Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2012 Renewable Fuel Standards, 38844-38890 [2011-16018]
Download as PDF
38844
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0133; FRL–9324–3]
RIN 2060–AQ76
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel
Additives: 2012 Renewable Fuel
Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act
Section 211(o), the Environmental
Protection Agency is required to set the
renewable fuel standards each
November for the following year. In
general the standards are designed to
ensure that the applicable volumes of
renewable fuel specified in the statute
are used. However, the statue specifies
that EPA is to project the volume of
cellulosic biofuel production for the
upcoming year and must base the
cellulosic biofuel standard on that
projected volume if it is less than the
applicable volume set forth in the Act.
EPA is today proposing a projected
cellulosic biofuel volume for 2012 and
annual standards for cellulosic biofuel,
biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel,
and renewable fuels that would apply to
all gasoline and diesel produced or
imported in year 2012. In addition,
today’s action proposes an applicable
volume of biomass-based diesel that
would apply in 2013. This action also
presents a number of proposed changes
to the RFS2 regulations that are
designed to clarify existing provisions
and to address several unique
circumstances that have come to light
since the RFS2 program became
effective on July 1, 2010. Finally,
today’s rule also proposes to make a
minor amendment to the gasoline
benzene regulations regarding inclusion
of transferred blendstocks in a refinery’s
early benzene credit generation
calculations.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 11, 2011.
Hearing: We intend to hold a public
hearing on July 12, 2011 in the
Washington, DC area, Details of the time
NAICS 1
codes
Category
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
.................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
and location of the hearing be
announced in a separate notice.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0133, by one of the
following methods:
• https://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.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center,
EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460. 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–2010–
0133. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Jkt 223001
324110
325193
325199
424690
424710
424720
PO 00000
SIC 2
codes
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially affected by this
proposed rule 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. Potentially
regulated categories include:
Examples of potentially regulated entities
2911
2869
2869
5169
5171
5172
Frm 00002
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 I.B
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
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 https://
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.
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:
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.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
NAICS 1
codes
Category
Industry .................................................
1
2
454319
Examples of potentially regulated entities
5989
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 section.
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit confidential business
information (CBI) to EPA through
https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.
For CBI information in a disk or CD
ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SIC 2
codes
38845
When submitting comments,
remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
• Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree,
suggest alternatives, and substitute
language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
Outline of This Preamble
I. Executive Summary
A. Standards For 2012
1. Assessment Of 2012 Cellulosic Biofuel
Volume
2. Advanced Biofuel And Total Renewable
Fuel In 2012
3. Proposed Percentage Standards For 2012
B. Proposed 2013 Biomass-Based Diesel
Volume
C. Proposed Regulatory Changes
D. Petition For Reconsideration
II. Projection Of Cellulosic Volume
Production And Imports For 2012
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Assessment
1. Existing Cellulosic Biofuel Facilities
2. Potential New Facilities In 2012
3. Imports Of Cellulosic Biofuel
4. Summary Of Volume Projections
C. Potential Limitations In 2012
D. Advanced Biofuel And Total Renewable
Fuel In 2012
E. Biomass-Based Diesel In 2012
III. Proposed Percentage Standards For 2012
A. Background
B. Calculation Of Standards
1. How Are The Standards Calculated?
2. Small Refineries And Small Refiners
3. Proposed Standards
IV. Biomass-Based Diesel Volume For 2013
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Factors Considered In Assessing 2013
Biomass-Based Diesel Volumes
1. Demand For Biomass-Based Diesel
2. Availability Of Feedstocks To Produce
1.28 Billion Gallons Of Biodiesel
3. Production Capacity
4. Consumption Capacity
5. Biomass-Based Diesel Distribution
Infrastructure
C. Impacts Of 1.28 Billion Gallons Of
Biomass-Based Diesel
1. Climate Change
2. Energy Security 4
3. Agricultural Commodities And Food
Prices
4. Air Quality
5. Transportation Fuel Cost
6. Deliverability And Transport Costs Of
Materials, Goods, And Products Other
Than Renewable Fuel
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7. Wetlands, Ecosystems, And Wildlife
Habitats
8. Water Quality And Quantity
a. Impacts On Water Quality And Water
Quantity Associated With Soybean
Production
b. Impacts On Water Quality And Water
Quantity Associated With Biodiesel
Production
9. Job Creation And Rural Economic
Development
D. Proposed 2013 Volume For BiomassBased Diesel
E. 2014 And Beyond
V. Proposed Changes To Rfs2 Regulations
A. Summary Of Amendments
B. Technical Justification For Equivalence
Value Application
C. Changes To Definitions Of Terms
1. Definition Of Annual Cover Crop
2. Definition Of ‘‘Naphtha’’
D. Technical Amendments Related To Rin
Generation And Separation
1. Rin Separation Limit For Obligated
Parties
2. Rin Retirement Provision For Error
Correction
3. Production Outlook Reports Submission
Deadline
4. Attest Procedures
5. Treatment Of Canola And Rapeseed
E. Technical Amendments Related To
Registration
1. Construction Discontinuance &
Completion Documentation
2. Third-Party Engineering Reviews
3. Foreign Ethanol Producers
F. Additional Amendments And
Clarifications
1. Third-Party Engineering Review
Addendum
2. Rin Generation For Fuel Imported From
A Registered Foreign Producer
3. Bond Posting
4. Acceptance Of Separated Yard Waste
And Food Waste Plans
5. Transferred Blendstocks In Early
Benzene Credit Generation Calculations
VI. Petition For Reconsideration
A. Legal Considerations Of Petition
B. Advanced Biofuel Standard And
Delayed Rins
C. 2011 Cellulosic Biofuel Requirement
VII. Public Participation
A. How Do I Submit Comments?
B. How Should I Submit Cbi To The
Agency?
VIII. Statutory And Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning And Review And Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation And
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38846
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
IX. Statutory Authority
I. Executive Summary
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
program began in 2006 pursuant to the
requirements in Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 211(o) which were added
through the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct). The statutory requirements for
the RFS program were subsequently
modified through the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA), resulting in the promulgation of
revised regulatory requirements on
March 26, 2010.1 The transition from
the RFS1 requirements of EPAct to the
RFS2 requirements of EISA generally
occurred on July 1, 2010.
Under RFS2, EPA is required to
determine and publish the applicable
annual percentage standards for each
compliance year by November 30 of the
previous year. As part of this effort, EPA
must determine the projected volume of
cellulosic biofuel production for the
following year. If the projected volume
of cellulosic biofuel production is less
than the applicable volume specified in
section 211(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) of the statute,
EPA must lower the applicable volume
used to set the annual cellulosic biofuel
percentage standard to the projected
volume of production. When we lower
the applicable volume of cellulosic
biofuel in this manner, we are also
authorized to lower the applicable
volumes of advanced biofuel and/or
total renewable fuel by the same or a
lesser amount. Since these evaluations
will be based on evolving information
about emerging segments of the biofuels
industry, and may result in the
applicable volumes differing from those
in the statute, we believe that it is
appropriate to establish the applicable
volumes through a notice-and-comment
rulemaking process. Today’s notice
provides our proposed evaluation of the
projected production of cellulosic
biofuel for 2012, our proposed
evaluation of whether to lower the
applicable volumes of advanced biofuel
and total renewable fuel, and the
1 75
FR 14670.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
proposed percentage standards for
compliance year 2012. We will
complete our evaluation based on
comments received in response to this
proposal, the estimate of projected
biofuel volumes that the EIA is required
to provide to EPA by October 31, and
other information that becomes
available, and will make final
determinations of applicable volumes
and percentage standards for 2012 by
November 30, 2011.
The statute also requires EPA to
determine and promulgate the
applicable volume of biomass-based
diesel that will be required in 2013 and
beyond, as the statute does not specify
the applicable volumes for years after
2012. This determination must be made
at least 14 months prior to the year in
which the volume will be required.
Thus, for the 2013 compliance year, we
must specify the applicable volume of
biomass-based diesel by November 1,
2011. The statute identifies a number of
factors that EPA must take into
consideration in establishing the
applicable volume of biomass-based
diesel for years after 2012. Today’s
notice includes our proposed
assessment of these factors and
proposed applicable volume of biomassbased diesel for 2013.
Today’s proposed rule does not
include an assessment of the
environmental impacts of the
percentage standards we are proposing
for 2012. All of the impacts of the RFS2
program were addressed in the RFS2
final rule published on March 26, 2010,
including impacts of the biofuel
standards specified in the statute.
Today’s rulemaking simply proposes the
standards for 2012 whose impacts were
already analyzed previously. However,
as described more fully in Section IV.A,
we are required to analyze a specified
set of environmental and economic
impacts for the biomass-based diesel
volume we are proposing for 2013.
Today’s notice also proposes a
number of changes to the RFS2
regulations. These changes are designed
to reduce confusion among regulated
parties and streamline implementation
by clarifying certain terms and phrases
and addressing unique circumstances
that came to light after the RFS2
program went into effect on July 1,
2010. Additionally, this notice also
proposes to make a minor amendment
to the gasoline benzene regulations
regarding inclusion of transferred
blendstocks in a refinery’s early benzene
credit generation calculations. Further
discussion of all of these proposed
changes can be found in Section V.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Finally, we note that in the RFS2 final
rule we also stated our intent to make
two announcements each year:
• Set the price for cellulosic biofuel
waiver credits that will be made
available to obligated parties in the
event that we reduce the volume of
cellulosic biofuel below the volume
required by EISA.
• Announce the results of our
assessment of the aggregate compliance
approach for verifying renewable
biomass requirements for U.S. crops and
crop residue, and our conclusion
regarding whether the aggregate
compliance provision will continue to
apply.
For both of these determinations, EPA
will use specific sources of data and a
methodology laid out in the RFS2 final
rule. Since the necessary data for these
determinations are not yet available,
and the methodology for making them is
specified by rule or statute, we are not
including proposed determinations in
this Notice. We will present the results
of both of these determinations in the
final rule without a prior proposal.
A. Standards for 2012
1. Assessment of 2012 Cellulosic Biofuel
Volume
To estimate the volume of cellulosic
biofuel that could be made available in
the U.S. in 2012, we researched all
potential production sources by
company and facility. This included
sources that were still in the planning
stages, those that were under
construction, and those that are already
producing some volume of cellulosic
ethanol, cellulosic diesel, or some other
type of cellulosic biofuel. Facilities
primarily focused on research and
development work with no intention of
marketing any fuel produced were not
considered for this assessment. From
this universe of potential cellulosic
biofuel sources we identified the subset
that had a possibility of producing some
volume of qualifying cellulosic biofuel
for use as transportation fuel in 2012.
For the final rule, we will specify the
projected available volume for 2012 that
will be the basis for the percentage
standard for cellulosic biofuel. To
determine this final projected available
volume, we will consider additional
factors such as the current and expected
state of funding, the status of the
technology, and progress towards
construction and production goals along
with any other significant factors that
could potentially impact fuel
production or the ability of the
produced fuel to generate cellulosic
RINs. This information, to the extent
that it is publically available, is
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
discussed in further detail in Section
II.B.
In our assessment we focused on
domestic sources of cellulosic biofuel.
While imports of cellulosic biofuels are
possible and would be eligible to
generate RINs, we believe this is
unlikely due to local demand for
cellulosic biofuels in the countries in
which they are produced as well as the
cost associated with transporting these
fuels to the U.S. Of the domestic
sources, we estimated that nine facilities
38847
have the potential to make volumes of
cellulosic biofuel available for
transportation use in the U.S. in 2012.
These facilities are listed in Table
I.A.1–1 along with our estimate of the
potentially available volume.
TABLE I.A.1–1—POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL PLANT VOLUMES FOR 2012
Location
Fuel type
DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol ...........
Fiberight .....................................................
Fulcrum Bioenergy .....................................
INEOS Bio ..................................................
KiOR ...........................................................
KiOR ...........................................................
KL Energy Corp. ........................................
Terrabon .....................................................
ZeaChem ...................................................
Vonore, TN ................................................
Blairstown, IA ............................................
McCarran, NV ...........................................
Vero Beach, FL .........................................
Houston, TX ..............................................
Columbus, MS ...........................................
Upton, WY .................................................
Port Arthur, TX ..........................................
Boardman, OR ..........................................
Ethanol ......................................................
Ethanol ......................................................
Ethanol ......................................................
Ethanol ......................................................
Gasoline, Diesel ........................................
Gasoline, Diesel ........................................
Ethanol ......................................................
Gasoline ....................................................
Ethanol ......................................................
Total ....................................................
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Company
....................................................................
....................................................................
The volumes in Table I.A.1–1 for each
facility represent the volume that would
be produced in 2012 based upon the
owner’s expected month of startup and
an assumed period of production
rampup to full capacity for testing and
process validation purposes. However,
none of the facilities we evaluated are
currently producing cellulosic biofuel at
the rates they project for 2012.
Moreover, there are other uncertainties
associated with each facility’s projected
volume that could result in less
production volume in 2012 than the
potentially available values shown in
Table I.A.1–1. Therefore, we are
proposing a range of volumes for
cellulosic biofuel for 2012, with 15.7
million ethanol-equivalent gallons as
the upper end of the range. For the
lower end of the range, we believe that
a volume of 3.55 million ethanolequivalent gallons could be justified
based on currently available
information. This volume is based on
consideration of only those facilities
that are structurally complete at the
time of this proposal and that anticipate
commercial production of cellulosic
biofuels by the end of 2011. More
complete information on the progress of
the industry in 2011 will be available
for the final rule, and will allow us to
make a more accurate projection of
cellulosic biofuel volume for 2012. A
more detailed discussion of these
uncertainties is presented in Section
II.B.
2. Advanced Biofuel and Total
Renewable Fuel in 2012
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
The statute indicates that we may
reduce the applicable volume of
advanced biofuel and total renewable
fuel if we determine that the projected
volume of cellulosic biofuel production
for 2012 falls short of the statutory
volume of 500 million gallons. As
shown in Table I.A.1–1, we are
proposing a determination that this is
the case. Therefore, we also must
evaluate the need to lower the
applicable volumes for the advanced
biofuel and total renewable fuel.
To address the need to lower the
advanced biofuel standard, we first
consider whether it appears likely that
the biomass-based diesel volume of 1.0
billion gallons specified in the statute
can be met in 2012. As discussed in
Section II.E, we believe that the 1.0
billion gallon standard can indeed be
met. Since biodiesel has an Equivalence
Value of 1.5, 1.0 billion physical gallons
of biodiesel would provide 1.5 billion
ethanol-equivalent gallons that can be
counted towards the advanced biofuel
standard of 2.0 billion gallons. Of the
remaining 0.5 bill gallons, up to 0.016
bill gallons would be met with the
proposed volume of cellulosic biofuel.
Based on our analysis as described in
Section II.D, it appears likely that there
will be sufficient volumes of other
advanced biofuels, such as imported
sugarcane ethanol, additional biodiesel,
or renewable diesel, such that the
standard for advanced biofuel could
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Potentially
available
volume
(million
ethanolequivalent
gallons)
0.25
3.0
0.5
3.0
0.3
6.4
1.0
1.0
0.25
15.7
remain at the statutory level of 2.0
billion gallons. However, uncertainty in
the potential volumes of these other
advanced biofuels coupled with the
range of potential production volumes
of cellulosic biofuel could provide a
rationale for lowering the advanced
biofuel standard. If we lowered the
applicable volume of advanced biofuel
without simultaneously lowering the
applicable volume for total renewable
fuel, the result would be that additional
volumes of conventional renewable fuel,
such as corn-starch ethanol, would be
produced, effectively replacing some
advanced biofuels. In today’s NPRM we
are proposing that neither the required
2012 volumes for advanced biofuel nor
total renewable fuel be lowered below
the statutory volumes. However, we
request comment on whether the
advanced biofuel and/or total renewable
fuel volume requirements should be
lowered if, as we propose, EPA lowers
the required cellulosic biofuel volume
from that specified in the Act.
3. Proposed Percentage Standards for
2012
The renewable fuel standards are
expressed as a volume percentage, and
are used by each refiner, blender or
importer to determine their renewable
fuel volume obligations. The applicable
percentages are set so that if each
regulated party meets the percentages,
and if EIA projections of gasoline and
diesel use are accurate, then the amount
of renewable fuel, cellulosic biofuel,
biomass-based diesel, and advanced
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38848
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
biofuel used will meet the volumes
required on a nationwide basis.
To calculate the percentage standard
for cellulosic biofuel for 2012, we have
used a potential volume range of 3.55–
15.7 million ethanol-equivalent gallons
(representing 3.45–12.9 million physical
gallons). For the final rule, EPA intends
to pick a single value from within this
range to represent the projected
available volume on which the 2012
percentage standard for cellulosic
biofuel will be based. We are also
proposing that the applicable volumes
for biomass-based diesel, advanced
biofuel, and total renewable fuel for
2012 will be those specified in the
statute. These volumes are shown in
Table I.A.3–1.
TABLE I.A.3–1—PROPOSED VOLUMES FOR 2012
Ethanol equivalent volume a
Actual volume
Cellulosic biofuel ................................................
Biomass-based diesel .......................................
Advanced biofuel ...............................................
Renewable fuel ..................................................
3.45–12.9 mill gal .............................................
1.0 bill gal .........................................................
2.0 bill gal .........................................................
15.2 bill gal .......................................................
3.55–15.7 mill gal.
1.5 bill gal.
2.0 bill gal.
15.2 bill gal.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
a Biodiesel and cellulosic diesel have equivalence values of 1.5 and 1.7 ethanol equivalent gallons respectively. As a result, ethanol-equivalent
volumes are larger than actual volumes for cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based diesel.
Four separate standards are required
under the RFS2 program, corresponding
to the four separate volume
requirements shown in Table I.A.3–1.
The specific formulas we use to
calculate the renewable fuel percentage
standards are contained in the
regulations at § 80.1405 and repeated in
Section III.B.1. The percentage
standards represent the ratio of
renewable fuel volume to projected nonrenewable gasoline and diesel volume.
The projected volume of gasoline used
to calculate the standards in today’s
proposal is provided by EIA’s ShortTerm Energy Outlook (STEO).2 The
projected volume of transportation
diesel used to calculate the standards in
today’s proposal is provided by EIA’s
2011 Annual Energy Outlook (early
release version). For the final rule, we
will use updated projections of gasoline
and diesel provided by EIA.
Because DOE’s 2009 analysis 3
concluded that small refineries would
not be disproportionately harmed by
inclusion in the RFS program, beginning
in 2011, small refiners and small
refineries participated in the RFS
program as full regulated parties, and
there was no small refiner/refinery
volume adjustment to the 2011 standard
as there was for the 2010 standard.
However, DOE recently re-evaluated the
impacts of the RFS program on small
entities and concluded that some small
refineries would suffer a
disproportionate hardship if required to
participate in the program.4 As a result,
we are required to exempt these few
refineries from being obligated parties
for a minimum of two years, and must
2 The April 2011 issue of STEO was used for
today’s proposal.
3 DOE report ‘‘EPACT 2005 Section 1501 Small
Refineries Exemption Study’’, (January, 2009).
4 ‘‘Small Refinery Exemption Study: An
Investigation into Disproportionate Economic
Hardship,’’ U.S. Department of Energy, March 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
also exempt their gasoline and diesel
volumes from the calculation of the
annual percentage standards. The
proposed standards for 2012 are shown
in Table I.A.3–2 and include the
adjustment for exempt small refineries
(which constitute about 2.5% of both
gasoline and diesel pools). Detailed
calculations can be found in Section III.
TABLE I.A.3–2—PROPOSED
PERCENTAGE STANDARDS FOR 2012
Cellulosic biofuel .......
Biomass-based diesel
Advanced biofuel ......
Renewable fuel .........
0.002 to 0.010%.
0.91%.
1.21%.
9.21%.
B. Proposed 2013 Biomass-Based Diesel
Volume
While section 211(o)(2)(B) specifies
the volumes of biomass-based diesel
(BBD) through year 2012, it directs the
EPA to establish the applicable volume
of BBD for years after 2012 no later than
14 months before the first year for
which the applicable volume will apply.
In today’s action we are proposing an
applicable volume of 1.28 bill gallons
for biomass-based diesel (BBD) for 2013.
This is the volume that was projected
for 2013 in the RFS2 final rulemaking,
and we are proposing it for 2013 based
on consideration of the factors specified
in the statute, including a consideration
of biodiesel production, consumption,
and infrastructure issues. As required
under the statute, we also assessed the
likely impact of BBD production and
use in a variety of areas, including
climate change, energy security, the
agricultural sector, air quality, and
others. Section IV provides additional
discussion of our assessment of the
proposed volume of 1.28 bill gallons of
BBD.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. Proposed Regulatory Changes
In today’s action we are also
proposing a number of changes to the
RFS2 regulations. These proposed
changes are intended to:
• Clarify certain provisions because
we have learned that there is some
confusion among some regulated parties
• Clarify the application of certain
provisions to unique circumstances
• Provide greater specificity in the
definition of certain terms
• Correct regulatory language that
inadvertently misrepresented our intent
Today’s rule also proposes to make a
minor amendment to the gasoline
benzene regulations regarding inclusion
of transferred blendstocks in a refinery’s
early benzene credit generation
calculations. A detailed discussion of
these proposed regulatory changes is
provided in Section V.
D. Petition for Reconsideration
The American Petroleum Institute
(API) and the National Petrochemical
and Refiners Association (NPRA) jointly
submitted a Petition for Reconsideration
of EPA’s final rule establishing the RFS
standards for 2011. The petition
requests that we lower the 2011
cellulosic biofuel standard to no more
than 3.94 mill gallons, lower the 2011
advanced biofuel standard in concert
with the reduction in the cellulosic
biofuel standard from 250 mill gallons,
and reconsider the regulatory provision
for delayed RINs. We are proposing to
deny this petition. See Section VI for
further discussion.
II. Projection of Cellulosic Volume
Production and Imports for 2012
In order to project production volume
of cellulosic biofuel in 2012 for use in
setting the percentage standard, we
collected information on individual
facilities that have the potential to
produce qualifying volumes for
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
consumption as transportation fuel,
heating oil, or jet fuel in the U.S. in
2012. This section describes the range of
volumes that could be produced and
imported in 2012 as well as some of the
uncertainties associated with those
volumes. For today’s NPRM we have
assessed the range of potentially
available volumes for 2012. Despite
significant advances in cellulosic
biofuel production technology in recent
years the production of cellulosic
biofuel remains highly uncertain. While
we expect that the volume we select in
the final rule for use in setting the 2012
cellulosic biofuel percentage standard
will be within our proposed range of
volumes, we recognize the possibility
that updated information at the time of
the final rule could result in the final
volume falling outside of the proposed
range. Section III describes the
conversion of our proposed range of
volumes for cellulosic biofuel into a
range of possible percentage standards.
While the proposed 2012 volume
projections in today’s NPRM were based
on our own assessment of the cellulosic
biofuel industry, by the time we
announce the final 2012 volumes and
percentage standards we will have
additional information. First, in
addition to comments in response to
today’s proposal, we will have updated
and more detailed information about
how the industry is progressing in 2011.
Second, all registered producers and
importers of renewable fuel must submit
Production Outlook Reports describing
their expectations for new or expanded
biofuel supply for the next five years,
according to § 80.1449. Finally, by
October 31, 2011, the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) is
required by statute to provide EPA with
an estimate of the volumes of
transportation fuel, biomass-based
diesel, and cellulosic biofuel that they
project will be sold or introduced into
commerce in the U.S. in 2012.
38849
TABLE II.A–1—REQUIRED VOLUMES IN plans, project delays, and cancellations
THE CLEAN AIR ACT FOR 2012 (BILL occur frequently. Biofuel producers face
not only the challenge of the scale up of
GAL)—Continued
innovative, first-of-a-kind technology,
but also the challenge of securing
Actual volfunding in a difficult economy. The
ume
cellulosic biofuel industry also is
influenced by various tax credits and
Biomass-based
subsidies, and changes to these
diesel .............
1.0
1.5
programs could have an impact on
Advanced
biofuel ............
2.0a
2.0 cellulosic biofuel production.
In order to project cellulosic biofuel
Renewable fuel
15.2a
15.2
production for 2012, EPA has tracked
a These values assume that the biofuels
the progress of over 100 biofuel
would be ethanol. If any portion of the biofuels production facilities. From this list of
used to meet these applicable volumes has a
volumetric energy content greater than that for facilities we used publically available
information, as well as information
ethanol, these values will be lower.
provided by DOE and USDA, to make a
By November 30 of each year, the EPA
preliminary determination of which
is required under CAA 211(o) to
facilities are the most likely candidates
determine and publish in the Federal
to produce cellulosic biofuel and make
Register the renewable fuel percentage
it commercially available in 2012. Each
standards for the following year. These
of these companies was investigated
standards are to be based in part on
further in order to determine the current
transportation fuel volumes estimated
status of their facilities and their likely
by the Energy Information
cellulosic biofuel production volumes
Administration (EIA) for the following
for the coming years. Information such
year. The calculation of the percentage
as the funding status of these facilities,
standards is based on the formulas in
announced construction and production
§ 80.1405(c) which express the required ramp up periods, and annual fuel
volumes of renewable fuel as a volume
production targets were taken into
percentage of gasoline and diesel sold or account. Our projection of the range of
introduced into commerce in the 48
cellulosic biofuel production in 2012 is
contiguous states plus Hawaii.
based on this information as well as our
The statute requires that if EPA
own assessment of the likelihood of
determines that the projected volume of these facilities successfully producing
cellulosic biofuel production for the
cellulosic biofuel in the volumes
following year is less than the
indicated. A brief description of each of
applicable volume shown in Table II.A– the companies we believe may produce
1, then EPA is to reduce the applicable
cellulosic biofuel and make it
volume of cellulosic biofuel to the
commercially available in 2012 can be
projected volume available during that
found below. We will continue to gather
calendar year. In addition, if EPA
more information to help inform our
reduces the required volume of
decision on the final cellulosic biofuel
cellulosic biofuel below the level
standard for 2012, and we will specify
specified in the statute, the Act also
a single volume in the final rule that
indicates that we may reduce the
will be the basis for the cellulosic
applicable volume of advanced biofuels biofuel percentage standard for 2012.
and total renewable fuel by the same or
1. Existing Cellulosic Biofuel Facilities
a lesser volume.
As described in the final rule for the
The rule that established the required
2011 cellulosic biofuel volume
RFS2 program, we intend to examine
A. Statutory Requirements
identified five production facilities that
EIA’s projected volumes, comments on
we projected would produce cellulosic
this proposal, production outlook
The volumes of renewable fuel to be
biofuel and make the fuel commercially
used under the RFS2 program each year reports, and other available data in
available in 2011. Each of these
making a final determination of the
(absent an adjustment or waiver by EPA)
production facilities are now
appropriate cellulosic biofuel volumes
are specified in CAA 211(o)(2). These
structurally complete, however they are
to require for 2012.
volumes for 2012 are shown in Table
in various stages of biofuel production.
II.A–1.
B. Cellulosic Biofuel Volume
All of these facilities have either
Assessment
produced some volume of cellulosic
TABLE II.A–1—REQUIRED VOLUMES IN
The task of projecting the volume of
biofuel in 2011, or are on schedule to do
THE CLEAN AIR ACT FOR 2012 (BILL
cellulosic biofuel production for 2012
so later in the year. Only Range Fuels,
GAL)
remains a difficult one. Currently there
however, has completed its registration
are very few, if any, facilities
as a cellulosic biofuel production
Ethanol
consistently producing cellulosic
Actual volfacility under the RFS2 program and as
equivalent
ume
biofuel for commercial sale.
such they are currently the only facility
volume
Announcements of new projects and
of the five listed here currently eligible
Cellulosic biofuel
0.5a
0.5 project funding, changes in project
to generate cellulosic biofuel RINs. For
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Ethanol
equivalent
volume
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38850
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
more background information on each
of these facilities see the 2011 standards
rule.5
DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol
(DDCE) successfully started up their
small demonstration facility in Vonore,
Tennessee in late 2010. This facility has
a maximum production capacity of
250,000 gallons of ethanol per year and
uses an enzymatic hydrolysis process to
convert corn cobs into ethanol. In
conversations with EPA in early 2011
DDCE indicated that they had not
encountered any unexpected difficulties
in their production of cellulosic ethanol
and were on target to meet their 2011
production goal of 150,000 gallons of
cellulosic ethanol. It is likely that in
2012 cellulosic biofuel production at
this facility will approach the
production capacity of 250,000 gallons
of cellulosic ethanol.
Fiberight uses an enzymatic
hydrolysis process to convert the
biogenic portion of separated municipal
solid waste (MSW) into ethanol.
Construction on the first stage of
Fiberight’s Blairstown, Iowa facility was
completed in the summer of 2010. The
production capacity of the first stage of
this project is 2 million gallons of
ethanol per year. Fiberight had planned
to begin production of cellulosic biofuel
from this facility in late 2010 but poor
economic conditions, due in part to low
cellulosic RIN values in 2010, caused
them to postpone fuel production.
Fiberight had also planned to begin
construction on an expansion of this
facility in late 2010 that would increase
the production potential to 6 million
gallons of ethanol per year, but were
unable to secure funding to carry out the
construction as planned. They have
since secured funding and began
construction on the expansion of their
Blairstown facility in April 2011.
Fiberight anticipates that they will begin
fuel production in the late summer of
2012 and will ramp up production at
this facility throughout 2012, producing
approximately 3 million gallons of
cellulosic ethanol in 2012.
KiOR continues to produce a small
volume of renewable crude from
agricultural residue at their
demonstration facility in Houston,
Texas using a technology they call
Biomass Catalytic Cracking (BCC). This
technology uses heat and a proprietary
catalyst to convert biomass to a
renewable crude with a relatively low
oxygen content. This facility currently
lacks the infrastructure to upgrade this
renewable crude to finished
transportation fuel, however KiOR plans
to add this capability at this facility in
5 75
FR 76790, December 9, 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
late 2011. While KiOR has not yet
registered under the RFS2 program,
their fuel, if refined to gasoline or diesel
fuel would be eligible to generate RINs.
EPA currently projects a production
volume of 200,000 gallons of cellulosic
fuel from KiOR, which could potentially
generate 300,000 RINs.
KL Energy has developed a process to
convert cellulose and hemicelluloses
into cellulosic sugars using a thermalmechanical pretreatment process
followed by an enzymatic hydrolysis.
They had initially planned to used
woody biomass as their feedstock for
cellulosic biofuel production; however
their production process is versatile
enough to allow for a wide variety of
cellulosic feedstocks to be used. In
August 2010 KL Energy announced a
joint development agreement with
Petrobras America Inc. As part of the
agreement Petrobras will invest $11
million to modify KL Energy’s facility in
Upton, Wyoming to allow it to process
bagasse and other waste products. These
modifications are expected to be
completed in 2011, and fuel production
is likely to begin soon after. If
successful, Petrobras and KL Energy
plan to work together to integrate the
technology into currently existing
ethanol production facilities in Brazil.
KL Energy has also indentified several
sites in the United States for possible
future expansion. EPA currently
projects that KL Energy could produce
up to 1 million gallons of cellulosic
ethanol in 2012 in the United States.
Range Fuels began production of
methanol at their Soperton, Georgia
facility in the third quarter of 2010. This
facility uses a thermochemical
technology to produce syngas
(consisting of mostly hydrogen and
carbon monoxide) from a woody
biomass feedstock. The syngas is then
converted into fuel with the aid of a
chemical catalyst developed by Range.
Range has developed the capability to
produce both methanol and ethanol,
depending on the catalyst used. In
January 2011, after producing a small
volume of ethanol from this facility and
proving this capability, Range Fuels
shut down the Soperton facility in order
to work through technical difficulties
they had been experiencing. No timeline
has been given for the restart of this
facility. EPA will continue to gather
information and monitor progress at the
Soperton facility. At this time, however,
since no timeline has been provided for
production from this facility, we are not
projecting any volume from this facility
in 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2. Potential New Facilities in 2012
EPA is also aware of five new
cellulosic biofuel production facilities
that are currently planning to begin
commercial production at some point in
2012. These facilities are at various
stages in the construction process, and
as such have various degrees of
uncertainty associated with any
projected 2012 commercial production.
While it is possible that several of these
facilities will not begin production of
cellulosic biofuels until 2013, they are
nevertheless considered here since some
commercial volumes can potentially be
produced in 2012.
Fulcrum Bioenergy is planning to
build a facility capable of producing
10.5 million gallons of cellulosic
ethanol and 16 megawatts of renewable
electricity per year. They have
developed a thermochemical technology
to produce ethanol from separated MSW
via syngas using a chemical catalyst. In
November 2010 Fulcrum announced
that they had received a term sheet for
a $80 million loan guarantee from DOE
and were entering into the final phase
of the loan guarantee program. Prior to
that Fulcrum had announced that they
had signed long term feedstock supply
contracts for this facility as well as
engineering, procurement, and
construction contracts. In January 2011
Fulcrum announced they had closed on
a $75 million Series C financing that
would provide the remaining necessary
capital for the construction of their first
commercial production facility pending
the closing of their DOE loan guarantee.
They announced that they are now
planning to begin construction in the
second quarter of 2011 and complete the
facility by late 2012. EPA currently
projects a potential production volume
of up to 0.5 million gallons of cellulosic
ethanol from this facility in 2012.
INEOS Bio has developed a process
for producing cellulosic ethanol by first
gasifying feedstock material into a
syngas and then using naturally
occurring bacteria to ferment the syngas
into ethanol. In January 2011 USDA
announced a $75 million loan guarantee
for the construction of INEOS Bio’s first
commercial facility to be built in Vero
Beach, Florida. This facility will be
capable of producing 8 million gallons
of cellulosic biofuel as well as 6
megawatts of renewable electricity from
a variety of feedstocks including yard,
agricultural, and wood waste, as well as
separated MSW. On February 9, 2011
INEOS Bio broke ground on this facility.
INEOS Bio expects to complete
construction on this facility in April
2012 and plans to begin commercial
production of cellulosic ethanol soon
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
after construction is complete. EPA
currently projects a potential production
volume of up to 3 million gallons of
cellulosic ethanol from this facility in
2012.
After successful operation of their
demonstration plant in Houston, Texas
KiOR is planning to begin construction
on their first commercial scale facility in
early 2011. This facility, located in
Columbus, Mississippi, will convert
biomass to a low oxygen biocrude using
a process KiOR calls Biomass Catalytic
Cracking (BCC). BCC uses a catalyst
developed by KiOR in a process similar
to Fluid Catalytic Cracking currently
used in the petroleum industry. KiOR’s
Columbus facility will also be capable of
upgrading this biocrude into finished
gasoline and diesel as well as a small
quantity of fuel oil. KiOR plans to begin
production from this facility sometime
in the first half of 2012. KiOR has also
announced plans to construct several
more commercial scale biofuel
production facilities in Mississippi and
across the southeastern United States.
However, it is unlikely any of these
facilities will begin production of
biofuel in 2012. Given this timeline EPA
currently projects a potential production
of up to 4.0 million gallons of gasoline
and diesel (6.4 million ethanol
equivalent gallons) from the Columbus
facility in 2012.
Terrabon completed construction of a
small demonstration scale facility for
the conversion of MSW and other waste
materials into gasoline in 2010 and is
planning to begin production at their
first commercial scale facility in 2012.
Terrabon utilizes a unique production
process that can be used to produce
gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel. Feedstock is
first fermented into carboxylic acids by
a variety of micro organisms. These
carboxylic acids are then neutralized to
form carboxylate salts that are
dewatered, dried, and thermally
converted to ketones. Finally, the
ketones are hydrogenated to form
alcohols which can then be refined into
gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel. While
currently no pathway exists for the
generation of RINs representing
cellulosic gasoline in the RFS2
regulations, EPA is planning to initiate
a rulemaking to create such a pathway
in our regulations. This would allow for
facilities such as Terrabon and others
who may produce cellulosic gasoline in
the future to register and generate RINs
under the RFS2 program (provided they
meet the fuel registration, renewable
biomass, and other requirements of the
program as well). EPA currently projects
the production of up to 0.7 million
gallons (1.0 million ethanol equivalent
gallons) of cellulosic gasoline in 2012
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
from Terrabon’s first commercial
facility.
ZeaChem has begun construction on a
small demonstration scale facility in
Boardman, Oregon capable of producing
250,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol per
year. Their production process uses a
combination of biochemical and
thermochemical technologies to
produce ethanol and other renewable
chemicals from cellulosic materials. The
feedstock is first fractionated into two
separate streams containing cellulosic
sugars and lignin. The cellulosic sugars
are fermented into ethyl acetate using a
naturally occurring acetogen, which can
then be hydrogenated into ethanol. The
hydrogen necessary for this process is
produced by gasifying the lignin stream
from the cellulosic biomass. ZeaChem’s
process is flexible and is capable of
producing a wide range of renewable
chemical and fuel molecules in addition
to ethanol. ZeaChem plans to begin
production of cellulosic ethanol from
their facility in Boardman, Oregon in
late 2011, and EPA currently projects a
potential production volume of up to
0.25 million gallons of ethanol from this
facility in 2012.
Another potential source of cellulosic
biofuel in 2012 is a technology being
developed by EdeniQ. EdeniQ is
developing a suite of enzymes capable
of breaking down cellulose into simple
sugars that can then be fermented into
ethanol. Rather than build their own
production facilities EdeniQ plans to
license their enzymes to existing corn
ethanol facilities. Such licensing would
be accompanied by the Cellunator, an
advanced milling device they have
developed to reduce the particle size of
corn kernels to enable greater
conversion of starch to ethanol as well
as the conversion of cellulose to simple
sugars. EdeniQ claims that their
technology would allow corn ethanol
facilities to increase ethanol production
by 1–2% by converting the cellulosic
portion of the corn kernel into ethanol.
They are also working to increase the
effectiveness of their enzymes in order
to enable ethanol production increases
of 3–4% from the cellulose in the corn
kernel in the future. EdeniQ plans to
begin commercial trials of their
technology in the second half of 2011.
This technology has the potential to be
implemented rapidly and produce
significant amounts of cellulosic ethanol
in 2012 as it requires relatively small
capital additions to already existing
corn ethanol facilities. While this
technology is promising, there is
currently no pathway in the RFS2
regulations for the generation of
cellulosic biofuel RINs using the
cellulosic portion of the corn kernel as
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38851
a feedstock. Moreover, EdeniQ has not
announced any agreements with corn
ethanol producers to install this
technology to enable the production of
cellulosic ethanol. For these reasons,
EPA has not included any cellulosic
ethanol production from EdeniQ’s
technology in our 2012 projections. We
will continue to monitor their process in
the coming months for signs of progress
towards commercialization of their
technology and will consider adding
production volumes from EdeniQ into
our final projections if appropriate.
In addition to the facilities mentioned
above, EPA is also aware of three
companies planning to begin the
production of cellulosic biofuels in
early 2013. Coskata, Enerkem, and Poet
are planning on completing
construction on their first commercial
scale cellulosic biofuel facilities in late
2012 or early 2013 and producing
commercial volumes of biofuels in 2013.
While it is possible that construction of
any of these facilities could be
completed ahead of schedule and a
small volume of fuel could be produced
in 2012, history in this industry suggests
that this is unlikely. EPA has therefore
not projected that any volume of
cellulosic biofuel will be produced from
these facilities in 2012. These facilities,
along with several other commercial
cellulosic biofuel facilities planning to
begin production in 2013, notably the
first commercial scale facilities from
Abengoa and Mascoma, indicate that the
potential exists for the rapid expansion
of production volumes in future years.
3. Imports of Cellulosic Biofuel
While domestically produced
cellulosic biofuels are the most likely
source of cellulosic biofuel available in
the United States, producers and/or
importers of cellulosic biofuel produced
in other countries may also generate
RINs and participate in the RFS2
program. While the RFS2 program does
provide a financial incentive for
companies to import cellulosic biofuels
into the United States, the combination
of local demand, financial incentives
from other governments, and
transportation costs for the cellulosic
biofuel has resulted in no cellulosic
biofuel being imported to the United
States thus far. EPA believes this
situation is likely to continue in the
near future. Additionally, the majority
of internationally based cellulosic
biofuel facilities that currently exist or
plan to complete construction by the
end of 2012 are small research and
development or pilot facilities not
designed for the commercial production
of fuel.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38852
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Two notable exceptions, both located
in Canada, are Enerkem and Iogen.
Enerkem has a currently existing
commercial production facility in
Westbury, Quebec and is expecting to
complete construction on a second
facility in Edmonton, Alberta in late
2011. Iogen has a small demonstration
facility in Ottawa and is currently
exploring the possibility of building
their first commercial facility near
Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. The large
expected production volumes and
relatively small distance this fuel would
have to be transported to reach the
United States make these facilities the
most likely candidates to import
cellulosic biofuel into the United States.
In conversations with EPA, however,
both companies indicated that they had
no current intentions of importing fuel
from their Canadian production
facilities into the United States. On
September 1, 2010 the government of
Canada finalized regulations requiring
all gasoline sold in Canada to have a
renewable content of 5% and all diesel
fuel and heating oil to have a renewable
content of 2%. These regulations will
further increase local demand for any
cellulosic biofuel produced from these
two facilities and decrease the
likelihood of any of this fuel being
exported to the United States. For these
reasons we have not included any
cellulosic biofuel production from
foreign facilities in our projections of
cellulosic biofuel availability in 2012.
4. Summary of Volume Projections
The information EPA has gathered on
the potential cellulosic biofuel
producers in 2012, described above,
allows us to identify potential volumes
that could be achieved by each facility
in 2012. This information is
summarized in Table II.B.4–1 below.
TABLE II.B.4–1—CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL 2012 POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE VOLUME
2012 Potentially available volume
(MG)
Ethanol
equivalent
gallons (MG)
0.25
0.25
Online
Late 2012
May 2012
3.0
0.5
3.0
3.0
0.5
3.0
0.2
Online
0.2
0.3
10
Mid 2012
4.0
6.4
1.5
1.3
0.25
Online
2012
2011
1.0
0.7
0.25
1.0
1.0
0.25
Capacity
(MGY)
Earliest production
Company name
Location
Feedstock
Fuel
DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol.
Fiberight a ..................................
Fulcrum Bioenergy ....................
INEOS Bio .................................
Vonore, TN ....
Corn Stover ...
Ethanol ...........
0.25
Online
MSW ..............
MSW ..............
Ag Residue,
MSW.
Ag Residue ....
Ethanol ...........
Ethanol ...........
Ethanol ...........
6
10.5
8
KiOR ..........................................
Blairstown, IA
McCarran, NV
Vero Beach,
FL.
Houston, TX ...
KiOR ..........................................
Columbus, MS
Pulp Wood .....
KL Energy .................................
Terrabon ....................................
ZeaChem ...................................
Upton, WY .....
Port Arthur, TX
Boardman, OR
Wood Waste ..
MSW ..............
Planted Trees
Gasoline, Diesel.
Gasoline, Diesel.
Ethanol ...........
Gasoline .........
Ethanol ...........
Total ...................................
........................
........................
........................
................
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
a Based
......................
12.9
15.7
on company estimate.
The potentially available volume of
12.9 million gallons of cellulosic
biofuel, or 15.7 million ethanol
equivalent gallons, represents the higher
end of the range of cellulosic biofuel
volumes that EPA believes at this time
could reasonably be expected to be
produced or imported and made
available for use as transportation fuel,
heating oil, or jet fuel in 2012. It
incorporates reductions from the annual
production capacity of each facility
based on when the facilities anticipate
fuel production will begin and
assumptions regarding a ramp up period
to full production. Other factors such as
the funding status, risks associated with
new technologies, and the current status
of project construction were considered
for each facility.
For the lower end of the range, we
believe that a volume of 3.55 million
ethanol-equivalent gallons could be
justified based on currently available
information. This volume is based on a
consideration of only those facilities
that are structurally complete at the
time of this proposal and which have
indicated that they anticipate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
commercial production of cellulosic
biofuels by the end of 2011. The
production facilities meeting these
criteria include Dupont Danisco
Cellulosic Ethanol, Fiberight (2 million
gallon per year first stage), KiOR
(Houston, TX facility), and KL Energy.
While there is still some uncertainty
regarding the projected volumes from
these facilities, by completing
construction and anticipating fuel
production by the end of 2011 there is
less uncertainty associated with these
facilities than for the others listed as
potential cellulosic biofuel producers
for 2012.
Therefore, in today’s NPRM we are
proposing a range of values, from 3.55
million ethanol equivalent gallons to
15.7 million ethanol equivalent gallons
for the 2012 cellulosic biofuel standard.
The low end of the range represents a
projection of higher confidence and less
uncertainty, with greater emphasis
placed on established/demonstrated
production capacity. The high end of
the range represents a projection of less
confidence and higher uncertainty, with
greater emphasis placed on productions
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
plans. As time progresses and we are
able to track whether or not the
cellulosic biofuels producers are able to
meet the construction and ramp up
schedules they have presented, and as
we consider public comments on this
proposal and the EIA estimated 2012
volume of cellulosic biofuel production
that they are required to provide to us
by October 31 of this year, we will have
a better idea of the appropriate volume
of fuel that we can reasonably expect to
be produced and made commercially
available in 2012. Congress did not
specify the degree of certainty that
should be reflected in our projections of
cellulosic biofuel volumes. We expect
that the volume that we project in the
final rule for 2012 will represent a
reasonable balance of the degree of
uncertainty or confidence in the
projected production volume and the
risk of unnecessarily reducing the
applicable volumes set forth in the Act.
Although we are proposing a range of
values from 3.55 to 15.7 million ethanol
equivalent gallons based on information
available at the time of this NPRM, we
also request comment on alternative
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38853
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
options for setting the 2012 cellulosic
biofuel volume requirement at a higher
level. It is possible that a cellulosic
biofuel volume requirement which
reduces less of the 500 mill gallon
applicable volume from the statute
could spur additional near and longerterm cellulosic biofuel production
capacity. We recognize that any method
must take into account the uncertainty
in estimating future production
potential. Nevertheless, the purpose of
setting a mandate is to stimulate more
rapid increases in the rate of production
than the cellulosic biofuel industry
would likely experience in the absence
of the mandate. We request comment on
whether a higher volume requirement
for cellulosic biofuel than we are
proposing today would provide
additional stimulation of production
volumes of cellulosic biofuel, and the
basis for setting such a higher volume
requirement.
C. Potential Limitations in 2012
In addition to production capacity, a
variety of other factors have the
potential to limit the amount of
cellulosic biofuel that can be produced
and used in the U.S. For instance, there
may be limitations in the availability of
qualifying cellulosic feedstocks at
reasonable prices. Most of the cellulosic
biofuel producers that we anticipate
will produce commercial volumes in
2012 have indicated that they will use
some type of cellulosic waste, such as
separated municipal solid waste, wastes
from the forestry industry, and
agricultural residues. Based on the
analyses of cellulosic feedstock
availability in the RFS2 final rule, we
believe that there will be significantly
more than enough sources of these
feedstocks for 2012. For producers that
intend to use dedicated energy crops,
we do not believe that the amount of
qualifying cropland for renewable fuel
production under RFS2 will limit
production in 2012. We plan to
continue to evaluate the availability of
valid feedstocks in future years as the
required volumes of cellulosic biofuel
increase.
We anticipate that the relatively small
incremental increase in total biofuel
volumes in 2012 that would be
attributed to cellulosic biofuels can be
accommodated by the fuel distribution
system. The RFS2 final rule analysis
concluded that biofuel distribution
challenges as the RFS2 volume
requirements ramp up could be
overcome in a timely fashion. In the
RFS2 final rule analysis, we assumed
that most cellulosic biofuel production
facilities would be constructed in the
nation’s heartland similar to corn
ethanol production facilities. Based on
more recent information, we now
believe that cellulosic production
facilities will be more geographically
dispersed. This is the case for the
specific cellulosic biofuels production
facilities that we expect would produce
fuel in 2012. The greater geographic
dispersion would tend to lessen the
distance to transport biofuels to
petroleum terminals, thereby reducing
the overall distribution burden. We
believe that the cellulosic biofuel
volumes that would be produced in
2012 could be accommodated by fuel
retailers without necessitating the
installation of new refueling
infrastructure such as that which would
be needed for E85.
D. Advanced Biofuel and Total
Renewable Fuel in 2012
Under CAA 211(o)(7)(D)(i), EPA has
the discretion to reduce the applicable
volumes of advanced biofuel and total
renewable fuel in the event that the
projected volume of cellulosic biofuel
production is determined to be below
the applicable volume specified in the
statute. As described in Section II.B
above, we are indeed projecting the
volume of cellulosic biofuel production
for 2012 at significantly below the
statutory applicable volume of 500
million gallons. Because cellulosic
biofuel is used to satisfy the cellulosic
biofuel standard, the advanced biofuel
standard, and the total renewable fuel
standard, any reductions in the
applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel
will also affect the means through
which obligated parties comply with the
advanced biofuel standard and the total
renewable fuel standard. Therefore, we
have considered whether and to what
degree to propose lowering the
advanced biofuel and total renewable
fuel applicable volumes for 2012.
If the required volume of cellulosic
biofuel for a given year is less than the
volume specified in the statute, it is
important to evaluate whether there
would be sufficient volume of advanced
biofuels to satisfy the applicable volume
of advanced biofuel volume set forth in
the statute. Even with a reduced volume
of cellulosic biofuel, other advanced
biofuels, such as biomass-based diesel,
sugarcane ethanol, or other biofuels,
may be available in sufficient volumes
to make up for the shortfall in cellulosic
biofuel. We believe that it would be
consistent with the energy security and
greenhouse gas reduction goals of EISA
to not reduce the applicable volume of
advanced biofuel set forth in the statute
if there are sufficient volumes of
advanced biofuels available, even if
those volumes do not include the
amount of cellulosic biofuel that
Congress may have desired. Our
authority to lower the advanced biofuel
and/or total renewable fuel applicable
volumes is discretionary, and in general
we believe that actions to lower these
volumes should only be taken if
insufficient volumes of qualifying
biofuel can be made available, based on
such circumstances as insufficient
production capacity, insufficient
feedstocks, competing markets,
constrained infrastructure, or the like.
As discussed below, we project that
sufficient volumes of advanced biofuel
can be made available in 2012 such that
the 2.0 bill gallon advanced biofuel
requirement need not be reduced.
If we were to maintain the advanced
biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and total
renewable fuel volume requirements at
the levels specified in the statute, while
also lowering the cellulosic biofuel
standard to 3.55–15.7 million ethanolequivalent gallons, then 1,504–1,516
million gallons of the 2.0 billion gallon
advanced biofuel mandate would be
satisfied automatically through the
satisfaction of the cellulosic and
biomass based diesel standards. An
additional 484–496 million ethanolequivalent gallons of additional
advanced biofuels would be needed. See
Table II.D–1.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE II.D–1—PROJECTED FUEL MIX IF ONLY CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL VOLUME IS ADJUSTED IN 2012
[Mill gallons]
Ethanol-equivalent
volume
Total renewable fuel ................................................................................................................................
Conventional renewable fuel a .................................................................................................................
Total advanced biofuel ............................................................................................................................
Cellulosic biofuel ......................................................................................................................................
Biomass-based diesel ..............................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
15,200
13,200
2,000
3.55–15.7
1,500
01JYP2
Physical volume
14,536–14,701
13,200
1,336–1,501
3.45–12.9
1,000
38854
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.D–1—PROJECTED FUEL MIX IF ONLY CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL VOLUME IS ADJUSTED IN 2012—Continued
[Mill gallons]
Ethanol-equivalent
volume
Other advanced biofuel b .........................................................................................................................
484–496
Physical volume
c 323–496
a Predominantly
corn-starch ethanol.
to nearest million gallons for simplicity.
c Physical volume is a range because other advanced biofuel may be ethanol, biodiesel, or some combination of the two.
b Rounded
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The most likely sources of additional
advanced biofuel would be imported
sugarcane ethanol and biomass-based
diesel, though there may also be some
volumes of other types of advanced
biofuel available as discussed below. To
determine if there are likely to be
sufficient volumes of these biofuels to
meet the need for 484–496 million
gallons of other advanced biofuel, we
first examined historical data on ethanol
imports and projections from EIA and
USDA for 2012. Brazilian imports have
made up a sizeable portion of total
ethanol imported into the U.S. in the
past, and these volumes were
predominantly produced from
sugarcane. Ethanol imports averaged
about 380 million gallons per year over
the last five years, and reached an alltime high of 730 million gallons in
2006.6 These historical import volumes
demonstrate that Brazil has significant
export potential under the appropriate
economic circumstances. However,
ethanol imports were significantly lower
in 2010 than in previous years. This
decline in imports may be related to the
cessation of the duty drawback that
became effective on October 1, 2008, or
to changes in world sugar prices.7
However, Brazil continues to be second
worldwide in the production of ethanol,
producing a total of 6.9 bill gallons in
2009.8 By establishing an increased U.S.
demand for 484–496 million gallons of
other advanced biofuel in 2012, we
would be re-establishing an export
market for Brazillian sugarcane ethanol
that could compete with the use of
sugarcane to produce sugar, and thus it
can once again be economical for
Brazilian producers to export higher
volumes of sugarcane ethanol to the
U.S. Moreover, California’s Low Carbon
Fuel Standard went into effect in 2010,
and may result in some refiners
importing additional volumes of
6 ‘‘Monthly U.S. Imports of Fuel Ethanol,’’ EIA,
released 3/30/2011.
7 Lundell, Drake, ‘‘Brazilian Ethanol Export Surge
to End; U.S. Customs Loophole Closed Oct. 1,’’
Ethanol and Biodiesel News, Issue 45, November 4,
2008.
8 Portal Brasil, Energy Matrix for Ethanol,
https://www.brasil.gov.br/sobre/economy/energymatrix/ethanol/br_model1?set_language=en.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
sugarcane ethanol from Brazil into
California in 2012. These same volumes
could count towards the Federal RFS2
program as well.
Future projections from other sources
also suggest that a large portion of the
484–496 million gallons of advanced
biofuel needed could be supplied by
imported sugarcane ethanol. For
instance, in the Early Release of its
Annual Energy Outlook 2011, EIA
projects ethanol imports of
approximately 400 million gallons for
2012.9 Similarly, the university-based
Food and Agricultural Policy Research
Institute (FAPRI) released its 2010 U.S.
and World Agricultural Outlook report
in which it projects 2012 ethanol
imports of 317 million gallons.10 The
volumes of imported ethanol projected
by both of these sources is very likely
to be sugarcane ethanol, since this is by
far the predominant form of imported
ethanol to date and is expected to
continue to be so for the foreseeable
future.
We also examined the potential for
excess biodiesel to help meet the need
for 484–496 million gallons of advanced
biofuel. The applicable volume of
biomass based diesel established in the
statute for 2012 is 1.0 billion gallons
(which corresponds to 1500 ethanolequivalent gallons). As discussed more
fully in Section II.E below, we believe
that the biodiesel industry has the
potential for producing volumes above
1.0 billion gallons if demand for such
volume exists, potentially up to an
additional several hundred million
gallons.
Another potential source of advanced
biofuels is electricity generated from
renewable biomass that is used as a
transportation fuel. EIA data indicates
that in 2009, the most recent year for
which data is available, 35.6 million
megawatt-hours of electricity was
generated from wood and wood derived
fuels, and an additional 18.4 million
megawatt-hours was generated from
9 Table 11 of AEO2011 Early Release, Report
Number DOE/EIA–0383ER(2011). https://
www.eia.doe.gov/forecasts/aeo/tables_ref.cfm.
10 Table ‘‘Ethanol trade’’, World Biofuels, FAPRI
2010 U.S. and World Agricultural Outlook. https://
www.fapri.iastate.edu/outlook/2010/.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
other biomass in the United States.11 If
all of this electricity were used as a
transportation fuel it would represent
nearly 2.4 billion ethanol equivalent
gallons of advanced biofuel. While not
all the feedstocks used to generate the
electricity included in these totals
would meet the RFS2’s renewable
biomass definition this remains a very
large potential source of advanced
biofuel RINs.
In addition to verifying that the
feedstocks used to generate renewable
electricity meet the renewable biomass
definition producers would also be
required to document that the electricity
they produce is used as a transportation
fuel in order to be eligible to generate
RINs. Until recently there were very few
vehicles capable of using electricity as
a transportation fuel. Expected increases
in the number of vehicles with this
capability, such as electric vehicles and
plug in hybrids, has the potential to
dramatically increase the degree to
which electricity is able to be used as a
transportation fuel. Verifying that the
renewable electricity produced is used
as a transportation fuel would still
remain a challenge, however the
potential for capitalizing on the RIN
value, without the necessity of making
major changes in the areas of fuel
production, distribution, or end use,
may be a large enough incentive to
overcome this challenge. While the
many uncertainties associated with the
generation of advanced biofuel RINs
from renewable electricity prevent EPA
from making a quantitative projection
for 2012, such RINs may nevertheless
play a role in meeting the advanced
biofuel standard.
Finally, there are also other potential
sources of advanced biofuels. For
instance, several companies are making
progress on opening advanced biofuel
production facilities as early as 2012.
Gevo purchased a dry mill corn ethanol
plant in Minnesota and is in the process
of converting it to produce up to 10
million gallons of biobutanol per year.
Solazyme produced over 150,000
11 Table ES1 of Electric Power Industry 2009:
Year in Review. Available online: https://
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epayir.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
gallons of algal oil in 2010–2011 that
was then converted to jet fuel by UOP
and is planning for increased
production in 2012. LS9 purchased a
fermentation facility in Florida that will
enable them to produce 50,000 to
100,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year
and plan to have this facility full
operational by 2012. Several other
companies are also planning on
producing advanced biofuels using a
variety of feedstocks, including sugars,
sweet sorghum, waste cooking oil or
restaurant grease, algal oils, and many
others that have the potential to achieve
commercial production by the end of
2012. Insofar as such fuels are registered
under 40 CFR part 79 and meet all the
requirements for RIN generation under
the RFS program, they could contribute
to compliance with the advanced
biofuels standard in 2012.
By adding up the potential volumes of
imported sugarcane ethanol, excess
biodiesel, and other sources of advanced
biofuel, there are likely to be sufficient
volumes of advanced biofuels to meet
the need for 484–496 million gallons. As
a result, we do not believe that the
advanced biofuel standard need be
lowered below the 2.0 billion gallon
level specified in the Act. Thus, we are
not proposing to reduce the applicable
volume of advanced biofuel for 2012. In
addition, since we are not proposing to
lower the advanced biofuel standard for
2012, we do not believe that there is a
need to lower the total renewable fuel
standard. Nevertheless, since there is
some uncertainty in both the availability
of advanced biofuels in 2012 and the
market conditions which would support
their availability, we request comment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
on whether the advanced biofuel and
total renewable fuel standards should be
lowered, and the basis for such a
reduction in the applicable volumes
from the statute.
E. Biomass-Based Diesel in 2012
As described more fully in Section
II.D above, we must determine whether
the required volumes of advanced
biofuel and/or total renewable fuel
should be reduced if we reduce the
required volume of cellulosic biofuel.
The amount of biomass-based diesel
that we project will be available directly
affected our proposed consideration for
this NPRM of adjustments to the
volumetric requirements for advanced
biofuel and total renewable fuel.
To evaluate whether the applicable
volume of 1.0 bill gallons for biomassbased diesel is achievable in 2012, and
whether even greater volumes could be
produced, we examined recent
production rates, production capacity of
the industry, and projections for future
production. Although there are a variety
of potential fuel types that can qualify
as biomass-based diesel, biodiesel is by
far the predominant type. Thus, our
assessment focused primarily on
biodiesel, though we also investigated
potential volumes of renewable diesel.
According to the Energy Information
Administration, biodiesel production in
2010 reached 311 mill gallons.12
However, we believe that this value
underestimates the volume of biomassbased diesel actually produced in 2010
since it is based primarily on feedstocks
used in the production of biodiesel.
12 Monthly Energy Review, May 2011. https://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec10_8.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38855
Based on information from the EPAModerated Transaction System (EMTS)
and RIN generation reports submitted to
EPA from producers, we estimate that
the volume of biomass-based diesel
produced in 2010 was about 380 mill
gallons. While this is higher than the
345 mill gallons that we projected
would be needed for compliance with
the 2010 biomass-based diesel
standard,13 there were also exports of
biodiesel that would have reduced the
availability of RINs for compliance
purposes. To the degree that the volume
of biomass-based diesel fell short of the
345 mill gallons that we estimated
would be needed, obligated parties
would have needed to carry a deficit
into 2011.
However, many of the activities of the
biodiesel industry in 2010 were due to
unique circumstances that may not
apply in 2012. It is likely that a
contributing factor to the lower
production volumes in 2010 was the
expiration of the biodiesel tax credit at
the end of 2009, and the uncertainty
throughout 2010 regarding whether and
when it might be reinstated. This
situation may have led to hesitation on
the part of obligated parties for
establishing binding contracts for
purchases of biodiesel.
Historical production of biodiesel has
varied significantly depending on
market demand as shown in Figure II.E–
1 below.
13 See question 6.7 in EPA’s ‘‘Questions and
Answers on Changes to the Renewable Fuel
Standard Program (RFS2)’’, https://www.epa.gov/
otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/compliancehelp/rfs2aq.htm#6.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
The fact that the U.S. biodiesel industry
has produced higher volumes when
demand for it existed suggests that the
industry has the capability to produce
greater volumes than it did in 2010
under the appropriate circumstances.
For instance, information from the EPAModerated Transaction System (EMTS)
indicates that monthly production
volumes of biodiesel have increased
steadily in the first few months of 2011,
reaching 74 mill gallons by April.14 This
trend demonstrates that the industry is
responding to the higher demand
created by the 800 mill gal biomassbased diesel volume requirement under
the RFS program in 2011.
The biodiesel industry’s production
potential supports the view that it can
more than satisfy the applicable volume
of biomass-based diesel specified in the
statute for 2012. As of January, 2011, the
aggregate production capacity of
biodiesel plants in the U.S. was
estimated at 2.8 billion gallons per year
across approximately 170 facilities. 15
Of this aggregate production capacity, at
least 1.8 billion gallons of production
14 2011
RIN Generation and Renewable Fuel
Volume Production, https://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/
renewablefuels/compliancehelp/rfsdata.htm.
15 Figures taken from National Biodiesel Board’s
Member Plant List as of January 27, 2011. https://
biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/plants/showall.aspx.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
capacity has been registered under the
RFS2 program.16 Although some
facilities are currently idle, and ramping
up production will require some time
and potentially some reinvestment,
based on feedback from industry we
nevertheless believe that it can occur in
time to meet a production goal of 1.0
billion gallons in 2012.
Projections of production for 2012
strongly suggest that 1.0 bill gallons of
biomass-based diesel is achievable. For
instance, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture projects that over 400 mill
gallons of biodiesel will be produced
from soybean oil in 2012, and adds that
‘‘Although some other first-use
vegetable oils are also used to produce
biodiesel, most of the remaining
biodiesel production needed to reach
the 1-billion-gallon mandate of the 2007
Energy Act uses animal fats or recycled
vegetable oil as the feedstock.’’ 17 This
projection is further supported by the
Agricultural Marketing Resource Center
at Iowa State University, which projects
that soy-oil biodiesel production may
16 Comments from National Biodiesel Board on
the July 20, 2010 NPRM proposing the RFS
standards for 2011. See Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0133.
17 USDA Agricultural Projections to 2020, LongTerm Projections Report OCE–2011–1, February
2011. See Table 24. Assumes 7.68 lb/gal.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reach as high as 470 mill gallons and
that non-soy biodiesel may reach as
high as 460 mill gallons.18 Both of these
sources project more growth in non-soy
oil feedstock volumes than soy oil.
Finally, EIA projects that the total
volume of biodiesel in 2012 would be
about 840 mill gallons.19 While all of
these projections suggest that volumes
of biodiesel may fall short of 1.0 bill
gallons, we believe that sufficient
additional volumes of renewable diesel
can also be available to meet the 1.0 bill
gal requirement for biomass-based
diesel. For instance, Dynamic Fuels has
constructed one plant in Geismar,
Louisiana that started production of
renewable diesel in November, 2010.20
In the final RFS2 rule, we projected that
annual renewable diesel production
could reach 150 mill gallons based on
feedstock availability. Since renewable
diesel can also be produced at existing
refineries with little or no modification
to processing equipment, we believe
18 Soybean Oil and Biodiesel Usage Projections
and Balance Sheet, updated 2/18/2011. https://
www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/outlook/
soybeanbalancesheet.pdf. Values cited are for the
‘‘High’’ case.
19 Short-Term Energy Outlook, February 2011.
Table 8.
20 Project status updates are available via the
Syntroleum Web site, https://dynamicfuelsllc.com/
wp-news/.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
EP01JY11.000
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38856
38857
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
that 150 mill gallons of renewable diesel
could be produced in 2012. Thus, we
currently believe that the total
production volume of both biodiesel
and renewable diesel can reach 1.0 bill
gal in 2012.
We also believe that there will be
sufficient sources of qualifying
renewable biomass to more than meet
the needs of the biodiesel industry in
2012. The largest sources of feedstock
for biodiesel in 2012 are expected to be
soy oil, canola oil, rendered fats, and
potentially some corn oil extracted
during production of fuel ethanol, as
this technology continues to proliferate.
Moreover, information we received from
a large rendering company suggests that
there will be adequate fats and greases
feedstocks to supply biofuels
production as well as other historical
uses.21
Based on our review of the production
potential of the biodiesel industry, and
projections from several sources, and
our assessment of available feedstocks,
we believe that the 1.0 billion gallons
needed to satisfy the applicable volume
of biomass-based diesel specified in the
statute can be produced in 2012.
Therefore, we are not proposing to
lower the biomass-based diesel standard
of 1.0 billion gallons that is specified in
the Act. Moreover, based on production
capacity and availability of feedstocks,
we believe that volumes of biomassbased diesel in excess of 1.0 bill gallons
could be made available given sufficient
market demand.
III. Proposed Percentage Standards for
2012
A. Background
The renewable fuel standards are
expressed as a volume percentage, and
are used by each refiner, blender or
importer to determine their renewable
volume obligations (RVO). Since there
are four separate standards under the
RFS2 program, there are likewise four
separate RVOs applicable to each
obligated party. Each standard applies
to the sum of all gasoline and diesel
produced or imported. The applicable
percentage standards 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
required on a nationwide basis.
As discussed in Section II.B.4, we are
proposing a required volume of
cellulosic biofuel for 2012 in the range
of 3.45–12.9 million gallons (3.55–15.7
million ethanol equivalent gallons). The
single volume we select for the final
rule will be used as the basis for setting
the percentage standard for cellulosic
biofuel for 2012. We are also proposing
that the advanced biofuel and total
renewable fuel volumes would not be
reduced below the applicable volumes
specified in the statute. The proposed
2012 volumes used to determine the
four percentage standards are shown in
Table III.A–1.
TABLE III.A–1—PROPOSED VOLUMES FOR 2012
Actual volume
Ethanol equivalent
volume
3.45–12.9 mill gal ......
1.0 bill gal ..................
2.0 bill gal ..................
15.2 bill gal ................
The formulas used in deriving the
annual renewable fuel standards are
based in part on estimates of the
volumes of gasoline and diesel fuel, for
both highway and nonroad uses, that
will be used in the year in which the
standards will apply. Producers of other
transportation fuels, such as natural gas,
propane, and electricity from fossil
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Cellulosic biofuel ..............................................................................................................................
Biomass-based diesel ......................................................................................................................
Advanced biofuel .............................................................................................................................
Renewable fuel ................................................................................................................................
obligations of an individual gasoline or
diesel producer or importer.
fuels, are not subject to the standards,
and volumes of such fuels are not used
in calculating the annual standards.
Since the standards apply to producers
and importers of gasoline and diesel,
these are the transportation fuels used to
set the standards, and then again to
determine the annual volume
B. Calculation of Standards
1. How are the standards calculated?
The following formulas are used to
calculate the four percentage standards
applicable to producers and importers
of gasoline and diesel (see § 80.1405):
21 See Federal Register v. 74 n. 99 p. 24903.
Comments are available in docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2005–0161.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
3.55–15.7 mill gal.
1.5 bill gal.
2.0 bill gal.
15.2 bill gal.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Where:
StdCB,i = The cellulosic biofuel standard for
year i, in percent.
StdBBD,i = The biomass-based diesel standard
(ethanol-equivalent basis) 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) of the
Clean Air Act for year i, in gallons.
RFVBBD,i = Annual volume of biomass-based
diesel required by section 211(o) of the
Clean Air Act for year i, in gallons.
RFVAB,i = Annual volume of advanced
biofuel required by section 211(o) of the
Clean Air Act for year i, in gallons.
RFVRF,i = Annual volume of renewable fuel
required by section 211(o) 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
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. For 2012, this
value is 3.27 bill gal. See further
discussion in Section III.B.2 below.
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. For 2012, this
value is 1.23 bill gal. See further
discussion in Section III.B.2 below.
account for renewable fuel contained in
the EIA projections. The projected
volumes of ethanol and biodiesel used
to calculate the final percentage
standards will be provided by EIA; for
2011, the final values were based on
EIA’s Short-Term Energy Outlook
(STEO). For the purposes of this
proposal, we have used the April 2011
values for ethanol and biodiesel
provided in the STEO. Although EIA
will be providing fuel consumption
projections for the final rule, using the
most recent available EIA data for
purposes of this proposal allows us to
provide the affected industries with a
reasonable estimate of the standards for
planning purposes.
The four separate renewable fuel
standards for 2012 are based on the 49state gasoline and diesel consumption
volumes projected by EIA. The Act
requires EPA to base the standards on
an EIA estimate of the amount of
gasoline and diesel that will be sold or
introduced into commerce for that year.
The projected volume of gasoline used
to calculate the final 2012 percentage
standards will be provided directly by
EIA. For the purposes of this proposal,
we have used the April 2011 issue of
STEO for the gasoline projection. The
projected volume of transportation
diesel used to calculate the final 2012
percentage standards will be provided
by EIA. For the purposes of this
proposal, we have used the Early
Release version of AEO2011. Gasoline
and diesel volumes are adjusted to
In CAA section 211(o)(9), enacted as
part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
Congress provided a temporary
exemption to small refineries (those
refineries with a crude throughput of no
more than 75,000 barrels of crude per
day) through December 31, 2010. In
RFS1, 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 statutory small refinery
definition as noted above. Because EISA
did not alter the small refinery
exemption in any way, the RFS2
program regulations exempted gasoline
and diesel produced by small refineries
and small refiners in 2010 from the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2. Small Refineries and Small Refiners
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
EP01JY11.004
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38858
38859
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
renewable fuels standard (unless the
exemption was waived), see 40 CFR
80.1141.
Under the RFS program, Congress
provided two ways that small refineries
can receive a temporary extension of the
exemption beyond 2010. One is based
on the results of a study conducted by
the Department of Energy (DOE) to
determine if small refineries would face
a disproportionate economic hardship
under the RFS program. The other is
based on EPA determination of
disproportionate economic hardship on
a case-by-case basis in response to
refiner petitions.
In January 2009, DOE issued a study
which did not find that small refineries
would face a disproportionate economic
hardship under the RFS program.22 The
conclusions were based in part on the
expected robust availability of RINs and
EPA’s ability to grant relief on a case-bycase basis. As a result, beginning in
2011 small refiners and small refineries
were required to participate in the RFS
program as obligated parties, and there
was no small refiner/refinery volume
adjustment to the 2011 standard as there
was for the 2010 standard.
Following the release of DOE’s 2009
small refinery study, Congress directed
DOE to complete a reassessment and
issue a revised report. DOE recently reevaluated the impacts of the RFS
program on small entities and
concluded that some small refineries
would suffer a disproportionate
hardship if required to participate in the
program.23 As a result, these refineries
will be exempt from being obligated
parties for a minimum of two additional
years, 2011 and 2012.24 The proposed
2012 standards reflect the exemption of
these refineries. In addition, and
separate from the DOE determination,
EPA may extend the exemption for
individual small refineries on a case-bycase basis if they demonstrate
disproportionate economic hardship. A
few refineries have satisfactorily made
this demonstration, and EPA has acted
on their requests. The gasoline and
diesel volumes of those refineries have
been appropriately accounted for in the
development of the proposed standards.
If additional individual refinery
requests for exemptions are approved
following the release of this NPRM, the
22 DOE
report ‘‘EPACT 2005 Section 1501 Small
Refineries Exemption Study’’, (January, 2009).
23 ‘‘Small Refinery Exemption Study: An
Investigation into Disproportionate Economic
Hardship,’’ U.S. Department of Energy, March 2011.
24 Since the standards are applied on an annual
basis, the exemptions are likewise on an annual
basis even though the determination of which
refineries would receive an extension to their
exemption did not occur until after January 1, 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
final standards will be adjusted to
account for those exempted volumes of
gasoline and diesel. However, any
requests for exemptions that are
approved after the release of the final
2012 RFS standards will not affect the
2012 standards. As stated in the final
rule establishing the 2011 standards,
‘‘EPA believes the Act is best
interpreted to require issuance of a
single annual standard in November
that is applicable in the following
calendar year, thereby providing
advance notice and certainty to
obligated parties regarding their
regulatory requirements. Periodic
revisions to the standards to reflect
waivers issued to small refineries or
refiners would be inconsistent with the
statutory text, and would introduce an
undesirable level of uncertainty for
obligated parties.’’ Thus, after the 2012
standards are finalized, any additional
exemptions issued will not affect those
standards.
Because the gasoline and diesel volumes
estimated by EIA include renewable fuel
use, we must subtract the total
renewable fuel volume from the total
gasoline and diesel volume to get total
non-renewable gasoline and diesel
volumes. The values of the variables
described above are shown in Table
III.B.3–1.26 Terms not included in this
table have a value of zero.
3. Proposed Standards
As finalized in the March 26, 2010
RFS2 rule, the standards are expressed
in terms of energy-equivalent gallons of
renewable fuel, with the cellulosic
biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total
renewable fuel standards based on
ethanol equivalence and the biomassbased diesel standard based on biodiesel
equivalence. However, all RIN
generation is based on ethanolequivalence. More specifically, the
RFS2 regulations provide that
production or import of a gallon of
biodiesel will lead to the generation of
1.5 RINs. In order to ensure that demand
for 1.0 billion physical gallons of
biomass-based diesel will be created in
2012, the calculation of the biomassbased diesel standard provides that the
required volume be multiplied by 1.5.
The net result is a biomass-based diesel
gallon being worth 1.0 gallons toward
the biomass-based diesel standard, but
worth 1.5 gallons toward the other
standards.25
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. Neither Alaska nor any U.S.
territory has chosen to participate in the
RFS2 program at this time, and thus the
value of the related terms in the
calculation of the standards is zero.
Note that the terms for projected
volumes of gasoline and diesel use
include gasoline and diesel that has
been blended with renewable fuel.
Using the volumes shown in Table
III.B.3–1, we have calculated the
proposed percentage standards for 2012
as shown in Table III.B.3–2.
25 75
PO 00000
FR 14716, March 26, 2010.
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
TABLE III.B.3–1—VALUES FOR TERMS
IN CALCULATION OF THE STANDARDS
[Bill gal]
Term
Value
RFVCB,2012 .........................
RFVBBD,2012 ......................
RFVAB,2012 ........................
RFVRF,2012 .........................
G2012 .................................
D2012 ..................................
RG2012 ...............................
RD2012 ...............................
0.00355–0.0157
1.0
2.0
15.20
139.98
44.47
14.17
0.83
TABLE III.B.3–2—PROPOSED
PERCENTAGE STANDARDS FOR 2012
Cellulosic biofuel .......
Biomass-based diesel
Advanced biofuel ......
Renewable fuel .........
0.002% to 0.010%.
0.91%.
1.21%.
9.21%.
IV. Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for
2013
In today’s action we are proposing an
applicable volume for biomass-based
diesel for 2013, based on the statutory
requirement to establish the applicable
volume of biomass-based diesel for
years after 2012 no later than 14 months
before the first year for which the
applicable volume will apply. To do
this, we have reviewed RFS program
implementation to date and analyzed a
number of factors specified in the
statute as part of this effort. We have
investigated what the demand for
biomass-based diesel is likely to be in
2013 taking into consideration the
applicable advanced biofuel volume
specified in the statute, the analyses we
26 To determine the 49-state values for gasoline
and diesel, the amounts of these fuels used in
Alaska is subtracted from the totals provided by
DOE. The Alaska fractions are determined from the
most recent (2009) EIA State Energy Data,
Transportation Sector Energy Consumption
Estimates. The gasoline and transportation distillate
fuel oil fractions are approximately 0.2% and 0.8%,
respectively. Ethanol use in Alaska is estimated at
8.4% of its gasoline consumption (based on the
same State data), and biodiesel use is assumed to
be zero.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38860
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
conducted in the RFS2 final rulemaking,
and a consideration of biodiesel
production, consumption, and
infrastructure issues. In these
investigations, biodiesel was the
primary focus since it is expected to be
the predominant type of biomass-based
diesel through at least the next few
years. However, renewable diesel may
also play a role in meeting the biomassbased diesel standard. When
appropriate, we have discussed
renewable diesel separately from
biodiesel.
Note that, in proposing the 2013
applicable volume of biomass-based
diesel, we are not at this time proposing
the percentage standards that would
apply to obligated parties in 2013.
Instead, the percentage standards will
be determined after projections of
gasoline and diesel volume are provided
by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) in the fall of 2012,
and will be announced by November 30,
2012. Moreover, in today’s proposal we
are not addressing potential exemptions
for small refineries and/or small refiners
in 2013, since such exemptions are only
relevant in the context of specifying the
percentage standards and their
applicability. Finally, we are not
proposing any applicable volumes of
biomass-based diesel for 2014 or later
years.
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 211(o)(2)(B)(i) of the Clean
Air Act specifies the applicable volumes
of renewable fuel on which the annual
percentage standards must be based,
unless the applicable volumes are
waived or adjusted by EPA in
accordance with specific authority and
directives specified in the statute.27
Applicable volumes are provided in the
statute for years through 2022 for
cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and
total renewable fuel. For biomass-based
diesel, applicable volumes are provided
through 2012. For years after those
specified in the statute (i.e. 2013+ for
biomass-based diesel and 2023+ for all
others), EPA is required to determine
the applicable volume, in coordination
with the Secretary of Energy and the
Secretary of Agriculture, based on a
review of the implementation of the
program during calendar years for
which the statute specifies the
applicable volumes, and an analysis of
the following:
• The impact of the production and
use of renewable fuels on the
environment, including on air quality,
27 For example, EPA may waive a given standard
in whole or in part following the provisions at
211(o)(7).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
climate change, conversion of wetlands,
ecosystems, wildlife habitat, water
quality, and water supply;
• The impact of renewable fuels on
the energy security of the United States;
• The expected annual rate of future
commercial production of renewable
fuels, including advanced biofuels in
each category (cellulosic biofuel and
biomass-based diesel);
• The impact of renewable fuels on
the infrastructure of the United States,
including deliverability of materials,
goods, and products other than
renewable fuel, and the sufficiency of
infrastructure to deliver and use
renewable fuel;
• The impact of the use of renewable
fuels on the cost to consumers of
transportation fuel and on the cost to
transport goods; and
• The impact of the use of renewable
fuels on other factors, including job
creation, the price and supply of
agricultural commodities, rural
economic development, and food prices.
While EPA is given the authority to
determine the appropriate volume of
renewable fuel for those years that are
not specified in the statute based on a
review of program implementation and
analysis of the factors listed above, the
statute also specifies that the applicable
volume of biomass-based diesel cannot
be less than the applicable volume for
calendar year 2012, which is 1.0 bill
gallons.
It is useful to note that the statutory
provisions described above are silent in
two important areas. First, the statute
does not provide numerical criteria or
thresholds that must be attained in the
determination of applicable volumes
(other than specifying a minimum
volume of 1.0 bill gal), nor does it
describe any overarching goals such as
maximizing GHG or energy security
benefits or minimizing cost. The EPA, in
coordination with DOE and USDA, is
thus effectively charged with making a
determination of the applicable volumes
based on a judgment of their
reasonableness in the context of a
review of program implementation and
analysis of the factors described above.
Second, the statute does not provide
authority to raise the applicable
volumes of advanced biofuel or total
renewable fuel above those specified in
the statute for years up to and including
2022. Thus, any increase in the biomassbased diesel volume requirement above
that specified for 2012 would not have
any impact on the advanced biofuel or
total renewable fuel volume
requirements. Rather, increasing the
biomass-based diesel volume
requirement above 1.0 bill gallons
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would likely result in a change in the
makeup of biofuels used to meet the
advanced biofuel and the total
renewable fuel standards, but would not
change the total required volumes of
those fuels (in terms of ethanolequivalent gallons).
Finally, the statute also specifies the
timeframe within which these volumes
must be promulgated: The rules
establishing the applicable volumes
must be finalized no later than 14
months before the first year for which
such applicable volume will apply. For
the biomass-based diesel volume that
would apply beginning on January 1,
2013, then, we must finalize the
applicable volume by November 1,
2011.
B. Factors Considered in Assessing 2013
Biomass-Based Diesel Volumes
As described in Section IV.A, we are
required to review the implementation
of the RFS program for years prior to
2013, and to use information from this
review in determining the applicable
volume of biomass-based diesel for
2013. However, given the short history
of the RFS program, we believe this
review is of limited value. Prior to the
beginning of the RFS2 program on July
1, 2010, the RFS1 program had no
volume requirement specific to biomassbased diesel. Although RINs were
generated for biodiesel under the RFS1
program and those RINs were available
for use in satisfying obligated parties’
RFS1 total renewable fuel Renewable
Volume Obligation (RVO), we do not
believe that the RFS1 program
contributed significantly to producers’
production decisions. Rather, biodiesel
production was driven by market
demand apart from the RFS program
requirements coupled with a tax credit
for biodiesel blends. We believe that
little can be discerned from the RFS1
history about the operation of the
biodiesel industry under a future RFS2
volume mandate.
In the short time since the RFS2
program went into effect, biodiesel
production volumes have not increased
substantially above historical levels due
most likely to factors such as the
availability of carryover RINs from 2008
and 2009 and the expiration of the
biodiesel tax credit (which was
reinstituted at the end of 2010).
Domestic biodiesel consumption varied
little in the 2008–2010 timeframe,
averaging about 330 mill gallons each
year.
Given the increases in the biomassbased diesel volumes that are required
in the statute for 2011 and 2012, we
expect production and consumption
volumes of biodiesel to increase
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
substantially above these recent historic
levels. A review of the RFS program
during 2011 and 2012 will, therefore,
provide more relevant information
regarding implementation of the RFS
program for purposes of helping us to
evaluate how the industry, as well as
feedstock supplies and infrastructure,
can respond to potential requirements
in 2014 and beyond. For the purposes
of proposing the 2013 biomass-based
diesel applicable volume in today’s
NPRM, however, this information is not
available.
With the limited information
available on the current and historical
operation of the RFS program, we
believe it would be prudent for 2013 to
consider only moderate increases above
the statutory minimum of 1.0 bill
gallons. One possible benchmark is
provided by the increments and growth
pattern of those increments that
Congress established for the years 2009–
2012, shown in Table IV.B–1.
1.28 billion gallons could be reasonably
produced.28 The value of 1.28 bill
gallons assumed for 2013 in the RFS2
final rule appears to roughly follow the
pattern in incremental growth shown in
Table IV.B–1 above. Moreover, this
biomass-based diesel volume has
already been partially evaluated in the
RFS2 rule. Therefore, EPA decided to
evaluate the appropriateness of
proposing an applicable volume for
2013 of 1.28 bill gallons. To this end, we
considered whether 1.28 bill gal of
biomass-based diesel was reasonable
given likely market demand, availability
of feedstocks, production capacity,
limitations related to storage and
consumption, infrastructure, and the
impacts of biomass-based diesel in a
variety of areas as required under the
statute. These impacts are discussed in
the subsequent Section IV.C.
1. Demand for Biomass-Based Diesel
The demand for biomass-based diesel
in 2013 will be a function of not only
the biomass-based diesel standard, but
TABLE IV.B–1—INCREMENTAL INCREASES IN BIOMASS-BASED DIESEL also the advanced biofuel standard,
since the standards under the RFS2
IN THE STATUTE
program are nested. That is, every RIN
[Bill gal]
that is valid for meeting the biomassbased diesel standard is also valid for
Applicable volIncrement
meeting the advanced biofuel standard.
ume of biofrom previous Moreover, there are currently only a
mass-based
year
diesel
small number of biofuels that are likely
to be available for meeting the advanced
2009 ............
0.5
n/a biofuel standard. In addition to biomass2010 ............
0.65
0.15 based diesel, these would include any
2011 ............
0.80
0.15
RINs used to meet the cellulosic biofuel
2012 ............
1.0
0.20
standard, coprocessed renewable diesel,
and sugarcane ethanol. To the degree
These increments provide a precedent
that there are limits in these other
for evaluating a reasonable mandatory
advanced biofuels, additional biomassminimum growth pattern for 2013. The
increments increased in magnitude over based diesel may be needed to make up
any shortfall.
the four-year period specified in the
Since the advanced biofuel standard
statute, increasing from 0.15 bill gal to
is an important factor in determining
0.20 bill gal. If this trend were to
the demand for biomass-based diesel in
continue, the 2013 volume could be
2013, we considered how it should be
more than 0.20 bill gal higher than the
treated in light of the fact that we must
2012 volume. Thus our intention is to
determine the applicable 2013 volume
consider an incremental increase in the
for biomass-based diesel this year, but
applicable volume of biomass-based
we will not set the 2013 standards
diesel between 2012 and 2013 that is
(including the advanced biofuel
not a dramatic change from the trend in
standard for 2013) until next year. EPA
increments shown above.
has the authority to reduce the
In the final rulemaking establishing
applicable volume of advanced biofuel
the RFS2 program, we developed
in the event that it reduces the
renewable fuel volume scenarios for all
applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel.
years between 2010 and 2022. For 2013,
EPA will consider using this authority
we estimated a biomass-based diesel
at the time it evaluates whether the 2013
volume of 1.28 bill gallons. This volume
applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel
was based primarily on a projection of
set in the statute should be lowered in
the qualifying feedstocks that could be
light of projected production volumes.
available. Our analyses of feedstock
In both 2010 and 2011 EPA lowered the
availability in the RFS2 final rule
concluded that the 2013 minimum
28 Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2)
biomass-based diesel volume of 1.0 bill
Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA–420–R–10–006,
gallons could be met and, indeed, that
February 2010. See Table 1.2–3.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:09 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38861
applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel
without lowering the applicable volume
of advanced biofuel. EPA is today
proposing the same approach for 2012.
In light of this history, and the fact that
EPA cannot finally evaluate the issue of
potentially lowering the applicable
volume of advanced biofuel for 2013
until it sets the 2013 standards in
November of 2012, we assume for
purposes of today’s evaluation of
biomass-based diesel demand in 2013
that the applicable volume of 2.75 bill
gallons of advanced biofuel specified in
the statute for 2013 will be used in
setting the 2013 advanced biofuel
standard.
As described in Section II, the
cellulosic biofuel industry continues to
develop, with numerous projects under
development, planned or underway.
Nevertheless, the actual production
volumes continue to fall far below the
applicable volumes specified in the
statute. For instance, we are proposing
a cellulosic biofuel volume of 3.55–15.7
mill gallons for 2012, compared to the
applicable volume of 500 mill gal
specified in the statute. In 2013, the
applicable volume doubles to 1.0 bill
gallons. While we have not projected
specific volumes of cellulosic biofuel
that may be available in 2013, it is
highly likely that they will fall
significantly short of 1.0 bill gallons,
and are likely to comprise only a small
portion of the 2.75 bill gal applicable
volume for advanced biofuel in 2013.
Imported sugarcane ethanol can also
be used to meet the advanced biofuel
standard. Between years 2000 and 2009,
the volume of ethanol imported into the
U.S. has ranged from 46–730 million
gallons per year, or on average,
approximately 200 million gallons per
year. These volumes were comprised
almost exclusively of sugarcane ethanol
from Brazil. In 2010, imports of ethanol
into the U.S. were among the lowest in
the past 10 years, reaching only 17
million gallons.29 Some of this recent
decline in ethanol imports may be due
to extremely wet weather in 2009/10
and dry conditions in 2010/11 which
cut into Brazilian supplies of sugarcane
and reduced sugar content. In addition,
some Brazilian sugarcane mills have the
ability to switch between producing
sugars for sweetener markets and
extracting sugars for ethanol markets.
The international price of sweetener
was so attractive in 2010 that mills may
have given greater priority to sugar.
Another factor is the expanding sales of
flex fuel vehicles in Brazil, which has
29 Official Statistics of the U.S. Department of
Commerce U.S. International Trade Commission.
Data only available from January–November 2010.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38862
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
continued to increase Brazilian
domestic ethanol demand, thus likely
limiting amounts available for exports.
Therefore, history shows that the
volume of imported ethanol can
fluctuate greatly due to a variety of
market influences.
Longer-term market projections can
help to better understand the potential
outlook for imports of sugarcane ethanol
as a function of international
agricultural and energy markets. One
source that evaluates trends and issues
for U.S. energy markets is the U.S.
Energy Information Administration’s
(EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).30
This report projects U.S. net ethanol
imports in 2013 to be 332 million
gallons. Another source for U.S. and
world commodity projections is the
Food and Agricultural Policy Research
Institute’s (FAPRI) U.S. and World
Agricultural Outlook. The most current
version of the outlook, the FAPRI 2010
Agricultural Outlook, projects for the
year 2013 that the U.S. will have net
ethanol imports of 333 million
gallons.31 In comparison, for the RFS2
final rulemaking, we assumed 190
million gallons of imported sugarcane
ethanol could be available in 2013 based
on EIA’s AEO2007.
Since ethanol supplies can flow to
countries other than the U.S., an
important part of understanding
potential imports into the U.S. are the
current and future biofuel mandates and
goals of other nations. Such mandates
include, for instance, Canada’s 5% fuel
ethanol mandate which started in late
2010, requiring approximately 500
million gallons per year. Another goal is
that of the EU, the renewable energy
directive, which includes a minimum
target of 10% renewable energy use in
transport by 2020, a portion of which is
expected to be met with ethanol. Other
countries with ethanol mandates and
goals are India, Indonesia, Philippines,
Costa Rica, Peru, and Argentina, to
name a few. According to Hart Energy
Consulting, most countries will be in a
potential supply deficit for ethanol by
2020, and the primary country in a
position to supply the global ethanol
market will be Brazil.32 Chief
competitors for the U.S. to receive
Brazilian ethanol are expected to be the
EU, China, and Japan. This increasing
30 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
‘‘AEO2011 Early Release,’’ December 2010. https://
www.eia.doe.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm.
31 Food and Agricultural Policy Research
Institute. ‘‘FAPRI 2010 U.S. and World Agricultural
Outlook: World Biofuels,’’ https://
www.fapri.iastate.edu/outlook/2010/text/
15Biofuels.pdf.
32 Hart Energy Consulting. ‘‘Global Biofuels
Outlook: 2010–2020,’’ October 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
international demand for biofuels may
limit export supplies available for the
U.S. in 2013.
The demand for ethanol in Brazil is
also increasing, further limiting volumes
that will likely be exported. For
instance, the sales share of flex-fuel
vehicles (FFVs) in Brazil are reported to
have risen dramatically in the last
decade, contributing to an in-use fleet
that is increasingly capable of operating
on pure ethanol. By 2014, 70% of the inuse fleet is expected to be FFVs,
compared to only 33% in 2009. While
the aforementioned FAPRI report
projected that 2013 Brazilian demand
for ethanol could be 7.7 billion gallons,
S&D estimated that 2013 demand could
potentially reach as high as 11 billion
gallons, outpacing Brazilian production
capacity.33
We believe that given the discussions
above, it is reasonable to conclude that
Brazilian sugarcane ethanol will
continue to provide limited volumes of
advanced biofuel in the U.S. in the near
term due to other competitive uses.
While imports of sugarcane ethanol into
the U.S. in 2013 could exceed the 190
million gallons estimated in RFS2, they
are unlikely to reach the historical high
of 730 mill gallons for the reasons
described above.
In addition to cellulosic biofuel and
imported sugarcane ethanol, there is
also some potential for other advanced
biofuels that could be used to meet the
advanced biofuel standard of 2.75 bill
gallons. The most likely of these is
sugar-based ethanol from domestic
sugarcane. Several companies have
announced plans for sugar-based
ethanol production in California,
Louisiana, and Florida. Two of these
companies have announced plans for
multiple ethanol production facilities,
however none of these companies have
yet begun construction. In addition,
coprocessed renewable diesel is
uncertain, though there could
conceivably be up to a hundred million
gallons by 2013. Potential production of
other advanced biofuels such as
renewable butanol or ethanol from noncorn starches in biomass-fueled
facilities is even less certain for 2013.
However, as described in Section II.D,
companies such as Gevo, Solazyme, and
LS9 are in the process of building or
converting facilities to produce
advanced biofuels in the form of
butanol, jet fuel, and renewable diesel,
respectively, that may count as
advanced biofuel. We expect all these
other sources of advanced biofuel to
contribute about one or two hundred
million gallons in 2013.
In summary, we believe that the total
volume of cellulosic biofuel, imported
sugarcane ethanol, and other advanced
biofuels that may be available in 2013
is likely to be less than about 1 billion
gallons. In order to reach an advanced
biofuel volume of 2.75 billion gallons,
then, it is likely that more than 1.0 bill
gallons of biomass-based diesel
(representing more than 1.5 billion
ethanol-equivalent gallons) will be
needed. The volume of biomass-based
diesel that may be needed in excess of
1.0 bill gallons could potentially be on
the order of hundreds of millions of
gallons. This result is similar to the
assumption made by IHS Global Insight
in their recent report, in which they
assume that an additional 300 million
gallons of biodiesel will be needed over
and above the 1.0 billion gallons
mandate for biomass-based diesel in
order for the advanced biofuel standard
to be met.34
As mentioned above, we do not
believe it would be prudent to set the
biomass-based diesel applicable volume
for 2013 such that the increment over
2012 volumes is excessive in
comparison to the increments, and
trajectory of increments, established by
Congress for the years 2009–2012. As a
result, we believe that a biomass-based
diesel volume of 1.28 bill gallons would
both reflect likely increased demand for
biomass-based diesel in 2013 and
provide an increment that is not
excessive when compared to those
established by Congress.
33 Sucres et Denrees (S&D), ‘‘Ethanol Report,’’
´
November 2010.
34 ‘‘Biodiesel Production Prospects for the Next
Decade,’’ IHS Global Insight, March 11, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2. Availability of Feedstocks to Produce
1.28 Billion Gallons of Biodiesel
As described above, in the final
rulemaking establishing the RFS2
program we developed renewable fuel
volume scenarios for all years between
2010 and 2022. For 2013, we estimated
a biomass-based diesel volume of 1.28
bill gallons. This volume was based
primarily on a projection of the
qualifying feedstocks that could be
available, as summarized in Table
IV.B.2–1.
TABLE IV.B.2–1—FEEDSTOCKS CONTRIBUTING TO 2013 VOLUME OF
1.28 BILL GAL
Source
Yellow grease and other rendered
fats ............................................
Corn oil .........................................
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Volume
(mill gal)
380
300
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.B.2–1—FEEDSTOCKS CON- percentage of the ethanol industry using
TRIBUTING TO 2013 VOLUME OF corn oil extraction technology and the
amount of oil extracted per bushel of
1.28 BILL GAL—Continued
corn in 2013. The RFS2 final rule
projected that by 2013, 34% of all dry
Source
mill ethanol facilities would extract
corn oil from the by-products of ethanol
Virgin vegetable oil .......................
600 production. A recent survey of the
ethanol industry found that by 2008
Total .......................................
1,280
over 30% of all dry mill ethanol plants
were already extracting corn oil from
We continue to believe that the
their co-products.36 EPA expects that
feedstock volumes shown in Table
the percentage of dry mill ethanol
IV.B.2–1 are reasonable projections for
facilities using some form of corn oil
2013. For instance, according to the U.S.
extraction technology will increase to
Census Bureau, the total volume of
60% by 2013. The corn oil extraction
yellow grease and other greases (most
technology currently being used at most
likely trap grease) produced in 2010 was dry mill ethanol facilities is capable of
35 The volume of
about 340 mill gallons.
extracting approximately one third of
inedible tallow produced in the same
the oil contained in the corn kernel from
period was over 400 mill gallons. Other
the whole stillage and/or its derivatives
potential sources could include edible
(a significantly reduced rate than the
tallow, lard, and poultry fats. Taken
two thirds of oil extracted assumed to be
together, the total volume of available
technically feasible by 2022 in the RFS2
grease and fats for use in producing
final rule). If 60% of all dry mill corn
biomass-based diesel is in excess of the
ethanol facilities were extracting one
380 mill gallons we projected in the
third of the oil in the corn kernel in
RFS2 final rule.
2013 the amount of corn oil available for
The 300 million gallons of biodiesel
biodiesel production would be
produced from corn oil extracted from
approximately 270 million gallons. As
distillers grains produced at ethanol
corn oil extraction technology develops
facilities is based on projections of the
and higher oil extraction rates are
Volume
(mill gal)
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
35 Current Industrial Reports, U.S. Census Bureau,
M311K—Fats and Oils: Production, Consumption,
and Stocks, Table 2b. Assumes 7.5 lb/gal. December
projection based on the average of January–
November. https://www.census.gov/manufacturing/
cir/historical_data/m311k/.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
36 Mueller, Steffen. ‘‘Detailed Report: 2008
National Dry Mill Corn Ethanol Survey.’’ University
of Illinois at Chicago Energy Resources Center (May
4, 2010). Available online: https://
ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/
2e04acb7ed88d08d21_99m6idfc1.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38863
achieved, corn ethanol producers are
likely to adopt this new technology.
EPA expects that by 2013 these
technology improvements will increase
corn oil production levels to the
300 million gallons projected in the
RFS2 rule. Alternatively, additional
corn oil could come from ethanol
production facilities using corn
fractionation or wet milling technology.
This corn oil was not considered as a
biodiesel feedstock in the RFS2 rule, but
market conditions may result in its
availability to the biodiesel industry.
The high adoption rate of corn oil
extraction and the promise of ever
increasing oil extraction yields indicate
that the 300 million gallons of corn oil
extraction projected in the RFS2 rule in
2013 remains a reasonable projection.
With regard to virgin vegetable oil, the
modeling we conducted for the RFS2
final rule assumed that it would be
composed entirely of soybean oil. For
the purposes of today’s proposal we
examined recent and historical soybean
oil production and consumption
volumes from the U.S. Census Bureau to
verify that 600 million gallons was a
reasonable potential volume for
biodiesel production in 2013. As shown
in Figure IV.B.2–1, soy oil production
has increased steadily over the last
30 years, reaching 2.5 bill gal in 2009.
If these production trends continue,
domestic soy oil production could reach
nearly 2.9 bill gal by 2013.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
To determine what portion of
domestically produced soy oil could be
available for use in the production of
biomass-based diesel in 2013, we also
examined recent historical trends for
domestic consumption and exports.
Domestic consumption of soy oil for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
purposes other than biofuel has also
increased steadily over the last 30 years,
but was notably lower in the period
2007–2009 compared to previous years.
If consumption returns to historical
trends for years after 2009, consumption
could be as high as 2.5 bill gal by 2013.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
However, as shown in Figure IV.B.2–2
below, this would require a significant
increase in consumption from 2009 to
2010. Thus 2013 consumption could be
lower than 2.5 bill gal.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
EP01JY11.002
38864
Based on these projections, then, the
volume of soy oil that would be
available for the production of biomassbased diesel would be at least 400
million gallons (2.9–2.5 bill gal).
However, soy oil that has historically
been exported represents another
potential source of soy oil for biodiesel
production. Exports of soy oil have
followed only a very weak increasing
trend, averaging about 230 mill gal/year
over the same 30 year period, and about
250 mill gal/year over the last 10 years.
If these exports were diverted to the
production of biomass-based diesel, the
total volume of soy oil available for the
production of biodiesel and/or
renewable diesel would exceed 600 mill
gallons.
Although we assumed that all virgin
vegetable oils used in biomass-based
diesel production would be soy oil in
the RFS2 final rule, in fact other seed
oils may contribute meaningful volumes
to the pool available for the production
of biomass-based diesel. For instance,
on September 28, 2010 we approved a
RIN-generating pathway for biodiesel
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
made from canola oil.37 The volume of
biodiesel made from canola oil was 96
mill gallons in 2008.38 In addition, we
are evaluating other pathways for the
production of biodiesel from oilseeds,
such as camelina, which could
potentially be approved for RIN
generation by 2013. Algal oil could also
provide additional feedstocks if
promising technologies for production
are commercialized.
IHS Global Insight recently released
an independent report in which they
conducted macroeconomic modeling to
investigate biodiesel growth scenarios
and related impacts on commodities
such as oilseed crops. Their agricultural
modeling indicated that a slightly more
diverse mix of feedstocks would be used
to meet a total domestic biodiesel
production volume of 1.3 bill gallons in
2013. These volumes are shown in
Table IV.B.2–2.
37 75
FR 59622.
memorandum, ‘‘Summary of Modeling
Input Assumptions for Canola Oil Biodiesel for the
Notice of Supplemental Determination for
Renewable Fuels Produced Under the Final RFS2
Program,’’ Document # EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0133–
0049.
38 EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38865
TABLE IV.B.2–2—FEEDSTOCKS CONTRIBUTING TO 2013 VOLUME OF 1.3
BILL GAL FROM IHS GLOBAL INSIGHT MODELING
Source
Yellow grease and other rendered
fats ............................................
Corn oil .........................................
Soybean oil ...................................
Canola oil ......................................
Palm oil .........................................
Other .............................................
Total .......................................
Volume
(mill gal)
272
185
624
68
7
185
1,340
Source: Table 2, ‘‘Biodiesel Production
Prospects for the Next Decade,’’ IHS Global
Insight, March 11, 2011.
This modeling concluded that soy oil
production would be lower than the
trends shown in Figure IV.B.2–1, with a
correspondingly lower volume of soy oil
being used for domestic non-biofuel
consumption as well. Nevertheless,
their modeling concluded that soy oil
availability for biodiesel production
would be 624 mill gallons, slightly
higher than what we assumed in the
RFS2 final rule. While their modeling
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
EP01JY11.003
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
38866
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
concluded that the volumes of greases,
fats, and corn oil would be somewhat
less than what we assumed in the RFS2
final rule, they were able to quantify the
available volumes of other feedstocks
that we did not explicitly investigate in
the RFS2 final rule. As a result, this
report supports our finding that
sufficient feedstocks will be available to
produce 1.28 bill gallons of biomassbased diesel in 2013.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3. Production Capacity
Total production capacity of the
biodiesel industry has exceeded 1.28
bill gallons for a number of years. As of
January 2011, total production capacity
was more than 2.8 bill gallons for 168
plants 39. According to the National
Biodiesel Board, 90 of these plants had
registered with the EPA under the RFS2
program as of February 4, 2011, and
these plants had a combined production
capacity of over 1.9 bill gallons. The
remaining plants are either producing
extremely low volumes that fall under
the regulatory threshold for RIN
generation, are producing products
other than biodiesel such as soaps or
cosmetics, or have shut down until such
time as the demand for biodiesel rises.
Most of the 90 registered plants are
currently producing at significantly
under capacity, as evidenced by the fact
that total production volumes in 2010
were 300–400 million gallons, and the
registered plants have a capacity of over
1.9 billion gallons. If these plants
increase production to meet the 800
million gallon volume requirement for
2011, on average, then, registered
biodiesel producers will be producing at
about half of their capacity this year.
Nevertheless, we believe based on the
registered capacity of existing plants
and the relative ease of expanding
current production within this capacity
that the biodiesel industry can produce
at least 1.28 bill gallons in 2013 with
little leadtime needed for facilities to
ramp up to higher production levels,
and/or for currently idle facilities to
come back online.
4. Consumption Capacity
Biodiesel is registered with the EPA
under 40 CFR part 79 as a legal fuel for
use in highway vehicles. Under this
registration, it can legally be used at any
blend level, from 1% (B1) to 100%
(B100). However, other factors typically
limit the concentration of biodiesel in
conventional diesel fuel. Since the
consumption of biodiesel at lower blend
levels would tend to increase the
geographic areas where biodiesel must
be marketed, it is an important
consideration in how much biodiesel
can be consumed in the U.S. as a whole
as well as how the infrastructure may
need to change to accommodate 1.28
bill gallons in 2013.
Most engine manufacturers have
explicit statements in their engine
warranties regarding acceptable
biodiesel blend levels. Although a few
permit B100 to be used in their engines
without any adverse impact on their
warranties, most limit biodiesel blends
to B20 or less, and about half allow no
more than B5 40. For specific
applications where a party knows which
engines will be using biodiesel blends,
higher concentrations of biodiesel may
be possible. However, for general
distribution such as at retail facilities,
these warranty conditions create a
disincentive to blend or sell biodiesel at
higher concentrations, and would tend
to drive most blends towards low
concentrations of biodiesel such as B5.
Cold weather operability represents
another reason for preferential use of B5
and even B2. The most common
measure of cold weather operability is
the fuel cloud point. The cloud point is
the temperature at which gelling begins
(as indicated by solid crystals beginning
to form in the fuel), and thus is an
indicator of when potential engine filter
plugging issues could arise. The higher
the cloud point temperature of the fuel,
the more likely such problems are to be
experienced in cold weather. Biodiesel
generally has a higher cloud point than
conventional, petroleum-based diesel
fuel, with fat-based biodiesel such as
tallow having a higher cloud point than
virgin oil-based biodiesel such as a fuel
made with soybean and canola oil.
While cloud point issues with
conventional, petroleum-based diesel
are generally mitigated through
blending with lighter grades (i.e. #1
diesel fuel), the cloud point of biodiesel
generally requires more dramatic
interventions such as heated storage
tanks, lines, and blending equipment, as
well as heating rail cars and tank trucks.
However, some of these biodiesel cloud
point mitigation efforts may be reduced
through the use of low biodiesel blend
levels such as B2 or B5, since cloud
point is strongly correlated with
biodiesel concentration in the final
blend. Insofar as biodiesel is blended
into conventional diesel before being
transported to its final destination for
sale, low biodiesel blend levels may
reduce the need for heated equipment at
the final destination.
40 ‘‘Automaker’s’
39 USA Plants, biodieselmagazine.com, as of
January 27, 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
and Engine Manufacturers’
Positions of Support for Biodiesel Blends,’’
Biodiesel.org.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Based on highway and nonroad diesel
consumption projections for 2013 from
the EIA, a biodiesel volume of 1.28 bill
gallons would represent about 2.8% of
all diesel fuel.41 If all biodiesel were to
be blended as B5, just over half of the
diesel fuel consumed nationwide in
2013 would contain biodiesel. However,
today some biodiesel is blended at
concentrations higher than B5, and we
expect that at least these same volumes
would be blended at concentrations
higher than B5 in the future. This would
reduce the amount of diesel fuel that
would contain some biodiesel, and thus
would also reduce the geographical
areas where biodiesel must be
distributed.
We believe that distributing and
consuming 1.28 bill gallons of biodiesel
in 2013 is achievable. A number of
states already have mandates for the use
of biodiesel in 2013, and efforts are
underway to ensure that these mandates
can be met. These include Minnesota,
Oregon, Washington, Pennsylvania,
New Mexico, and Louisiana.
Collectively, these states account for
approximately 13 percent of the
nationwide consumption of diesel.
Other states have implemented other
forms of incentives as shown in Table
IV.B.4–1.
TABLE IV.B.4–1—STATES WITH REBATES, REFUNDS, REDUCED TAX
RATES, OR CREDITS FOR BIODIESEL
PRODUCTION OR BLENDING 42
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Montana
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Virginia
Washington
* Conditions and exemptions for all incentive
programs vary by state.
Collectively, these states account for
approximately 37% of the nationwide
consumption of biodiesel. A variety of
states also have requirements for the use
of biodiesel in state fleets, provisions
that allow biodiesel to be used as an
alternative to meeting alternative fuel
vehicle mandates, and credits/rebates
41 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2011 Early
Release, Table 2.
42 U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels
and Advanced Vehicles Data Center.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38867
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
for the installation of biodiesel
dispensing and blending equipment.
Altogether, therefore, more than half
of the states in the U.S. have mandates
and/or incentives that will induce them
to address biodiesel infrastructure
issues. Efforts in these areas will
directionally help the nation to meet a
1.28 bill gal biomass-based diesel
requirement in 2013.
5. Biomass-Based Diesel Distribution
Infrastructure
Biodiesel/petroleum based diesel fuel
blends have limited ability to be
transported using the existing petroleum
product distribution system. There has
been limited transportation of up to B5
blends by certain pipelines that do not
carry jet fuel. However, concerns over
potential contamination of jet fuel with
biodiesel currently prevent biodiesel
feedstocks: Canola oil biodiesel 32F, soy
biodiesel 34F, yellow grease biodiesel
41F, jatropha oil biodiesel 46F, tallow
biodiesel 54F–63F, and palm oil
biodiesel 63F.44 Based on a review of
these properties, climactic data, and the
likelihood that downstream parties will
need to accommodate biodiesel
produced from various feedstocks, we
believe that heated/insulated biodiesel
infrastructure would be needed
throughout most of the U.S.45
Approximately 82 petroleum
terminals blended biodiesel into
petroleum-based diesel fuel in 2010.46
Our evaluation of the changes to the fuel
distribution infrastructure that would be
needed to support the use of 920 mill
gallons/yr of biodiesel in 2012 and
1,200 mill gallons/yr in 2013 is based on
the analysis conducted for the RFS2
final rule.47 See Table IV.B.5–1.
blends from being transported by the
majority of pipelines.43 The
predominant means of biodiesel
distribution is to transport it separately
by rail car, tank truck, or barge to a
petroleum terminal where it is blended
with petroleum diesel fuel to make B2,
B5, B20 blends that are then transported
by truck to retail or fleet operators. For
this analysis, we have assumed that all
biodiesel is transported in a segregated
fashion to petroleum terminals. To the
extent that biodiesel is transported by
pipeline, this may tend to reduce the
burden on the fuel distribution system.
Heated and insulated rail cars, tank
trucks, barges, storage tanks, and
blending equipment are required for
biodiesel distribution to protect against
fuel gelling during the cold season.
Following are the cloud points of
biodiesel manufactured from various
TABLE IV.B.5–1—ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO DISTRIBUTE BIODIESEL IN 2012 AND 2013
Additional
distribution
assets needed
in 2012
relative to
2011
Additional
distribution
assets needed
in 2013 (with
1.28 bill gal)
relative to
2012
Total
distribution
assets needed
to support the
2012 biodiesel
volume
Total
distribution
assets needed
to support
1.28 bill gal
biodiesel
volume
74
131
14
4
130
230
25
7
428
754
83
23
558
984
108
29
Petroleum Product Terminals with Biodiesel Blending Capability * .................
Rail Cars ..........................................................................................................
Tank Trucks .....................................................................................................
Barges ..............................................................................................................
* There are approximately 853 petroleum terminals that offer diesel fuel in the U.S.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The RFS2 final rule estimated that
additional manifest rail and barge
receipt facilities would be needed to
accept shipments of biofuels of all types
including biodiesel.48 We concluded
that manifest rail and barge shipments
of biodiesel would be able to utilize the
manifest rail and barge receipt facilities
that were initially constructed to handle
increased ethanol volumes.
We assume that terminals adding
biodiesel capability would install
segregated biodiesel storage, in-line
biodiesel blending equipment, and
facilities to receive shipments of
biodiesel by tank truck. In-line blending
refers to the process of blending
biodiesel into petroleum-based diesel
fuel in the delivery line that feeds into
the tank truck from the terminal storage
tanks. This process ensures an accurate
blend ratio and a fully mixed biodiesel/
petroleum diesel batch. We also assume
that all equipment at terminals as well
as the vessels used to transport biodiesel
would be heated and insulated to
prevent gelling during the cold season.
We anticipate that some terminals may
splash blend biodiesel before installing
in-line biodiesel injection equipment.
Splash blending refers to the process of
first loading petroleum-based diesel fuel
into a tank truck followed by biodiesel
so that the final blend meets the desired
blend ratio. However, we expect that
this approach will be temporary due to
the heightened concerns over achieving
a correct blend ratio and a fully mixed
biodiesel blend that accompanies splash
blending. Some terminals may also
delay the need to install segregated/
heated biodiesel storage by storing 50/
50 blends of biodiesel/petroleum-based
diesel fuel that is subsequently used to
manufacture B2/B5/B20 blends for
distribution to end users. These
practices may provide additional
flexibility if some terminals wish to
temporarily defer installing in-line
blending equipment and segregated
biodiesel storage equipment.
The RFS2 FRM analysis concluded
that industry would have the capability
to add the necessary facilities to
distribute biodiesel in a timely fashion
to meet the envisioned volumes.49
Based on industry input, we continue to
believe that this is the case. Industry
activities are currently progressing to
ramp up biodiesel consumption from
the approximately 380 mill gallons
estimated to be used in the U.S. in 2010
to the 760 mill gallons that is estimated
43 Biodiesel contamination of jet fuel can
contribute to fuel gelling and engine deposits which
can lead to jet engine operability problems.
44 The cloud point refers to the temperature at
which biodiesel begins to gell. Biodiesel cloud
points are taken from the NC State University and
A&T State University Cooperative Extension Web
page, updated December 9, 2010, https://
www.extension.org/pages/
Biodiesel_Cloud_Point_and_Cold_Weather_Issues,
and the Biodiesel cold weather blending study,
Cold Flow Blending Consortium, National Biodiesel
Board, 2001, https://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/
npbf/pdfs/cftr_72805.pdf.
45 The ASTM International ‘‘Standard
Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils’’, ASTM D975,
contains tenth percentile minimum ambient air
temperatures for the U.S.
46 Communication from Larry Schafer of the
National Biodiesel Board, March 2, 2011.
47 Renewable Fuels Standard Program (RFS2),
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), EPA–420–R–10–
006, February 2010.
48 Manifest rail refers to the shipment of a product
in rail cars in a train that includes rail cars
containing other products.
49 See sections 1.6 and 4.2.3 of the RIA to the
RFS2 final rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38868
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
to be used in 2011 to meet the biomassbased diesel volume requirement. For
example, Kinder Morgan and the
Renewable Energy Group opened a
substantial biodiesel distribution facility
to serve the Chicago area in December
of 2010.50 Magellan also recently
announced that it plans to complete its
biodiesel blending facility in Sioux Falls
Minnesota in 2011.51 In addition, just as
there has been considerable biodiesel
production capacity idled due to lack of
demand which will be brought back on
line as biodiesel volumes ramp up, we
believe that there are also substantial
idled biodiesel distribution assets that
could be readily brought back into
service.
Renewable diesel/petroleum diesel
fuel blends can be transported in
existing petroleum product
transportation infrastructure from the
point of production to the end-user.52
The production facility that we expect
will account for the renewable diesel
produced through 2013 currently ships
its product short distances by tank truck
to facilities that produce blends with
petroleum-based diesel fuel. To estimate
the infrastructure impacts of renewable
diesel, we used the estimate from the
RFS2 final rule of 80 mill gallons of
renewable diesel in 2013.53 This volume
is close to the production volume
estimated for the Dynamic Fuels facility
in Geismar, Louisiana that we
referenced in the final rulemaking
setting the 2011 RFS standards.
However, more recently the U.S.
Department of Energy awarded a $241
million loan guarantee for the
construction of a renewable diesel
facility by Diamond Green. Construction
on this 137 million gallon per year
project is scheduled to begin in Norco,
LA this year and fuel production is
scheduled for the first quarter of 2013.
EPA does not expect that the production
from this facility will have a significant
impact on overall biomass-based diesel
distribution infrastructure in the U.S.
given that the renewable diesel blends
can be transported in existing petroleum
50 Biodiesel Magazine, November 17, 2010. https://
www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/4568/chicagoarea-terminal-soon-to-offer-biodiesel.
51 Report to the Legislature, Annual Report on
Biodiesel, Minnesota Department of Agriculture,
January 15, 2011. https://www.mda.state.mn.us/en/
news/government/∼/media/Files/news/govrelations/
legrpt-biodiesel2011.ashx.
52 Colonial Pipeline began allowing shipment of
5% renewable diesel fuel blends beginning January
3, 2011. Colonial pipeline codes and specifications:
https://www.colpipe.com/pdfs/
Sect%203%20Prod%20S
pec%20Jan%201%202011%20update%
20ver%202.pdf.
53 Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2)
Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA–420–R–10–006,
February 2010, Table 1.2–3.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
product transportation infrastructure.
For the purposes of this analysis we
assumed 80 mill gallons of renewable
diesel for consistency with the RFS2
final rule and the final rule setting the
RFS standards for 2011.
We estimate that a total of 5 tank
trucks will be needed to transport 80
mill gallons/yr of renewable diesel to
the locations where it is blended with
petroleum-based diesel fuel in 2012 and
2013.54 For the purposes of this
analysis, we assumed that
approximately one half of this volume
will be produced in 2011. We estimate
that an additional 2–3 tank trucks
would be needed to transport renewable
diesel fuel in 2012/2013 compared to
2011. Once renewable diesel fuel blends
are created, further distribution is
accomplished in the same fashion as
petroleum-based diesel fuel. In the
future, the renewable diesel fuel
production facility identified may be
connected by a short pipeline directly to
the Colonial pipeline and/or begin
shipping by barge/rail. If shipment by
pipeline develops, then no additional
transportation vessels would be needed
to ship renewable diesel fuel compared
to petroleum-based diesel fuel. We
anticipate that the infrastructure at
petroleum terminals necessary to blend
the 80 mill gallons/yr of renewable
diesel fuel projected for 2012/2013 with
petroleum-based diesel fuel will have
been put in place by 2011.55
Based in the above discussion, we
believe that sufficient fuel distribution
infrastructure will be available to
support the use of 1 bill gal of biomassbased diesel in 2012 and 1.28 bill gal in
2013.
C. Impacts of 1.28 Billion Gallons of
Biomass-Based Diesel
In order to evaluate the impacts of a
biomass-based diesel volume of 1.28 bill
gal in the areas required under the
statute (see Section IV.A), we first
considered what the appropriate
reference would be. Since the statute
requires that the biomass-based diesel
volume we set for 2013 be no lower than
1.0 bill gal, this would appear to be a
reasonable reference point. Therefore, in
the discussion that follows, we have
focused on either a volume of 1.28 bill
gal biomass-based diesel, or an
54 This is based on each tank truck carrying 7,800
gallons of renewable diesel fuel making 6 deliveries
per day. We anticipate that the renewable diesel
fuel will be blended directly into storage tanks
containing petroleum-based diesel fuel.
55 To manufacture a renewable diesel fuel blend
at a petroleum terminal, renewable diesel fuel may
be delivered directly into storage tanks that contain
petroleum-based diesel fuel or injected into a
petroleum-based diesel fuel stream during delivery
into a tank truck or pipeline.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
increment of 0.28 bill gal biomass-based
diesel, depending on the specific
sources of information and analyses
available.
As described in Section IV.B.1 above,
even if we set the applicable volume for
biomass-based diesel at 1.0 bill gal, the
demand for biomass-based diesel in
2013 is likely to be on the order of 1.28
bill gal or more due to the limited
projected availability of other advanced
biofuels (including cellulosic biofuel,
imported sugarcane ethanol, and
others). Since the actual demand for
biomass-based diesel would likely be
1.28 bill gal or higher regardless of
whether we set the biomass-based diesel
requirement at 1.0 or 1.28 bill gal, the
net impact of setting the biomass-based
diesel volume requirement at 1.28 bill
gallons in 2013 could be seen as zero.
We recognize that this conclusion is
based on an applicable advanced biofuel
volume of 2.75 bill gallons. While we
will be considering the possibility of
lowering the 2013 advanced biofuel
applicable volume below 2.75 bill gal in
next year’s rulemaking, we have not
presumed any such reduction in today’s
NPRM. Such reductions in advanced
biofuel must occur in the context of
determining the applicable volume of
cellulosic biofuel for 2013, and using
information available at that time
regarding advanced biofuel volumes
that are projected to be available in
2013.
Nevertheless, the statute requires that
we analyze specified environmental and
other impacts in deriving an applicable
biomass-based diesel volume for 2013
and other years, and these analyses can
be conducted for 1.28 bill gal biomassbased diesel (or an increment of 0.28
bill gal). Most of the areas we are
required to analyze were covered in the
RFS2 final rule in some form, and we
believe that we can use this information
in satisfying our statutory obligations to
analyze specified factors in determining
the applicable volume of biomass-based
diesel for 2013.
Some of the analyses presented in the
RFS2 final rule were for the specific
case of 1.28 bill gallons in 2013. These
analyses included an investigation of
the expected annual rate of commercial
production of biomass-based diesel in
2013, impacts on agricultural
commodity supply and price, and the
cost to consumers of transportation fuel.
Some of these were discussed in Section
IV.B above. Most of the analyses in the
RFS2 final rule, however, were
conducted to represent full
implementation of the RFS2 program in
2022. In these analyses, the biomassbased diesel volume was estimated to be
1.82 bill gallons, and was compared to
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38869
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
a reference case in which biodiesel
volume was 380 mill gallons. These
cases are shown in Table IV.C–1.
TABLE IV.C–1—PRIMARY REFERENCE AND CONTROL CASES FROM RFS2 FINAL RULEMAKING (BILLION GALLONS)
Advanced biofuel
Cellulosic biofuel
Biomass-based diesel
Cellulosic
ethanol
Cellulosic
diesel
FAME a
biodiesel
0.25
4.92
0
6.52
0.38
0.85
Reference .........................................................
Control ..............................................................
NCRD b
Other advanced
biofuel
Other biodiesel c
Imported
ethanol
0
0.82
0.64
2.24
0
0.15
Non-advanced
biofuel
Corn
ethanol
12.29
15.00
Total
renewable fuel
13.56
30.50
a Fatty
acid methyl ester (FAME) biodiesel.
Renewable Diesel (NCRD).
c Other Biodiesel is biodiesel produced in addition to the amount needed to meet the biomass-based diesel standard.
b Non-Co-processed
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The biomass-based diesel volume of
1.82 bill gallons analyzed for 2022 in
the RFS2 final rule is higher than the
1.28 bill gallons we chose to evaluate for
today’s NPRM for 2013. More
importantly, the change in biodiesel
production due to EISA mandates for
biomass-based diesel plus other diesel
anticipated to meet the advanced
biofuel volume (a total increase of 1.44
billion gallons compared to the
reference case without the EISA
mandates) is much larger than the
change we are evaluating for 2013 (0.28
billion gallons). Additionally, many of
the impacts analyzed for the RFS2 final
rule reflected the whole biofuel
mandate, not the relatively smaller
portion just due to biodiesel. Other
changes in renewable fuels analyzed for
2022 were also larger than what would
likely occur in 2013. Therefore, the
impacts we would expect in 2013
compared to a case without RFS2 in
place would likely be similar to or
smaller than those we estimated for
2022. Given these considerations, we
believe that the impacts assessments in
the RFS2 final rule can be used to
determine the directional impacts, and
therefore the reasonableness, of a 1.28
billion gallon volume requirement for
biomass-based diesel in 2013.
1. Climate Change
Since biodiesel has a GHG benefit
exceeding 50% compared to the
petroleum-based diesel it is replacing,
an increase in biomass-based diesel of
0.28 Bill gal from 2012 to 2013 would
lead to a displacement of conventional
diesel fuel, with corresponding GHG
emissions reductions. This increased
use of biomass-based diesel will
contribute to lower climate change
impacts in comparison to the
petroleum-based diesel it is replacing.
However, due to the nested nature of
the RFS2 standards, biomass-based
diesel is also used to meet the advanced
biofuel standard. Moreover, both
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
biomass-based diesel and advanced
biofuel must meet a GHG reduction
threshold of 50%. If the 2013 advanced
biofuel standard were to remain at the
2.75 bill gal specified in the statute, an
increase in the biomass-based diesel
volume requirement from 1.0 to 1.28 bill
gal would not change the total volume
of advanced biofuel, and thus the total
volume of biofuels that must meet a
50% reduction in GHGs would remain
unchanged. Under such circumstances,
a standard of 1.28 bill gal of biomassbased diesel would have essentially no
impact on climate change in the context
of the full mix of biofuels used to meet
the RFS2 requirements.
2. Energy Security4
An analysis of the energy security
impacts of the increased use of
renewable fuels was conducted in
support of the RFS2 rulemaking. Based
on that analysis, increasing usage of
renewable fuels including biomassbased diesel 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 the RFS2 final rule, we
described in detail the methodology and
the Agency’s estimate of the energy
security impacts of the RFS2 rule. While
EPA’s analysis of energy security
benefits of the RFS2 volumes
considered the full volume of biofuels
mandated by 2022 (of which biodiesel
was only a part), the production of
biodiesel is largely from domestic
feedstocks. In contrast, the diesel fuel
displaced is produced from petroleum
sources which are increasingly from
foreign sources. Therefore biodiesel
production and use will contribute to a
U.S. energy security benefit.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
3. Agricultural Commodities and Food
Prices
For the RFS2 rule, we examined the
impacts of increased renewable fuels
production on commodity prices, food
prices and trade in agricultural
products. This analysis considered the
impacts of all the biofuel feedstock
sources anticipated to meet the 2022
biofuel volume requirements, not just
biodiesel. For the RFS2, EPA used two
primary models for its agricultural
economic impacts analysis, the Food
and Agriculture Sector Optimization
Model (FASOM), and the Food and
Agricultural Policy Research InstituteCenter for Agriculture and Rural
Development (FAPRI–CARD) models.
The FASOM model is a long-term
economic model of the U.S. forest and
agriculture sectors that maximizes the
net present value of the sum of producer
and consumer surplus across the two
sectors over time subject to market,
technology, and other constraints. The
FAPRI–CARD models are a system of
econometric models covering many
agricultural commodities in the U.S.
and internationally. 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.56
To meet the RFS2 renewable fuel
volumes, a number of price effects on
the agricultural commodities were
estimated for 2022. For instance,
FASOM estimates that an increase in
renewable fuel volumes to meet the
RFS2 would result in an increase in the
U.S. soybean prices of $1.02 per bushel
(10.3 percent) above the Reference Case
price in 2022. FASOM also projected
the price of soybean oil would increase
by $183 per ton (37.9 percent) over the
2022 Reference Case price (all prices are
56 (Add reference to FAPRI description document
used in RFS2 FRM.)
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38870
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
in 2007$). Most of the additional
soybeans needed for increased biodiesel
production are diverted from U.S.
exports to the rest of the world. In
FASOM, soybean exports decrease by
135 million bushels (¥13.6 percent) in
2022 relative to the AEO2007 Reference
Case. This change represents a decrease
of $453 million (¥4.6 percent) in the
total value of U.S. soybean exports in
2022. However, these price effects are
not attributed to the demand for
biodiesel feedstocks alone, rather the
compounding affect of all changes in
feedstock demand estimated to result
from the total biofuel mandate in 2022.
Since the impact on soybeans due to
biodiesel demand was only a portion of
this total feedstock impact and since the
impact in 2013 will be less than
considered in 2022 (since the 2013
biodiesel volumes anticipated are less
than those for 2022), the impact on
soybean prices and exports from an
increase to 1.28 bill gall in 2013 could
also be less.
A recent report by IHS Global
Insight 57 also discusses potential
agricultural and economic impacts from
increasing vegetable oil demand for
biodiesel production. According to this
study, existing soybean yield
technologies are expected to be applied
increasingly across the U.S., resulting in
roughly a 10% higher growth rate in
soybean yields than USDA’s projections
from 2010–2016 which were used by
EPA in its RFS2 analyses. Similarly,
Global Insight predicts these higher
yield technologies to be implemented in
other large soybean-producing
countries, such as Brazil and Argentina.
If higher yields than modeled for RFS2
indeed are realized, then it is likely the
price increases for soybean oil will be
less than estimated for RFS2. Likewise,
other price impacts, such as those on
food prices, would still move in the
same direction (i.e., an increase in price
resulting from an increase in demand)
but could be smaller than in the RFS2
analysis.
For the analyses performed for the
RFS2 final rule, EPA estimated a $10
per person per year increase in food
costs due to the total annual impact of
the RFS2 program by 2022 compared to
a Reference case that assumed no RFS2
renewable fuel requirements. Again, the
biodiesel impacts would represent only
a small portion of these overall impacts
and would like be even smaller in 2013
due to the smaller volume of feedstock
required.
4. Air Quality
This section discusses our assessment
of the impacts of 1.28 bill gal of
biomass-based diesel on emissions and
air quality. We are relying on the
analyses of renewable fuel impacts
conducted in support of the RFS2 rule 58
to qualitatively discuss the expected
impacts of this biomass-based diesel
volume. The RFS2 analyses reflect
EPA’s most current assumptions
regarding biodiesel emission impacts.59
In the RFS2 rule, we analyzed both
changes in pollutant emissions
(measured in tons) and changes in
ambient air quality associated with the
changes in pollutant emissions. The
changes in pollutant emissions were
calculated by comparing the 2022 RFS2
renewable fuel volumes to volumes if
the RFS2 mandate was not in place (the
reference scenario).60 The analysis
reflected full implementation of the
RFS2 program in 2022 and accounted
for impacts from multiple types of
renewable fuels, of which biodiesel was
only one type. Specifically, the RFS2
emissions inventory analysis assumed
1.82 bill gal of biodiesel in the RFS2
scenario compared to 0.38 bill gal of
biodiesel in the reference scenario,
reflecting a 1.44 bill gal increase in
biodiesel with the rule in place.
Biodiesel emission impacts from the
RFS2 rule emissions inventory analysis
are presented in Table IV.C.4–1. A
complete discussion of the emissions
inventory analysis conducted for the
RFS2 rule can be found in Chapter 3 of
the RFS2 Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA).61 These biomass-based diesel
emission impacts, which reflect a 1.44
bill gal increase in biodiesel, are all less
than 1% of the total U.S. emissions
inventory for each pollutant. We expect
the impacts of the 1.28 bill gal of
biomass-based diesel, as compared to
the 1.0 bill gal statutory minimum
volume, to be smaller.
TABLE IV.C.4–1—BIODIESEL EMISSION IMPACTS OF THE RFS2 RENEWABLE FUEL VOLUMES (1.82 BILL GAL) RELATIVE TO
THE REFERENCE CASE (0.38 BILL GAL)
Biodiesel impacts of RFS2 rule emissions inventory analysis (D 1.44 bill gal Biodiesel)
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Upstream a
(tons)
VOC .................................................................................................................
CO ....................................................................................................................
NOx ..................................................................................................................
PM10 ................................................................................................................
PM2.5 ...............................................................................................................
SO2 ..................................................................................................................
NH3 ..................................................................................................................
Benzene ...........................................................................................................
Ethanol .............................................................................................................
1,3-Butadiene ...................................................................................................
Acetaldehyde ...................................................................................................
Formaldehyde ..................................................................................................
Naphthalene .....................................................................................................
57 ‘‘Biodiesel Production Prospects for the Next
Decade,’’ IHS Global Insight, March 11, 2011.
58 75 FR 14670, March 26, 2010.
59 U.S. EPA 2010, Renewable Fuel Standard
Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA–
420–R–10–006. February 2010. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0472–11332. Section 3.1.1.2.4
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
¥1,049
913
¥290
4,268
632
1,580
4,171
10
0
0
2
1
¥1
60 In the RFS2 Regulatory Impact Analysis, we
analyzed the mandated 2022 RFS2 renewable fuel
volumes relative to volumes required by two
reference scenarios: RFS1 mandate (7.1 billion
gallons of renewable fuels) and AEO 2007 (13.6
billion gallons of renewable fuels). Both reference
scenarios assumed the same volume of biodiesel, so
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Downstream b
(tons)
¥2,422
¥4,104
1,346
¥569
¥315
0
0
¥30
0
¥16
¥66
¥182
0
Total (tons)
¥3,471
¥3,191
1,056
3,699
317
1,580
4,171
¥20
0
¥17
¥65
¥181
¥1
Percent RFS2
total U.S.
inventory
¥0.03%
¥0.01%
0.01%
0.10%
0.01%
0.02%
0.10%
¥0.01%
0.00%
¥0.10%
¥0.14%
¥0.21%
¥0.01%
the emission and air quality impacts described in
this section are the same for both reference
scenarios.
61 U.S. EPA 2010, Renewable Fuel Standard
Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA–
420–R–10–006. February 2010. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0472–11332.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38871
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.C.4–1—BIODIESEL EMISSION IMPACTS OF THE RFS2 RENEWABLE FUEL VOLUMES (1.82 BILL GAL) RELATIVE TO
THE REFERENCE CASE (0.38 BILL GAL)—Continued
Biodiesel impacts of RFS2 rule emissions inventory analysis (D 1.44 bill gal Biodiesel)
Upstream a
Downstream b
(tons)
(tons)
Acrolein ............................................................................................................
¥9
63
Total (tons)
54
Percent RFS2
total U.S.
inventory
0.84%
a U.S.
EPA 2010, Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA–420–R–10–006. February 2010. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2009–0472–11332. Table 3.2–11. Note: units in Table 3.2–11 were mislabeled as tons/mmBTU. Actual units are tons.
b U.S. EPA 2010, Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA–420–R–10–006. February 2010. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2009–0472–11332. Table 3.2–9.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The air quality analysis for the RFS2
rule used photochemical modeling to
characterize primary pollutants that are
emitted directly into the atmosphere
and secondary pollutants that are
formed as a result of complex chemical
reactions within the atmosphere.
Included in the air quality modeling
scenarios for the RFS2 rule were large
volumes of ethanol as well as other
renewable fuels, and the nature of these
complex chemical interactions makes it
difficult to determine the air quality
impacts of biodiesel alone. Specifically,
the RFS2 air quality analysis reflects a
roughly 21 bill gal increase in ethanol,
far outweighing the volume increase in
biodiesel (0.43 bill gal). A complete
discussion of the RFS2 air quality
analysis and its limitations can be found
in Chapter 3 of the RFS2 Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA).62
The RFS2 air quality analysis was
completed earlier than the final
emissions inventory analysis because of
the length of time needed to conduct
photochemical modeling.63 The air
quality analysis assumed 0.81 bill gal of
biodiesel in the RFS2 scenario
compared to 0.38 bill gal of biodiesel in
the reference scenario, reflecting a 0.43
bill gal increase in biodiesel use with
the rule in place.
Given the small emissions impact of
a 0.43 bill gal increase in biodiesel on
the total U.S. emissions inventory (the
basis for our air quality modeling
scenarios), we would expect the portion
of air quality impacts attributable to a
move from 1.0 to 1.28 bill gal (a 0.28 bill
gal biodiesel increase) to be small
enough that on a nationwide basis the
air quality impact would likely not be
noticeable.
62 U.S. EPA 2010, Renewable Fuel Standard
Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA–
420–R–10–006. February 2010. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0472–11332.
63 Emissions serve as inputs to the air quality
modeling analysis. However, the final fuel volume
assumptions (upon which the emission estimates
were based) increased between the time that
emissions were estimated to support the air quality
modeling analysis and the time emissions were
estimated to reflect the final rulemaking.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
We note that Clean Air Act section
211(v) requires EPA to analyze and
mitigate, to the greatest extent
achievable, adverse air quality impacts
of the renewable fuels required by the
RFS2 rule. We intend to address any
potential adverse impacts from
increased renewable fuel use through
that study and will promulgate
appropriate mitigation measures
separate from today’s NPRM.
5. Transportation Fuel Cost
For the RFS2 final rulemaking, we
estimated the year-by-year per-gallon
costs for diesel fuel due to the RFS2
biofuel requirements. For 2013, we
based our diesel fuel cost estimate on
the production and use of biodiesel,
renewable diesel fuel and some
cellulosic diesel fuel. The unsubsidized
cost increase is 0.2 cents per gallon, but
accounting for the subsidy, we
estimated a cost savings to consumers
for diesel fuel of 1.7 cents per gallon.
This assumes a crude oil price of 81
dollars per barrel, which is within the
range of crude oil prices over the last
several years which have ranged from
$35 per barrel to $147 per barrel.
6. Deliverability and Transport Costs of
Materials, Goods, and Products Other
Than Renewable Fuel
EPA evaluated in the RFS2 final rule
the impacts on the U.S. transportation
network from the distribution of the
total additional volume of biofuels that
would be used to meet the RFS2
standards. Oakridge National Laboratory
(ORNL) conducted an analysis of biofuel
transportation activity from production
plants to petroleum terminals by rail,
barge, and tank truck to identify
potential distribution constraints to help
support the assessment in the RFS2
final rule.64 The ORNL analysis
64 ‘‘Analysis of Fuel Ethanol Transportation
Activity and Potential Distribution Constraints’’,
Oakridge National Laboratory, March 9, 2009. To
simplify the ORNL analysis, biomass-based diesel
volumes were assumed to originate at the same
points of production and to be shipped to the same
petroleum terminals as the ethanol projected to be
used to meet the RFS2 standards. This may tend to
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
concluded that the increase in biofuel
shipments due to the RFS2 standards
would have a minimal impact on U.S.
transportation infrastructure. The
majority of biofuel transportation is
projected to be accomplished by rail.
Nevertheless, it was estimated that the
biofuels transport would constitute only
0.4% of the total freight tonnage for all
commodities transported by the rail
system through 2022.65 Given the small
increase in freight shipments due to the
transport of biofuels to meet the RFS2
standards, we believe that the
distribution of biofuels will not
adversely impact the deliverability and
transport costs of materials, goods, and
products other than renewable fuels.
7. Wetlands, Ecosystems, and Wildlife
Habitats
As directed by CAA section
211(o)(2)(B)(ii), in setting the 2013
biodiesel volume requirements, EPA is
to consider the impacts of biodiesel
production and use on wetlands,
ecosystems and wildlife habitat.
The most complete and up-to-date
assessment of these impacts is
contained in the draft analysis prepared
by EPA in response to the requirements
set out in CAA section 204. This report
has been released in draft form in order
to allow interested parties to provide
comments on the analyses and policy
implications. Concluding this review
and the peer review, updates will be
made to the report, and then the final
report will be published in 2012 on the
EPA Biofuels Web site. Nevertheless,
since this draft report includes an
assessment of the impact of biofuels on
a number of the areas that we are
required to analyze in the process of
determining the 2013 biomass-based
overstate the potential impact on the transportation
system from the shipment of biomass-based diesel
fuels since biomass-based diesel production plants
were projected to be more geographically dispersed
than ethanol production facilities. In any event, the
simplifying assumption was assessed to have little
impact on the results from the analysis given that
biomass-based diesel represented only 8% of the
total projected biofuel volumes.
65 See sections 1.6.4 and 1.6.5 of the RFS2 RIA.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38872
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
diesel volume, we believe it is
appropriate to make use of this
information as it represents the most
current EPA assessments available.66
This draft report relies on information
available as of July 2010. The report
does not attempt to quantify the impacts
of biofuel production and use as these
impacts are dependent on local or
regional conditions. Nevertheless the
draft provides qualitative assessments
and reasonable expectations of trends
which can be used to consider the
environmental impacts of increases in
biodiesel production and use. These
trends are only summarized here while
the draft report provides extensive
detail.
The draft assessment focuses on the
use of oil from soy beans as the
feedstock for biodiesel production.
Other oil seed feedstock sources
represent a very small portion of biofuel
production in 2013 so would be
expected to have much less of an impact
than soy oil. Corn oil extracted during
the ethanol production process is
increasing, adds a very small increment
of process GHG and will offset demands
for soy and other oil seed crops, thus
reducing potential agricultural impact of
biodiesel production and adding to the
net reduction in GHG emissions.
Finally, waste fats, oils and greases
would be expected to have negligible
environmental impact as a feedstock
since they do not impact agricultural
land use and would otherwise be used
for some lower value purpose or simply
discarded.
Wetlands can be adversely affected by
agricultural production through runoff
that can result in nutrient loading
(particularly from fertilizers) or from
sedimentation (from erosion). Soy
production tends to use less fertilizer
than corn production (the most likely
alternative crop) and can reduce the
amount of fertilizer required for corn
when planted in rotation with corn.
However, compared to other crops,
erosion can be higher from fields
planted in row crops such as corn and
soy beans. While the impacts of nutrient
loading and erosion tend to be site
specific, good farming practices
including the optimum fertilizer use
and the set aside of sensitive lands via
the CRP program can significantly help
control these adverse affects. Wetlands
can also be adversely affected through
diversion of surface and ground water
for agricultural irrigation. Soy bean
66 U.S. EPA. Biofuels and the Environment: the
First Triennial Report to Congress (External Review
Draft). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–10/183A, 2011.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=217443.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
production less frequently relies on
irrigation than corn and some other
crops. More discussion on water usage
is included below in the section on
water use and water quality impacts.
Ecosystems and wildlife habitat can
be adversely affected if CRP lands are
converted to crop production, if row
crops such as soy beans replace grassy
crops and in general if new lands with
diverse vegetation are converted to crop
production. As noted in the RFS2 rule,
we do not expect the RFS program
production to result in an increase in
total acres of agricultural land under
production in the US compared to a
reference case without the impact of the
RFS2 volumes. The relatively small
increase of 0.28 bill gall should not
appreciably affect the amount of land
devoted to oil seed production. Further,
since soy beans are traditionally planted
in rotation with other crops such as
corn, this small increase in soy oil
demand for biodiesel production is
unlikely to replace grassy crops or result
in the indirect increase in land under
crop production. Additionally, the
USDA commitment to support the CRP
program should minimize the likelihood
of any significant change in the amount
of CRP land. Therefore, while some very
local changes may result due to an
individual farmer’s planting decisions,
since no new crop land are expected in
the U.S. due to this increase in biodiesel
production and sensitive lands will be
protected via programs such as CRP, no
measureable impact in aggregate
ecosystems or wildlife habitat is
expected.
8. Water Quality and Quantity
The water quality and quantity
impacts of biodiesel are primarily
related to the type of feedstock and the
production practices used to both
produce the feedstock and to convert
the feedstock into biodiesel. Soybeans
are the principal feedstock used for
biodiesel production and are predicted
to account for 600 million gallons of the
1.28 billion gallons evaluated for 2013.
Non-food grade corn oil extracted
during ethanol production, animal fats
and recycled fats account for most of the
remaining biodiesel feedstocks. Since
these fats are the byproduct of another
use and not produced specifically for
biodiesel manufacture and since corn
oil extracted is a by-product of corn
ethanol production, this analysis will
focus on soybeans.
From a water quality perspective, the
primary pollutants of concern from
soybean production are fertilizers
(nitrogen and phosphorus) and
sediment. There are three major
pathways for these potential pollutants
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to reach water from agricultural lands:
runoff from the land’s surface,
subsurface tile drains, or leaching to
ground water. Climate, hydrological,
and management factors influence the
potential for these contaminants to
reach water from agricultural lands.
a. Impacts on Water Quality and Water
Quantity Associated With Soybean
Production
After corn, soybeans are the second
largest agricultural crop in terms of
acreage in the U.S. As with the
production of any agricultural crop, the
impact on water quality depends on a
variety of factors including production
practices, use of conservation practices
and crop rotations by farmers, and
acreage and intensity of tile drained
lands. Additional factors outside
agricultural producers’ control include
soil characteristics, climate, and
proximity to water bodies.
Soybeans are typically grown in the
same locations as corn since farmers
commonly rotate between the two crops.
In 2005, the latest year for which USDA
collected data, the U.S. average nitrogen
fertilization rate for soybeans was 16
pounds per acre. In contrast, the average
nitrogen fertilization rate for corn was
138 pounds per acre.67 Soybeans fix
nitrogen, so they do not require
substantial added fertilizer for adequate
yields. Only 18 percent of soybean acres
are fertilized with nitrogen compared to
96 percent of corn acres.68 Since
significantly less nitrogen fertilizer is
applied to soybeans, less nitrogen is
available for runoff or leaching into
water. Water quality generally benefits
when soybeans are rotated with corn,
since the next corn crop requires less
fertilizer and fewer pesticides.
Therefore, crop rotation is one practice
that is part of an effective system to
limit water quality impacts. However,
soybeans have less residue remaining on
the field after harvest compared to corn,
so sediment runoff could be more of a
concern.
Agricultural conservation systems can
reduce the impact of soybean
production on the environment. The
systems components include (1)
controlled application of nutrients and
pesticides through proper rate, timing,
and method of application, (2)
controlling erosion in the field (i.e.,
67 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service. Fertilizer Use and Price. https://
www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse.
68 U. S. Department of Agriculture, National
Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007. Agricultural
chemical usage 2006 field crops summary.
Available at: https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/
nass/AgriChemUsFC//2000s/2007/AgriChemUsFC627 05–16–2007_revision.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
reduced tillage, terraces, or grassed
waterways), and (3) trapping losses of
soil and fertilizer runoff at the edge of
fields or in fields through practices such
as cover crops, riparian buffers,
controlled drainage for tile drains, and
constructed/restored wetlands.69
The effectiveness of conservation
practices, however, depends upon their
adoption. The USDA‘s Conservation
Effects Assessment Project (CEAP)
quantified the effects of conservation
practices used on cultivated cropland in
the Upper Mississippi River Basin. It
found that, while erosion control
practices are commonly used, there is
considerably less adoption of proper
nutrient management to mitigate
nitrogen loss to water bodies.70
However, as noted above, the relatively
low amount of fertilizer used for soy
bean production tends to lessen the
potential for nitrogen loss to water
bodies
Water for soybean cultivation
predominately comes from rainfall,
although about 11 percent of soybean
acres in the U.S. are irrigated.71 Water
use for irrigated soybean production in
the U.S. varies from 0.2 acre-feet per
acre in Pennsylvania to about 1.4 acrefeet per acre in Colorado, with a
national average of 0.8 acre-feet of
water.72
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. Impacts on Water Quality and Water
Quantity Associated With Biodiesel
Production
Biological oxygen demand (BOD),
total suspended solids, and glycerin
pose the major water quality concerns in
wastewater discharged from biodiesel
facilities. Actual impacts depend on a
range of factors, including the type of
feedstock processed, biorefinery
technology, effluent controls, and water
re-use/recycling practices, as well as the
facility location and source and
receiving water.
Despite the existing commercial
market for glycerin and the likely
69 Dinnes, DL; Karlen, DL; Jaynes, DB; Kaspar, TC;
Hatfield, JL; Colvin, TS; Cambardella, CA. 220 2002.
Nitrogen management strategies to reduce nitrate
leaching in tile-drained 221 midwestern soils.
Agronomy Journal 94(1): 153–171.
70 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National
Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Assessment
of the effects of conservation practices on cultivated
cropland in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
Available at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/
NRI/ceap/umrb/.
71 U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010. 2007
Census of agriculture, Farm and ranch irrigation
survey (2008). https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/
Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/
Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/fris08.pdf.
72 U. S. Department of Energy. 2006. Energy
demands on water resources: Report to Congress on
the interdependency of energy and water. Available
at: https://www.sandia.gov/energy-water/docs/121RptToCongress-EWwEIAcomments-FINAL.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
expanded uses for glycerin as discussed
in the RFS2 final rule, the rapid
development of the biodiesel industry
has caused a temporary glut of glycerin
production, resulting in some instances
of facilities disposing glycerin. Glycerin
disposal may be regulated under several
EPA programs, depending on the
practice. However, there have been
incidences of glycerin dumping,
including an incident in Missouri that
resulted in a large fish kill.73 Some
biodiesel facilities discharge their
wastewater to municipal wastewater
treatment systems for treatment and
discharge. There have been several cases
of municipal wastewater treatment plant
upsets due to high BOD loadings from
releases of glycerin.74 To mitigate
wastewater issues, some production
systems reclaim glycerin from the
wastewater. Closed-loop systems in
which water and solvents can be
recycled and reused can reduce the
quantity of water that must be
pretreated before discharge.
Biodiesel can also impact water
bodies as a result of spills. However,
biodiesel degrades approximately four
times faster than petroleum diesel
including in aquatic environments.75
Results of aquatic toxicity testing of
biodiesel indicate that it is less toxic
than regular diesel.76 Biodiesel does
have a high oxygen demand in aquatic
environments, and can cause fish kills
as a result of oxygen depletion. Water
quality impacts associated with spills at
biodiesel facilities generally result from
discharge of glycerin, rather than
biodiesel itself.
Biodiesel facilities use much less
water than ethanol facilities to produce
biofuel. The primary consumptive water
use at biodiesel plants is associated with
washing and evaporative processes.
Water use is variable, but is usually less
than one gallon of water for each gallon
of biodiesel produced; some facilities
recycle wash water, which reduces
overall water consumption.77
73 U.S. EPA. 2010b. Renewable fuel standard
program (RFS2) regulatory impact analysis. EPA–
420–R–10–006. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/
otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.
74 U.S. EPA. 2010b. Renewable fuel standard
program (RFS2) regulatory impact analysis. EPA–
420–R–10–006. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/
otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.
75 Kimble, J. n.d. Biofuels and emerging issues for
emergency responders. U.S. EPA. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fss/fss09/
kimblebiofuels.pdf.
76 Kahn, N; Warith, MA; Luk, G. 2007. A
comparison of acute toxicity of biodiesel, biodiesel
blends, and diesel on aquatic organisms. Journal of
the Air and Waste Management Association 57(3):
286–296.
77 Renewable Fuels Standard Program (RFS2),
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). EPA–420–R–10–
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38873
9. Job Creation and Rural Economic
Development
The RFS2 is anticipated to increase
employment and spur income
expansion in rural areas and farming
communities. Income expansion in rural
areas from renewable fuel production
will contribute to rural economic
development. As mentioned above,
industry activities are currently
progressing to ramp up biodiesel
consumption from the approximately
380 mill gallons estimated to be used in
the U.S. in 2010 to the 800 mill gallons
that is estimated to be used in 2011 to
meet the RFS2 biomass-based diesel
volume requirement. In addition, it is
anticipated that biodiesel production
capacity idled due to lack of demand
will be brought back on line as biodiesel
volumes ramp up. Also, expansions to
the fuel distribution infrastructure (i.e.,
more fuel terminals, rail cars, tank
trucks, barges etc.) will be needed to
support the use of 1 bill gal/yr of
biodiesel in 2012 and 1.28 bill gal/yr in
2013 based on the analysis conducted
for the RFS2 final rule.78 Bringing
online idle biodiesel plants and
expanding biodiesel distribution
infrastructure in the U.S. will increase
both employment and promote rural
economic development. These increases
in employment are similar to what EPA
anticipated when it analyzed the RFS2
rule.
D. Proposed 2013 Volume for BiomassBased Diesel
We are proposing an applicable
volume of 1.28 bill gal biomass-based
diesel for 2013, consistent with our
projection for 2103 in the RFS2 final
rule. The 0.28 bill gal increment over
the 2012 applicable volume that is
reflected in this proposal does not
deviate substantially from the trend in
annual increments that Congress
established in specifying applicable
volumes for biomass-based diesel for
2009 through 2012. As noted in Section
IV.B, because we are not proposing to
change the 2013 advanced biofuel
applicable volume in this rulemaking,
we have used the 2.75 bill gallon
applicable volume for the analyses in
today’s proposal. Given an advanced
biofuel applicable volume of 2.75 bill
gallons for 2013, the proposed 1.28 bill
gal biomass-based diesel volume
requirement is not expected to force any
additional biomass-based diesel
006. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.
78 Renewable Fuels Standard Program (RFS2),
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), EPA–420–R–10–
006, February 2010. Available at: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38874
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
volumes into the market in 2013. As a
result, the increase in biomass-based
diesel from the statutory minimum of
1.0 bill gal to 1.28 bill gal could be seen
as not having any impact beyond what
is anticipated to result from meeting the
current 2.75 bill gal advanced biofuel
applicable volume.
However, compared to a reference
case without the RFS2 mandates, 1.28
bill gal of biomass-based diesel will lead
to displacement of fossil-based fuel,
which will result in reduced GHG
emissions from the transportation sector
and increased energy security. There are
likely to be some negative consequences
associated with increased air and water
pollution, increased food prices,
impacts to wetlands, etc., as discussed
above. However, EPA does not believe
that these impacts outweigh the benefits
of moving to an applicable volume of
1.28 bill gal for 2013. By requiring
somewhat more biomass based diesel
use in 2013 than the statutory
minimum, we are also making it more
likely that we will not need to modify
the advanced biofuel mandate in 2013
and, therefore, that the Congressional
goal for advanced biofuel use in 2013
can either be satisfied, or at least come
closer to satisfaction. EPA solicits
comment on all issues related to this
proposal.
E. 2014 and Beyond
EPA is directed under CAA 211(o)(2)
to determine the required biomass-based
diesel volumes no less than 14 months
ahead of the first year that they would
be applicable, and thus we could
propose biomass-based diesel volumes
for 2014 and beyond in today’s NPRM.
Doing so would provide certainty for the
industry and stability for future
investments and contracts. However, we
are not proposing biomass-based diesel
standards for 2014 and beyond in
today’s NPRM since we believe we will
be in a better position in the future to
evaluate all of the factors related to
establishing an applicable volume for
2014 and later years.
We are aware of two sources that
provide projections of biomass-based
diesel for years after 2013: the RFS2
final rulemaking, and a recent report
released by the IHS Global Insight.79
The projections from both of these
sources are shown in Table IV.E–1
TABLE IV.E–1—PROJECTIONS OF BIOMASS-BASED DIESEL AFTER 2012
(BILL GALLONS)
RFS2 final
rule
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
1.28
1.39
1.53
1.56
1.60
1.64
1.68
1.72
1.77
1.82
IHS global
insight
report
1.34
1.50
1.81
2.18
2.53
2.74
3.00
3.14
3.23
3.30
We will consider these and other
sources when we determine the
required biomass-based diesel volumes
for 2014 and beyond, whether in this or
a future rulemaking.
V. Proposed Changes to RFS2
Regulations
As the RFS2 program got underway in
the second half of 2010, we discovered
that a number of regulatory provisions
were causing confusion among
regulated parties. In some cases the
confusion was due to a lack of
specificity in terms, while in others it
was due to unique circumstances that
were not sufficiently addressed in the
RFS2 regulations. A few amendments
are being proposed in order to correct
regulatory language that inadvertently
misrepresented our intent as reflected in
the preamble to the final RFS2
regulations. Finally, as we have worked
with regulated parties to ensure that the
RFS program is operating as intended,
we identified areas in the regulations
that could benefit from clarification
and/or streamlining. We also identified
one provision in the gasoline benzene
regulations that misrepresented our
intent as stated in the preamble. As a
result, we are proposing a number of
amendments to the RFS regulations, and
one amendment to the gasoline benzene
regulations, in 40 CFR part 80.
A. Summary of Amendments
Below is a table listing the provisions
that we are proposing to amend in
today’s action. We have provided
additional explanation for several of
these amendments in Sections V.B
through V.F below.
TABLE V.A–1—SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
Section
Description
80.1275(d)(3) ......................................................
Removed to allow for the inclusion of transferred blendstocks in the calculation of benzene
early credits.
Amended definition of ‘‘annual cover crop’’ to clarify that the crop has no existing market to
which it can be sold except for its use as feedstock for the production of renewable fuel.
Amended definition of ‘‘naphtha’’ to clarify that it applies to hydrocarbons only, must be commonly or commercially known as naphtha, and is used for producing gasoline.
Amended to state the standards for 2012 and the date of the annual standards calculation.
Amended terms ‘‘GEi’’ and ‘‘DEi’’ to reference the amount of gasoline and/or diesel produced
by small refineries and small refiners that are exempt pursuant to §§ 80.1441 and 80.1442.
Amended to state the specific requirements needed for technical justifications for applications
for Equivalence Values.
Amended to add ID letters to pathways to facilitate references to specific pathways and to
change the reference to ‘‘canola’’ to ‘‘canola/rapeseed’’.
Corrected typographical error in cross reference to paragraph (f)(6) of § 80.1426.
Amended requirements so that the separated yard waste plans and separated food waste
plans need not be approved by EPA, but instead only need to be accepted by EPA under
the registration provisions.
Amended to clarify that ‘‘fossil-based’’ diesel fuel is different from renewable diesel fuel.
Amended to include RIN separation limitations on parties whose non-export RVOs are solely
related to imports of gasoline and diesel or the use of blendstocks to produce gasoline or
diesel.
Amended Production Outlook Report due date; added allowance for unregistered renewable
fuel producers and importers to submit Production Outlook Reports.
80.1401 ...............................................................
80.1401 ...............................................................
80.1405(a), (b), and (d) ......................................
80.1405(c) ...........................................................
80.1415(c)(2) ......................................................
80.1426, Table 1 .................................................
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80.1426(f)(1) .......................................................
80.1426(f)(5)(ii) ...................................................
80.1429(b)(2) ......................................................
80.1429(b)(9) ......................................................
80.1449(a) ...........................................................
79 ‘‘Biodiesel Production Prospects for the Next
Decade,’’ IHS Global Insight, March 11, 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
38875
TABLE V.A–1—SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS—Continued
Section
Description
80.1450(b)(1)(vi) .................................................
Amended to require submission of additional evidence as part of registration to verify eligibility
for exemptions in § 80.1403(c) or (d).
Amended to add more specificity on when updates, addenda, or resubmittals are required for
engineering reviews and to include references to foreign ethanol producers.
Amended to clarify that this section references RFS1 RINs retired for compliance.
Corrected typographical error.
Amended to clarify that a RIN-generating importer must submit to EMTS the EPA facility registration number of the facility at which the renewable fuel producer or foreign ethanol producer produced the batch.
Amended to clarify that for imports of renewable fuel, the RIN-generator must submit to EMTS
the EPA facility registration number of the importer that imported the batch.
Added to clarify that RINs cannot be generated more than once for a single batch of renewable fuel.
Added to clarify that auditors must verify that product transfer documents for RIN transactions
contain the required information for obligated parties/exporters and for renewable fuel producers/importers.
Amended to clarify that auditors must validate RIN separations for obligated parties/exporters
and for renewable fuel producers/importers; amended to correct typographical error.
Amended to remove the option of using an alternative commitment in lieu of paying a bond
and to clarify the amount of bond a foreign entity must post.
80.1450(d)(1)–(d)(3) ...........................................
80.1451(a)(1)(xi) .................................................
80.1452(b)(2) ......................................................
80.1452(b)(4) ......................................................
§ 80.1452(b)(5) ....................................................
80.1460(b)(6) ......................................................
80.1464(a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(iv), (b)(2)(iii), (b)(2)(iv),
(c)(1)(iii), and (c)(1)(iv).
80.1464(a)(2)(i), (a)(3)(ii), (b)(2)(i), (b)(3)(ii) .......
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80.1465(h)(2);
80.1466(h)(2);
80.1467(e)(1), (e)(2), and (g)(2).
and
B. Technical Justification for
Equivalence Value Application
A producer or importer of renewable
fuels is required to submit an
equivalence value (EV) application in
accordance with § 80.1415(c) for any
renewable fuel that does not have an EV
listed in § 80.1415(b). In addition, a
producer or importer could apply for an
alternative EV if the producer or
importer has reason to believe that a
different EV than that listed in
§ 80.1415(b) is warranted. Section
80.1415(c) provides the calculation
equation for the EV of the renewable
fuel and the requirements for the
technical justification to be submitted in
the EV application.
We have received many inquiries
from producers and importers of
renewable fuels requesting clarification
of the specific requirements for the
technical justification listed in
§ 80.1415(c). In addition, based on the
many EV applications we have
evaluated, we have found that we
needed to request additional
information from producers and
importers to better understand the
composition of the renewable fuel they
produced, such as intermediate steps
and energy inputs in production
process, sources of renewable and nonrenewable feedstock, and so forth, to
better evaluate and assign the correct EV
to the producer or importer’s renewable
fuel.
Therefore, we are proposing to amend
§ 80.1415(c)(2) to provide clarification
to the current requirements and to
include additional requirements for the
technical justification to be submitted in
the EV application. The proposed
amendments to § 80.1415(c)(2) include:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
—A calculation for the requested
equivalence value according to the
equation in § 80.1415(c)(1), including
supporting documentation for the
energy content (EC) of the renewable
fuel such as a certificate of analysis
from a laboratory that verifies the
lower heating value in Btu per gallon
of the renewable fuel produced.
—For each feedstock, component or
additive used to make the renewable
fuel, provide a description, the
percent input and identify whether or
not it is renewable biomass or is
derived from renewable biomass.
—For each feedstock that could
independently qualify as a renewable
fuel, state whether or not RINs have
been previously generated for the
feedstock.
—A description of renewable fuel and
the production process, including a
block diagram that shows quantities
of all inputs and outputs required at
each step of the production process
for the production of one batch of
renewable fuel.
C. Changes to Definitions of Terms
1. Definition of Annual Cover Crop
As explained in the preamble of the
RFS2 final rulemaking, EPA extended
modeling for cellulosic biofuel made
from corn stover and biodiesel/
renewable diesel made from waste oils/
fats/greases to annual cover crops, based
on the expectation that cultivation of
annual cover crops, as defined in
§ 80.1401, will have little impact on the
agricultural commodity markets and
therefore little or no land use impact
associated with them. Therefore, certain
fuels (as specified in Table 1 to
§ 80.1426) derived from annual cover
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
crop feedstocks qualify for D-codes
under the advanced biofuel, biomassbased diesel, and cellulosic renewable
fuel categories.
Section 80.1401 of the final RFS2 rule
defines ‘‘annual cover crop.’’ We are
proposing to amend the definition of
annual cover crop in order to more
clearly define those feedstocks that meet
the intent of including cover crops in
several pathways in Table 1 to
§ 80.1426.
In order to extend our modeling to
cover crops, we used the rationale that
annual cover crops would have no land
use impact since they are planted on
land otherwise used for crop
production. Greenhouse gas emissions
would only be associated with growing,
harvesting and transporting the cover
crop, and then processing into biofuel.
(See 75 FR 14794 col. 3.) Thus, we
assumed that no additional land would
be required to plant annual cover crops,
that cover crops would not displace
primary crop production, and that the
use of the cover crop as a feedstock for
renewable fuels would not have
secondary impacts on other agricultural
commodity markets. This implies that
annual cover crops would not be
planted and harvested for the purpose of
being sold to existing markets. If a cover
crop already had an existing market,
then the increased use of cover crops as
feedstocks for renewable fuel
production could potentially impact the
existing markets. Therefore, we propose
to amend the current definition for
‘‘annual cover crop’’ to clarify that for
purposes of the RFS program the term
only includes crops that have no
existing market to which they can be
sold except for the use of the feedstock
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38876
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
for renewable fuel. This will ensure that
no unintended land use or significant
indirect effects result from the use of
annual cover crops as feedstocks for
renewable fuel production.
EPA recognizes that there may be
additional fuel pathways requiring
lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
assessments and the assignment of
appropriate RIN D–Codes, including
those using feedstocks that do not meet
the proposed amended definition of
annual cover crop. For further guidance
on the process for requesting EPA
evaluation of new fuel pathways, please
refer to the following sites:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/
renewablefuels/compliancehelp/rfs2lca-pathways.htm.
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/
renewablefuels/compliancehelp/lcapetition-instructions.htm#1.
2. Definition of ‘‘Naphtha’’
In the RFS2 final rule, we included
several RIN-generating pathways in
Table 1 for naphtha made from
renewable biomass. We also provided a
definition of naphtha in § 80.1401.
However, the definition we finalized
was overly broad and did not
adequately represent our intent to limit
naphtha to gasoline blendstocks. As a
result, some biofuel producers have
expressed interest in interpreting the
term ‘‘naphtha’’ to include materials
that, while falling within the boiling
range of gasoline, are not used as a
blendstock to produce gasoline.
To remedy this situation, we are
proposing to revise the definition of
naphtha to also specify that it applies
only to blendstocks which are
composed of only hydrocarbons, are
commonly or commercially known as
naphtha, and are used to produce
gasoline.
D. Technical Amendments Related to
RIN Generation and Separation
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. RIN Separation Limit for Obligated
Parties
We propose to amend section 80.1429
to limit the amount of RINs a company
who is an obligated party solely by
virtue of importation of obligated fuel
can separate to their Renewable Volume
Obligation (RVO). This change would
address the instance where a party may
import a small amount of obligated
volumes and then separate all the RINs
that it owns. This change is designed to
prevent abuse of the obligated party RIN
separation provision by a company that
imports a relatively small amount of an
obligated volume, but then separates a
large amount of RINs. The proposed
provision is also designed to help
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
prevent the hoarding of RINs by parties
that do not need them for compliance
purposes, and to generally increase
liquidity of RINs.. EPA structured the
original RFS1 separation regulations
around facilitating compliance by
obligated parties meeting their RVOs.
The proposed change keeps with the
original design and also ensures that
importers can separate enough RINs to
meet their obligations.
2. RIN Retirement Provision for Error
Correction
In some instances, renewable fuel
producers or importers may improperly
generate RINs in EMTS as a result of
calculation errors, meter malfunctions
or clerical errors. Pursuant to
§ 80.1431(a), improperly generated RINs
are invalid, and cannot be used to
achieve compliance with any
Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs).
The regulations also 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.
Because of the ‘‘buyer beware’’ aspect of
the RIN program, RIN generators should
take all appropriate actions to ensure
that they are properly generating RINs,
and all parties in the RIN distribution
system should take all appropriate
actions to ensure that they are not
trading invalid RINs or using invalid
RINs for compliance purposes.
The ‘‘buyer beware’’ aspect of the RIN
program provides an important
incentive for the regulated community
to comply with the regulations.
Although EPA believes that these selfpolicing mechanisms are a critical
component of the RFS2 regulations, we
seek comment on the possibility of
amending § 80.1431 to provide the
regulated community with limited
flexibility to allow certain RINs that
were improperly generated to
nevertheless be transferred and used for
compliance. We envision that this type
of flexibility could reduce disruptions to
the RIN market while, if appropriately
limited, continuing to apply appropriate
pressure on parties that generate,
transfer and use RINs to comply with
the regulations. Parties that improperly
generate RINs would remain liable for
generating invalid RINs.
We believe that the following general
limitations should apply to any
flexibility to allow improperly generated
RINs to be transferred and used for
compliance: (1) The RINs must have
been improperly generated as a result of
an inadvertent error, (2) the improperly
generated RINs must have the correct D
code, (3) the RIN generator must correct
the information submitted to EMTS and
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
retire an equivalent number and type of
any excess RINs that were generated as
a result of the error within fixed time
period, (4) the flexibility to allow
improperly generated RINs to be used
for compliance would only apply if the
number of excess RINs generated for a
particular batch exceeds the number of
RINs that should have been generated
by some fixed percentage, and (5) the
flexibility to allow improperly generated
RINs to be used for compliance could
not be repeatedly used by a renewable
fuel producer.
We are seeking comment on whether
EPA should amend the regulations to
include this flexibility, whether the
conditions set forth above are
appropriate, and whether there are
additional or alternative conditions that
should be imposed if the flexibility is
granted. We seek comment on
specifying a 60-day time period for a
RIN-generator to correct RIN
information submitted to EMTS and
limiting the availability of this
flexibility to situations where the
number of excess RINs generated for a
particular batch exceeds the number of
RINs that should have been generated
by no more than 2%. In addition, we
seek comment on the possibility of
establishing a limit on the number of
times this flexibility could be used
within a compliance period by a given
RIN generator. Such a limitation could
encourage RIN generators to take
appropriate measures to avoid
generating invalid RINs, and limit the
possibility that RIN generators would
intentionally generate invalid RINs to
take advantage of short term RIN price
spikes. EPA seeks comment on all
aspects of this proposal
3. Production Outlook Reports
Submission Deadline
In the final RFS2 regulations, in
§ 80.1449(a), EPA set the annual
deadline for submitting Production
Outlook Reports as March 31 of each
year. However, EPA has determined
that, in order for the information
contained in the Production Outlook
Reports to be most useful when setting
the RFS2 volume requirements and
associated percentage standards for the
following calendar year, the reports
should contain the most accurate
projections possible. Since the accuracy
of projections tends to increase the
closer those projections are made to the
following calendar year, we believe that
the March 31 deadline should be moved
to June 1. This revised deadline would
still allow the information contained in
the Production Outlook Reports to be
used in the development of the final
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
rulemaking setting the standards for the
following year.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4. Attest Procedures
In the final RFS2 regulations, EPA
required in § 80.1464(c)(1)(i) and
(c)(2)(ii) that RIN owners conduct attest
procedures for RIN transaction and RIN
activity reports that involve RIN
separations. This requirement was
intended to be included in the attest
procedures for obligated parties and
exporters as well as for renewable fuel
producers and RIN-generating
importers, in order to confirm that RINs
are being properly separated by all
parties participating in the RIN market.
Thus, today’s rule proposes
amendments to § 80.1464(a)(2)(i) and
(a)(3)(ii) for obligated parties and
exporters as well as to § 80.1464(b)(2)(i)
and (3)(ii) for renewable fuel producers
and RIN-generating importers to include
attest procedures concerning
verification of RIN separation.
Additionally, in the final RFS2
regulations, EPA required in § 80.1464
that auditors of RIN generation reports
verify that product transfer documents
(PTDs) include the required
information. EPA believes it would be
beneficial for auditors to verify the
required information is present on PTDs
for RIN transactions for all parties,
including obligated parties, renewable
fuel producers and importers and RIN
owners. Thus, today’s rule proposes
amendments to § 80.1464(a)(2), (b)(2)
and (c)(1) to require auditors to verify
that the PTDs for a representative
sample of RINs sold and purchased
contains the information required in
§ 80.1453.
5. Treatment of Canola and Rapeseed
On September 28, 2010, EPA
published a ‘‘Supplemental
Determination for Renewable Fuels
Produced Under the Final RFS2
Program from Canola Oil’’ (FR Vol. 75,
No. 187, pg 59622–59634). We are
proposing to clarify two aspects of the
supplemental determination. First we
propose to amend the regulatory
language in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426
to clarify that the currently-approved
pathway for canola also applies more
generally to rapeseed. While ‘‘canola’’
was specifically described as the
feedstock evaluated in the supplemental
determination, we had not intended the
supplemental determination to cover
just those varieties or sources of
rapeseed that are identified as canola,
but to all rapeseed. We currently
interpret the reference to ‘‘canola’’ in
Table 1 to 40 CFR 1426 to include any
rapeseed. To eliminate ambiguity
caused by the current language,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
however, we propose to replace the term
‘‘canola’’ in that table with the term
‘‘canola/rapeseed’’. Canola is a type of
rapeseed. While the term ‘‘canola’’ is
often used in the American continent
and in Australia, the term ‘‘rapeseed’’ is
often used in Europe and other
countries to describe the same crop. We
believe that this change will enhance
the clarity of the regulations regarding
the feedstocks that qualify under the
approved canola biodiesel pathway.
Second, we wish to clarify that
although the GHG emissions of
producing fuels from canola feedstock
grown in the U.S. and Canada was
specifically modeled as the most likely
source of canola (or rapeseed) oil used
for biodiesel produced for sale and use
in the U.S., we also intended that the
approved pathway cover canola/
rapeseed oil from other countries, and
we interpret our regulations in that
manner. We expect the vast majority of
biodiesel used in the U.S. and produced
from canola/rapeseed oil will come from
U.S. and Canadian crops. Incidental
amounts from crops produced in other
nations will not impact our average
GHG emissions for two reasons. First,
our analyses considered world-wide
impacts and thus considered canola/
rapeseed crop production in other
countries. Second, other countries most
likely to be exporting canola/rapeseed
or biodiesel product from canola/
rapeseed are likely to be major
producers which typically use similar
cultivars and farming techniques.
Therefore, GHG emissions from
producing biodiesel with canola/
rapeseed grown in other countries
should be very similar to the GHG
emissions we modeled for Canadian and
U.S. canola, though they could be
slightly (and insignificantly) higher or
lower. At any rate, even if there were
unexpected larger differences, EPA
believes the small amounts of feedstock
or fuel potentially coming from other
countries will not impact our threshold
analysis. Therefore, EPA interprets the
approved canola pathway as covering
canola/rapeseed regardless of country
origin.
E. Technical Amendments Related to
Registration
1. Construction Discontinuance &
Completion Documentation
The registration requirements in
§ 80.1450(b)(1)(vi) state that for facilities
claiming the exemption described in
§ 80.1403(c) or (d), evidence must be
submitted demonstrating the date that
construction commenced. However, the
registration requirements do not
explicitly require the submission of
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38877
evidence demonstrating that they meet
certain of the other requirements
described in § 80.1403(c)(1) and (2) or
(d)(1), (2) and (3).
In order to verify that facilities which
claim to qualify for an exemption under
§ 80.1403(c) or (d) in fact meet all of the
qualification requirements for such an
exemption, we are proposing to amend
§ 80.1450(b)(1)(vi) to include
requirements that the owner or operator
of facilities claiming exemption under
§ 80.1403(c) submit evidence
demonstrating that construction was not
discontinued for a period of 18 months
after construction began, and that
construction was completed by
December 19, 2010. Similarly, we are
proposing that for facilities claiming the
exemption under § 80.1403(d), evidence
be submitted demonstrating that
construction was not discontinued for a
period of 18 months after construction
began and that construction was
completed within 36 months of the date
that construction commenced.
In addition, we are proposing to add
a general provision in
(§ 80.1450(b)(1)(vi)(D) requiring the
submission of additional documentation
and information as requested by the
Administrator. This authority would be
used in the event that documents
submitted in accordance with
requirements § 80.1450(b)(1)(vi)(A) and
(B) are not sufficient for EPA to verify
that the facility has met all requirements
described in § 80.1403(c) or (d).
2. Third-Party Engineering Reviews
The regulations stipulate that
producers of renewable fuels and
foreign ethanol producers are required
to update their registration information,
and submit an updated independent
third-party engineering review, every 3
years after their initial registration in
accordance with § 80.1450(d)(3). We
have received many inquiries regarding
the start date that EPA uses to determine
the 3 year period after which the
producer must submit an updated
independent third party engineering
review (such as the registration
acceptance date, the third-party
professional engineer’s signature date
on the engineering review report, or
when the engineering review is due for
grandfathered and non-grandfathered
facilities).
Given the lack of clarity in the current
regulations, we are proposing
amendments to specify the time frame
for submission of updated independent
third-party engineering reviews. We are
proposing, a simplified method that
would group producers according to the
calendar year they were or will be
registered, and setting a fixed time
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38878
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
frame for registration updates for each
group. Therefore, we are proposing to
amend § 80.1450(d)(3), to stipulate that
for all producers of renewable fuel and
foreign ethanol producers in which their
registration was accepted by EPA in
calendar year 2010, that the updated
registration information and
independent third-party engineering
review shall be submitted to EPA within
the three months prior to January 1,
2014, and within three months prior to
January 1 of every third calendar year
thereafter. For all producers of
renewable fuel and foreign ethanol
producers registered in any calendar
year after 2010, the updated registration
information and independent thirdparty engineering review shall be
submitted to EPA within three months
prior to January 1 of every third
calendar year after the first year the
producer’s registration was accepted by
EPA. For example, a producer registered
in 2011 would be required to submit an
updated independent third-party
engineering review by January 1, 2015,
and by January 1 every three calendar
years thereafter.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3. Foreign Ethanol Producers
We are proposing that the
amendments to the registration
requirements in § 80.1450 also apply to
foreign ethanol producers. As defined in
§ 80.1401, foreign ethanol producers are
foreign producers that produce ethanol
for use in transportation fuel, heating oil
or jet fuel but who do not add
denaturant to their product. Therefore,
foreign ethanol producers do not
technically produce ‘‘renewable fuel’’ as
defined in our regulations. As discussed
in the preamble to the Direct Final Rule
published on May 1, 2010 (see 75 FR
26032), the result of the amendments
made in the Direct Final Rule is to
require foreign ethanol facilities that
produce ethanol that ultimately
becomes part of a renewable fuel for
which RINs are generated to provide
EPA the same registration information
as foreign renewable fuel facilities that
export their product to the United
States. In both cases the required
registration information is important for
enforcement purposes, including
verifying the use of renewable biomass
as feedstock and the assignment of
appropriate D codes. Therefore, we
believe amendments to the registration
requirements that we make in this
proposed rule should also be applicable
to foreign ethanol producers for same
reasons.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
F. Additional Amendments and
Clarifications
1. Third-Party Engineering Review
Addendum
We have received many inquires as to
whether an addendum to the existing
independent third-party engineering
review is sufficient to meet the
requirement that all producers of
renewable fuel and foreign ethanol
producers submit an updated
independent third-party engineering
review if they make changes to their
facility that will qualify the renewable
fuel that is produced for a renewable
fuel category or D code that is not
already reflected in the producer’s
registration information. In some
circumstances the majority of the
information verified in the existing
independent third-party engineering
review would remain the same, and
duplicating the entire effort does not
appear necessary. We believe the
concept of allowing the submission of
an addendum in lieu of a updated
independent third-party engineering
review is reasonable and therefore we
are proposing to amend the
requirements in § 80.1450(d)(1) to state
that a producer of renewable fuel or
foreign ethanol producer may submit an
addendum to the existing independent
third-party engineering review on file
with EPA provided the addendum
meets all the requirements in
§ 80.1450(b)(2) and verifies for EPA the
most up-to-date information at the
producer’s existing facility. The updated
independent third-party engineering
review or addendum shall be submitted
at least 60 days prior to producing the
new type of renewable fuel and must
meet all the same requirements
stipulated in § 80.1450(b)(2) for the
independent third-party engineering
review, including a new site visit
conducted by the third-party to verify
any changes to the facility that allows it
to produce a different renewable fuel
that is not currently reflected in their
registration on file with EPA.
2. RIN Generation for Fuel Imported
From a Registered Foreign Producer
In RFS2, EPA finalized provisions
allowing importers to generate RINs for
renewable fuel imported from a foreign
producer only under certain
circumstances. The importer may only
generate RINs for fuel imported from a
foreign renewable fuel producer or
foreign ethanol producer if that
producer is registered with EPA and has
received EPA company and facility
identification numbers pursuant to
§ 80.1450. Pursuant to § 80.1426(c)(4),
the importer is prohibited from
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
generating RINs for fuel imported from
a foreign producer that is not registered
with EPA. In today’s rule, EPA is
clarifying that when an importer is
generating RINs for fuel imported from
a registered foreign renewable fuel
producer or foreign ethanol producer,
the importer must submit to EPA via
EMTS the importer’s company
identification number, the facility
identification number of the import
facility where the batch was imported,
and the facility identification number
for the foreign renewable fuel or ethanol
producer that produced the batch of fuel
for which the importer is generating
RINs. These clarifications are being
made in § 80.1452(b)(4) and (5).
3. Bond Posting
We are proposing to amend
paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2) and (g)(2) of
§ 80.1467 to make them consistent with
§ 80.1467(g)(1). These amendments
attempt to clarify that the amount of the
posted bond must post must cover the
number of gallon RINs that are sold and/
or transferred, and also those RINs held
and/or obtained by the foreign entity,
including those held and/or obtained to
comply with a foreign importer’s RVO
requirements. We are also proposing to
amend §§ 80.1465–80.1467 by striking
§§ 80.1465(h)(2)(iii), 80.1466(h)(2)(iii)
and 80.1467(e)(2)(iii), which allowed
entities to make alternative
commitments in lieu of posting bonds.
EPA believes that this method is vague,
unnecessary, and unenforceable.
4. Acceptance of Separated Yard Waste
and Food Waste Plans
We are proposing to amend
§ 80.1426(f)(5)(ii)(A) to remove the
requirement that the separated yard
waste plan and separated food waste
plan must be approved by EPA, and
instead only require that these two
plans be submitted and accepted by
EPA under the registration procedures
specified in § 80.1450(b)(1)(vii). The
details and information required to be
submitted in the separated yard waste
plan and separated food waste plan are
not overly burdensome or complex, and
therefore we believe it does not warrant
a specific EPA approval, but that EPA
acceptance of these plans through the
registration procedures is sufficient.
5. Transferred Blendstocks in Early
Benzene Credit Generation Calculations
Today’s rule also proposes one minor
correction to the gasoline benzene
regulations which would clarify how
refiners should account for transferred
blendstocks in their early benzene credit
generation calculations. Under current
rules, refineries which generated early
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
benzene credits are required to reduce
gasoline benzene during an early credit
generation period by at least 10%
compared to the refinery’s benzene
baseline, and are also required to make
specific operational changes and/or
improvements in benzene control
technology to reduce gasoline benzene
levels.80 Refineries which reduce their
gasoline benzene by at least 10%, in
part by transferring reformate to another
refinery, could also generate early
benzene credits, provided the transferee
refinery treated the reformate in specific
benzene-reduction processing units.81
See 72 FR 8486–87 (Feb. 26, 2007).
However, the gasoline benzene
regulations also contain an additional
provision that requires all blendstock
streams transferred to, from or between
refineries to be excluded from a
refinery’s early credit generation
calculations (except for reformate as
described previously). This led to an
inconsistent comparison of a refinery’s
benzene during an early credit
generation period with a refinery’s
benzene baseline (which included
blendstocks transferred to the refinery),
which was not EPA’s intent.
As described in the preamble of the
gasoline benzene final rule, EPA
intended that refineries not be allowed
to generate early benzene credits
exclusively through blendstock trading,
without making any other qualifying
reductions (see 72 FR 8487), but that
refineries could generate early benzene
credits in part through qualifying
reductions and ‘‘in part’’ through other
means such as blendstock transfers (see
72 FR 8496–97). However, the current
regulations do not allow this approach,
and this inconsistency has caused
confusion among refiners about how to
calculate the amount of early credits
generated. Refiners have generally
followed the approach set out in the
preamble (as EPA in fact intended), and
included all blendstocks transferred to a
refinery in the refinery’s early credit
generation calculations. Refiners
typically keep records on transferred
blendstocks for 1–2 years, and thus do
not have sufficient data to exclude
transferred blendstocks from their early
credit generation calculations.
EPA recently became aware of this
inconsistency and is proposing to
change the regulations to make them
80 Early credit generation periods were July 1,
2007 through December 31, 2007, and calendar
years 2008, 2009 and 2010.
81 Refineries produce gasoline by combining
several different blendstocks produced by various
refinery processing units. Reformate is a blendstock
which contains approximately 80% of all benzene
found in gasoline, per the MSAT2 regulatory impact
analysis.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
consistent with EPA’s intent as
described in the preamble. Today’s
proposed rule would amend the
gasoline benzene regulations at 40 CFR
80.1275(d)(3) by deleting that provision.
This would allow a refinery to include
blendstocks transferred to the refinery
in the refinery’s early benzene credit
generation calculations (all other
conditions, including treatment which
removes benzene in transferred
reformate streams still applying, of
course). Consistent with EPA’s original
intent, today’s rule also allows a
refinery to include transferred
blendstocks in past early credit
generation calculations, provided the
refinery met all of the other
requirements for generating early
benzene credits. EPA is proposing to
include transferred blendstocks in past
early credit generation calculation not
only because this was EPA’s intent at
the time of the benzene gasoline
rulemaking, but because some refiners
have reasonably relied upon that stated
intent in devising their compliance
strategies.
VI. Petition for Reconsideration
On February 7, 2011, the American
Petroleum Institute (API) and the
National Petrochemical and Refiners
Association (NPRA) jointly submitted a
Petition for Reconsideration of EPA’s
final rule establishing the RFS standards
for 2011.82 EPA is proposing to deny the
petition for the reasons described below,
and solicits comment on this proposal.
The petition is available in docket
EPA HQ OAR 2010–0133. It makes three
primary assertions:
1. EPA’s 2011 cellulosic biofuel
volume requirement of 6.6 million
gallons (6.0 million ethanol-equivalent
gallons) is unrealistically high. At the
most, EPA should have used the
estimate of 3.94 mill gallons provided
by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA).
2. EPA’s determination that there are
sufficient sources of advanced biofuel to
warrant not reducing the advanced
biofuel standard lacks adequate factual
support.
3. EPA’s treatment of delayed RINs
injects undesirable uncertainty into the
regulatory environment, and is contrary
to the basic regulatory framework
established by Congress.
The petition requests that EPA
reconsider the regulatory requirements
in all three areas.
A. Legal Considerations of Petition
The API/NPRA petition was
submitted under the reconsideration
82 75
PO 00000
FR 76790, December 9, 2010.
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38879
provisions of section 307(d)(7)(B) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). This section
strictly limits petitions for
reconsideration both in time and scope.
It states that:
Only an objection to a rule or procedure
which was raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment
(including any public hearing) may be raised
during judicial review. If the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to the
Administrator that it was impracticable to
raise such objection within such time or if
the grounds for such objection arose after the
period for public comment (but within the
time specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule, the Administrator shall
convene a proceeding for reconsideration of
the rule and provide the same procedural
rights as would have been afforded had the
information been available at the time the
rule was proposed. If the Administrator
refuses to convene such a proceeding, such
person may seek review of such refusal in the
United States court of appeals for the
appropriate circuit (as provided in subsection
(b)). Such reconsideration shall not postpone
the effectiveness of the rule. The
effectiveness of the rule may be stayed during
such reconsideration, however, by the
Administrator or the court for a period not
to exceed three months.
Thus the requirement to convene a
proceeding to reconsider a rule is based
on the petitioner demonstrating to EPA:
(1) That it was impracticable to raise the
objection during the comment period, or
that the grounds for such objection arose
after the comment period but within the
time specified for judicial review (i.e.,
within 60 days after publication of the
final rulemaking notice in the Federal
Register, see CAA section 307(b)(1); and
(2) that the objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Regarding the first procedural
criterion for reconsideration, a
petitioner must show why the issue
could not have been presented during
the comment period, either because it
was impracticable to raise the issue
during that time or because the grounds
for the issue arose after the period for
public comment (but within 60 days of
publication of the final action). Thus,
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) does not
provide a forum to request EPA to
reconsider issues that actually were
raised, or could have been raised, prior
to promulgation of the final rule.
Regarding the second procedural
criterion for reconsideration, in EPA’s
view, an objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule
only if it provides substantial support
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38880
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
for the argument that the regulation
should be revised.83
B. Advanced Biofuel Standard and
Delayed RINs
For the concerns raised in the petition
related to the treatment of the advanced
biofuel requirement for 2011 and the
provision for delayed RINs, API and
NPRA essentially restate the positions
that they took in their comments in
response to the 2010 NPRM. For
instance, with regard to advanced
biofuels, the petitioners did not
reference any new data on imports of
sugarcane ethanol or the production
potential of biodiesel to demonstrate
that the statutory applicable volume of
1.35 bill gallons of advanced biodiesel
cannot be met in 2011. Likewise with
regard to delayed RINs, the petitioners
did not cite new circumstances or new
information in their assertion that this
provision will inject uncertainty into
the regulatory system and RIN market.
Thus the petition does not provide new
information with regard to these two
issues or assert arguments that could not
have been raised during the comment
period. As a result, we do not believe
that the petition’s request for a
reconsideration of these regulatory
requirements is justified under CAA
307(d)(7)(B), and we propose to deny
the petition with respect to these two
issues. We believe that our approach to
these matters in the final rulemaking
establishing the 2011 RFS standards was
appropriate, for the reasons described in
the preamble to that rule.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. 2011 Cellulosic Biofuel Requirement
Regarding the 2011 cellulosic biofuel
requirement of 6.0 million ethanolequivalent gallons, petitioners make two
principal arguments: (1) That the
statutory requirement that the cellulosic
biofuel requirement be ‘‘based on’’ the
estimate provided by the EIA requires
EPA to use the 3.94 million ethanolequivalent gallon EIA estimate
regardless of any other information, and
83 See Denial of Petitions to Reconsider
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases under section 202(a), 75 FR
49556, 49560 (August 13, 2010); Denial of Petition
to Reconsider, 68 FR 63021 (November 7, 2003),
Technical Support Document for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment
New Source Review (NSR): Reconsideration at 5
(Oct. 30, 2003) (EPA–456/R–03–005) (available at
https://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/
petitionresponses10-30-03.pdf); Denial of Petition to
Reconsider NAAQS for PM, 53 FR 52698, 52700
(December 29, 1988), citing Denial of Petition to
Revise NSPS for Stationary Gas Turbines, 45 FR
81653–54 (December 11, 1980), and decisions cited
therein. Also see EPA’s February 17, 2011 denial of
petitions by Clean Air Taskforce, World Wildlife
Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and Friends of
the Earth’s to reconsider certain elements of the
RFS2 program.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
(2) that EPA lacked a reasonable basis
for its projection of 6.0 million ethanolequivalent gallons.
The first issue raised by petitioners
was discussed in the RFS2 proposed
rule. In the preamble to the 2010 RFS2
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we
stated that when projecting cellulosic
biofuel production volumes annually
‘‘[w]e intend to examine EIA’s projected
volumes and other available data
including the production outlook
reports * * * ’’ that EPA proposed to
require renewable fuel producers to
submit annually.84 EPA further
explained that the production outlook
reports ‘‘would be used * * * to set the
annual cellulosic biofuel’’ standard.85
Neither API nor NPRA submitted
comments stating, as they do now, that
EPA must in all cases rely on the EIA
projection and cannot consider or rely
upon other information in establishing
the annual cellulosic biofuel standard.
After evaluating the comments that EPA
did receive, we issued a final rule,
including applicable volumes and
corresponding percentage standards
consistent with the proposal. We stated
in the preamble to the final rule that
‘‘[w]e will examine EIA’s projected
volumes and other available data
including the required production
outlook reports to decide the
appropriate standard for the following
year. The outlook reports from all
renewable fuel producers will assist
EPA in determining what the cellulosic
biofuel standard should be * * * ’’ 86
Petitioners had another opportunity to
raise this same issue in the context of
the rulemaking establishing the 2011
standards. EPA again made it clear in its
proposed rule that the projection that
would be provided to us by the EIA
would only be one of several sources of
information we would use to determine
the applicable cellulosic biofuel volume
for 2011:
We will complete our evaluation based on
comments received in response to this
proposal, the Production Outlook Reports
due to the Agency on September 1, 2010, the
estimate of projected biofuel volumes that the
EIA is required to provide to EPA by October
31, and other information that becomes
available, and will finalize the standards for
2011 by November 30, 2010.87
These standards are to be based in part on
transportation fuel volumes estimated by the
84 74
FR 24966.
FR 24970.
86 75 FR 14726. See also 75 FR 14729 (production
outlook reports ‘‘will help EPA set the annual
cellulosic biofuel standard * * * ’’ and ‘‘essential
to our annual cellulosic biofuel standard setting
* * *’’).
87 75 FR 42240.
85 74
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Energy Information Administration (EIA) for
the following year.88
As described in the final rule for the RFS2
program, we intend to examine EIA’s
projected volumes and other available data
including the Production Outlook Reports
required under § 80.1449 in making the
determination of the appropriate volumes to
require for 2011.89
* * * each year by October 31 EIA is
required to provide an estimate of the volume
of cellulosic biofuel they expect to be sold or
introduced into commerce in the United
States in the following year. EPA will
consider this information as well when
finalizing a single volume for use in setting
the 2011 cellulosic biofuel standard.90
After considering all of the information
before it, EPA proposed a level for the
cellulosic biofuel volume that was
different from that contained in the EIA
projections. Once again, neither API nor
NPRA provided comments in response
to the 2010 NPRM on this subject.
Accordingly, EPA proposes to deny the
petition with respect to the contention
that EPA must rely exclusively on the
EIA projections in establishing the
annual cellulosic biofuel volumes. That
argument does not satisfy the criteria for
a petition for reconsideration specified
under CAA 307(d)(7)(B) since the issue
could have been raised during the
comment period of the 2010 standards
rule, but was not.
As a substantive matter, even if the
petitioners were not foreclosed from
raising this argument at this time, EPA
would propose to deny their claim
because the statute specifies that it is
EPA, not EIA, that is to make the
determination of projected cellulosic
biofuel volumes. EPA’s decision is to be
‘‘based on’’ the EIA estimate (as, indeed
it was), but EPA interprets the statute to
allow it to consider other available
information as well in making its
determination. EPA looked at all
available information, including public
comments on its proposal, and decided
that 6.0 million ethanol-equivalent
gallons was a reasonable projection for
2011. This is a reasonable interpretation
of an ambiguous statutory provision,
where Congress said ‘‘based on’’ the
estimate provided by EIA but did not
mandate that the determination be
based solely upon this information. EPA
carefully considered EIA’s projection
and explained why EPA’s determination
was different. See, for example, Nuclear
Energy Institute v. EPA, 373 F.2d 1251,
1269 (DC Cir. 2004).
The petition also contends that EPA is
required to project the volume of
cellulosic biofuel that will ‘‘actually’’ be
88 Ibid.
89 Ibid.
90 75
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
FR 42246.
01JYP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
sold or introduced into commerce in the
following year, but that EPA instead
established the cellulosic biofuel
volume at an ‘‘aspirational’’ level. EPA
believes that petitioners’ allegations are
not supported by either the statute or
the facts. Under CAA 211(o)(7)(D)(i), for
any calendar year for which EPA
determines that the projected volume of
cellulosic biofuel production is less
than the minimum applicable volume
established under the statute, EPA is to
reduce the applicable volume of
cellulosic biofuel to the volume that is
projected to be available. The statute
specifies that the projection of cellulosic
biofuel production is to be ‘‘determined
by the Administrator based on the
estimate provided by [EIA],’’ and that it
must be made in time to set the annual
standards by November 30 preceding
the applicable compliance year. To
fulfill its mandate under this provision,
EPA undertook an exhaustive
evaluation of every existing and
potential cellulosic biofuel production
facility that could potentially supply
cellulosic biofuel for use in the U.S.,
and projected a production volume for
2011 that reflected a balance between
the uncertainty inherent in the
projections and the objective of avoiding
unnecessary reductions in the
applicable volume set forth in the
statute.
The requirement to make a projection
of cellulosic biofuel volumes for the
following year necessarily means that
the projection will be an estimate, and
may not be exactly the volume that is
‘‘actually’’ produced. As described in
the 2010 NPRM, there are many factors
that may result in the actual volume
deviating from the projected volume:
• Difficulty/delays in securing
necessary funding.
• Delays in permitting and/or
construction.
• Difficulty in scale up, especially for
1st of their kind technologies.
• Volumes from pilot and
demonstration plants may not be sold
commercially.
• Not all feedstocks may qualify to
produce cellulosic Renewable
Identification Numbers (RINs); some
still awaiting evaluation of lifecycle
impacts.
• Likelihood that fuels produced
internationally will be exported to the
United States rather than consumed
locally.91
We do not believe that the statute
requires our projection to be 100%
accurate, or that it requires that EPA
project only what is absolutely or highly
certain of production, as the petitioners
91 75
FR 42245.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
would prefer. Rather, as described in
Section II.B.4, we believe that our
projection must be reasonable based on
the information that is available at the
time that the cellulosic biofuel standard
is set. The applicable volume
established by Congress for cellulosic
biofuel is 250 mill gallons for 2011, and
in projecting 6 mill gallons of
production we lowered the applicable
volume by about 98%. The volume of
3.94 mill gallons projected by EIA, and
favored by petitioners, also represents a
reduction of about 98% from the
statutory applicable volume of 250 mill
gallons. Moreover, with only one
exception (Range Fuel, discussed
below), the petitioners do not present
any new evidence to refute the projected
production estimates that EPA made for
the various facilities it anticipated
would produce fuel in 2011. Their
primary arguments are that we are
compelled to use EIA’s projection
which, as noted above, the statute does
not require, and that we are required to
project a level with a high degree of
certainty.
As discussed in the rule that set the
2011 cellulosic standard, we believe
that the volume of cellulosic biofuel
actually produced in a given year is
likely to be strongly influenced by the
standard we set. At this early point in
the RFS program, the volume of
cellulosic biofuel actually made
available will in general not exceed the
standard that we set, and there is no
recourse for increasing the cellulosic
biofuel standard if our projection were
to fall short of actual production.
Therefore, setting a standard that is
lower than what the industry could
reasonably achieve could strand
investments and/or further delay the
industry’s ability to move towards the
higher levels of commercial production
envisioned in the statute. We believe it
is appropriate to consider these factors
in projecting production volumes, and
that we are not compelled to rely solely
on volumes actually in production at
the time we make our decision, as
petitioners would prefer.
In the final rule establishing the 2011
projected volume of cellulosic biofuel,
we explained our approach to
recognizing and accounting for
uncertainty in the projections:
In directing EPA to project cellulosic
biofuel production for purposes of setting the
annual cellulosic biofuel standard, Congress
did not specify what degree of certainty
should be reflected in the projections. We
believe that the cellulosic biofuel standard
should provide an incentive for the industry
to grow according to the goals that Congress
established through EISA. However, we also
believe that the cellulosic biofuel standard
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38881
that we set should be within the range of
what can be attained based on projected
domestic production and import potential.
Any estimate we use to set the biofuel
standard for 2011 will have some uncertainty
in terms of actual attainment, and the level
of such uncertainty generally rises with the
volume mandate. Our intention is to balance
such uncertainty with the objective of
providing an incentive for growth in the
industry. To this end we explored the 2011
volumes for individual companies as
projected by EIA to determine not only what
volumes might be anticipated, but more
importantly what volumes were potentially
attainable. Our final projected available
volume of cellulosic biofuel for 2011 reflects
these considerations. 92
Thus, our projection was not
‘‘aspirational,’’ as petitioners allege.
Instead, we projected a volume that we
believed could be reasonably achieved
based on the information available at
the time the standard was finalized. We
acknowledged there were uncertainties,
but balanced our consideration of that
uncertainty against the goal of avoiding
unnecessarily lowering the applicable
volume in the statute. This is a
reasonable approach to achieving
Congress’ goal of promoting the growth
of the use of cellulosic biofuel, taking
into account the interests of both the
obligated parties and the producers of
cellulosic biofuels.
The API/NPRA petition does not
suggest that the projection of 6.0 mill
ethanol-equivalent gallons of cellulosic
biofuel was not achievable or was not a
reasonable balance as discussed above,
based on the information available at
the time of the final rule. Instead, the
petition focuses on balancing these
interests in a manner that places the
highest priority on achieving a low or
very low degree of uncertainty in
whether the projected volumes will in
fact be produced. The petition focuses
almost solely on the uncertainties
associated with this volume and
requests that the uncertainties be
reduced by lowering the applicable
volume of cellulosic biofuel to no more
than the EIA projection of 3.94 mill
gallons. Little if any priority or
emphasis is placed on the importance of
establishing conditions that reasonably
can promote the growth in the
production of cellulosic renewable fuel.
EPA disagrees that this would be the
appropriate balance to draw in
implementing this provision, at least in
these early years of the RFS2 program.
In arguing for a lower volume based
on the uncertainties, the petition
highlights the recent history for three
companies: Bell BioEnergy, Cello
Energy, and Range Fuels. The
92 75
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
FR 76794.
01JYP2
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38882
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
discussion of Bell BioEnergy and Cello
Energy in the petition is an update of
the discussion of these same two
companies in API’s comments
submitted in response to the 2010
NPRM. As the petition points out, while
the information available at the time of
the 2010 NPRM suggested that these two
companies could produce cellulosic
biofuel in 2011, by the time of the final
rulemaking we had obtained updated
information and determined that it
would not be reasonable to project any
2011 volume from these two companies.
At the same time, we added two
companies in the final rule that were
not included in the 2010 NPRM list of
companies that we projected could
produce volume in 2011: KiOr and
Range Fuels. The changes between the
proposed and final lists of companies on
which we based our projections for 2011
highlight the fact that, in the emergent
cellulosic biofuel industry, any
projection of cellulosic biofuel
production is highly dependent upon
the information available at the time of
the projection, and that for any given
company this information may change
in one direction or another.
Nevertheless, changes in the projected
volume from one company may be
counterbalanced or mitigated by
production changes for other
companies.
With regard to Range Fuels, we
reasonably projected a 2011 volume
production of 2.3 mill ethanolequivalent gallons out of the 6.0 mill
ethanol-equivalent gallon volume that
we determined was achievable in 2011.
Information made available since
issuance of the final rule indicates that
the facility was idled early in 2011.
Nevertheless, this fact does not
invalidate the projection of 6.0 mill
gallons we made in December 2010,
since their facility was complete,
operational, and had produced some
volume at that time. As indicated by the
removal of Bell BioEnergy and Cello
Energy from the list of companies we
considered in the final rule, and the
addition of KiOr and Range Fuels to this
same list, it is clear that projections
made at any point in time for some
companies may ultimately prove too
high while the projections for other
companies may ultimately prove too
low.
This petition for reconsideration
under CAA section 307(d) should be
considered in the context of the specific
statutory provisions related to the
annual standard-setting process for the
RFS program and the compliance
flexibilities in the program. Congress
established a standard-setting process
for cellulosic biofuel that creates a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
considerably shorter leadtime than in
most other EPA programs, and a
standard that applies for only a single
year. We are required to project volumes
of cellulosic biofuel and determine the
applicable percentage standard by
November 30 of the year before the
annual standard applies. This structure
is well designed to facilitate use of the
most up-to-date information available
before the standard goes into effect. In
other contexts, API and NPRA have
argued that it is important that EPA not
miss this November 30 deadline for
setting the annual standards, so as to
provide industry with all of the lead
time in advance of the compliance year
that is afforded by the statute.93 Since
the standard only applies for one year,
a petition to reconsider can in practice
affect only that single year’s obligation,
and given the late date at which it is
established, necessarily would involve a
modification of the annual standard
during the year in which it is
applicable. Importantly, the statute
contains a number of safeguards in the
event that an annual standard cannot be
achieved. Under CAA section
211(o)(7)(D)(ii) and (iii), Congress
established a mechanism through which
obligated parties can purchase credits
from the EPA in lieu of acquiring
cellulosic biofuel RINs. Obligated
parties can also carry a deficit for
cellulosic biofuel into 2012 under
certain conditions as stipulated in
§ 80.1427(b). Finally, up to 20% of the
2011 cellulosic biofuel standard (1.2
million gallons) can be met with excess
cellulosic biofuel RINs from 2010 under
the rollover provisions of
§ 80.1427(a)(5). Indeed, we have
determined that at least 1.2 million
excess cellulosic biofuel RINs from 2010
do exist, based on reports of renewable
fuel production in the first half of 2010
under the RFS1 regulations.
The panoply of compliance
flexibilities provided in the statute
provides meaningful options for
industry in the event that that actual
production of cellulosic biofuel in 2011,
or any year, falls below EPA projected
levels. This, combined with the
relatively short period of time at issue
for a petition to reconsider a one-year
volume standard, and the fact that any
change in the standards would occur
within the year in which it applies,
impacts the kind of circumstances
under which it would be appropriate to
reconsider the standard. The
compliance flexibilities, the short time
period at issue, and the disruption that
would occur from a change in the
93 See NPRA v. EPA, (DC Cir., No 10–1071). slip
op. at 37–39.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
standard within the compliance year,
indicate that a relatively larger change
in circumstances with respect to
cellulosic production would need to
occur before EPA would determine that
new circumstances provide substantial
support for revising the volume
standard for cellulosic biofuel for a
specific year.
EPA believes that the single change
that petitioners have identified in their
petition, closure of the Range Fuels
plant, is not of a sufficiently large
magnitude to warrant a standard
revision. It may be a substantial
percentage of the volume standard, but
it remains a relatively minor change
compared to the total volume that
Congress mandated for 2011. After
reducing that volume by 98%, the
remaining change in circumstances
amounts to a generally small change in
an absolute sense, compared to the total
volume of renewable fuel and the
transportation fuel covered by the RFS2
program. In addition, it can be
reasonably addressed by industry
through utilization of program
flexibilities, including use of carry over
credits from 2010, use of cellulosic
biofuel RINs for 2011, and deficit
carryover into 2012. This approach will
avoid the disruption and lack of
certainty in the program that could
follow if EPA readily re-opened the
annual standard to revision during the
single year it applied based on relatively
small modifications resulting from an
individual company’s plans. For all of
the reasons described above, EPA
proposes to deny the petition for
reconsideration of the 2011 cellulosic
biofuel standard. EPA requests comment
on this proposal.
While we are proposing to deny the
petition to reconsider the cellulosic
biofuel volume requirement for 2011,
we nevertheless must take into account
the current status of the cellulosic
biofuel industry when making our
projections for 2012. This includes a
review of the progress being made in
2011 by the five companies we used to
project the cellulosic biofuel volume of
6.0 mill gallons, including Range Fuels.
As noted in Section II.B.1, based on the
information we have obtained to date on
the status of their facility in Soperton,
Georgia, we have not included Range
Fuels in the list of companies that we
project could produce cellulosic biofuel
in 2012. We do not believe that this is
inconsistent with our proposal to deny
the API/NPRA petition for
reconsideration. Our proposal to deny
the petition is based on the availability
of program flexibilities to allow industry
to comply with the unadjusted 2011
standard, the relative magnitude of the
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
change, and the desire to avoid
disruption in program implementation
that would follow from EPA too readily
re-opening the standard based on
modifications in individual companies’
operation plans. Our proposed 2012
projections, on the other hand, are based
on the best information available to us
at this time, which includes the fact that
the Range Fuel facility is not currently
operating and we have been unable to
confirm its future operational status.
In a similar fashion, we do not believe
that identifying the low end of the range
of 2012 projected cellulosic biofuel
volumes as 3.55 mill gallons is
inconsistent with our proposal to deny
the API/NPRA petition for
reconsideration. As described in Section
II.B, we based the low end of the range
for applicable 2012 volumes on
consideration of only those facilities
that are structurally complete at the
time of this proposal and which
anticipate commercial production of
cellulosic biofuels by the end of 2011.
While Range Fuel is structurally
complete, they have not explicitly
provided information to date indicating
that they anticipate commercial
production in 2011. Absent such
information, for today’s proposal we
have excluded Range Fuels from the low
end of the range of potential volumes for
2012.
VII. 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?
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 standards and technical
amendments to the RFS regulations
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
supporting rationale, data, and analysis.
Commenters are especially encouraged
to provide specific suggestions for any
changes that they believe need to be
made. 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 VII.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,
https://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–2010–0133. 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 or CD ROM,
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
clearly that it does not contain CBI.
38883
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.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a
‘‘significant regulatory action.’’
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011) and any changes made
in response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
The economic impacts of the RFS2
program on regulated parties, including
the impacts of the required volumes of
renewable fuel, were already addressed
in the RFS2 final rule promulgated on
March 26, 2010 (75 FR 14670). This
action proposes the percentage
standards applicable in 2012 based on
the volumes that were analyzed in the
RFS2 final rule. This action also
proposes technical amendments to the
RFS2 regulations that have been
determined to have no adverse
economic impact on regulated parties
since they generally clarify existing
requirements.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden. While
there are three proposed regulatory
changes in today’s NPRM that affect the
recordkeeping and reporting burdens for
regulated parties, we believe that the
information collections already
approved for the RFS2 program’s
general recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, or the information
collection already under review, would
also cover the proposed changes in
today’s NPRM.
The proposed regulatory changes are
listed in Table VIII.B–1.
TABLE VIII.B–1—PROPOSED TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS AFFECTING RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
Section
Description
80.1449(a) ...........................................................
Amended Production Outlook Report due date; added allowance for unregistered renewable
fuel producers and importers to submit Production Outlook Reports.
Amended to require submission of additional evidence as part of registration to verify eligibility
for exemptions in § 80.1403(c) or (d).
80.1450(b)(1)(vi) .................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38884
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VIII.B–1—PROPOSED TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS AFFECTING RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING—Continued
Section
Description
80.1450(d)(1)–(d)(3) ...........................................
Amended to add more specificity on when updates, addenda, or resubmittals are required for
engineering reviews and to include references to foreign ethanol producers.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
With regard to production outlook
reports, the change in due date is not
expected to have any impact on the
reporting burden. In addition, EPA
recently prepared an Information
Collection Request (ICR) document to
permit the submission of voluntary
production outlook reports by domestic
and foreign renewable fuels producers.
The parties affected by the ICR are not
regulated parties under the RFS2
program. The ICR has been submitted
for approval to OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. and may be identified by
EPA ICR number 2409.01. Documents
related to the ICR have been placed in
docket number EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–
0161, which is accessible at https://
www.regulations.gov.
On October 14, 2010, EPA published
a notice in the Federal Register
announcing our intent to submit the
proposed ICR for voluntary production
outlook reports to OMB for approval.
(See 75 FR 63173). The 60-day comment
period closed on December 14, 2010. No
comments were received. On February
8, 2011, EPA published a Federal
Register notice announcing submission
of the ICR to OMB. Additional
comments were solicited via an
additional comment period through
March 10, 2011.94
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has previously approved the
information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations at
40 CFR part 80, Subpart M under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This would
include the following approved
information collections (with OMB
control numbers and expiration dates
listed in parentheses): ‘‘Renewable
Fuels Standard Program: Petition and
Registration’’ (OMB Control Number
2060–0367, expires March 31, 2013);
‘‘Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2)’’
(OMB Control Number 2060–0640,
expires July 31, 2013); ‘‘Regulations of
Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2011
94 See ‘‘Agency Information Collection Activities;
Submission to OMB for Review and Approval;
Comment Request; Production Outlook Reports for
Un-Registered Renewable Fuel Producers (New
Collection),’’ 76 FR 6781 (February 8, 2011). The
document identification number for this notice is
EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161–3221. The document
identification number for the supporting statement
is EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161–3222.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
Renewable Fuels Standard—Petition for
International Aggregate Compliance
Approach’’ OMB Control Number 2060–
0655, expires February 28, 2014).
Detailed and searchable information
about these and other approved
collections may be viewed on the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
Paperwork Reduction Act Web site,
which is accessible at https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
With regard to the proposed changes in
§ 80.1450, we believe that these
information collections already
approved for the RFS2 program’s
general recordkeeping and reporting
requirements would also cover the
proposed changes in today’s NPRM.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise, which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, we certify that this
proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This rule proposes the annual standard
for cellulosic biofuels for 2012 and
biomass-based diesel for 2013,
regulatory provisions for new RINgenerating pathways, and clarifying
changes and minor technical
amendments to the regulations.
However, the impacts of the RFS2
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
program on small entities were already
addressed in the RFS2 final rule
promulgated on March 26, 2010 (75 FR
14670). Therefore, this proposed rule
will not impose any additional
requirements on small entities. We
continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any
one year. Thus, this action is not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 or
205 of UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This action only
applies to gasoline, diesel, and
renewable fuel producers, importers,
distributors and marketers and makes
relatively minor corrections and
modifications to the RFS2 regulations.
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
This action does not have Tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). This proposed rule will be
implemented at the Federal level and
impose compliance costs only on
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
transportation fuel refiners, blenders,
marketers, distributors, importers,
exporters, and renewable fuel producers
and importers. Tribal governments
would be affected only to the extent
they purchase and use regulated fuels.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed action 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
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Jkt 223001
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,
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
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
20:45 Jun 30, 2011
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 has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment. This action does not
relax the control measures on sources
regulated by the RFS2 regulations and
therefore will not cause emissions
increases from these sources.
IX. Statutory Authority
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential
business information, Diesel fuel, Fuel
additives, Gasoline, Imports, Labeling,
Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties,
Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: June 21, 2011.
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 80.1275
38885
[Amended]
2. In § 80.1275, remove paragraph
(d)(3).
Subpart M [Amended]
3. Section 80.1401 is amended by
revising the definitions of ‘‘Annual
cover crop’’ and ‘‘Naphtha’’ to read as
follows:
§ 80.1401
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Annual cover crop means an annual
crop, planted as a rotation between
primary planted crops, or between trees
and vines in orchards and vineyards,
typically to protect soil from erosion
and to improve the soil between periods
of regular crops. An annual cover crop
has no existing market to which it can
be sold except for its use as feedstock
for the production of renewable fuel.
*
*
*
*
*
Naphtha means a blendstock falling
within the boiling range of gasoline
which is composed of only
hydrocarbons, is commonly or
commercially known as naphtha, and is
used to produce gasoline.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Section 80.1405 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) through (c) to
read as follows:
§ 80.1405 What are the Renewable Fuel
Standards?
(a) (1) Renewable Fuel Standards for
2011.
(i) The value of the cellulosic biofuel
standard for 2011 shall be 0.003 percent.
(ii) The value of the biomass-based
diesel standard for 2011 shall be 0.69
percent.
(iii) The value of the advanced biofuel
standard for 2011 shall be 0.78 percent.
(iv) The value of the renewable fuel
standard for 2011 shall be 8.01 percent.
(2) Renewable Fuel Standards for
2012.
(i) The value of the cellulosic biofuel
standard for 2012 shall be 0.002–0.010
percent.
(ii) The value of the biomass-based
diesel standard for 2012 shall be 0.91
percent.
(iii) The value of the advanced biofuel
standard for 2012 shall be 1.21 percent.
(iv) The value of the renewable fuel
standard for 2012 shall be 9.21 percent.
(b) 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.
(c) EPA will calculate the annual
renewable fuel percentage standards
using the following equations:
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / 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 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(2)(B) for
year i, or volume as adjusted pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(7)(D), in gallons.
RFVBBD,i= Annual volume of biomass-based
diesel required by 42 U.S.C. 7545
(o)(2)(B) for year i, in gallons.
RFVAB,i= Annual volume of advanced biofuel
required by 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(2)(B) for
year i, in gallons.
RFVRF,i= Annual volume of renewable fuel
required by 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(2)(B) 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 has opted-in or optsin, 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:09 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
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.
*
*
*
*
*
5. Section 80.1415 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as
follows:
§ 80.1415 How are equivalence values
assigned to renewable fuel?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) The application for an equivalence
value shall include a technical
justification that includes all the
following:
(i) A calculation for the requested
equivalence value according to the
equation in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, including supporting
documentation for the value of EC used
in the calculation such as a certificate of
analysis from a laboratory that verifies
the lower heating value in Btu per
gallon of the renewable fuel produced.
(ii) For each feedstock, component, or
additive that is used to make the
renewable fuel, provide a description,
the percent input, and identify whether
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
or not it is renewable biomass or is
derived from renewable biomass.
(iii) For each feedstock that also
qualifies as a renewable fuel, state
whether or not RINs have been
previously generated for such feedstock.
(iv) A description of the renewable
fuel and the production process,
including a block diagram that shows all
inputs and outputs at each step of the
production process with a sample
quantity of all inputs and outputs for
one batch of renewable fuel produced.
*
*
*
*
*
6. Section 80.1426 is amended as
follows:
a. By revising paragraph (f)(1).
b. By revising Table 1 to § 80.1426.
c. By revising paragraphs (f)(5)(ii)(A)
and (f)(5)(ii)(B).
§ 80.1426 How are RINs generated and
assigned to batches of renewable fuel by
renewable fuel producers or importers?
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(1) 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, paragraph (f)(6)
of this section, or as approved by the
Administrator. In choosing an
appropriate D code, producers and
importers may disregard any incidental,
de minimis feedstock contaminants that
are impractical to remove and are
related to customary feedstock
production and transport. Tables 1 and
2 to this section do not apply to, and
impose no requirements with respect to,
volumes of fuel for which RINs are
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
EP01JY11.001
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
38886
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
38887
generated pursuant to paragraph (f)(6) of
this section.
TABLE 1 TO § 80.1426—APPLICABLE D CODES FOR EACH FUEL PATHWAY FOR USE IN GENERATING RINS
Fuel type
Feedstock
Production process requirements
A ......
Ethanol ..................................
Corn starch ....................................................
B ......
Ethanol ..................................
Corn starch ....................................................
C ......
Ethanol ..................................
Corn starch ....................................................
D ......
Ethanol ..................................
Corn starch ....................................................
E ......
Ethanol ..................................
F ......
Biodiesel, and renewable diesel.
Starches from crop residue and annual
covercrops.
Soy bean oil; Oil from annual covercrops;
Algal oil; Biogenic waste oils/fats/greases;
Non-food grade corn oil.
G ......
Biodiesel ................................
Canola/Rapeseed oil .....................................
H ......
Biodiesel, and renewable diesel.
Soy bean oil; Oil from annual covercrops;
Algal oil; Biogenic waste oils/fats/greases;
Non-food grade corn oil.
I ........
J .......
Ethanol ..................................
Ethanol ..................................
K ......
Cellulosic Diesel, Jet Fuel
and Heating Oil.
L .......
Butanol ..................................
Sugarcane .....................................................
Cellulosic Biomass from crop residue, slash,
pre-commercial thinnings and tree residue, annual covercrops, switchgrass, and
miscanthus; cellulosic components of separated yard waste; cellulosic components
of separated food waste; and cellulosic
components of separated MSW.
Cellulosic Biomass from crop residue, slash,
pre-commercial thinnings and tree residue, annual covercrops, switchgrass, and
miscanthus; cellulosic components of separated yard waste; cellulosic components
of separated food waste; and cellulosic
components of separated MSW.
Corn starch ....................................................
All of the following: Dry mill process, using
natural gas, biomass, or biogas for process energy and at least two advanced
technologies from Table 2 to this section.
All of the following: Dry mill process, using
natural gas, biomass, or biogas for process energy and at least one of the advanced technologies from Table 2 to this
section plus drying no more than 65% of
the distillers grains with solubles it markets annually.
All of the following: Dry mill process, using
natural gas, biomass, or biogas for process energy and drying no more than 50%
of the distillers grains with solubles it markets annually.
Wet mill process using biomass or biogas
for process energy.
Fermentation using natural gas, biomass, or
biogas for process energy.
One of the following: Trans-Esterification
Hydrotreating Excluding processes that
co-process renewable biomass and petroleum.
Trans-Esterification using natural gas or biomass for process energy.
One of the following: Trans-Esterification
Hydrotreating Includes only processes that
co-process renewable biomass and petroleum.
Fermentation .................................................
Any ................................................................
M ......
Cellulosic Naphtha ................
N ......
Ethanol, renewable diesel, jet
fuel, heating oil, and naphtha.
Biogas ....................................
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
O ......
Cellulosic Biomass from crop residue, slash,
pre-commercial thinnings and tree residue, annual covercrops, switchgrass, and
miscanthus; cellulosic components of separated yard waste; cellulosic components
of separated food waste; and cellulosic
components of separated MSW.
The non-cellulosic portions of separated
food waste.
Landfills, sewage waste treatment plants,
manure digesters.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) * * *
(ii)(A) A feedstock qualifies under
paragraph (f)(5)(i)(A) or (f)(5)(i)(B) of
this section only if it is collected
according to a plan submitted to and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:09 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
5
5
3
Any ................................................................
7
Fermentation; dry mill using natural gas, biomass, or biogas for process energy.
Fischer-Tropsch process ...............................
6
Any ................................................................
5
Any ................................................................
5
accepted by U.S. EPA under the
registration procedures specified in
§ 80.1450(b)(1)(vii).
(B) A feedstock qualifies under
paragraph (f)(5)(i)(C) of this section only
PO 00000
D–Code
3
if it is collected according to a plan
submitted to and approved by U.S. EPA.
*
*
*
*
*
7. Section 80.1429 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(9)
introductory text to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38888
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
§ 80.1429 Requirements for separating
RINs from volumes of renewable fuel.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) Except as provided in paragraph
(b)(6) 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
fossil-based diesel to produce a
transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet
fuel. A party may separate up to 2.5
RINs per gallon of blended renewable
fuel.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) Except as provided in paragraphs
(b)(2) through (b)(5) and (b)(8) of this
section, parties whose non-export
renewable volume obligations are solely
related to either the importation of
products listed in § 80.1407(c) or
§ 80.1407(e) or to the addition of
blendstocks into a volume of finished
gasoline, finished diesel fuel, RBOB, or
CBOB, can only separate 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:
*
*
*
*
*
8. Section 80.1449 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
to read as follows:
§ 80.1449 What are the Production Outlook
Report requirements?
(a) By June 1 of each year (September
1 for the report due in 2010), a
registered renewable fuel producer or
importer must submit and an
unregistered renewable fuel producer
may submit all of the following
information for each of its facilities, as
applicable, to EPA:
*
*
*
*
*
9. Section 80.1450 is amended as
follows:
a. By revising paragraph (b)(1)(vi).
b. By revising paragraphs (d)(1)–
(d)(3).
§ 80.1450 What are the registration
requirements under the RFS program?
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) For facilities claiming the
exemption described in § 80.1403(c) or
(d), evidence demonstrating all of the
following:
(A) The date that construction
commenced (as defined in
§ 80.1403(a)(1)), including all the
following:
(1) Contracts with construction and
other companies.
(2) Applicable air permits issued by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:09 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
Agency, state, local air pollution control
agencies, or foreign governmental
agencies that governed the construction
and/or operation of the renewable fuel
facility during construction and when
first operated.
(B) That construction was not
discontinued for a period of 18 months
after commencement of construction.
(C) That construction was completed
by December 19, 2010, for facilities
claiming an exemption pursuant to
§ 80.1403(c); or within 36 months of
commencement of construction for
facilities claiming an exemption
pursuant to § 80.1403(d).
(D) Other documentation and
information as requested by the
Administrator.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) Any producer of renewable fuel,
and any foreign ethanol producer who
makes changes to his facility that will
allow him to produce renewable fuel, as
defined in § 80.1401 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 third-party engineering
review on file with EPA at least 60 days
prior to producing the new type of
renewable fuel. The producer may also
submit an addendum to the
independent third-party engineering
review on file with EPA provided the
addendum meets all the requirements in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section and
verifies for EPA the most up-to-date
information at the producer’s existing
facility.
(2) Any producer of renewable fuel
and any foreign ethanol producer who
makes any other changes to a facility
that will affect the producer’s
registration information but will not
affect the renewable fuel category for
which the producer is registered per
paragraph (b) of this section must
update his registration information 7
days prior to the change.
(3) All producers of renewable fuel
and foreign ethanol producers must
update registration information and
submit an updated independent thirdparty engineering review according to
the schedule in paragraph (d)(3)(i) or
(d)(3)(ii) of this section, and including
the information specified in paragraph
(d)(3)(iii) of this section:
(i) For all producers of renewable fuel
and foreign ethanol producers registered
in calendar year 2010, the updated
registration information and
independent third-party engineering
review shall be submitted to EPA by
October 1, 2013, and by October 1 of
every third calendar year thereafter; or
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(ii) For all producers of renewable
fuel and foreign ethanol producers
registered in any calendar year after
2010, the updated registration
information and independent thirdparty engineering review shall be
submitted to EPA by October 1 of every
third calendar year after the first year of
registration.
(iii) In addition to conducting the
engineering review and written report
and verification required by paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, the updated
independent third-party engineering
review shall include a detailed review
of the renewable fuel producer’s
calculations used to determine VRIN of
a representative sample of batches of
each type of renewable fuel produced
since the last registration. The
representative sample shall be selected
in accordance with the sample size
guidelines set forth at § 80.127.
*
*
*
*
*
10. Section 80.1451 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(1)(xi) to read as
follows:
§ 80.1451 What are the reporting
requirements under the RFS program?
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(xi) A list of all RINs generated prior
to July 1, 2010 that were retired for
compliance in the reporting period.
*
*
*
*
*
11. Section 80.1452 is amended
revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4), and
(b)(5) to read as follows:
§ 80.1452 What are the requirements
related to the EPA Moderated Transaction
System (EMTS)?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) The EPA company registration
number of the renewable fuel producer
or foreign ethanol producer, as
applicable.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) The EPA facility registration
number of the facility at which the
renewable fuel producer or foreign
ethanol producer produced the batch, as
applicable.
(5) The EPA facility registration
number of the importer that imported
the batch, if applicable.
*
*
*
*
*
12. Section 80.1460 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (b)(6) to read as
follows:
§ 80.1460 What acts are prohibited under
the RFS program?
*
*
*
(b) * * *
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(6) Generate a RIN for fuel for which
RINs have previously been generated.
*
*
*
*
*
13. Section 80.1464 is amended as
follows:
a. By revising paragraphs (a)(2)
introductory text and (a)(2)(i).
b. By adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and
(a)(2)(iv).
c. By revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii).
d. By revising paragraphs (b)(2)
introductory text and (b)(2)(i).
e. By adding paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and
(b)(2)(iv).
f. By revising paragraph (b)(3)(ii).
g. By revising paragraph (c)(1)
introductory text.
h. By adding paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and
(c)(1)(iv).
§ 80.1464 What are the attest engagement
requirements under the RFS program?
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(2) RIN Transaction Reports and
Product Transfer Documents.
(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 separated, RINs reinstated)
included in the RIN transaction reports
required under § 80.1451(a)(2) for the
compliance year.
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) Verify that the product transfer
documents for the representative
samples under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this
section of RINs sold and the RINs
purchased contain the applicable
information required under § 80.1453
and report as a finding any product
transfer document that does not contain
the required information.
(iv) Verify the accuracy of the
information contained in the product
transfer documents reviewed pursuant
to paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section
and report as a finding any exceptions.
(3) * * *
(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 each
quarter, purchased, separated, sold,
retired and reinstated, and for parties
that reported RIN activity for RINs
assigned to a volume of renewable fuel,
the volume and type of renewable fuel
(as defined in § 80.1401) owned at the
end of each quarter; as represented in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:09 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
these documents; and state whether this
information agrees with the party’s
reports to EPA.
(b) * * *
(2) RIN Transaction Reports and
Product Transfer Documents.
(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
separated, RINs reinstated) included in
the RIN transaction reports required
under § 80.1451(b)(2) for the compliance
year.
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) Verify that the product transfer
documents for the representative
samples under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
section of RINs sold and the RINs
purchased contain the applicable
information required under § 80.1453
and report as a finding any product
transfer document that does not contain
the required information.
(iv) Verify the accuracy of the
information contained in the product
transfer documents reviewed pursuant
to paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section
and report as a finding any exceptions.
(3) * * *
(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; report the total number of
each RIN generated during each quarter
and compute and report the total
number of current-year and prior-year
RINs owned at the start and end of each
quarter, purchased, separated, 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 each quarter, as represented
in these documents; and state whether
this information agrees with the party’s
reports to EPA.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) RIN Transaction Reports and
Product Transfer Documents.
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) Verify that the product transfer
documents for the representative
samples under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this
section of RINs sold and RINs
purchased contain the applicable
information required under § 80.1453
and report as a finding any product
transfer document that does not contain
the required information.
(iv) Verify the accuracy of the
information contained in the product
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
38889
transfer documents reviewed pursuant
to paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section
and report as a finding any exceptions.
*
*
*
*
*
14. Section 80.1465 is amended by
revising paragraph (h)(2) to read as
follows:
§ 80.1465 What are the additional
requirements under this subpart for foreign
small refiners, foreign small refineries, and
importers of RFS–FRFUEL?
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(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 refiner, provided
EPA agrees in advance as to the third
party and the nature of the surety
agreement.
*
*
*
*
*
15. Section 80.1466 is amended by
revising paragraph (h)(2) to read as
follows:
§ 80.1466 What are the additional
requirements under this subpart for RINgenerating foreign producers and importers
of renewable fuels for which RINs have
been generated by the foreign producer?
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(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.
*
*
*
*
*
16. Section 80.1467 is amended by
revising paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), and
(g)(2) to read as follows:
§ 80.1467 What are the additional
requirements under this subpart for a
foreign RIN owner?
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(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 obtain, sell,
transfer or hold during the first calendar
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
38890
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
year that the foreign entity is a RIN
owner, plus the number of gallon-RINs
the foreign entity expects to obtain, sell,
transfer or hold during the next four
calendar years. After the first calendar
year, the bond amount shall be based on
the actual number of gallon-RINs
obtained, sold, or transferred so far
during the current calendar year plus the
number of gallon-RINs obtained, sold, or
transferred during the four calendar
years immediately preceding the current
calendar year. For any year for which
there were fewer than four preceding
years in which the foreign entity
obtained, sold, or transferred RINs, the
bond shall be based on the total of the
number of gallon-RINs sold or
transferred so far during the current
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:09 Jun 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
calendar year plus the number of gallonRINs obtained, sold, or transferred
during any immediately preceding
calendar years in which the foreign
entity owned RINs, plus the number of
gallon-RINs the foreign entity expects to
obtain, sell or transfer 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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
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.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(2) Any RIN that is obtained, 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.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–16018 Filed 6–30–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\01JYP2.SGM
01JYP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38844-38890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16018]
[[Page 38843]]
Vol. 76
Friday,
No. 127
July 1, 2011
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 80
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2012 Renewable Fuel Standards;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 38844]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133; FRL-9324-3]
RIN 2060-AQ76
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2012 Renewable Fuel
Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act Section 211(o), the Environmental
Protection Agency is required to set the renewable fuel standards each
November for the following year. In general the standards are designed
to ensure that the applicable volumes of renewable fuel specified in
the statute are used. However, the statue specifies that EPA is to
project the volume of cellulosic biofuel production for the upcoming
year and must base the cellulosic biofuel standard on that projected
volume if it is less than the applicable volume set forth in the Act.
EPA is today proposing a projected cellulosic biofuel volume for 2012
and annual standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel,
advanced biofuel, and renewable fuels that would apply to all gasoline
and diesel produced or imported in year 2012. In addition, today's
action proposes an applicable volume of biomass-based diesel that would
apply in 2013. This action also presents a number of proposed changes
to the RFS2 regulations that are designed to clarify existing
provisions and to address several unique circumstances that have come
to light since the RFS2 program became effective on July 1, 2010.
Finally, today's rule also proposes to make a minor amendment to the
gasoline benzene regulations regarding inclusion of transferred
blendstocks in a refinery's early benzene credit generation
calculations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 11, 2011.
Hearing: We intend to hold a public hearing on July 12, 2011 in the
Washington, DC area, Details of the time and location of the hearing be
announced in a separate notice.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0133, by one of the following methods:
https://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.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 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-
2010-0133. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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 https://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. 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 I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://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 https://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.
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:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule 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. Potentially regulated categories include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS \1\ SIC \2\ potentially
codes codes regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................... 324110 2911 Petroleum
Refineries.
Industry.................... 325193 2869 Ethyl alcohol
manufacturing.
Industry.................... 325199 2869 Other basic organic
chemical
manufacturing.
Industry.................... 424690 5169 Chemical and allied
products merchant
wholesalers.
Industry.................... 424710 5171 Petroleum bulk
stations and
terminals.
Industry.................... 424720 5172 Petroleum and
petroleum products
merchant
wholesalers.
[[Page 38845]]
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 section.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit confidential business information (CBI) to EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in
a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or
CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD
ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
Outline of This Preamble
I. Executive Summary
A. Standards For 2012
1. Assessment Of 2012 Cellulosic Biofuel Volume
2. Advanced Biofuel And Total Renewable Fuel In 2012
3. Proposed Percentage Standards For 2012
B. Proposed 2013 Biomass-Based Diesel Volume
C. Proposed Regulatory Changes
D. Petition For Reconsideration
II. Projection Of Cellulosic Volume Production And Imports For 2012
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Assessment
1. Existing Cellulosic Biofuel Facilities
2. Potential New Facilities In 2012
3. Imports Of Cellulosic Biofuel
4. Summary Of Volume Projections
C. Potential Limitations In 2012
D. Advanced Biofuel And Total Renewable Fuel In 2012
E. Biomass-Based Diesel In 2012
III. Proposed Percentage Standards For 2012
A. Background
B. Calculation Of Standards
1. How Are The Standards Calculated?
2. Small Refineries And Small Refiners
3. Proposed Standards
IV. Biomass-Based Diesel Volume For 2013
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Factors Considered In Assessing 2013 Biomass-Based Diesel
Volumes
1. Demand For Biomass-Based Diesel
2. Availability Of Feedstocks To Produce 1.28 Billion Gallons Of
Biodiesel
3. Production Capacity
4. Consumption Capacity
5. Biomass-Based Diesel Distribution Infrastructure
C. Impacts Of 1.28 Billion Gallons Of Biomass-Based Diesel
1. Climate Change
2. Energy Security 4
3. Agricultural Commodities And Food Prices
4. Air Quality
5. Transportation Fuel Cost
6. Deliverability And Transport Costs Of Materials, Goods, And
Products Other Than Renewable Fuel
7. Wetlands, Ecosystems, And Wildlife Habitats
8. Water Quality And Quantity
a. Impacts On Water Quality And Water Quantity Associated With
Soybean Production
b. Impacts On Water Quality And Water Quantity Associated With
Biodiesel Production
9. Job Creation And Rural Economic Development
D. Proposed 2013 Volume For Biomass-Based Diesel
E. 2014 And Beyond
V. Proposed Changes To Rfs2 Regulations
A. Summary Of Amendments
B. Technical Justification For Equivalence Value Application
C. Changes To Definitions Of Terms
1. Definition Of Annual Cover Crop
2. Definition Of ``Naphtha''
D. Technical Amendments Related To Rin Generation And Separation
1. Rin Separation Limit For Obligated Parties
2. Rin Retirement Provision For Error Correction
3. Production Outlook Reports Submission Deadline
4. Attest Procedures
5. Treatment Of Canola And Rapeseed
E. Technical Amendments Related To Registration
1. Construction Discontinuance & Completion Documentation
2. Third-Party Engineering Reviews
3. Foreign Ethanol Producers
F. Additional Amendments And Clarifications
1. Third-Party Engineering Review Addendum
2. Rin Generation For Fuel Imported From A Registered Foreign
Producer
3. Bond Posting
4. Acceptance Of Separated Yard Waste And Food Waste Plans
5. Transferred Blendstocks In Early Benzene Credit Generation
Calculations
VI. Petition For Reconsideration
A. Legal Considerations Of Petition
B. Advanced Biofuel Standard And Delayed Rins
C. 2011 Cellulosic Biofuel Requirement
VII. Public Participation
A. How Do I Submit Comments?
B. How Should I Submit Cbi To The Agency?
VIII. Statutory And Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning And Review And
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation And Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
[[Page 38846]]
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
IX. Statutory Authority
I. Executive Summary
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program began in 2006 pursuant to
the requirements in Clean Air Act (CAA) section 211(o) which were added
through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). The statutory
requirements for the RFS program were subsequently modified through the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), resulting in the
promulgation of revised regulatory requirements on March 26, 2010.\1\
The transition from the RFS1 requirements of EPAct to the RFS2
requirements of EISA generally occurred on July 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 75 FR 14670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under RFS2, EPA is required to determine and publish the applicable
annual percentage standards for each compliance year by November 30 of
the previous year. As part of this effort, EPA must determine the
projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production for the following
year. If the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production is less
than the applicable volume specified in section 211(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) of
the statute, EPA must lower the applicable volume used to set the
annual cellulosic biofuel percentage standard to the projected volume
of production. When we lower the applicable volume of cellulosic
biofuel in this manner, we are also authorized to lower the applicable
volumes of advanced biofuel and/or total renewable fuel by the same or
a lesser amount. Since these evaluations will be based on evolving
information about emerging segments of the biofuels industry, and may
result in the applicable volumes differing from those in the statute,
we believe that it is appropriate to establish the applicable volumes
through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Today's notice
provides our proposed evaluation of the projected production of
cellulosic biofuel for 2012, our proposed evaluation of whether to
lower the applicable volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable
fuel, and the proposed percentage standards for compliance year 2012.
We will complete our evaluation based on comments received in response
to this proposal, the estimate of projected biofuel volumes that the
EIA is required to provide to EPA by October 31, and other information
that becomes available, and will make final determinations of
applicable volumes and percentage standards for 2012 by November 30,
2011.
The statute also requires EPA to determine and promulgate the
applicable volume of biomass-based diesel that will be required in 2013
and beyond, as the statute does not specify the applicable volumes for
years after 2012. This determination must be made at least 14 months
prior to the year in which the volume will be required. Thus, for the
2013 compliance year, we must specify the applicable volume of biomass-
based diesel by November 1, 2011. The statute identifies a number of
factors that EPA must take into consideration in establishing the
applicable volume of biomass-based diesel for years after 2012. Today's
notice includes our proposed assessment of these factors and proposed
applicable volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013.
Today's proposed rule does not include an assessment of the
environmental impacts of the percentage standards we are proposing for
2012. All of the impacts of the RFS2 program were addressed in the RFS2
final rule published on March 26, 2010, including impacts of the
biofuel standards specified in the statute. Today's rulemaking simply
proposes the standards for 2012 whose impacts were already analyzed
previously. However, as described more fully in Section IV.A, we are
required to analyze a specified set of environmental and economic
impacts for the biomass-based diesel volume we are proposing for 2013.
Today's notice also proposes a number of changes to the RFS2
regulations. These changes are designed to reduce confusion among
regulated parties and streamline implementation by clarifying certain
terms and phrases and addressing unique circumstances that came to
light after the RFS2 program went into effect on July 1, 2010.
Additionally, this notice also proposes to make a minor amendment to
the gasoline benzene regulations regarding inclusion of transferred
blendstocks in a refinery's early benzene credit generation
calculations. Further discussion of all of these proposed changes can
be found in Section V.
Finally, we note that in the RFS2 final rule we also stated our
intent to make two announcements each year:
Set the price for cellulosic biofuel waiver credits that
will be made available to obligated parties in the event that we reduce
the volume of cellulosic biofuel below the volume required by EISA.
Announce the results of our assessment of the aggregate
compliance approach for verifying renewable biomass requirements for
U.S. crops and crop residue, and our conclusion regarding whether the
aggregate compliance provision will continue to apply.
For both of these determinations, EPA will use specific sources of data
and a methodology laid out in the RFS2 final rule. Since the necessary
data for these determinations are not yet available, and the
methodology for making them is specified by rule or statute, we are not
including proposed determinations in this Notice. We will present the
results of both of these determinations in the final rule without a
prior proposal.
A. Standards for 2012
1. Assessment of 2012 Cellulosic Biofuel Volume
To estimate the volume of cellulosic biofuel that could be made
available in the U.S. in 2012, we researched all potential production
sources by company and facility. This included sources that were still
in the planning stages, those that were under construction, and those
that are already producing some volume of cellulosic ethanol,
cellulosic diesel, or some other type of cellulosic biofuel. Facilities
primarily focused on research and development work with no intention of
marketing any fuel produced were not considered for this assessment.
From this universe of potential cellulosic biofuel sources we
identified the subset that had a possibility of producing some volume
of qualifying cellulosic biofuel for use as transportation fuel in
2012. For the final rule, we will specify the projected available
volume for 2012 that will be the basis for the percentage standard for
cellulosic biofuel. To determine this final projected available volume,
we will consider additional factors such as the current and expected
state of funding, the status of the technology, and progress towards
construction and production goals along with any other significant
factors that could potentially impact fuel production or the ability of
the produced fuel to generate cellulosic RINs. This information, to the
extent that it is publically available, is
[[Page 38847]]
discussed in further detail in Section II.B.
In our assessment we focused on domestic sources of cellulosic
biofuel. While imports of cellulosic biofuels are possible and would be
eligible to generate RINs, we believe this is unlikely due to local
demand for cellulosic biofuels in the countries in which they are
produced as well as the cost associated with transporting these fuels
to the U.S. Of the domestic sources, we estimated that nine facilities
have the potential to make volumes of cellulosic biofuel available for
transportation use in the U.S. in 2012. These facilities are listed in
Table I.A.1-1 along with our estimate of the potentially available
volume.
Table I.A.1-1--Potentially Available Cellulosic Biofuel Plant Volumes for 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially
available
volume
Company Location Fuel type (million
ethanol-
equivalent
gallons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol........ Vonore, TN................. Ethanol.................... 0.25
Fiberight................................ Blairstown, IA............. Ethanol.................... 3.0
Fulcrum Bioenergy........................ McCarran, NV............... Ethanol.................... 0.5
INEOS Bio................................ Vero Beach, FL............. Ethanol.................... 3.0
KiOR..................................... Houston, TX................ Gasoline, Diesel........... 0.3
KiOR..................................... Columbus, MS............... Gasoline, Diesel........... 6.4
KL Energy Corp........................... Upton, WY.................. Ethanol.................... 1.0
Terrabon................................. Port Arthur, TX............ Gasoline................... 1.0
ZeaChem.................................. Boardman, OR............... Ethanol.................... 0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ ........................... ........................... 15.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The volumes in Table I.A.1-1 for each facility represent the volume
that would be produced in 2012 based upon the owner's expected month of
startup and an assumed period of production rampup to full capacity for
testing and process validation purposes. However, none of the
facilities we evaluated are currently producing cellulosic biofuel at
the rates they project for 2012. Moreover, there are other
uncertainties associated with each facility's projected volume that
could result in less production volume in 2012 than the potentially
available values shown in Table I.A.1-1. Therefore, we are proposing a
range of volumes for cellulosic biofuel for 2012, with 15.7 million
ethanol-equivalent gallons as the upper end of the range. For the lower
end of the range, we believe that a volume of 3.55 million ethanol-
equivalent gallons could be justified based on currently available
information. This volume is based on consideration of only those
facilities that are structurally complete at the time of this proposal
and that anticipate commercial production of cellulosic biofuels by the
end of 2011. More complete information on the progress of the industry
in 2011 will be available for the final rule, and will allow us to make
a more accurate projection of cellulosic biofuel volume for 2012. A
more detailed discussion of these uncertainties is presented in Section
II.B.
2. Advanced Biofuel and Total Renewable Fuel in 2012
The statute indicates that we may reduce the applicable volume of
advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel if we determine that the
projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production for 2012 falls short
of the statutory volume of 500 million gallons. As shown in Table
I.A.1-1, we are proposing a determination that this is the case.
Therefore, we also must evaluate the need to lower the applicable
volumes for the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel.
To address the need to lower the advanced biofuel standard, we
first consider whether it appears likely that the biomass-based diesel
volume of 1.0 billion gallons specified in the statute can be met in
2012. As discussed in Section II.E, we believe that the 1.0 billion
gallon standard can indeed be met. Since biodiesel has an Equivalence
Value of 1.5, 1.0 billion physical gallons of biodiesel would provide
1.5 billion ethanol-equivalent gallons that can be counted towards the
advanced biofuel standard of 2.0 billion gallons. Of the remaining 0.5
bill gallons, up to 0.016 bill gallons would be met with the proposed
volume of cellulosic biofuel. Based on our analysis as described in
Section II.D, it appears likely that there will be sufficient volumes
of other advanced biofuels, such as imported sugarcane ethanol,
additional biodiesel, or renewable diesel, such that the standard for
advanced biofuel could remain at the statutory level of 2.0 billion
gallons. However, uncertainty in the potential volumes of these other
advanced biofuels coupled with the range of potential production
volumes of cellulosic biofuel could provide a rationale for lowering
the advanced biofuel standard. If we lowered the applicable volume of
advanced biofuel without simultaneously lowering the applicable volume
for total renewable fuel, the result would be that additional volumes
of conventional renewable fuel, such as corn-starch ethanol, would be
produced, effectively replacing some advanced biofuels. In today's NPRM
we are proposing that neither the required 2012 volumes for advanced
biofuel nor total renewable fuel be lowered below the statutory
volumes. However, we request comment on whether the advanced biofuel
and/or total renewable fuel volume requirements should be lowered if,
as we propose, EPA lowers the required cellulosic biofuel volume from
that specified in the Act.
3. Proposed Percentage Standards for 2012
The renewable fuel standards are expressed as a volume percentage,
and are used by each refiner, blender or importer to determine their
renewable fuel volume obligations. The applicable percentages are set
so that if each regulated party meets the percentages, and if EIA
projections of gasoline and diesel use are accurate, then the amount of
renewable fuel, cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and advanced
[[Page 38848]]
biofuel used will meet the volumes required on a nationwide basis.
To calculate the percentage standard for cellulosic biofuel for
2012, we have used a potential volume range of 3.55-15.7 million
ethanol-equivalent gallons (representing 3.45-12.9 million physical
gallons). For the final rule, EPA intends to pick a single value from
within this range to represent the projected available volume on which
the 2012 percentage standard for cellulosic biofuel will be based. We
are also proposing that the applicable volumes for biomass-based
diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel for 2012 will be
those specified in the statute. These volumes are shown in Table I.A.3-
1.
Table I.A.3-1--Proposed Volumes for 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethanol equivalent
Actual volume volume \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulosic biofuel.............. 3.45-12.9 mill gal 3.55-15.7 mill
gal.
Biomass-based diesel............ 1.0 bill gal...... 1.5 bill gal.
Advanced biofuel................ 2.0 bill gal...... 2.0 bill gal.
Renewable fuel.................. 15.2 bill gal..... 15.2 bill gal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Biodiesel and cellulosic diesel have equivalence values of 1.5 and
1.7 ethanol equivalent gallons respectively. As a result, ethanol-
equivalent volumes are larger than actual volumes for cellulosic
biofuel and biomass-based diesel.
Four separate standards are required under the RFS2 program,
corresponding to the four separate volume requirements shown in Table
I.A.3-1. The specific formulas we use to calculate the renewable fuel
percentage standards are contained in the regulations at Sec. 80.1405
and repeated in Section III.B.1. The percentage standards represent the
ratio of renewable fuel volume to projected non-renewable gasoline and
diesel volume. The projected volume of gasoline used to calculate the
standards in today's proposal is provided by EIA's Short-Term Energy
Outlook (STEO).\2\ The projected volume of transportation diesel used
to calculate the standards in today's proposal is provided by EIA's
2011 Annual Energy Outlook (early release version). For the final rule,
we will use updated projections of gasoline and diesel provided by EIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The April 2011 issue of STEO was used for today's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because DOE's 2009 analysis \3\ concluded that small refineries
would not be disproportionately harmed by inclusion in the RFS program,
beginning in 2011, small refiners and small refineries participated in
the RFS program as full regulated parties, and there was no small
refiner/refinery volume adjustment to the 2011 standard as there was
for the 2010 standard. However, DOE recently re-evaluated the impacts
of the RFS program on small entities and concluded that some small
refineries would suffer a disproportionate hardship if required to
participate in the program.\4\ As a result, we are required to exempt
these few refineries from being obligated parties for a minimum of two
years, and must also exempt their gasoline and diesel volumes from the
calculation of the annual percentage standards. The proposed standards
for 2012 are shown in Table I.A.3-2 and include the adjustment for
exempt small refineries (which constitute about 2.5% of both gasoline
and diesel pools). Detailed calculations can be found in Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DOE report ``EPACT 2005 Section 1501 Small Refineries
Exemption Study'', (January, 2009).
\4\ ``Small Refinery Exemption Study: An Investigation into
Disproportionate Economic Hardship,'' U.S. Department of Energy,
March 2011.
Table I.A.3-2--Proposed Percentage Standards for 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulosic biofuel........................ 0.002 to 0.010%.
Biomass-based diesel...................... 0.91%.
Advanced biofuel.......................... 1.21%.
Renewable fuel............................ 9.21%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Proposed 2013 Biomass-Based Diesel Volume
While section 211(o)(2)(B) specifies the volumes of biomass-based
diesel (BBD) through year 2012, it directs the EPA to establish the
applicable volume of BBD for years after 2012 no later than 14 months
before the first year for which the applicable volume will apply. In
today's action we are proposing an applicable volume of 1.28 bill
gallons for biomass-based diesel (BBD) for 2013. This is the volume
that was projected for 2013 in the RFS2 final rulemaking, and we are
proposing it for 2013 based on consideration of the factors specified
in the statute, including a consideration of biodiesel production,
consumption, and infrastructure issues. As required under the statute,
we also assessed the likely impact of BBD production and use in a
variety of areas, including climate change, energy security, the
agricultural sector, air quality, and others. Section IV provides
additional discussion of our assessment of the proposed volume of 1.28
bill gallons of BBD.
C. Proposed Regulatory Changes
In today's action we are also proposing a number of changes to the
RFS2 regulations. These proposed changes are intended to:
Clarify certain provisions because we have learned that
there is some confusion among some regulated parties
Clarify the application of certain provisions to unique
circumstances
Provide greater specificity in the definition of certain
terms
Correct regulatory language that inadvertently
misrepresented our intent
Today's rule also proposes to make a minor amendment to the gasoline
benzene regulations regarding inclusion of transferred blendstocks in a
refinery's early benzene credit generation calculations. A detailed
discussion of these proposed regulatory changes is provided in Section
V.
D. Petition for Reconsideration
The American Petroleum Institute (API) and the National
Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) jointly submitted a
Petition for Reconsideration of EPA's final rule establishing the RFS
standards for 2011. The petition requests that we lower the 2011
cellulosic biofuel standard to no more than 3.94 mill gallons, lower
the 2011 advanced biofuel standard in concert with the reduction in the
cellulosic biofuel standard from 250 mill gallons, and reconsider the
regulatory provision for delayed RINs. We are proposing to deny this
petition. See Section VI for further discussion.
II. Projection of Cellulosic Volume Production and Imports for 2012
In order to project production volume of cellulosic biofuel in 2012
for use in setting the percentage standard, we collected information on
individual facilities that have the potential to produce qualifying
volumes for
[[Page 38849]]
consumption as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in the
U.S. in 2012. This section describes the range of volumes that could be
produced and imported in 2012 as well as some of the uncertainties
associated with those volumes. For today's NPRM we have assessed the
range of potentially available volumes for 2012. Despite significant
advances in cellulosic biofuel production technology in recent years
the production of cellulosic biofuel remains highly uncertain. While we
expect that the volume we select in the final rule for use in setting
the 2012 cellulosic biofuel percentage standard will be within our
proposed range of volumes, we recognize the possibility that updated
information at the time of the final rule could result in the final
volume falling outside of the proposed range. Section III describes the
conversion of our proposed range of volumes for cellulosic biofuel into
a range of possible percentage standards.
While the proposed 2012 volume projections in today's NPRM were
based on our own assessment of the cellulosic biofuel industry, by the
time we announce the final 2012 volumes and percentage standards we
will have additional information. First, in addition to comments in
response to today's proposal, we will have updated and more detailed
information about how the industry is progressing in 2011. Second, all
registered producers and importers of renewable fuel must submit
Production Outlook Reports describing their expectations for new or
expanded biofuel supply for the next five years, according to Sec.
80.1449. Finally, by October 31, 2011, the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) is required by statute to provide EPA with an
estimate of the volumes of transportation fuel, biomass-based diesel,
and cellulosic biofuel that they project will be sold or introduced
into commerce in the U.S. in 2012.
A. Statutory Requirements
The volumes of renewable fuel to be used under the RFS2 program
each year (absent an adjustment or waiver by EPA) are specified in CAA
211(o)(2). These volumes for 2012 are shown in Table II.A-1.
Table II.A-1--Required Volumes in the Clean Air Act for 2012 (bill gal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethanol
Actual equivalent
volume volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulosic biofuel............................ 0.5\a\ 0.5
Biomass-based diesel.......................... 1.0 1.5
Advanced biofuel.............................. 2.0\a\ 2.0
Renewable fuel................................ 15.2\a\ 15.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These values assume that the biofuels would be ethanol. If any
portion of the biofuels used to meet these applicable volumes has a
volumetric energy content greater than that for ethanol, these values
will be lower.
By November 30 of each year, the EPA is required under CAA 211(o)
to determine and publish in the Federal Register the renewable fuel
percentage standards for the following year. These standards are to be
based in part on transportation fuel volumes estimated by the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) for the following year. The
calculation of the percentage standards is based on the formulas in
Sec. 80.1405(c) which express the required volumes of renewable fuel
as a volume percentage of gasoline and diesel sold or introduced into
commerce in the 48 contiguous states plus Hawaii.
The statute requires that if EPA determines that the projected
volume of cellulosic biofuel production for the following year is less
than the applicable volume shown in Table II.A-1, then EPA is to reduce
the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel to the projected volume
available during that calendar year. In addition, if EPA reduces the
required volume of cellulosic biofuel below the level specified in the
statute, the Act also indicates that we may reduce the applicable
volume of advanced biofuels and total renewable fuel by the same or a
lesser volume.
As described in the final rule for the RFS2 program, we intend to
examine EIA's projected volumes, comments on this proposal, production
outlook reports, and other available data in making a final
determination of the appropriate cellulosic biofuel volumes to require
for 2012.
B. Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Assessment
The task of projecting the volume of cellulosic biofuel production
for 2012 remains a difficult one. Currently there are very few, if any,
facilities consistently producing cellulosic biofuel for commercial
sale. Announcements of new projects and project funding, changes in
project plans, project delays, and cancellations occur frequently.
Biofuel producers face not only the challenge of the scale up of
innovative, first-of-a-kind technology, but also the challenge of
securing funding in a difficult economy. The cellulosic biofuel
industry also is influenced by various tax credits and subsidies, and
changes to these programs could have an impact on cellulosic biofuel
production.
In order to project cellulosic biofuel production for 2012, EPA has
tracked the progress of over 100 biofuel production facilities. From
this list of facilities we used publically available information, as
well as information provided by DOE and USDA, to make a preliminary
determination of which facilities are the most likely candidates to
produce cellulosic biofuel and make it commercially available in 2012.
Each of these companies was investigated further in order to determine
the current status of their facilities and their likely cellulosic
biofuel production volumes for the coming years. Information such as
the funding status of these facilities, announced construction and
production ramp up periods, and annual fuel production targets were
taken into account. Our projection of the range of cellulosic biofuel
production in 2012 is based on this information as well as our own
assessment of the likelihood of these facilities successfully producing
cellulosic biofuel in the volumes indicated. A brief description of
each of the companies we believe may produce cellulosic biofuel and
make it commercially available in 2012 can be found below. We will
continue to gather more information to help inform our decision on the
final cellulosic biofuel standard for 2012, and we will specify a
single volume in the final rule that will be the basis for the
cellulosic biofuel percentage standard for 2012.
1. Existing Cellulosic Biofuel Facilities
The rule that established the required 2011 cellulosic biofuel
volume identified five production facilities that we projected would
produce cellulosic biofuel and make the fuel commercially available in
2011. Each of these production facilities are now structurally
complete, however they are in various stages of biofuel production. All
of these facilities have either produced some volume of cellulosic
biofuel in 2011, or are on schedule to do so later in the year. Only
Range Fuels, however, has completed its registration as a cellulosic
biofuel production facility under the RFS2 program and as such they are
currently the only facility of the five listed here currently eligible
to generate cellulosic biofuel RINs. For
[[Page 38850]]
more background information on each of these facilities see the 2011
standards rule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 75 FR 76790, December 9, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol (DDCE) successfully started up
their small demonstration facility in Vonore, Tennessee in late 2010.
This facility has a maximum production capacity of 250,000 gallons of
ethanol per year and uses an enzymatic hydrolysis process to convert
corn cobs into ethanol. In conversations with EPA in early 2011 DDCE
indicated that they had not encountered any unexpected difficulties in
their production of cellulosic ethanol and were on target to meet their
2011 production goal of 150,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol. It is
likely that in 2012 cellulosic biofuel production at this facility will
approach the production capacity of 250,000 gallons of cellulosic
ethanol.
Fiberight uses an enzymatic hydrolysis process to convert the
biogenic portion of separated municipal solid waste (MSW) into ethanol.
Construction on the first stage of Fiberight's Blairstown, Iowa
facility was completed in the summer of 2010. The production capacity
of the first stage of this project is 2 million gallons of ethanol per
year. Fiberight had planned to begin production of cellulosic biofuel
from this facility in late 2010 but poor economic conditions, due in
part to low cellulosic RIN values in 2010, caused them to postpone fuel
production. Fiberight had also planned to begin construction on an
expansion of this facility in late 2010 that would increase the
production potential to 6 million gallons of ethanol per year, but were
unable to secure funding to carry out the construction as planned. They
have since secured funding and began construction on the expansion of
their Blairstown facility in April 2011. Fiberight anticipates that
they will begin fuel production in the late summer of 2012 and will
ramp up production at this facility throughout 2012, producing
approximately 3 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 2012.
KiOR continues to produce a small volume of renewable crude from
agricultural residue at their demonstration facility in Houston, Texas
using a technology they call Biomass Catalytic Cracking (BCC). This
technology uses heat and a proprietary catalyst to convert biomass to a
renewable crude with a relatively low oxygen content. This facility
currently lacks the infrastructure to upgrade this renewable crude to
finished transportation fuel, however KiOR plans to add this capability
at this facility in late 2011. While KiOR has not yet registered under
the RFS2 program, their fuel, if refined to gasoline or diesel fuel
would be eligible to generate RINs. EPA currently projects a production
volume of 200,000 gallons of cellulosic fuel from KiOR, which could
potentially generate 300,000 RINs.
KL Energy has developed a process to convert cellulose and
hemicelluloses into cellulosic sugars using a thermal-mechanical
pretreatment process followed by an enzymatic hydrolysis. They had
initially planned to used woody biomass as their feedstock for
cellulosic biofuel production; however their production process is
versatile enough to allow for a wide variety of cellulosic feedstocks
to be used. In August 2010 KL Energy announced a joint development
agreement with Petrobras America Inc. As part of the agreement
Petrobras will invest $11 million to modify KL Energy's facility in
Upton, Wyoming to allow it to process bagasse and other waste products.
These modifications are expected to be completed in 2011, and fuel
production is likely to begin soon after. If successful, Petrobras and
KL Energy plan to work together to integrate the technology into
currently existing ethanol production facilities in Brazil. KL Energy
has also indentified several sites in the United States for possible
future expansion. EPA currently projects that KL Energy could produce
up to 1 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 2012 in the United
States.
Range Fuels began production of methanol at their Soperton, Georgia
facility in the third quarter of 2010. This facility uses a
thermochemical technology to produce syngas (consisting of mostly
hydrogen and carbon monoxide) from a woody biomass feedstock. The
syngas is then converted into fuel with the aid of a chemical catalyst
developed by Range. Range has developed the capability to produce both
methanol and ethanol, depending on the catalyst used. In January 2011,
after producing a small volume of ethanol from this facility and
proving this capability, Range Fuels shut down the Soperton facility in
order to work through technical difficulties they had been
experiencing. No timeline has been given for the restart of this
facility. EPA will continue to gather information and monitor progress
at the Soperton facility. At this time, however, since no timeline has
been provided for production from this facility, we are not projecting
any volume from this facility in 2012.
2. Potential New Facilities in 2012
EPA is also aware of five new cellulosic biofuel production
facilities that are currently planning to begin commercial production
at some point in 2012. These facilities are at various stages in the
construction process, and as such have various degrees of uncertainty
associated with any projected 2012 commercial production. While it is
possible that several of these facilities will not begin production of
cellulosic biofuels until 2013, they are nevertheless considered here
since some commercial volumes can potentially be produced in 2012.
Fulcrum Bioenergy is planning to build a facility capable of
producing 10.5 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol and 16 megawatts
of renewable electricity per year. They have developed a thermochemical
technology to produce ethanol from separated MSW via syngas using a
chemical catalyst. In November 2010 Fulcrum announced that they had
received a term sheet for a $80 million loan guarantee from DOE and
were entering into the final phase of the loan guarantee program. Prior
to that Fulcrum had announced that they had signed long term feedstock
supply contracts for this facility as well as engineering, procurement,
and construction contracts. In January 2011 Fulcrum announced they had
closed on a $75 million Series C financing that would provide the
remaining necessary capital for the construction of their first
commercial production facility pending the closing of their DOE loan
guarantee. They announced that they are now planning to begin
construction in the second quarter of 2011 and complete the facility by
late 2012. EPA currently projects a potential production volume of up
to 0.5 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol from this facility in
2012.
INEOS Bio has developed a process for producing cellulosic ethanol
by first gasifying feedstock material into a syngas and then using
naturally occurring bacteria to ferment the syngas into ethanol. In
January 2011 USDA announced a $75 million loan guarantee for the
construction of INEOS Bio's first commercial facility to be built in
Vero Beach, Florida. This facility will be capable of producing 8
million gallons of cellulosic biofuel as well as 6 megawatts of
renewable electricity from a variety of feedstocks including yard,
agricultural, and wood waste, as well as separated MSW. On February 9,
2011 INEOS Bio broke ground on this facility. INEOS Bio expects to
complete construction on this facility in April 2012 and plans to begin
commercial production of cellulosic ethanol soon
[[Page 38851]]
after construction is complete. EPA currently projects a potential
production volume of up to 3 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol from
this facility in 2012.
After successful operation of their demonstration plant in Houston,
Texas KiOR is planning to begin construction on their first commercial
scale facility in early 2011. This facility, located in Columbus,
Mississippi, will convert biomass to a low oxygen biocrude using a
process KiOR calls Biomass Catalytic Cracking (BCC). BCC uses a
catalyst developed by KiOR in a process similar to Fluid Catalytic
Cracking currently used in the petroleum industry. KiOR's Columbus
facility will also be capable of upgrading this biocrude into finished
gasoline and diesel as well as a small quantity of fuel oil. KiOR plans
to begin production from this facility sometime in the first half of
2012. KiOR has also announced plans to construct several more
commercial scale biofuel production facilities in Mississippi and
across the southeastern United States. However, it is unlikely any of
these facilities will begin production of biofuel in 2012. Given this
timeline EPA currently projects a potential production of up to 4.0
million gallons of gasoline and diesel (6.4 million ethanol equivalent
gallons) from the Columbus facility in 2012.
Terrabon completed construction of a small demonstration scale
facility for the conversion of MSW and other waste materials into
gasoline in 2010 and is planning to begin production at their first
commercial scale facility in 2012. Terrabon utilizes a unique
production process that can be used to produce gasoline, diesel, or jet
fuel. Feedstock is first fermented into carboxylic acids by a variety
of micro organisms. These carboxylic acids are then neutralized to form
carboxylate salts that are dewatered, dried, and thermally converted to
ketones. Finally, the ketones are hydrogenated to form alcohols which
can then be refined into gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel. While currently
no pathway exists for the generation of RINs representing cellulosic
gasoline in the RFS2 regulations, EPA is planning to initiate a
rulemaking to create such a pathway in our regulations. This would
allow for facilities such as Terrabon and others who may produce
cellulosic gasoline in the future to register and generate RINs under
the RFS2 program (provided they meet the fuel registration, renewable
biomass, and other requirements of the program as well). EPA currently
projects the production of up to 0.7 million gallons (1.0 million
ethanol equivalent gallons) of cellulosic gasoline in 2012 from
Terrabon's first commercial facility.
ZeaChem has begun construction on a small demonstration scale
facility in Boardman, Oregon capable of producing 250,000 gallons of
cellulosic ethanol per year. Their production process uses a
combination of biochemical and thermochemical technologies to produce
ethanol and other renewable chemicals from cellulosic materials. The
feedstock is first fractionated into two separate streams containing
cellulosic sugars and lignin. The cellulosic sugars are fermented into
ethyl acetate using a naturally occurring acetogen, which can then be
hydrogenated into ethanol. The hydrogen necessary for this process is
produced by gasifying the lignin stream from the cellulosic biomass.
ZeaChem's process is flexible and is capable of producing a wide range
of renewable chemical and fuel molecules in addition to ethanol.
ZeaChem plans to begin production of cellulosic ethanol from their
facility in Boardman, Oregon in late 2011, and EPA currently projects a
potential production volume of up to 0.25 million gallons of ethanol
from this facility in 2012.
Another potential source of cellulosic biofuel in 2012 is a
technology being developed by EdeniQ. EdeniQ is developing a suite of
enzymes capable of breaking down cellulose into simple sugars that can
then be fermented into ethanol. Rather than build their own production
facilities EdeniQ plans to license their enzymes to existing corn
ethanol facilities. Such licensing would be accompanied by the
Cellunator, an advanced milling device they have developed to reduce
the particle size of corn kernels to enable greater conversion of
starch to ethanol as well as the conversion of cellulose to simple
sugars. EdeniQ claims that their technology would allow corn ethanol
facilities to increase ethanol production by 1-2% by converting the
cellulosic portion of the corn kernel into ethanol. They are also
working to increase the effectiveness of their enzymes in order to
enable ethanol production increases of 3-4% from the cellulose in the
corn kernel in the future. EdeniQ plans to begin commercial trials of
their technology in the second half of 2011. This technology has the
potential to be implemented rapidly and produce significant amounts of
cellulosic ethanol in 2012 as it requires relatively small capital
additions to already existing corn ethanol facilities. While this
technology is promising, there is currently no pathway in the RFS2
regulations for the generation of cellulosic biofuel RINs using the
cellulosic portion of the corn kernel as a feedstock. Moreover, EdeniQ
has not announced any agreements with corn ethanol producers to install
this technology to enable the production of cellulosic ethanol. For
these reasons, EPA has not included any cellulosic ethanol production
from EdeniQ's technology in our 2012 projections. We will continue to
monitor their process in the coming months for signs of progress
towards commercialization of their technology and will consider adding
production volumes from EdeniQ into our final projections if
appropriate.
In addition to the facilities mentioned above, EPA is also aware of
three companies planning to begin the production of cellulosic biofuels
in early 2013. Coskata, Enerkem, and Poet are planning on completing
construction on their first commercial scale cellulosic biofuel
facilities in late 2012 or early 2013 and producing commercial volumes
of biofuels in 2013. While it is possible that construction of any of
these facilities could be completed ahead of schedule and a small
volume of fuel could be produced in 2012, history in this industry
suggests that this is unlikely. EPA has therefore not projected that
any volume of cellulosic biofuel will be produced from these facilities
in 2012. These facilities, along with several other commercial
cellulosic biofuel facilities planning to begin production in 2013,
notably the first commercial scale facilities from Abengoa and Mascoma,
indicate that the potential exists for the rapid expansion of
production volumes in future years.
3. Imports of Cellulosic Biofuel
While domestically produced cellulosic biofuels are the most likely
source of cellulosic biofuel available in the United States, producers
and/or importers of cellulosic biofuel produced in other countries may
also generate RINs and participate in the RFS2 program. While the RFS2
program does provide a financial incentive for companies to import
cellulosic biofuels into the United States, the combination of local
demand, financial incentives from other governments, and transportation
costs for the cellulosic biofuel has resulted in no cellulosic biofuel
being imported to the United States thus far. EPA believes this
situation is likely to continue in the near future. Additionally, the
majority of internationally based cellulosic biofuel facilities that
currently exist or plan to complete construction by the end of 2012 are
small research and development or pilot facilities not designed for the
commercial production of fuel.
[[Page 38852]]
Two notable exceptions, both located in Canada, are Enerkem and
Iogen. Enerkem has a currently existing commercial production facility
in Westbury, Quebec and is expecting to complete construction on a
second facility in Edmonton, Alberta in late 2011. Iogen has a small
demonstration facility in Ottawa and is currently exploring the
possibility of building their first commercial facility near Prince
Albert, Saskatchewan. The large expected production volumes and
relatively small distance this fuel would have to be transported to
reach the United States make these facilities the most likely
candidates to import cellulosic biofuel into the United States. In
conversations with EPA, however, both companies indicated that they had
no current intentions of importing fuel from their Canadian production
facilities into the United States. On September 1, 2010 the government
of Canada finalized regulations requiring all gasoline sold in Canada
to have a renewable content of 5% and all diesel fuel and heating oil
to have a renewable content of 2%. These regulations will further
increase local demand for any cellulosic biofuel produced from these
two facilities and decrease the likelihood of any of this fuel being
exported to the United States. For these reasons we have not included
any cellulosic biofuel production from foreign facilities in our
projections of cellulosic biofuel availability in 2012.
4. Summary of Volume Projections
The information EPA has gathered on the potential cellulosic
biofuel producers in 2012, described above, allows us to identify
potential volumes that could be achieved by each facility in 2012. This
information is summarized in Table II.B.4-1 below.
Table II.B.4-1--Cellulosic Biofuel 2012 Potentially Available Volume
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012
Capacity Earliest Potentially Ethanol
Company name Location Feedstock Fuel (MGY) production available equivalent
volume (MG) gallons (MG)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Vonore, TN........... Corn Stover.......... Ethanol............. 0.25 Online 0.25 0.25
Ethanol.
Fiberight \a\.................. Blairstown, IA....... MSW.................. Ethanol............. 6 Online 3.0 3.0
Fulcrum Bioenergy.............. McCarran, NV......... MSW.................. Ethanol............. 10.5 Late 2012 0.5 0.5
INEOS Bio...................... Vero Beach, FL....... Ag Residue, MSW...... Ethanol............. 8 May 2012 3.0 3.0
KiOR........................... Houston, TX.......... Ag Residue........... Gasoline, Diesel.... 0.2 Online 0.2 0.3
KiOR........................... Columbus, MS......... Pulp Wood............ Gasoline, Diesel.... 10 Mid 2012 4.0 6.4
KL Energy...................... Upton, WY............ Wood Waste........... Ethanol............. 1.5 Online 1.0 1.0
Terrabon....................... Port Arthur, TX...... MSW.................. Gasoline............ 1.3 2012 0.7 1.0
ZeaChem........................ Boardman, OR......... Planted Trees........ Ethanol............. 0.25 2011 0.25 0.25
----------------------------------------------------
Total...................... ..................... ..................... .................... ......... ............ 12.9 15.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------