPA by the last day of the next
calendar month following the
compliance period (i.e., the report
covering January would be due by
February 28th, the report covering
February would be due by March 31st,
etc.).
(2) Quarterly reports shall be
submitted to EPA by the last day of the
second month following the compliance
period (i.e., the report covering January–
March would be due by May 31st, the
report covering April–June would be
due by August 31st, the report covering
July–September would be due by
November 30th and the report covering
October–December would be due by
February 28th).
(e) EPA Moderated Transaction
System (EMTS). (1) Each party required
to report under this section must
establish an account with EMTS by
October 1, 2010 or sixty (60) days prior
to engaging in any transaction involving
RINs, whichever is later.
(2) Starting January 1, 2011, each time
a domestic producer or importer of
renewable fuel, or foreign renewable
fuel producer who generates RINs,
produces or imports a batch of
renewable fuel, all the following
information must be submitted to EPA
within three (3) business days:
(i) The renewable fuel producer’s or
importer’s name.
PO 00000
Frm 00229
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25131
(ii) The EPA company registration
number.
(iii) The EPA facility registration
number.
(iv) Whether RINs were generated for
the batch, according to § 80.1426.
(v) The production date of the batch.
(vi) The type of renewable fuel of the
batch, as defined in § 80.1401.
(vii) Information related to the volume
of denaturant and applicable
equivalence value of each batch.
(viii) The volume of the batch.
(ix) The process(es) and feedstock(s)
used and proportion of renewable
volume attributable to each process and
feedstock.
(x) A certification that the feedstock(s)
used for each batch meets the definition
of renewable biomass as defined in
§ 80.1401.
(xi) The type and volume of coproducts produced with the batch of
renewable fuel.
(xii) In the case that RINs were
generated for the batch, a list of the RINs
generated and a certification that the
feedstock(s) used for each batch meets
the definition of renewable biomass as
defined in § 80.1401.
(xiii) In the case that RINs were not
generated for the batch, an explanation
as to the reason for not generating RINs.
(xiv) Any additional information the
Administrator may require.
(3) Starting January 1, 2011, each time
any party engages in a transaction
involving RINs, all the following
information must be submitted to EPA
within three (3) business days:
(i) The submitting party’s name.
(ii) The party’s EPA company
registration number.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The applicable monthly reporting
period.
(v) Transaction type (i.e., RIN
purchase, RIN sale, retired RIN).
(vi) Transaction date.
(vii) For a RIN purchase or sale, the
trading partner’s name.
(viii) For a RIN purchase or sale, the
trading partner’s EPA company
registration number. For all other
transactions, the submitting party’s EPA
company registration number.
(ix) RIN subject to the transaction.
(x) For a RIN purchase or sale, the per
gallon RIN price and/or the per gallon
renewable price if the RIN price is
included.
(xi) For a retired RIN, the reason for
retiring the RIN (e.g., reportable spill
under § 80.1432, foreign producer
volume correction under § 80.1466(e),
renewable fuel used in a boiler or oceangoing vessel under § 80.1429(f),
enforcement obligation, or use for
compliance (per paragraph (a)(1)(x) of
this section), etc.).
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25132
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(xii) Any additional information that
the Administrator may require.
(f) All reports required under this
section shall be submitted on forms and
following procedures prescribed by the
Administrator.
§ 80.1453 What are the product transfer
document (PTD) requirements for the RFS
program?
(a) On each occasion when any party
transfers ownership of renewable fuels
subject to this subpart, the transferor
must provide to the transferee
documents identifying the renewable
fuel and any assigned RINs which
include 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 volume of renewable fuel that
is being transferred.
(4) The date of the transfer.
(5) Whether any RINs are assigned to
the volume, as follows:
(i) If the assigned RINs are being
transferred on the same PTD used to
transfer ownership of the renewable
fuel, then the assigned RINs shall be
listed on the PTD.
(ii) If the assigned RINs are being
transferred on a separate PTD from that
which is used to transfer ownership of
the renewable fuel, then the PTD which
is used to transfer ownership of the
renewable fuel shall state the number of
gallon-RINs being transferred as well as
a unique reference to the PTD which is
transferring the assigned RINs.
(iii) If no assigned RINs are being
transferred with the renewable fuel, the
PTD which is used to transfer
ownership of the renewable fuel shall
state ‘‘No assigned RINs transferred’’.
(iv) If RINs have been separated from
the renewable fuel or blend pursuant to
§ 80.1129(b)(4), then all PTDs which are
at any time used to transfer ownership
of the renewable fuel or blend shall
state, ‘‘This volume of fuel must be used
in the designated form, without further
blending.’’.
(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.
(c) The RIN number required under
paragraph (a)(5) of this section must
always appear in its entirety.
(d) If a RIN is traded in the EPA–
Moderated Trading System (EMTS) as
described in § 80.1452(e), the transferor
must provide to the transferee
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
documents that include all information
as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section and the number of RINs
transferred identified by all the
following:
(1) Assignment (Assigned or
Separated).
(2) Type and/or D code (cellulosic
biofuel D=1, biomass-based diesel D=2,
advanced biofuel D=3, renewable fuel
D=4).
(3) RIN generation year.
§ 80.1454 What are the provisions for
renewable fuel production facilities and
importers who produce or import less than
10,000 gallons of renewable fuel per year?
(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. Except as stated in paragraph (b) of
this section, such production facilities
and importers that do not generate and/
or assign RINs to batches of renewable
fuel are also exempt from all the
following requirements of this subpart:
(1) The recordkeeping requirements of
§ 80.1451.
(2) The reporting requirements of
§ 80.1452.
(3) The attest engagement
requirements of § 80.1464.
(4) The production outlook report
requirements of § 80.1449.
(b)(1) Renewable fuel production
facilities 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 §§ 80.1449 through
80.1452, and 80.1464.
(2) Renewable fuel production
facilities and importers who produce or
import less than 10,000 gallons of
renewable fuel each year but wish to
own RINs will be subject to all
requirements stated in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(4) of this section, and all
other applicable requirements of this
subpart M.
§ 80.1455 What are the provisions for
cellulosic biofuel allowances?
(a) If EPA reduces the applicable
volume of cellulosic biofuel pursuant to
section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(7)(D)(i)) for any
given compliance year, then EPA will
provide cellulosic biofuel allowances
for purchase for that compliance year.
(1) The price of these allowances will
be set by EPA on an annual basis in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section.
PO 00000
Frm 00230
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) The total allowances available will
be equal to the reduced cellulosic
biofuel volume established by EPA for
the compliance year.
(b) Use of allowances. (1) Allowances
are only valid for use in the compliance
year that they are made available.
(2) Allowances are nonrefundable.
(3) Allowances are nontransferable
except if forfeiting the allowances to
EPA.
(c) Purchase of allowances. (1) Only
parties with an RVO for cellulosic
biofuel may purchase cellulosic biofuel
allowances.
(2) Allowances shall be purchased
from EPA at the time that a party
submits its annual compliance report to
EPA pursuant to § 80.1452(a)(1).
(3) Parties may not purchase more
allowances than their cellulosic biofuel
RVO minus cellulosic biofuel RINs with
a D code of 1 that they own.
(4) Allowances may be used to meet
an obligated party’s RVOs for the
advanced biofuel and total renewable
fuel standards.
(d) Setting the price of allowances. (1)
The price for allowances shall be set
equal to the greater of:
(i) $0.25 per allowance, adjusted for
inflation in comparison to calendar year
2008; or
(ii) $3.00 less the wholesale price of
gasoline per allowance, adjusted for
inflation in comparison to calendar year
2008.
(2) The wholesale price of gasoline
will be calculated by averaging the most
recent twelve monthly values for U.S.
Total Gasoline Bulk Sales (Price) by All
Sellers as provided by the Energy
Information Administration that are
available as of September 30 of the year
preceding the compliance period.
(3) The inflation adjustment will be
calculated by comparing the most recent
Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI–U) for All Items
expenditure category as provided by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics that is
available as of September 30 of the year
preceding the compliance period to the
most recent comparable value reported
prior to December 31, 2008. When EPA
must set the price of allowances for a
compliance year, EPA will calculate the
new amounts for paragraphs (d)(1)(i)
and (ii) of this section for each year after
2008 and every month where data is
available for the year preceding the
compliance period.
(e) Cellulosic biofuel allowances
under this section will only be able to
be purchased on forms and following
procedures prescribed by EPA.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
§§ 80.1456–80.1459
[Reserved]
§ 80.1460 What acts are prohibited under
the RFS program?
(a) Renewable fuels producer or
importer violation. Except as provided
in § 80.1454, no party shall produce or
import a renewable fuel without
assigning the proper number of gallonRINs or identifying it by a batch-RIN as
required under § 80.1426.
(b) RIN generation and transfer
violations. No party shall do any of the
following:
(1) Generate a RIN for a fuel that is not
a renewable fuel, or for which the
applicable renewable fuel volume was
not produced.
(2) Create or transfer to any party a
RIN that is invalid under § 80.1431.
(3) Transfer to any party a RIN that is
not properly identified as required
under § 80.1425.
(4) Transfer to any party a RIN with
a K code of 1 without transferring an
appropriate volume of renewable fuel to
the same party on the same day.
(5) Introduce into commerce any
renewable fuel produced from a
feedstock or through a process that is
not described in the party’s registration
information.
(c) RIN use violations. No party shall
do any of the following:
(1) Fail to acquire sufficient RINs, or
use invalid RINs, to meet the party’s
RVOs under § 80.1427.
(2) Fail to acquire sufficient RINs to
meet the party’s RVOs under § 80.1430.
(3) Use a validly generated RIN to
meet the party’s RVOs under § 80.1427,
or separate and transfer a validly
generated RIN, where the party
ultimately uses the renewable fuel
volume associated with the RIN in an
application other than for use as
transportation fuel (as defined in
§ 80.1401).
(d) RIN retention violation. No party
shall retain RINs in violation of the
requirements in § 80.1428(a)(5).
(e) Causing a violation. No party shall
cause another party to commit an act in
violation of any prohibited act under
this section.
(f) Failure to meet a requirement. No
party shall fail to meet any requirement
that applies to that party under this
subpart.
§ 80.1461 Who is liable for violations
under the RFS program?
(a) Parties liable for violations of
prohibited acts. (1) Any party who
violates a prohibition under § 80.1460(a)
through (d) is liable for the violation of
that prohibition.
(2) Any party who causes another
person to violate a prohibition under
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
§ 80.1460(a) through (d) is liable for a
violation of § 80.1460(e).
(b) Parties liable for failure to meet
other provisions of this subpart. (1) Any
party who fails to meet a requirement of
any provision of this subpart is liable for
a violation of that provision.
(2) Any party who causes another
party 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.
§ 80.1462
[Reserved]
§ 80.1463 What penalties apply under the
RFS program?
(a) Any party who is liable for a
violation under § 80.1461 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.
(b) Any party liable under
§ 80.1461(a) for a violation of
§ 80.1460(c) for failure to meet its RVOs,
or § 80.1460(e) for causing another party
to fail to meet their RVOs, during any
averaging period, is subject to a separate
day of violation for each day in the
averaging period.
(c) Any party liable under
§ 80.1461(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.
§ 80.1464 What are the attest engagement
requirements under the RFS program?
The requirements regarding annual
attest engagements in §§ 80.125 through
80.127, and 80.130, also apply to any
attest engagement procedures required
under this subpart M. In addition to any
other applicable attest engagement
procedures, such as the requirements in
§ 80.1465, the following annual attest
engagement procedures are required
under this subpart.
(a) Obligated parties and exporters.
The following attest procedures shall be
completed for any obligated party as
stated in § 80.1406(a) or exporter of
renewable fuel that is subject to the
renewable fuel standard under
§ 80.1405:
(1) Annual compliance demonstration
report. (i) Obtain and read a copy of the
PO 00000
Frm 00231
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25133
annual compliance demonstration
report required under § 80.1452(a)(1)
which contains information regarding
all the following:
(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) RVOs.
(C) RINs used for compliance.
(ii) Obtain documentation of any
volumes of renewable fuel used in
gasoline at the refinery or import facility
or exported during the reporting year;
compute and report as a finding the
total volumes of renewable fuel
represented in these documents.
(iii) Compare the volumes of gasoline
reported to EPA in the report required
under § 80.1452(a)(1) with the volumes,
excluding any renewable fuel volumes,
contained in the inventory
reconciliation analysis under § 80.133,
and verify that the volumes reported to
EPA agree with the volumes in the
inventory reconciliation analysis.
(iv) Compute and report as a finding
the obligated party’s or exporter’s RVOs,
and any deficit RVOs carried over from
the previous year or carried into the
subsequent year, and verify that the
values agree with the values reported to
EPA.
(v) Obtain the database, spreadsheet,
or other documentation for all RINs
used for compliance during the year
being reviewed; calculate the total
number of RINs used for compliance by
year of generation represented in these
documents; state whether this
information agrees with the report to
EPA and report as a finding any
exceptions.
(2) RIN transaction reports. (i) Obtain
and read copies of a representative
sample, selected in accordance with the
guidelines in § 80.127, of each RIN
transaction type (RINs purchased, RINs
sold, RINs retired, RINs reinstated)
included in the RIN transaction reports
required under § 80.1452(a)(2) for the
compliance year.
(ii) Obtain contracts, invoices, or
other documentation for the
representative samples of RIN
transactions; compute the transaction
types, transaction dates, and RINs
traded; state whether the information
agrees with the party’s reports to EPA
and report as a finding any exceptions.
(3) RIN activity reports. (i) Obtain and
read copies of all quarterly RIN activity
reports required under § 80.1452(a)(3)
for the compliance year.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25134
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(ii) Obtain the database, spreadsheet,
or other documentation used to generate
the information in the RIN activity
reports; compare the RIN transaction
samples reviewed under paragraph
(a)(2) of this section with the
corresponding entries in the database or
spreadsheet and report as a finding any
discrepancies; compute the total
number of current-year and prior-year
RINs owned at the start and end of the
quarter, purchased, sold, retired, and
reinstated, and for parties that reported
RIN activity for RINs assigned to a
volume of renewable fuel, the volume of
renewable fuel owned at the end of the
quarter; as represented in these
documents; and state whether this
information agrees with the party’s
reports to EPA.
(b) Renewable fuel producers and
RIN-generating importers. The following
attest procedures shall be completed for
any renewable fuel producer or RINgenerating importer:
(1) Renewable fuel production reports.
(i) Obtain and read copies of the
renewable fuel production reports
required under §§ 80.1452(b)(1) and
(e)(2) for the compliance year.
(ii) Obtain production data for each
renewable fuel batch produced or
imported during the year being
reviewed; compute the RIN numbers,
production dates, types, volumes of
denaturant and applicable equivalence
values, and production volumes for
each batch; state whether this
information agrees with the party’s
reports to EPA and report as a finding
any exceptions.
(iii) Verify that the proper number of
RINs were generated and assigned for
each batch of renewable fuel produced
or imported, as required under
§ 80.1426.
(iv) Obtain product transfer
documents for a representative sample,
selected in accordance with the
guidelines in § 80.127, of renewable fuel
batches produced or imported during
the year being reviewed; verify that the
product transfer documents contain the
applicable information required under
§ 80.1453; verify the accuracy of the
information contained in the product
transfer documents; report as a finding
any product transfer document that does
not contain the applicable information
required under § 80.1453.
(v) Obtain documentation, as required
under § 80.1451(b)(6), associated with
feedstock purchases and transfers for a
representative sample, selected in
accordance with the guidelines in
§ 80.127, of renewable fuel batches
produced or imported during the year
being reviewed.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
(A) If RINs were generated for a given
batch of renewable fuel, verify that
feedstocks used meet the definition of
renewable biomass in § 80.1401.
(B) If no RINs were generated for a
given batch of renewable fuel, verify
that feedstocks used do not meet the
definition of renewable biomass in
§ 80.1401 or that there was another
reason that the fuel produced without
RINs was not renewable fuel.
(2) RIN transaction reports. (i) Obtain
and read copies of a representative
sample, selected in accordance with the
guidelines in § 80.127, of each
transaction type (RINs purchased, RINs
sold, RINs retired, RINs reinstated)
included in the RIN transaction reports
required under § 80.1452(b)(2) for the
compliance year.
(ii) Obtain contracts, invoices, or
other documentation for the
representative samples of RIN
transactions; compute the transaction
types, transaction dates, and the RINs
traded; state whether this information
agrees with the party’s reports to EPA
and report as a finding any exceptions.
(3) RIN activity reports. (i) Obtain and
read copies of the quarterly RIN activity
reports required under § 80.1452(b)(3)
for the compliance year.
(ii) Obtain the database, spreadsheet,
or other documentation used to generate
the information in the RIN activity
reports; compare the RIN transaction
samples reviewed under paragraph
(b)(2) of this section with the
corresponding entries in the database or
spreadsheet and report as a finding any
discrepancies; compute the total
number of current-year and prior-year
RINs owned at the start and end of the
quarter, purchased, sold, retired, and
reinstated, and for parties that reported
RIN activity for RINs assigned to a
volume of renewable fuel, the volume of
renewable fuel owned at the end of the
quarter, as represented in these
documents; and state whether this
information agrees with the party’s
reports to EPA.
(4) Independent Third Party
Engineering Review. (i) Obtain
documentation of independent third
party engineering review required under
§ 80.1450(b)(2).
(ii) Review and verify the written
verification and records generated as
part of the independent third party
engineering review.
(c) Other parties owning RINs. The
following attest procedures shall be
completed for any party other than an
obligated party or renewable fuel
producer or importer that owns any
RINs during a calendar year:
(1) RIN transaction reports. (i) Obtain
and read copies of a representative
PO 00000
Frm 00232
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sample, selected in accordance with the
guidelines in § 80.127, of each RIN
transaction type (RINs purchased, RINs
sold, RINs retired, RINs reinstated)
included in the RIN transaction reports
required under § 80.1452(c)(1) for the
compliance year.
(ii) Obtain contracts, invoices, or
other documentation for the
representative samples of RIN
transactions; compute the transaction
types, transaction dates, and the RINs
traded; state whether this information
agrees with the party’s reports to EPA
and report as a finding any exceptions.
(2) RIN activity reports. (i) Obtain and
read copies of the quarterly RIN activity
reports required under § 80.1452(c)(2)
for the compliance year.
(ii) Obtain the database, spreadsheet,
or other documentation used to generate
the information in the RIN activity
reports; compare the RIN transaction
samples reviewed under paragraph
(c)(1) of this section with the
corresponding entries in the database or
spreadsheet and report as a finding any
discrepancies; compute the total
number of current-year and prior-year
RINs owned at the start and end of the
quarter, purchased, sold, retired, and
reinstated, and for parties that reported
RIN activity for RINs assigned to a
volume of renewable fuel, the volume of
renewable fuel owned at the end of the
quarter, as represented in these
documents; and state whether this
information agrees with the party’s
reports to EPA.
(d) The following submission dates
apply to the attest engagements required
under this section:
(1) For each compliance year, 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 the year following the compliance
year.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) The party conducting the
procedures under this section shall
obtain a written representation from a
company representative that the copies
of the reports required under this
section are complete and accurate
copies of the reports filed with EPA.
(f) The party conducting the
procedures under this section shall
identify and report as a finding the
commercial computer program used by
the party to track the data required by
the regulations in this subpart, if any.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
§ 80.1465 What are the additional
requirements under this subpart for foreign
small refiners, foreign small refineries, and
importers of RFS–FRFUEL?
(a) Definitions. The following
additional definitions apply for this
subpart:
(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 party that
meets the definition of refiner under
§ 80.2(i) for a foreign refinery.
(3) Foreign small refiner is a foreign
refiner that has received a small refinery
exemption under § 80.1441 for one or
more of its refineries or a foreign refiner
that has received a small refiner
exemption under § 80.1442.
(4) RFS–FRFUEL is transportation fuel
produced at a foreign refinery that has
received a small refinery exemption
under § 80.1441 or by a foreign refiner
with a small refiner exemption under
§ 80.1442.
(5) Non-RFS–FRFUEL is one of the
following:
(i) Transportation fuel produced at a
foreign refinery that has received a
small refinery exemption under
§ 80.1441 or by a foreign refiner with a
small refiner exemption under
§ 80.1442.
(ii) Transportation fuel produced at a
foreign refinery that has not received a
small refinery exemption under
§ 80.1441 or by a foreign refiner that has
not received a small refiner exemption
under § 80.1442.
(b) General requirements for RFS–
FRFUEL for foreign small refineries and
small refiners. A foreign refiner must do
all the following:
(1) Designate, at the time of
production, each batch of transportation
fuel produced at the foreign refinery
that is exported for use in the United
States as RFS–FRFUEL.
(2) Meet all requirements that apply to
refiners who have received a small
refinery or small refiner exemption
under this subpart.
(c) Designation, foreign small refiner
certification, and product transfer
documents.
(1) Any foreign small refiner must
designate each batch of RFS–FRFUEL as
such at the time the transportation fuel
is produced.
(2) On each occasion when RFS–
FRFUEL is loaded onto a vessel or other
transportation mode for transport to the
United States, the foreign small refiner
shall prepare a certification for each
batch of RFS–FRFUEL that meets all the
following requirements:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
(i) The certification shall include the
report of the independent third party
under paragraph (d) of this section, and
all the following additional information:
(A) The name and EPA registration
number of the refinery that produced
the RFS–FRFUEL.
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) The identification of the
transportation fuel as RFS–FRFUEL.
(iii) The volume of RFS–FRFUEL
being transported, in gallons.
(3) On each occasion when any party
transfers custody or title to any RFS–
FRFUEL prior to its being imported into
the United States, it must include all the
following information as part of the
product transfer document information:
(i) Designation of the transportation
fuel as RFS–FRFUEL.
(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–FRFUEL is loaded
onto a vessel for transport to the United
States the foreign small refiner shall
have an independent third party do all
the following:
(i) Inspect the vessel prior to loading
and determine the volume of any tank
bottoms.
(ii) Determine the volume of RFS–
FRFUEL 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–FRFUEL to the
United States.
(v) Determine the date and time the
vessel departs the port serving the
foreign refinery.
(vi) Review original documents that
reflect movement and storage of the
RFS–FRFUEL from the foreign refinery
to the load port, and from this review
determine:
(A) The refinery at which the RFS–
FRFUEL was produced; and
(B) That the RFS–FRFUEL remained
segregated from Non-RFS–FRFUEL and
other RFS–FRFUEL produced at a
different refinery.
(2) The independent third party shall
submit a report to all the following:
(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.
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00233
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25135
shall include a description of the
method used to determine the identity
of the refinery at which the
transportation fuel was produced,
assurance that the transportation fuel
remained segregated as specified in
paragraph (j)(1) of this section, and a
description of the transportation fuel’s
movement and storage between
production at the source refinery and
vessel loading.
(3) The independent third party must
do all the following:
(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(f)(2)(iii).
(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 foreign small
refiner or foreign small refinery and any
United States importer of RFS–FRFUEL
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 (k) of this
section, for the volume of transportation
fuel, except as specified in paragraph
(e)(1)(ii) of this section.
(ii) Where a vessel transporting RFS–
FRFUEL off loads this transportation
fuel 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 transportation fuel
or blendstock between the 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
and the foreign small refiner or foreign
small refinery shall not treat the
transportation fuel as RFS–FRFUEL and
the importer shall include the volume of
transportation fuel in 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
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25136
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
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) Transportation fuel is produced;
(B) Documents related to refinery
operations are kept; and
(C) RFS–FRFUEL 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 all the following:
(A) The volume of RFS–FRFUEL.
(B) The proper classification of
transportation fuel as being RFS–
FRFUEL or as not being RFS–FRFUEL.
(C) Transfers of title or custody to
RFS–FRFUEL.
(D) Testing of RFS–FRFUEL.
(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.
(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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
transportation fuel 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–FRFUEL
produced at a foreign refinery is stored
or transported by another company
between the refinery and the vessel that
transports the RFS–FRFUEL 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.
(g) Sovereign immunity. By
submitting an application for a small
refinery or small refiner exemption
under this subpart, or by producing and
exporting transportation fuel 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
PO 00000
Frm 00234
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
of a small foreign refinery or small
foreign refiner exemption 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 transportation fuel
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 or
refiner’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
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 transportation fuel
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
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, or shall
include an English language translation.
(j) Prohibitions. (1) No party may
combine RFS–FRFUEL with any NonRFS–FRFUEL, and no party may
combine RFS–FRFUEL with any RFS–
FRFUEL 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 party
may cause another party 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–FRFUEL shall meet the
following requirements:
(1) Each batch of imported RFS–
FRFUEL shall be classified by the
importer as being RFS–FRFUEL.
(2) Transportation fuel shall be
classified as RFS–FRFUEL 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 transportation fuel batch
classified as RFS–FRFUEL, any United
States importer shall have an
independent third party do all the
following:
(i) Determine the volume of
transportation fuel in the vessel.
(ii) Use the foreign refiner’s RFS–
FRFUEL certification to determine the
name and EPA-assigned registration
number of the foreign refinery that
produced the RFS–FRFUEL.
(iii) Determine the name and country
of registration of the vessel used to
transport the RFS–FRFUEL to the
United States.
(iv) Determine the date and time the
vessel arrives at the United States port
of entry.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
(4) Any importer shall submit reports
within 30 days following the date any
vessel transporting RFS–FRFUEL 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 transportation
fuel that is not classified as RFS–
FRFUEL under paragraph (k)(2) of this
section.
(l) Truck imports of RFS–FRFUEL
produced at a foreign refinery. (1) Any
refiner whose RFS–FRFUEL is
transported into the United States by
truck may petition EPA to use
alternative procedures to meet all the
following requirements:
(i) Certification under paragraph (c)(2)
of this section.
(ii) Load port and port of entry testing
requirements under paragraphs (d) and
(e) of this section.
(iii) Importer testing requirements
under paragraph (k)(3) of this section.
(2) These alternative procedures must
ensure RFS–FRFUEL remains segregated
from Non-RFS–FRFUEL until it is
imported into the United States. The
petition will be evaluated based on
whether it adequately addresses all the
following:
(i) Provisions for monitoring pipeline
shipments, if applicable, from the
refinery, that ensure segregation of RFS–
FRFUEL from that refinery from all
other transportation fuel.
(ii) Contracts with any terminals and/
or pipelines that receive and/or
transport RFS–FRFUEL that prohibit the
commingling of RFS–FRFUEL with
Non-RFS–FRFUEL or RFS–FRFUEL
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
reconciliation, or other criteria, to
confirm that all RFS–FRFUEL remains
segregated throughout the distribution
system.
(3) The petition described in 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–FRFUEL. The
following additional procedures shall be
carried out by any importer of RFS–
FRFUEL as part of the attest engagement
PO 00000
Frm 00235
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25137
required for importers under this
subpart M.
(1) Obtain listings of all tenders of
RFS–FRFUEL. Agree the total volume of
tenders from the listings to the
transportation fuel inventory
reconciliation analysis required in
§ 80.133(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
transportation fuel is loaded onto a
marine vessel, report as a finding the
name and country of registration of each
vessel, and the volumes of RFS–
FRFUEL loaded onto each vessel.
(3) Select a sample from the list of
vessels identified per paragraph (m)(2)
of this section used to transport RFS–
FRFUEL, in accordance with the
guidelines in § 80.127, and for each
vessel selected perform all the
following:
(i) Obtain the report of the
independent third party, under
paragraph (d) of this section.
(A) Agree the information in these
reports with regard to vessel
identification and transportation fuel
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)(2)
of this section, and determine whether
all of the requirements of paragraph
(e)(2) of this section have been met.
(ii) Obtain the documents used by the
independent third party to determine
transportation and storage of the RFS–
FRFUEL from the refinery to the load
port, under paragraph (d) of this section.
Obtain tank activity records for any
storage tank where the RFS–FRFUEL is
stored, and pipeline activity records for
any pipeline used to transport the RFS–
FRFUEL prior to being loaded onto the
vessel. Use these records to determine
whether the RFS–FRFUEL was
produced at the refinery that is the
subject of the attest engagement, and
whether the RFS–FRFUEL was mixed
with any Non-RFS–FRFUEL or any
RFS–FRFUEL produced at a different
refinery.
(4) Select a sample from the list of
vessels identified per paragraph (m)(2)
of this section used to transport RFS–
FRFUEL, in accordance with the
guidelines in § 80.127, and for each
vessel selected perform all 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.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25138
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(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–FRFUEL, and perform
all the following:
(i) Agree the volume of tenders from
the listings to the transportation fuel
inventory reconciliation analysis in
§ 80.133(b).
(ii) Obtain a separate listing of the
tenders under this paragraph (m)(5)
where the transportation fuel 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 transportation fuel was
off loaded for the selected vessels.
Determine and report as a finding the
country where the transportation fuel
was off loaded for each vessel selected.
(6) In order to complete the
requirements of this paragraph (m), an
auditor shall do all the following:
(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 80.127, 80.130, 80.1464, and
this paragraph (m).
(iii) Sign a commitment that contains
the provisions specified in paragraph (f)
of this section with regard to activities
and documents relevant to compliance
with the requirements of §§ 80.125
through 80.127, 80.130, 80.1464, and
this paragraph (m).
(n) Withdrawal or suspension of
foreign small refiner or foreign small
refinery 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 (h) of this section.
(o) Additional requirements for
applications, reports and certificates.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
Any application for a small refinery or
small refiner exemption, alternative
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) Signed by the president or owner
of the foreign refiner company, or by
that party’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 [insert 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 M, and that the
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 M,
including 40 CFR 80.1465 apply to
[INSERT 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.’’.
§ 80.1466 What are the additional
requirements under this subpart for foreign
producers and importers of renewable
fuels?
(a) Foreign producer of renewable
fuel. For purposes of this subpart, a
foreign producer of renewable fuel is a
party located outside the United States,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (collectively referred to
in this section as ‘‘the United States’’)
that has been approved by EPA to assign
RINs to renewable fuel that the foreign
producer produces and exports to the
United States, hereinafter referred to as
a ‘‘foreign producer’’ under this section.
(b) General requirements. An
approved foreign producer under this
section must meet all requirements that
apply to renewable fuel producers
under this subpart.
PO 00000
Frm 00236
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(c) Designation, foreign producer
certification, and product transfer
documents. (1) Any approved foreign
producer under this section must
designate each batch of renewable fuel
as ‘‘RFS–FRRF’’ at the time the
renewable fuel is produced.
(2) On each occasion when RFS–FRRF
is loaded onto a vessel or other
transportation mode for transport to the
United States, the foreign producer shall
prepare a certification for each batch of
RFS–FRRF; the certification shall
include the report of the independent
third party under paragraph (d) of this
section, and all the following additional
information:
(i) The name and EPA registration
number of the company that produced
the RFS–FRRF.
(ii) The identification of the
renewable fuel as RFS–FRRF.
(iii) The volume of RFS–FRRF being
transported, in gallons.
(3) On each occasion when any party
transfers custody or title to any RFS–
FRRF prior to its being imported into
the United States, it must include all the
following information as part of the
product transfer document information:
(i) Designation of the renewable fuel
as RFS–FRRF.
(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–FRRF is loaded onto
a vessel for transport to the United
States the foreign producer shall have
an independent third party do all the
following:
(i) Inspect the vessel prior to loading
and determine the volume of any tank
bottoms.
(ii) Determine the volume of RFS–
FRRF loaded onto the vessel (exclusive
of any tank bottoms before loading).
(iii) Obtain the EPA-assigned
registration number of the foreign
producer.
(iv) Determine the name and country
of registration of the vessel used to
transport the RFS–FRRF to the United
States.
(v) Determine the date and time the
vessel departs the port serving the
foreign producer.
(vi) Review original documents that
reflect movement and storage of the
RFS–FRRF from the foreign producer to
the load port, and from this review
determine all the following:
(A) The facility at which the RFS–
FRRF was produced.
(B) That the RFS–FRRF remained
segregated from Non-RFS–FRRF and
other RFS–FRRF produced by a
different foreign producer.
(2) The independent third party shall
submit a report to the following:
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(i) The foreign producer, containing
the information required under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, to
accompany the product transfer
documents for the vessel.
(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 foreign producer facility at which
the renewable fuel was produced,
assurance that the renewable fuel
remained segregated as specified in
paragraph (j)(1) of this section, and a
description of the renewable fuel’s
movement and storage between
production at the source facility 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 foreign
producer and any United States
importer of RFS–FRRF 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 (k) of this section, for
the volume of renewable fuel, except as
specified in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this
section.
(ii) Where a vessel transporting RFS–
FRRF off loads the renewable fuel 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 renewable fuel
between the first United States port of
entry and the subsequent port of entry.
(2)(i) If the temperature-corrected
volumes determined at the port of entry
and at the load port differ by more than
one percent, the number of RINs
associated with the renewable fuel shall
be calculated based on the lesser of the
two volumes in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of
this section.
(ii) Where the port of entry volume is
the lesser of the two volumes in
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
importer shall calculate the difference
between the number of RINs originally
assigned by the foreign producer and
the number of RINs calculated under
§ 80.1426 for the volume of renewable
fuel as measured at the port of entry,
and retire that amount of RINs in
accordance with paragraph (k)(4) of this
section.
(f) Foreign producer commitments.
Any foreign producer shall commit to
and comply with the provisions
contained in this paragraph (f) as a
condition to being approved as a foreign
producer 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
producer facility.
(i) Inspections and audits may be
either announced in advance by EPA, or
unannounced.
(ii) Access will be provided to any
location where:
(A) Renewable fuel is produced;
(B) Documents related to renewable
fuel producer operations are kept; and
(C) RFS–FRRF is stored or transported
between the foreign producer 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 the following:
(A) The volume of RFS–FRRF.
(B) The proper classification of
gasoline as being RFS–FRRF.
(C) Transfers of title or custody to
RFS–FRRF.
(D) 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
producer 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.
(2) An agent for service of process
located in the District of Columbia shall
PO 00000
Frm 00237
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25139
be named, and service on this agent
constitutes service on the foreign
producer or any employee of the foreign
producer 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 producer or any employee of
the foreign producer related to the
provisions of this section.
(5) Applying to be an approved
foreign producer under this section, or
producing or exporting renewable fuel
under such approval, and all other
actions to comply with the requirements
of this subpart relating to such approval
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 producer, its agents
and employees in any court or other
tribunal in the United States for conduct
that violates the requirements
applicable to the foreign producer 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 producer, 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
producer company.
(8) In any case where RFS–FRRF
produced at a foreign producer facility
is stored or transported by another
company between the refinery and the
vessel that transports the RFS–FRRF to
the United States, the foreign producer
shall obtain from each such other
company a commitment that meets the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (7) of this section, and
these commitments shall be included in
the foreign producer’s application to be
an approved foreign producer under this
subpart.
(g) Sovereign immunity. By
submitting an application to be an
approved foreign producer under this
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25140
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
subpart, or by producing and exporting
renewable fuel to the United States
under such approval, the foreign
producer, 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 producer, its agents and
employees in any court or other tribunal
in the United States for conduct that
violates the requirements applicable to
the foreign producer 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
producer shall meet the requirements of
this paragraph (h) as a condition to
approval as a foreign producer under
this subpart.
(1) The foreign producer shall post a
bond of the amount calculated using the
following equation:
Bond = G * $ 0.01
Where:
Bond = amount of the bond in U.S. dollars.
G = the largest volume of renewable fuel
produced at the foreign producer’s
facility 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 any of
the following methods:
(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 producer, provided
EPA agrees in advance as to the third
party and the nature of the surety
agreement.
(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
subpart, including where such conduct
violates the False Statements
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
producer produces renewable fuel
pursuant to the requirements of this
subpart.
(4) On any occasion a foreign
producer bond is used to satisfy any
judgment, the foreign producer 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
producer increases, the foreign producer
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
producer shall be in English, or shall
include an English language translation.
(j) Prohibitions. (1) No party may
combine RFS–FRRF with any Non-RFS–
FRRF, and no party may combine RFS–
FRRF with any RFS–FRRF produced at
a different refinery, until the importer
has met all the requirements of
paragraph (k) of this section.
(2) No foreign producer or other party
may cause another party to commit an
action prohibited in paragraph (j)(1) of
this section, or that otherwise violates
the requirements of this section.
(k) Requirements for United States
importers of RFS–FRRF. Any United
States importer shall meet all the
following requirements:
(1) Each batch of imported RFS–FRRF
shall be classified by the importer as
being RFS–FRRF.
(2) Renewable fuel shall be classified
as RFS–FRRF according to the
designation by the foreign producer if
this designation is supported by product
transfer documents prepared by the
foreign producer as required in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) For each renewable fuel batch
classified as RFS–FRRF, any United
States importer shall have an
independent third party do all the
following:
(i) Determine the volume of gasoline
in the vessel.
PO 00000
Frm 00238
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(ii) Use the foreign producer’s RFS–
FRRF certification to determine the
name and EPA-assigned registration
number of the foreign producer that
produced the RFS–FRRF.
(iii) Determine the name and country
of registration of the vessel used to
transport the RFS–FRRF to the United
States.
(iv) Determine the date and time the
vessel arrives at the United States port
of entry.
(4) Where the importer is required to
retire RINs under paragraph (e)(2) of this
section, the importer must report the
retired RINs in the applicable reports
under § 80.1452.
(5) Any importer shall submit reports
within 30 days following the date any
vessel transporting RFS–FRRF arrives at
the United States port of entry to all the
following:
(i) The Administrator, containing the
information determined under
paragraph (k)(3) of this section.
(ii) The foreign producer, 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, and
any RINs retired under paragraph (e)(2)
of this section.
(6) Any United States importer shall
meet all other requirements of this
subpart for any imported ethanol or
other renewable fuel that is not
classified as RFS–FRRF under
paragraph (k)(2) of this section.
(l) Truck imports of RFS–FRRF
produced by a foreign producer. (1) Any
foreign producer whose RFS–FRRF is
transported into the United States by
truck may petition EPA to use
alternative procedures to meet all 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.
(iii) Importer testing under paragraph
(k)(3) of this section.
(2) These alternative procedures must
ensure RFS–FRRF remains segregated
from Non-RFS–FRRF until it is
imported into the United States. The
petition will be evaluated based on
whether it adequately addresses the
following:
(i) Contracts with any facilities that
receive and/or transport RFS–FRRF that
prohibit the commingling of RFS–FRRF
with Non-RFS–FRRF or RFS–FRRF from
other foreign producers.
(ii) Attest procedures to be conducted
annually by an independent third party
that review loading records and import
documents based on volume
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
reconciliation to confirm that all RFS–
FRRF remains segregated.
(3) The petition described in this
section must be submitted to EPA along
with the application for approval as a
foreign producer under this subpart.
(m) Additional attest requirements for
producers of RFS–FRRF. The following
additional procedures shall be carried
out by any producer of RFS–FRRF as
part of the attest engagement required
for renewable fuel producers under this
subpart M.
(1) Obtain listings of all tenders of
RFS–FRRF. Agree the total volume of
tenders from the listings 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
renewable fuel is loaded onto a marine
vessel, report as a finding the name and
country of registration of each vessel,
and the volumes of RFS–FRRF 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–
FRRF, in accordance with the guidelines
in § 80.127, and for each vessel selected
perform all 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 renewable fuel
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
importer retired the appropriate amount
of RINs as required under paragraph
(e)(2) of this section, and submitted the
applicable reports under § 80.1452 in
accordance with paragraph (k)(4) of this
section.
(ii) Obtain the documents used by the
independent third party to determine
transportation and storage of the RFS–
FRRF from the foreign producer’s
facility to the load port, under
paragraph (d) of this section. Obtain
tank activity records for any storage tank
where the RFS–FRRF is stored, and
activity records for any mode of
transportation used to transport the
RFS–FRFUEL prior to being loaded onto
the vessel. Use these records to
determine whether the RFS–FRRF was
produced at the foreign producer’s
facility that is the subject of the attest
engagement, and whether the RFS–
FRRF was mixed with any Non-RFS–
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
FRRF or any RFS–FRRF produced at a
different facility.
(4) Select a sample from the list of
vessels identified in paragraph (m)(2) of
this section used to transport RFS–
FRRF, 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 a separate listing of the
tenders under this paragraph (m)(5)
where the RFS–FRRF 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 renewable fuel was off
loaded for the selected vessels.
Determine and report as a finding the
country where the renewable fuel 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
producer;
(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 80.127, 80.130, 80.1464, 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
with the requirements of §§ 80.125
through 80.127, 80.130, 80.1464, and
this paragraph (m).
(n) Withdrawal or suspension of
foreign producer approval. EPA may
withdraw or suspend a foreign
producer’s approval where any of the
following occur:
(1) A foreign producer 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 producer asserts a claim
of, or a right to claim, sovereign
immunity in an action to enforce the
requirements in this subpart.
PO 00000
Frm 00239
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25141
(4) A foreign producer fails to pay a
civil or criminal penalty that is not
satisfied using the foreign producer
bond specified in paragraph (g) of this
section.
(o) Additional requirements for
applications, reports and certificates.
Any application for approval as a
foreign producer, alternative 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) Signed by the president or owner
of the foreign producer company, or by
that party’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 [insert name of foreign producer]
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 M, and that the
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 M,
including 40 CFR 80.1465 apply to
[insert name of foreign producer].
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.’’.
§ 80.1467 What are the additional
requirements under this subpart for a
foreign RIN owner?
(a) Foreign RIN owner. For purposes
of this subpart, a foreign RIN owner is
a party located outside the United
States, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (collectively referred to in this
section as ‘‘the United States’’) that has
been approved by EPA to own RINs.
(b) General requirement. An approved
foreign RIN owner must meet all
requirements that apply to parties who
own RINs under this subpart.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
25142
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(c) Foreign RIN owner commitments.
Any party shall commit to and comply
with the provisions contained in this
paragraph (c) as a condition to being
approved as a foreign RIN owner 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
RIN owner’s place of business.
(i) Inspections and audits may be
either announced in advance by EPA, or
unannounced.
(ii) Access will be provided to any
location where documents related to
RINs the foreign RIN owner has
obtained, sold, transferred or held are
kept.
(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 the following:
(A) Transfers of title to RINs.
(B) Work performed and reports
prepared 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 RIN
owner 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.
(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 RIN
owner or any employee of the foreign
RIN owner 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 RIN owner or any employee
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
of the foreign RIN owner related to the
provisions of this section.
(5) Submitting an application to be a
foreign RIN owner, and all other actions
to comply with the requirements of this
subpart 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 RIN owner,
its agents and employees in any court or
other tribunal in the United States for
conduct that violates the requirements
applicable to the foreign RIN owner
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 RIN owner, 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 (c) shall be signed by the
owner or president of the foreign RIN
owner business.
(d) Sovereign immunity. By
submitting an application to be a foreign
RIN owner under this subpart, the
foreign entity, 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
RIN owner, its agents and employees in
any court or other tribunal in the United
States for conduct that violates the
requirements applicable to the foreign
RIN owner 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).
(e) Bond posting. Any foreign entity
shall meet the requirements of this
paragraph (e) as a condition to approval
as a foreign RIN owner under this
subpart.
(1) The foreign entity shall post a
bond of the amount calculated using the
following equation:
Bond = G * $ 0.01
Where:
Bond = amount of the bond in U.S. dollars.
G = the total of the number of gallon-RINs the
foreign entity expects to sell or transfer
during the first calendar year that the
foreign entity is a RIN owner, plus the
number of gallon-RINs the foreign entity
expects to sell or transfer during the next
four calendar years. After the first
PO 00000
Frm 00240
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
calendar year, the bond amount shall be
based on the actual number of gallonRINs sold or transferred during the
current calendar year and the number
held at the conclusion of the current
averaging year, plus the number of
gallon-RINs sold or transferred during
the four most recent calendar years
preceding the current calendar year. For
any year for which there were fewer than
four preceding years in which the foreign
entity sold or transferred RINs, the bond
shall be based on the total of the number
of gallon-RINs sold or transferred during
the current calendar year and the
number held at the end of the current
calendar year, plus the number of gallonRINs sold or transferred during any
calendar year preceding the current
calendar year, plus the number of gallonRINs expected to be sold or transferred
during subsequent calendar years, the
total number of years not to exceed four
calendar years in addition to the current
calendar year.
(2) Bonds shall be posted by doing
any of the following:
(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 RIN owner, provided
EPA agrees in advance as to the third
party and the nature of the surety
agreement.
(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) All the following shall apply to
bonds posted under this paragraph (e);
bonds shall:
(i) Be used to satisfy any judicial
judgment that results from an
administrative or judicial enforcement
action for conduct in violation of this
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’’.
(iii) Include a commitment that the
bond will remain in effect for at least
five years following the end of latest
reporting period in which the foreign
RIN owner obtains, sells, transfers, or
holds RINs.
(4) On any occasion a foreign RIN
owner bond is used to satisfy any
judgment, the foreign RIN owner shall
increase the bond to cover the amount
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
used within 90 days of the date the
bond is used.
(f) English language reports. Any
document submitted to EPA by a foreign
RIN owner shall be in English, or shall
include an English language translation.
(g) Prohibitions. (1) A foreign RIN
owner is prohibited from obtaining,
selling, transferring, or holding any RIN
that is in excess of the number for
which the bond requirements of this
section have been satisfied.
(2) Any RIN that is sold, transferred,
or held that is in excess of the number
for which the bond requirements of this
section have been satisfied is an invalid
RIN under § 80.1431.
(3) Any RIN that is obtained from a
party located outside the United States
that is not an approved foreign RIN
owner under this section is an invalid
RIN under § 80.1431.
(4) No foreign RIN owner or other
party may cause another party to
commit an action prohibited in this
paragraph (g), or that otherwise violates
the requirements of this section.
(h) Additional attest requirements for
foreign RIN owners. The following
additional requirements apply to any
foreign RIN owner as part of the attest
engagement required for RIN owners
under this subpart M.
(i) The attest auditor must be
independent of the foreign RIN owner.
(ii) The attest auditor must 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 80.127, 80.130, and 80.1464.
(iii) The attest auditor must sign a
commitment that contains the
provisions specified in paragraph (c) of
this section with regard to activities and
documents relevant to compliance with
the requirements of §§ 80.125 through
80.127, 80.130, and 80.1464.
(i) Withdrawal or suspension of
foreign RIN owner status. EPA may
withdraw or suspend its approval of a
foreign RIN owner where any of the
following occur:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 May 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
(1) A foreign RIN owner fails to meet
any requirement of this section,
including, but not limited to, the bond
requirements.
(2) A foreign government fails to
allow EPA inspections as provided in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(3) A foreign RIN owner asserts a
claim of, or a right to claim, sovereign
immunity in an action to enforce the
requirements in this subpart.
(4) A foreign RIN owner fails to pay
a civil or criminal penalty that is not
satisfied using the foreign RIN owner
bond specified in paragraph (e) of this
section.
(j) Additional requirements for
applications, reports and certificates.
Any application for approval as a
foreign RIN owner, 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) Signed by the president or owner
of the foreign RIN owner company, or
by that party’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 [insert name of foreign RIN owner]
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 M, and that the
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 M,
including 40 CFR 80.1467 apply to
[insert name of foreign RIN owner].
Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 113(c)
PO 00000
Frm 00241
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25143
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.’’.
§ 80.1468
[Reserved]
§ 80.1469 What are the labeling
requirements that apply to retailers and
wholesale purchaser-consumers of ethanol
fuel blends that contain greater than 10
volume percent ethanol?
(a) Any retailer or wholesale
purchaser-consumer who sells,
dispenses, or offers for sale or
dispensing, ethanol fuel blends that
contain greater than 10 volume percent
ethanol must prominently and
conspicuously display in the immediate
area of each pump stand from which
such fuel is offered for sale or
dispensing, the following legible label
in block letters of no less than 24-point
bold type in a color contrasting with the
background:
CONTAINS MORE THAN 10 VOLUME
PERCENT ETHANOL
For use only in flexible-fuel gasoline
vehicles.
May damage non-flexible fuel
vehicles.
WARNING
Federal law prohibits use in nonflexible fuel vehicles.
(b) Alternative labels to those
specified in paragraph (a) of this section
may be used as approved by EPA.
Requests for approval of alternative
labels shall be sent to one of the
following addresses:
(1) For US mail: U.S. EPA, Attn:
Alternative fuel dispenser label request,
6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
(2) For overnight or courier services:
U.S. EPA, Attn: Alternative fuel
dispenser label request, 6406J, 1310 L
Street, NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC
20005. (202) 343–9038.
[FR Doc. E9–10978 Filed 5–22–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\26MYP2.SGM
26MYP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 26, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24904-25143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10978]
[[Page 24903]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 80
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel
Standard Program; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 24904]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161; FRL-8903-1]
RIN 2060-A081
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel
Standard Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, as amended by Sections 201, 202, and
210 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the
Environmental Protection Agency is required to promulgate regulations
implementing changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard program. The
revised statutory requirements specify the volumes of cellulosic
biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable
fuel that must be used in transportation fuel each year, with the
volumes increasing over time. The revised statutory requirements also
include new definitions and criteria for both renewable fuels and the
feedstocks used to produce them, including new greenhouse gas emission
thresholds for renewable fuels. For the first time in a regulatory
program, an assessment of greenhouse gas emission performance is being
utilized to establish those fuels that qualify for the four different
renewable fuel standards. As mandated by the revised statutory
requirements, the greenhouse gas emission assessments must evaluate the
full lifecycle emission impacts of fuel production including both
direct and indirect emissions, including significant emissions from
land use changes. The proposed program is expected to reduce U.S.
dependence on foreign sources of petroleum by increasing domestic
sources of energy. Based on our lifecycle analysis, we believe that the
expanded use of renewable fuels would provide significant reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide that affect climate
change. We recognize the significance of using lifecycle greenhouse gas
emission assessments that include indirect impacts such as emission
impacts of indirect land use changes. Therefore, in this preamble we
have been transparent in breaking out the various sources of greenhouse
gas emissions included in the analysis and are seeking comments on our
methodology as well as various options for determining the lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) for each fuel. In addition to seeking
comments on the information in this document and its supporting
materials, the Agency is conducting peer reviews of critical aspects of
the lifecycle methodology. The increased use of renewable fuels would
also impact criteria pollutant emissions, with some pollutants such as
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
expected to increase and other pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO)
and benzene expected to decrease. The production of feedstocks used to
produce renewable fuels is also expected to impact water quality.
This action proposes regulations designed to ensure that refiners,
blenders, and importers of gasoline and diesel would use enough
renewable fuel each year so that the four volume requirements of the
Energy Independence and Security Act would be met with renewable fuels
that also meet the required lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions
performance standards. Our proposed rule describes the standards that
would apply to these parties and the renewable fuels that would qualify
for compliance. The proposed regulations make a number of changes to
the current Renewable Fuel Standard program while retaining many
elements of the compliance and trading system already in place.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 27, 2009, 60 days
after publication in the Federal Register. Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions are
best assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before June 25,
2009, 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register.
Hearing: We will hold a public hearing on June 9, 2009 at the
Dupont Hotel in Washington, DC. The hearing will start at 10 a.m. local
time and continue until everyone has had a chance to speak. If you want
to testify at the hearing, notify the contact person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by June 1, 2009.
Workshop: We will hold a workshop on June 10-11, 2009 at the Dupont
Hotel in Washington, DC to present details of our lifecycle GHG
analysis. During this workshop, we intend to go through the lifecycle
GHG analysis included in this proposal. The intent of this workshop is
to help ensure a full understanding of our lifecycle analysis, the
major issues identified and the options discussed. We expect that this
workshop will help ensure that we receive submission of the most
thoughtful and useful comments to this proposal and that the best
methodology and assumptions are used for calculating GHG emissions
impacts of fuels for the final rule. While this workshop will be held
during the comment period, it is not intended to replace either the
formal public hearing or the need to submit comments to the docket.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0161, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: asdinfo@epa.gov.
Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 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 West Building, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. 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-HQ-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
[[Page 24905]]
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. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section XI, Public
Participation, of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
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 Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Hearing: The public hearing will be held on June 9, 2009 at the
Dupont Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036. See
Section XI, Public Participation, for more information about the public
hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia MacAllister, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; Telephone number: 734-214-4131; Fax number: 734-214-4816; E-mail
address: macallister.julia@epa.gov, or Assessment and Standards
Division Hotline; telephone number (734) 214-4636; E-mail address
asdinfo@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
General Information
A. Does This Proposal Apply to Me?
Entities potentially affected by this proposal are those involved
with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels,
including gasoline and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such as ethanol
and biodiesel. Regulated categories include:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS \1\ SIC \2\
Category codes codes Examples of potentially regulated entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................... 324110 2911 Petroleum Refineries.
Industry..................................... 325193 2869 Ethyl alcohol manufacturing.
Industry..................................... 325199 2869 Other basic organic chemical manufacturing.
Industry..................................... 424690 5169 Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers.
Industry..................................... 424710 5171 Petroleum bulk stations and terminals.
Industry..................................... 424720 5172 Petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers.
Industry..................................... 454319 5989 Other fuel dealers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\2\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
proposed action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this proposed action. Other
types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To
determine whether your activities would be regulated by this proposed
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR part 80. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this proposed action to a particular entity, consult the person 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 confidential business information (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:
Explain your views as clearly as possible.
Describe any assumptions that you used.
Provide any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
Offer alternatives.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate
docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of
your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date,
and Federal Register citation related to your comments.
We are primarily seeking comment on the proposed 40 CFR Part 80
Subpart M regulatory language that is not directly included in 40 CFR
Part 80 Subpart K. For the proposed subpart M regulatory language that
is unchanged from subpart K, we are only soliciting comment as it
relates to its use for the RFS2 rule.
Outline of This Preamble
I. Introduction
A. Renewable Fuels and the Transportation Sector
[[Page 24906]]
B. Renewable Fuels and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
C. Building on the RFS1 Program
II. Overview of the Proposed Program
A. Summary of New Provisions of the RFS Program
1. Required Volumes of Renewable Fuel
2. Changes in How Renewable Fuel Is Defined
3. Analysis of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Thresholds
for Renewable Fuels
4. Coverage Expanded to Transportation Fuel, Including Diesel
and Nonroad Fuels
5. Effective Date for New Requirements
6. Treatment of Required Volumes Preceding the RFS2 Effective
Date
7. Waivers and Credits for Cellulosic Biofuel
8. Proposed Standards for 2010
B. Impacts of Increasing Volume Requirements in the RFS2 Program
1. Greenhouse Gases and Fossil Fuel Consumption
2. Economic Impacts and Energy Security
3. Emissions, Air Quality, and Health Impacts
4. Water
5. Agricultural Commodity Prices
III. What Are the Major Elements of the Program Required Under EISA?
A. Changes to Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs)
B. New Eligibility Requirements for Renewable Fuels
1. Changes in Renewable Fuel Definitions
a. Renewable Fuel and Renewable Biomass
b. Advanced Biofuel
c. Cellulosic Biofuel
d. Biomass-Based Diesel
e. Additional Renewable Fuel
2. Lifecycle GHG Thresholds
3. Renewable Fuel Exempt From 20 Percent GHG Threshold
a. Definition of Commence Construction
b. Definition and Boundaries of a Facility
c. Options Proposed in Today's Rulemaking
i. Basic Approach: Grandfathering Limited to Baseline Volumes
(1) Increases in volume of renewable fuel produced at
grandfathered facilities due to expansion
(2) Replacements of equipment
(3) Registration, Recordkeeping and Reporting
(4) Sub-option of treatment of future modifications
ii. Alternative Options for Which We Seek Comment
(1) Facilities that meet the definition of ``reconstruction''
are considered new
(2) Expiration date of 15 years for exempted facilities
(3) Expiration date of 15 years for grandfathered facilities and
limitation on volume
(4) ``Significant production units'' are defined as facilities
(5) Indefinite grandfathering and no limitations placed on
volume
4. Renewable Biomass with Land Restrictions
a. Definitions of Terms
i. Planted Crops and Crop Residue
ii. Planted Trees and Tree Residue
iii. Slash and Pre-Commercial Thinnings
iv. Biomass Obtained From Certain Areas at Risk From Wildfire
b. Issues Related to Implementation and Enforceability
i. Ensuring That RINs Are Generated Only for Fuels Made From
Renewable Biomass
ii. Ensuring That RINs Are Generated for All Qualifying
Renewable Fuel
c. Review of Existing Programs
i. USDA Programs
ii. Third-Party Programs
d. Approaches for Domestic Renewable Fuel
e. Approaches for Foreign Renewable Fuel
C. Expanded Registration Process for Producers and Importers
1. Domestic Renewable Fuel Producers
2. Foreign Renewable Fuel Producers
3. Renewable Fuel Importers
4. Process and Timing
D. Generation of RINs
1. Equivalence Values
2. Fuel Pathways and Assignment of D Codes
a. Domestic Producers
b. Foreign Producers
c. Importers
3. Facilities With Multiple Applicable Pathways
4. Facilities That Co-Process Renewable Biomass and Fossil Fuels
5 Treatment of Fuels Without an Applicable D Code
6. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
E. Applicable Standards
1. Calculation of Standards
a. How Would the Standards Be Calculated?
b. Proposed Standards for 2010
c. Projected Standards for Other Years
d. Alternative Effective Date
2. Treatment of Biomass-Based Diesel in 2009 and 2010
a. Proposed Shift in Biomass-Based Diesel Requirement from 2009
to 2010
i. First Option for Treatment of 2009 Biodiesel and Renewable
Diesel RINs
ii. Second Option for Treatment of 2009 Biodiesel and Renewable
Diesel RINs
b. Proposed Treatment of Deficit Carryovers and Valid RIN Life
for Adjusted 2010 Biomass-Based Diesel Requirement
c. Alternative Approach to Treatment of Biomass-Based Diesel in
2009 and 2010
F. Fuels That Are Subject to the Standards
1. Gasoline
2. Diesel
3. Other Transportation Fuels
G. Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs)
1. Determination of RVOs Corresponding to the Four Standards
2. RINs Eligible to Meet Each RVO
3. Treatment of RFS1 RINs under RFS2
a. Use of 2009 RINs in 2010
b. Deficit Carryovers from the RFS1 Program to RFS2
4. Alternative Approach to Designation of Obligated Parties
H. Separation of RINs
1. Nonroad
2. Heating Oil and Jet Fuel
3. Exporters
4. Alternative Approaches to RIN Transfers
5. Neat Renewable Fuel and Renewable Fuel Blends Designated as
Transportation Fuel, Home Heating Oil, or Jet Fuel
I. Treatment of Cellulosic Biofuel
1. Cellulosic Biofuel Standard
2. EPA Cellulosic Allowances for Cellulosic Biofuel
3. Potential Adverse Impacts of Allowances
J. Changes to Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
1. Recordkeeping
2. Reporting
3. Additional Requirements for Producers of Renewable Natural
Gas, Electricity, and Propane
K. Production Outlook Reports
L. What Acts Are Prohibited and Who Is Liable for Violations?
IV. What Other Program Changes Have We Considered?
A. Attest Engagements
B. Small Refinery and Small Refiner Flexibilities
1. Small Refinery Temporary Exemption
2. Small Refiner Flexibilities
a. Extension of Existing RFS1 Temporary Exemption
b. Program Review
c. Extensions of the Temporary Exemption Based on
Disproportionate Economic Hardship
d. Phase-in
e. RIN-Related Flexibilities
C. Other Flexibilities
1. Upward Delegation of RIN-Separating Responsibilities
2. Small Producer Exemption
D. 20% Rollover Cap
E. Concept for EPA Moderated Transaction System
2. How EMTS Would Work
3. Implementation of EMTS
F. Retail Dispenser Labelling for Gasoline with Greater than 10
Percent Ethanol
V. Assessment of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use
A. Summary of Projected Volumes
1. Reference Case
2. Control Case for Analyses
a. Cellulosic Biofuel
b. Biomass-Based Diesel
c. Other Advanced Biofuel
d. Other Renewable Fuel
B. Renewable Fuel Production
1. Corn/Starch Ethanol
a. Historic/Current Production
b. Forecasted Production Under RFS2
2. Cellulosic Ethanol
a. Current Production/Plans
b. Federal/State Production Incentives
c. Feedstock Availability
i Urban Waste
ii. Agricultural and Forestry Residues
iii Dedicated Energy Crops
iv. Summary of Cellulosic Feedstocks for 2022
v. Cellulosic Plant Siting
3. Imported Ethanol
a. Historic World Ethanol Production and Consumption
b. Historic/Current Domestic Imports
c. Projected Domestic Imports
4. Biodiesel & Renewable Diesel
a. Historic and Projected Production
i. Biodiesel
[[Page 24907]]
ii. Renewable Diesel
b. Feedstock Availability
C. Renewable Fuel Distribution
1. Overview of Ethanol Distribution
2. Overview of Biodiesel Distribution
3. Overview of Renewable Diesel Distribution
4. Changes in Freight Tonnage Movements
5. Necessary Rail System Accommodations
6. Necessary Marine System Accommodations
7. Necessary Accommodations to the Road Transportation System
8. Necessary Terminal Accommodations
9. Need for Additional E85 Retail Facilities
D. Ethanol Consumption
1. Historic/Current Ethanol Consumption
2. Increased Ethanol Use under RFS2
a. Projected Gasoline Energy Demand
b. Projected Growth in Flexible Fuel Vehicles
c. Projected Growth in E85 Access
d. Required Increase in E85 Refueling Rates
e. Market Pricing of E85 Versus Gasoline
3. Other Mechanisms for Getting Beyond the E10 Blend Wall
a. Mandate for FFV Production
b. Waiver of Mid-Level Ethanol Blends (E15/E20)
c. Partial Waiver for Mid-Level Blends
d. Non-Ethanol Cellulosic Biofuel Production
e. Measurement Tolerance for E10
f. Redefining ``Substantially Similar'' to Allow Mid-Level
Ethanol Blends
VI. Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A. Introduction
1. Definition of Lifecycle GHG Emissions
2. History and Evolution of GHG Lifecycle Analysis
B. Methodology
1. Scenario Description
2. Scope of the Analysis
a. Legal Interpretation of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
b. System Boundaries
3. Modeling Framework
4. Treatment of Uncertainty
5. Components of the Lifecycle GHG Emissions Analysis
a. Feedstock Production
i. Domestic Agricultural Sector Impacts
ii. International Agricultural Sector GHG Impacts
b. Land Use Change
i. Amount of Land Converted
ii. Where Land Is Converted
iii. What Type of Land Is Converted
iv. What Are the GHG Emissions Associated with Different Types
of Land Conversion
v. Assessing GHG Emissions Impacts Over Time and Potential
Application of a GHG Discount Rate
c. Feedstock Transport
d. Processing
e. Fuel Transport
f. Tailpipe Combustion
6. Petroleum Baseline
7. Energy Sector Indirect Impacts
C. Fuel Specific GHG Emissions Estimates
1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Relative to the 2005
Petroleum Baseline
a. Corn Ethanol
b. Imported Ethanol
c. Cellulosic Ethanol
d. Biodiesel
2. Treatment of GHG Emissions Over Time
D. Thresholds
E. Assignment of Pathways to Renewable Fuel Categories
1. Statutory Requirements
2. Assignments for Pathways Subjected to Lifecycle Analyses
3. Assignments for Additional Pathways
a. Ethanol From Starch
b. Renewable Fuels from Cellulosic Biomass
c. Biodiesel
d. Renewable Diesel Through Hydrotreating
4. Summary
F. Total GHG Emission Reductions
G. Effects of GHG Emission Reductions and Changes in Global
Temperature and Sea Level
1. Introduction
2. Estimated Projected Reductions in Global Mean Surface
Temperatures
VII. How Would the Proposal Impact Criteria and Toxic Pollutant
Emissions and Their Associated Effects?
A. Overview of Impacts
B. Fuel Production & Distribution Impacts of the Proposed
Program
C. Vehicle and Equipment Emission Impacts of Fuel Program
D. Air Quality Impacts
1. Current Levels of PM2.5, Ozone and Air Toxics
2. Impacts of Proposed Standards on Future Ambient
Concentrations of PM2.5, Ozone and Air Toxics
E. Health Effects of Criteria and Air Toxic Pollutants
1. Particulate Matter
a. Background
b. Health Effects of PM
2. Ozone
a. Background
b. Health Effects of Ozone
3. Carbon Monoxide
4. Air Toxics
a. Acetaldehyde
b. Acrolein
c. Benzene
d. 1,3-Butadiene;
e. Ethanol
f. Formaldehyde
g. Naphthalene
h. Peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN)
i. Other Air Toxics
F. Environmental Effects of Criteria and Air Toxic Pollutants
1. Visibility
2. Atmospheric Deposition
3. Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone
4. Welfare Effects of Air Toxics
VIII. Impacts on Cost of Renewable Fuels, Gasoline, and Diesel
A. Renewable Fuel Production Costs
1. Ethanol Production Costs
a. Corn Ethanol
b. Cellulosic Ethanol
i. Feedstock Costs
ii. Production Costs
c. Imported Sugarcane Ethanol
2. Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel Production Costs
a. Biodiesel
b. Renewable Diesel
3. BTL Diesel Production Costs
B. Distribution Costs
1. Ethanol Distribution Costs
a. Capital Costs to Upgrade the Distribution System for
Increased Ethanol Volume
b. Ethanol Freight Costs
2. Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel Distribution Costs
a. Capital Costs to Upgrade the Distribution System for
Increased FAME Biodiesel Volume
b. Biodiesel Freight Costs
c. Renewable Diesel Distribution System Capital and Freight
Costs
C. Reduced Refining Industry Costs
D. Total Estimated Cost Impacts
1. Refinery Modeling Methodology
2. Overall Impact on Fuel Cost
a. Costs Without Federal Tax Subsidies
b. Gasoline and Diesel Costs Reflecting the Tax Subsidies
IX. Economic Impacts and Benefits of the Proposal
A. Agricultural Impacts
1. Commodity Price Changes
2. Impacts on U.S. Farm Income
3. Commodity Use Changes
4. U.S. Land Use Changes
5. Impact on U.S. Food Prices
6. International Impacts
B. Energy Security Impacts
1. Implications of Reduced Petroleum Use on U.S. Imports
2. Energy Security Implications
a. Effect of Oil Use on Long-Run Oil Price, U.S. Import Costs,
and Economic Output
b. Short-Run Disruption Premium from Expected Costs of Sudden
Supply Disruptions
c. Costs of Existing U.S. Energy Security Policies
d. Anticipated Future Effort
e. Total Energy Security Benefits
C. Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions
1. Introduction
2. Marginal GHG Benefits Estimates
3. Discussion of Marginal GHG Benefits Estimates
4. Total Monetized GHG Benefits Estimates
D. Co-pollutant Health and Environmental Impacts
1. Human Health and Environmental Impacts
2. Monetized Impacts
3. Other Unquantified Health and Environmental Impacts
E. Economy-Wide Impacts
X. Impacts on Water
A. Background
1. Ecological Impacts
2. Gulf of Mexico
B. Upper Mississippi River Basin Analysis
1. SWAT Model
2. Baseline Model Scenario
3. Alternative Scenarios
C. Additional Water Issues
1. Chesapeake Bay Watershed
2. Ethanol Production
a. Distillers Grain with Solubles
b. Ethanol Leaks and Spills
3. Biodiesel Plants
4. Water Quantity
5. Drinking Water
D. Request for Comment on Options for Reducing Water Quality
Impacts
XI. Public Participation
[[Page 24908]]
A. How Do I Submit Comments?
B. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?
D. Comment Period
E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Overview
2. Background
3. Summary of Potentially Affected Small Entities
4. Potential Reporting, Record Keeping, and Compliance
5. Related Federal Rules
6. Summary of SBREFA Panel Process and Panel Outreach
a. Significant Panel Findings
b. Panel Process
c. Panel Recommendations
i. Delay in Standards
ii. Phase-in
iii. RIN-Related Flexibilities
iv. Program Review
v. Extensions of the Temporary Exemption Based on a Study of
Small Refinery Impacts
vi. Extensions of the Temporary Exemption Based on
Disproportionate Economic Hardship
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
XIII. Statutory Authority
I. Introduction
The current Renewable Fuel Standard program (RFS1) was originally
adopted by EPA to implement the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPAct), which added section 211(o) to the Clean Air Act (CAA).
With the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA), Congress recently made several important revisions to these
renewable fuel requirements. This Notice proposes to revise the RFS
program regulations to implement these EISA provisions. The proposed
changes would apply starting January 1, 2010. For the remainder of
2009, the current RFS1 regulations would apply. However, in
anticipation of the biomass-based diesel standard proposed for 2010,
obligated parties may find it in their best interest to plan
accordingly in 2009.
A. Renewable Fuels and the Transportation Sector
For the past several years, U.S. renewable fuel use has been
rapidly increasing for a number of reasons. In the early 1990's,
certain oxygenated gasoline fuel programs required by the CAA
amendments of 1990 established new market opportunities for renewable
fuels, primarily ethanol. At the same time, growing concern over U.S.
dependence on foreign sources of crude placed increasing focus on
renewable fuels as a replacement for petroleum-based fuels. More
recently, several state bans on the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE) in gasoline resulted in a large, sudden increase in demand for
ethanol. 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, which have resulted in a large economic
incentive for the increased development and use of renewable fuels.
In 2005, Congress introduced a new approach to supporting renewable
fuels. EPAct established a major new federal renewable fuel volume
mandate. EPAct required a ramp up to 7.5 billion gallons of renewable
fuel as motor vehicle fuel by 2012 and set annual volume targets for
each year leading up to 2012. For 2013 and beyond, EPA was directed to
establish the annual required renewable fuel volumes, but at a
percentage level no less than that required for 2012. While the market
forces described above ultimately caused renewable fuel use to far
exceed the EPAct mandates, this program provided certainty that at
least a minimum amount of renewable fuel would be used in the U.S.
transportation market, which in turn provided assurance for investment
in production capacity.
The subsequent passage of EISA made significant changes to both the
structure and the magnitude of the renewable fuel program. The
renewable fuel program established by EISA, hereafter referred to as
RFS2, mandates the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022.
This is nearly a five-fold increase over the highest volume specified
by EPAct and constitutes a 10-year extension of the scheduled
production ramp-up period provided for in that legislation. It is clear
that the volumes required by EISA will push the market to new levels--
far beyond what current market conditions would achieve alone. In
addition, EISA specifies four separate categories of renewable fuels,
each with a separate volume mandate. The categories are renewable fuel,
advanced biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and cellulosic biofuel. There
is a notable increase in the mandate for cellulosic biofuels in
particular. EISA increased the cellulosic biofuel mandate from 250
million in EPAct to 1.0 billion gallons by 2013, with additional yearly
increases to 16 billion gallons by 2022. These requirements will
provide a strong foundation for investment in cellulosic production and
position cellulosic fuel to become a major portion of the renewable
fuel pool over the next decade.
The implications of the volume expansion of the program are not
trivial. Development of infrastructure capable of delivering, storing
and blending these volumes in new markets and expanding existing market
capabilities will be needed. For example, the market's absorption of
increased volumes of ethanol may ultimately require new ``outlets''
beyond E10 blends (i.e., gasoline containing 10% ethanol by volume),
such as an expansion of the number of flexible-fuel E85 vehicles and
the number of retail outlets selling E85.
B. Renewable Fuels and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Another significant aspect of the RFS2 program is the focus on the
greenhouse gas impact of renewable fuels, from a lifecycle perspective.
The lifecycle GHG emissions means the aggregate quantity of GHGs
related to the full fuel cycle, including all stages of fuel and
feedstock production and distribution, from feedstock generation and
extraction through distribution and delivery and use of the finished
fuel. EISA established specific greenhouse gas emission thresholds for
each of four types of renewable fuels, requiring a percentage
improvement compared to a baseline of the gasoline and diesel used in
2005. EPA must conduct a lifecycle analysis to determine whether or not
renewable fuels produced under varying conditions will meet the
greenhouse gas (GHG) thresholds for the different fuel types for which
EISA establishes mandates. While these thresholds do not constitute a
control on greenhouse gases for transportation fuels (such as a low
carbon fuel standard),\1\ they do require that the volume mandates be
met through the use of renewable fuels that meet certain lifecycle GHG
reduction thresholds when compared to
[[Page 24909]]
the baseline lifecycle emissions of petroleum fuel they replace.
Compliance with the thresholds requires a comprehensive evaluation of
renewable fuels, as well as of gasoline and diesel, on the basis of
their lifecycle emissions. As mandated by EISA, the greenhouse gas
emission assessments must evaluate the full lifecycle emission impacts
of fuel production including both direct and indirect emissions,
including significant emissions from land use changes. We recognize the
significance of using lifecycle greenhouse gas emission assessments
that include indirect impacts such as emission impacts of indirect land
use changes. Therefore, in this preamble, we have been transparent in
breaking out the various sources of greenhouse gas emissions included
in the analysis. As described in detail in Section VI, EPA has analyzed
the lifecycle GHG impacts of the range of biofuels currently expected
to contribute significantly to meeting the volume mandates of EISA
through 2022. In these analyses we have used the best science
available. Our analysis relies on peer reviewed models and the best
estimate of important trends in agricultural practices and fuel
production technologies as these may impact our prediction of
individual biofuel GHG performance through 2022. We have identified and
highlighted assumptions and model inputs that particularly influence
our assessment and seek comment on these assumptions, the models we
have used and our overall methodology so as to assure the most robust
assessment of lifecycle GHG performance for the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Section IV.D of EPA's advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking, Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air
Act, for a discussion of EPA's possible authority under section
211(c) of the CAA to establish GHG standards for renewable and
alternative fuels. 73 FR 44354, July 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because lifecycle analysis is a new part of the RFS program, in
addition to the formal comment period on the proposed rule, EPA is
making multiple efforts to solicit public and expert feedback on our
proposed approach. EPA plans to hold a public workshop focused
specifically on lifecycle analysis during the comment period to assure
full understanding of the analyses conducted, the issues addressed and
the options that are discussed. We expect that this workshop will help
ensure that we receive submission of the most thoughtful and useful
comments to this proposal and that the best methodology and assumptions
are used for calculating GHG emissions impacts of fuels for the final
rule. Additionally, between this proposal and the final rule, we will
conduct peer-reviews of key components of our analysis. As explained in
more detail in the Section VI, EPA is specifically seeking peer review
of: Our use of satellite data to project future the type of land use
changes; the land conversion GHG emissions factors estimates we have
used for different types of land use; our estimates of GHG emissions
from foreign crop production; methods to account for the variable
timing of GHG emissions; and how the several models we have relied upon
are used together to provide overall lifecycle GHG estimates.
In addition to the GHG thresholds, EISA included several provisions
for the RFS2 program designed to address the long-term environmental
sustainability of expanded biofuels production. The new law limits the
crops and crop residues used to produce renewable fuel to those grown
on land cleared or cultivated at any time prior to enactment of EISA,
that is either actively managed or fallow, and non-forested. EISA also
generally requires that forest-related slash and tree thinnings used
for renewable fuel production pursuant to the Act be harvested from
non-federal forest lands.
To address potential air quality concerns, EPA is required by
section 209 of EISA to determine whether the RFS2 volumes will
adversely impact air quality as a result of changes in vehicle and
engine emissions and then to issue fuel regulations that mitigate--to
the extent achievable--these impacts. The Agency is also required by
section 204 of EISA to conduct a broad study of environmental and
resource conservation impacts of EISA, including impacts on water
quality and availability, soil conservation, and biodiversity. Congress
set specific deadlines for both of these provisions, which are separate
from this rulemaking and will be carried out as part of a future
effort. However, this NPRM does include EPA's initial assessment of the
air and water quality impacts of the EISA volumes.
While the above described changes are significant, it is important
to note that Congress left other structural elements of the RFS program
basically intact. The various modifications are discussed throughout
this preamble.
C. Building on the RFS1 Program
In designing this proposed RFS2 program, the Agency is utilizing
and building on the same programmatic structure created to implement
the current renewable fuel program (hereafter referred to as RFS1). For
example, we propose to continue to use the Renewable Identification
Number (RIN) system currently in place to track compliance with the
RFS1 program, with modifications to implement the EISA provisions. This
approach is in keeping with the Agency's overall intent for RFS1--to
design a flexible and enforceable system that could continue to operate
effectively regardless of the level of renewable fuel use or market
conditions in the transportation fuel sector.
A key component of the Agency's work to build a successful RFS1
program was early and sustained engagement with our stakeholders. In
developing this proposed rulemaking, we have again worked closely with
a wide variety of stakeholders. Because EISA created new obligated
parties and established new, complex provisions such as the lifecycle
GHG thresholds and previous cropland requirements, EPA has extended its
stakeholder engagement to include dozens of meetings with stakeholders
from a broad spectrum of perspectives. For example, the Agency has had
multiple meetings and discussions with renewable fuel producers,
technology companies, petroleum refiners and importers, agricultural
associations, lifecycle experts, environmental groups, vehicle
manufacturers, states, gasoline and petroleum marketers, pipeline
owners and fuel terminal operators.
II. Overview of the Proposed Program
This section provides an overview of the RFS2 program requirements
that EPA proposes to implement as a result of EISA. The RFS2 program
would replace the RFS1 program promulgated on May 1, 2007 (72 FR
23900).\2\ We are also proposing a number of changes to make the
program more flexible based on what we learned from the operation of
the RFS1 program since it began on September 1, 2007. Details of the
proposed requirements can be found in Sections III and IV. We request
comment on our proposed regulatory requirements and the alternatives
that we have considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To meet the requirements of EPAct, EPA had previously
adopted a limited program that applied only to calendar year 2006.
The RFS1 program refers to the general program adopted in the May
2007 rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section also provides a summary of EPA's impacts assessment of
the use of higher renewable fuel volumes. Impacts that we assessed
include: emissions of pollutants such as greenhouse gases (GHG), oxides
of nitrogen (NOX), hydrocarbons, particulate matter (PM),
and toxics; reductions in petroleum use and related impacts on national
energy security; impacts on the agriculture sector; impacts on costs of
transportation fuels; economic costs and benefits; and impacts on
water. Details of these
[[Page 24910]]
analyses can be found in Sections V through X and in the Draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis (DRIA).
A. Summary of New Provisions of the RFS Program
Today's notice proposes new regulatory requirements for the RFS
program that would be implemented through a new Subpart M to 40 CFR
Part 80. EPA is generally proposing to maintain many elements of the
RFS1 program such as regulations governing the generation, transfer,
and use of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs). At the same time,
we seek comment on a number of RFS1 provisions that may require
adjustment under an expanded RFS2 program, including whether or not to
require that all qualifying renewable fuels have RINs generated for it
(discussed in Section III.B.4.b.ii), and whether a rollover cap on RINs
other than 20 percent might be appropriate (discussed in Section IV.D).
Furthermore, EPA is proposing several new provisions and seeking
comment on alternatives on aspects of the program for which EISA grants
EPA discretion and flexibility, such as the grandfathering of existing
renewable fuel production facilities (discussed in Section III.B.3),
the potential inclusion of electricity for credit (discussed in Section
III.B.1.a), and how renewable fuels are categorized based on the
results of lifecycle analyses (discussed in Section VI.B). We believe
these and other aspects of the program are important because they will
affect available volumes of qualifying renewable fuel, regulated
parties' ability to comply with the program and, ultimately, the
program's environmental and societal impacts. A full description of all
the changes we are proposing to the RFS program to implement the
requirements in EISA is provided in Section III, while Section IV
includes extensive discussion of other changes to the RFS program under
consideration.
1. Required Volumes of Renewable Fuel
The primary purpose of the RFS program is to require a minimum
volume of renewable fuel to be used each year in the transportation
sector. Under RFS1, the required volume was 4.0 billion gallons in
2006, ramping up to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. Starting in 2013,
EPAct required that the total volume of renewable fuel represent at
minimum the same volume fraction of the gasoline fuel pool as it did in
2012, and that the total volume of renewable fuel contains at least 250
million gallons of fuel derived from cellulosic biomass.
EISA makes three primary changes to the volume requirements of the
RFS program. First, it substantially increases the required volumes and
extends the timeframe over which the volumes ramp up through at least
2022. Second, it divides the total renewable fuel requirement into four
separate categories, each with its own volume requirement. Third, it
requires that each of these mandated volumes of renewable fuels achieve
certain minimum thresholds of GHG emission performance. The volume
requirements in EISA are shown in Table II.A.1-1.
Table II.A.1-1--Renewable Fuel Volume Requirements for RFS2
[Billion gallons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulosic Biomass- based Advanced Total
biofuel diesel biofuel renewable fuel
requirement requirement requirement requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009............................................ n/a 0.5 0.6 11.1
2010............................................ 0.1 0.65 0.95 12.95
2011............................................ 0.25 0.80 1.35 13.95
2012............................................ 0.5 1.0 2.0 15.2
2013............................................ 1.0 \a\ 2.75 16.55
2014............................................ 1.75 \a\ 3.75 18.15
2015............................................ 3.0 \a\ 5.5 20.5
2016............................................ 4.25 \a\ 7.25 22.25
2017............................................ 5.5 \a\ 9.0 24.0
2018............................................ 7.0 \a\ 11.0 26.0
2019............................................ 8.5 \a\ 13.0 28.0
2020............................................ 10.5 \a\ 15.0 30.0
2021............................................ 13.5 \a\ 18.0 33.0
2022............................................ 16.0 \a\ 21.0 36.0
2023+........................................... \b\ \b\ \b\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ To be determined by EPA through a future rulemaking, but no less than 1.0 billion gallons.
\b\ To be determined by EPA through a future rulemaking.
As shown in the table, the volume requirements are not exclusive, and
generally result in nested requirements. Any renewable fuel that meets
the requirement for cellulosic biofuel or biomass-based diesel is also
valid for meeting the advanced biofuel requirement. Likewise, any
renewable fuel that meets the requirement for advanced biofuel is also
valid for meeting the total renewable fuel requirement. See Section
VI.E for further discussion of which specific types of fuel meet the
requirements for one of the four categories shown in Table II.A.1-1.
We are co-proposing and taking comment on two options for how to
treat the volumes of different renewable fuels for purposes of
complying with the volume mandates of RFS2: As either ethanol-
equivalent gallons, based on energy content, as finalized in the RFS1
program, or as actual volume in gallons. Consideration of the actual
volume option would recognize that EISA now guarantees a market for
specific categories of renewable fuel and assigns a GHG requirement to
each category in the form of minimum GHG thresholds that each must
meet. The approach taken in RFS1 would continue to assign value, in
terms of gallons, to all renewable fuels based on their energy value in
comparison with ethanol. Further discussion of the rationale and
implications of these two approaches can be found in Section III.D.1.
The statutorily-prescribed phase-in period ends in 2012 for
biomass-based diesel and in 2022 for cellulosic biofuel, advanced
biofuel, and total renewable fuel. Beyond these years, EISA requires
EPA to determine the applicable
[[Page 24911]]
volumes based on a review of the implementation of the program up to
that time, and an analysis of a wide variety of factors such as the
impact of the production of renewable fuels on the environment, energy
security, infrastructure, costs, and other factors. For these future
standards, EPA must promulgate rules establishing the applicable
volumes no later than 14 months before the first year for which such
applicable volumes would apply. For biomass-based diesel, this would
mean that final rules would need to be issued by October 31, 2011 for
application starting on January 1, 2013. In today's proposed
rulemaking, we are not suggesting any specific volume requirements for
biomass-based diesel for 2013 and beyond that would be appropriate
under the statutory criteria that we must consider. Likewise, we are
not suggesting any specific volume requirements for the other three
renewable fuel categories for 2023 and beyond. However, the statute
requires that the biomass-based diesel volume in 2013 and beyond must
be no less than 1.0 billion gallons, and that advanced biofuels in 2023
and beyond must represent at a minimum the same percentage of total
renewable fuel as it does in 2022.
2. Changes in How Renewable Fuel Is Defined
Under the existing Renewable Fuel Standard, (RFS1) renewable fuel
is defined generally as ``any motor vehicle fuel that is used to
replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a fuel mixture
used to fuel a motor vehicle''. The RFS1 definition includes motor
vehicle fuels produced from biomass material such as grain, starch,
fats, greases, oils and biogas.
The definitions of renewable fuels under today's proposed rule
(RFS2) are based on the new statutory definitions in EISA. Like the
existing rules, the definitions in RFS2 include a general definition of
renewable fuel, but unlike RFS1, we are including a separate definition
of ``Renewable Biomass'' which identifies the feedstocks from which
renewable fuels may be made.
Another difference in the definitions of renewable fuel is that
RFS2 contains three subcategories of renewable fuels: (1) Advanced
Biofuel, (2) Cellulosic Biofuel and (3) Biomass-Based Diesel.
``Advanced Biofuel'' is a renewable fuel other than ethanol derived
from corn starch and which must achieve a lifecycle GHG emission
displacement of 50%, compared to the gasoline or diesel fuel it
displaces.
Cellulosic biofuel is any renewable fuel, not necessarily ethanol,
derived from any cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin each of which must
originate from renewable biomass. It must achieve a lifecycle GHG
emission displacement of 60%, compared to the gasoline or diesel fuel
it displaces for it to qualify as cellulosic biofuel.
The RFS1 definition provided that ethanol made at any facility--
regardless of whether cellulosic feedstock is used or not--may be
defined as cellulosic if at such facility ``animal wastes or other
waste materials are digested or otherwise used to displace 90% or more
of the fossil fuel normally used in the production of ethanol.'' This
provision was not included in EISA, and therefore does not appear in
the definitions pertaining to cellulosic biofuel in today's proposed
rule.
The statutory definition of ``renewable biomass'' in EISA does not
include a reference to municipal solid waste (MSW) as did the
definition of ``cellulosic biomass ethanol'' in EPAct, but instead
includes ``separated yard waste and food waste. EPA's proposed
definition of renewable biomass in today's proposed rule includes the
language present in EISA. As discussed in Section III.B.1.a, we invite
comment on whether this definition should be interpreted as including
or excluding MSW containing yard and/or food waste from the definition
of renewable biomass. EPA intends to resolve this matter in the final
rule, and EPA solicits comment on the approach that it should take.
Under today's proposed rule ``Biomass-based diesel'' includes
biodiesel (mono-alkyl esters), non-ester renewable diesel and any other
diesel fuel made from renewable biomass, as long as they are not ``co-
processed'' with petroleum. EISA requires that such fuel achieve a
lifecycle GHG emission displacement of 50%, compared to the gasoline or
diesel fuel it displaces. As discussed in Section III.B.1.d, we are
proposing that co-processing is considered to occur only if both
petroleum and biomass feedstock are processed in the same unit
simultaneously. Thus, if serial batch processing in which 100%
vegetable oil is processed one day/week/month and 100% petroleum the
next day/week/month occurs, the fuel derived from renewable biomass
would be assigned RINs with a D code identifying it as biomass-based
diesel. The resulting products could be blended together, but only the
volume produced from renewable biomass would count as biomass-based
diesel.
For other renewable fuels, EISA makes a distinction between fuel
from new and existing facilities. Only renewable fuel from new
facilities is required to achieve a lifecycle GHG emission displacement
of 20%. As discussed in Section III.B.3, this requirement applies only
to renewable fuel that is produced from certain facilities which
commenced construction after December 19, 2007.
EISA defines ``additional renewable fuel'' as fuel produced from
renewable biomass that is used to replace or reduce fossil fuels used
in home heating oil or jet fuel. The Act provides that EPA may allow
for the generation of RFS credits for such fuel. This represents a
change from RFS1, where renewable fuel qualifying for credits was
limited to fuel used in motor vehicles. We propose to modify the
regulatory requirements to allow RINs assigned to renewable fuel
blended into heating oil or jet fuel to be valid for compliance
purposes. The fuel would still have to meet all the other criteria to
qualify as a renewable fuel, including being made from renewable
biomass. For example, RINs generated for advanced biofuel or biomass-
based diesel that could be used in automobiles would still be valid,
and would not need to be retired, if the fuel producer instead sells
the fuels for use in heating oil or jet fuel.
``Renewable biomass'' is defined in EISA to include a number of
feedstock types, such as planted crops and crop residue, planted trees
and tree residue, animal waste, algae, and yard and food waste.
However, the EISA definition limits many of these feedstocks according
to the management practices for the land from which they are derived.
For example, planted crops and crop residue must be harvested from
agricultural land cleared or cultivated at any time prior to December
19, 2007, that is actively managed or fallow, and non-forested.
Therefore, planted crops and crop residue derived from land that does
not meet this definition cannot be used to produce renewable fuel for
credit under RFS2.
Under today's proposed rule, we describe several options for
ensuring that feedstocks used to produce renewable fuel for which
credits are generated under RFS2 meet the definition of renewable
biomass. Our proposed approach places overall responsibility for
verifying a feedstock's source on the party who generates a RIN for the
renewable fuel produced from the feedstock. We also present options for
how a party could or should verify his or her feedstock, and we seek
comment on these options. A full discussion of the definition and
implementation options for ``renewable biomass'' is presented in
Section III.B.4.
[[Page 24912]]
3. Analysis of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Thresholds for
Renewable Fuels
As shown in Table II.A.3-1, EISA requires that a renewable fuel
must meet minimum thresholds for their reduction in lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions: A 20% reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions
for any renewable fuel produced at new facilities; a 50% reduction in
order to be classified as biomass-based diesel or advanced biofuel; and
a 60% reduction in order to be classified as cellulosic biofuel. The
lifecycle GHG emissions means the aggregate quantity of GHG emissions
related to the full fuel cycle, including all stages of fuel and
feedstock production and distribution, from feedstock generation or
extraction through distribution and delivery and use of the finished
fuel. As mandated by EISA, it includes direct emissions and significant
indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes.
EPA believes that compliance with the EISA mandate--determining the
aggregate GHG emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, including
both direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as land
use changes--make it necessary to assess those direct and indirect
impacts that occur not just within the United States but also those
that occur in other countries. This applies to determining the
lifecycle emissions for petroleum-based fuels to determine the
baseline, as well as the lifecycle emissions for biofuels. For
biofuels, this includes evaluating significant emissions from indirect
land use changes that occur in other countries as a result of the
increased domestic production or importation of biofuels into the U.S.
As detailed in Section VI, we have included the GHG emission impacts of
international land use changes including the indirect land use changes
that result from domestic production of biofuel feedstocks. We
recognize the significance of including international land use emission
impacts and, in our analysis presentation in Section VI, have been
transparent in breaking out the various sources of GHG emissions so
that the reader can readily see the impact of including international
land use impacts.
Table II.A.3-1--Lifecycle GHG Thresholds Specified in EISA
[Percent reduction from baseline]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Renewable fuel \a\............................................. 20
Advanced biofuel............................................... 50
Biomass-based diesel........................................... 50
Cellulosic biofuel............................................. 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The 20% criterion generally applies to renewable fuel from new
facilities that commenced construction after December 19, 2007.
The lifecycle GHG emissions of the renewable fuel are compared to
the lifecycle GHG emissions for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being
replaced by the renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation
fuel in 2005. EISA provides some limited flexibility for EPA to adjust
these GHG percentage thresholds downward by up to 10 percent under
certain circumstances. As discussed in Section VI.D, we are proposing
that the GHG threshold for advanced biofuels be adjusted to 44% or
potentially as low as 40% depending on the results from the analyses
that will be conducted for the final rule. This adjustment would allow
ethanol produced from sugarcane to count as advanced biofuel and would
help ensure that the volume mandate for advanced biofuel could be met.
The regulatory purpose of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions
analysis is to determine whether renewable fuels meet the GHG
thresholds for the different categories of renewable fuel. As described
in detail in Section VI, EPA has analyzed the lifecycle GHG impacts of
the range of biofuels currently expected to contribute significantly to
meeting the volume mandates of EISA through 2022. In these analyses we
have used the best science available. Our analysis relies on peer
reviewed models and the best estimate of important trends in
agricultural practices and fuel production technologies as these may
impact our prediction of individual biofuel GHG performance through
2022. We have identified and highlighted assumptions and model inputs
that particularly influence our assessment and seek comment on these
assumptions, the models we have used and our overall methodology so as
to assure the most robust assessment of lifecycle GHG performance for
the final rule.
In addition to the many technical issues addressed in this
proposal, Section VI discusses the emissions decreases and increases
associated with the different parts of the lifecycle emissions of
various biofuels and the timeframes in which these emissions changes
occur. The need to determine a single lifecycle value that best
represents this combination of emissions increases and decreases
occurring over time led EPA to consider various alternative ways to
analyze the timeframe of emissions changes related to biofuel
production and use as well as options for adjusting or discounting
these emissions to determine their net present value. Section VI
highlights two options. One option assumes a 30 year time period for
assessing future GHG emissions impacts of the anticipated increase in
biofuel production to meet the mandates of EISA, both emissions
increases and decreases, and values all these emission impacts the same
regardless of when they occur during that time period (i.e., no
discounting). The second option assesses emissions impacts over a 100
year time period but then discounts future emissions 2% annua