32024 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 80 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0167; FRL–9980–37– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AT93 

Renewable Fuel Standard Program: 

Standards for 2019 and BiomassBased Diesel Volume for 2020 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Under section 211 of the 

Clean Air Act, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is required to 

set renewable fuel percentage standards 

every year. This action proposes the 

annual percentage standards for 

cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, 

advanced biofuel, and total renewable 

fuel that apply to gasoline and diesel 

transportation fuel produced or 

imported in the year 2019. Relying on 

statutory waiver authority that is 

available when the projected cellulosic 

biofuel production volume is less than 

the applicable volume specified in the 

statute, EPA is proposing volume 

requirements for cellulosic biofuel, 

advanced biofuel, and total renewable 

fuel that are below the statutory volume 

targets. We are also proposing the 

applicable volume of biomass-based 

diesel for 2020. 

DATES:

Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before August 17, 2018. 

Public Hearing. EPA will announce 

the public hearing date and location for 

this proposal in a supplemental Federal 

Register document. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2018–0167, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

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; email address: 

macallister.julia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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, biodiesel, renewable diesel, 

and biogas. Potentially affected 

categories include: 

Category NAICS1 codes SIC 2 codes Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ............................. 324110 2911 Petroleum refineries. 

Industry ............................. 325193 2869 Ethyl alcohol manufacturing. 

Industry ............................. 325199 2869 Other basic organic chemical manufacturing. 

Industry ............................. 424690 5169 Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers. 

Industry ............................. 424710 5171 Petroleum bulk stations and terminals. 

Industry ............................. 424720 5172 Petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers. 

Industry ............................. 221210 4925 Manufactured gas production and distribution. 

Industry ............................. 454319 5989 Other fuel dealers. 

1 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

2Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this proposed action. This 

table lists the types of entities that EPA 

is now aware could potentially be 

affected by this proposed action. Other 

types of entities not listed in the table 

could also be affected. To determine 

whether your entity would be affected 

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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

Outline of This Preamble 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Summary of Major Provisions in This 

Action 

1. Approach to Setting Volume 

Requirements 

2. Cellulosic Biofuel 

3. Advanced Biofuel 

4. Total Renewable Fuel 

5. 2020 Biomass-Based Diesel 

6. Annual Percentage Standards 

B. RIN Market Operations 

C. EPA Response to Court Decision in 

Americans for Clean Energy v. EPA 

II. Authority and Need for Waiver of 

Statutory Applicable Volumes 

A. Statutory Authorities for Reducing 

Volume Targets 

1. Cellulosic Waiver Authority 

2. General Waiver Authority 

B. Treatment of Carryover RINs 

1. Carryover RIN Bank Size 

2. EPA’s Proposed Decision Regarding the 

Treatment of Carryover RINs 

III. Cellulosic Biofuel Volume for 2019 

A. Statutory Requirements 

B. Cellulosic Biofuel Industry Assessment 

1. Potential Domestic Producers 

2. Potential Foreign Sources of Cellulosic 

Biofuel 

3. Summary of Volume Projections for 

Individual Companies 

C. Cellulosic Biofuel Volume for 2019 

1. Liquid Cellulosic Biofuel 

2. CNG/LNG Derived From Biogas 

3. Total Cellulosic Biofuel in 2019 

IV. Advanced Biofuel and Total Renewable 

Fuel Volumes for 2019 

A. Volumetric Limitation on Use of the 

Cellulosic Waiver Authority 

B. Attainable Volumes of Advanced 

Biofuel 

1. Imported Sugarcane Ethanol 

2. Other Advanced Biofuel 

3. Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel 

C. Proposed Volume Requirement for 

Advanced Biofuel 

D. Proposed Volume Requirement for Total 

Renewable Fuel 

V. Impacts of 2019 Volumes on Costs 

A. Illustrative Costs Analysis of Exercising 

the Cellulosic Waiver Authority 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32025 

1 75 FR 14670, March 26, 2010. 

2Public Law 110–140, 121 Stat. 1492 (2007). 

Hereinafter, ‘‘EISA.’’ 

3The 2019 BBD volume requirement was 

established in the 2018 final rule. 

4For a list of the statutory provisions for the 

determination of applicable volumes, see the 2018 

final rule (82 FR 58486; Table I.A–2). 

5Average biodiesel and/or renewable diesel blend 

percentages based on EIA’s April 2018 Short Term 

Energy Outlook (STEO). 

6The statutory total renewable fuel, advanced 

biofuel and cellulosic biofuel requirements for 2019 

are 28.0, 13.0 and 8.5 billion gallons respectively. 

This implies a conventional renewable fuel 

applicable volume (the difference between the total 

renewable fuel and advanced biofuel volumes, 

which can be satisfied by with conventional (D6) 

RINs) of 15.0 billion gallons, and a non-cellulosic 

advanced biofuel applicable volume (the difference 

between the advanced biofuel and cellulosic biofuel 

volumes, which can be satisfied with advanced (D5) 

RINs) of 4.5 billion gallons. 

Compared to the 2019 Statutory Volumes 

Baseline 

B. Illustrative Costs Analysis of Exercising 

the Cellulosic Waiver Authority 

Compared to the 2018 RFS Volumes 

Baseline 

VI. Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2020 

A. Statutory Requirements 

B. Determination of the 2020 Applicable 

Volume of Biomass-Based Diesel 

C. Consideration of Statutory Factors Set 

Forth in CAA Section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)– 

(VI) for 2020 

VII. Percentage Standards for 2019 

A. Calculation of Percentage Standards 

B. Small Refineries and Small Refiners 

C. Proposed Standards 

VIII. Public Participation 

A. How do I submit comments? 

B. How should I submit CBI to the Agency? 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

X. 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) that 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), leading to 

the publication of major revisions to the 

regulatory requirements on March 26, 

2010.1 EISA’s stated goals include 

moving the United States (U.S) toward 

‘‘greater energy independence and 

security [and] increase[ing] the 

production of clean renewable fuels.’’ 2

The statute includes annual volume 

targets, and requires EPA to translate 

those volume targets (or alternative 

volume requirements established by 

EPA in accordance with statutory 

waiver authorities) into compliance 

obligations that obligated parties must 

meet every year. In this action we are 

proposing the applicable volumes for 

cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and 

total renewable fuel for 2019, and 

biomass-based diesel (BBD) for 2020.3

We are also proposing the annual 

percentage standards (also known as 

‘‘percent standards’’) for cellulosic 

biofuel, BBD, advanced biofuel, and 

total renewable fuel that would apply to 

all gasoline and diesel produced or 

imported in 2019.4

Today, nearly all gasoline used for 

transportation purposes contains 10 

percent ethanol (E10), and on average 

diesel fuel contains nearly 5 percent 

biodiesel and/or renewable diesel.5

However, the market has fallen well 

short of the statutory volumes for 

cellulosic biofuel, resulting in shortfalls 

in the advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel volumes. In this action, 

we are proposing a volume requirement 

for cellulosic biofuel at the level we 

project to be available for 2019, along 

with an associated applicable 

percentage standard. For advanced 

biofuel and total renewable fuel, we are 

proposing reductions under the 

‘‘cellulosic waiver authority’’ that 

would result in advanced biofuel and 

total renewable fuel volume 

requirements that are lower than the 

statutory targets by the same magnitude 

as the reduction in the cellulosic biofuel 

reduction. This would effectively 

maintain the implied statutory volumes 

for non-cellulosic advanced biofuel and 

conventional biofuel.6

The resulting proposed volume 

requirements for 2019 are shown in 

Table I–1 below. Relative to the levels 

finalized for 2018, the 2019 volume 

requirements for advanced biofuel and 

total renewable fuel would be higher by 

590 million gallons. Approximately 90 

million gallons of this increase would 

be due to the increase in the projected 

production of cellulosic biofuel in 2019 

relative to 2018. We are also proposing 

to establish the volume requirement for 

BBD for 2020 at 2.43 billion gallons. 

This volume is 330 million gallons 

higher than the volume for 2019. 

TABLE I–1—PROPOSED VOLUME REQUIREMENTS a

2018 b

2019 

Statutory 

volumes 

2019 

Proposed 

volumes 

2020 

Proposed 

volumes 

Cellulosic biofuel (million gallons) .................................................................... 288 8,500 381 n/a 

Biomass-based diesel (billion gallons) ............................................................ 2.1 ≥1.0 c 2.1 2.43 

Advanced biofuel (billion gallons) .................................................................... 4.29 13.00 4.88 n/a 

Renewable fuel (billion gallons) ....................................................................... 19.29 28.00 19.88 n/a 

aAll values are ethanol-equivalent on an energy content basis, except for BBD which is biodiesel-equivalent. 

bThe 2018 volume requirements for cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and renewable fuel were established in the 2018 final rule (82 FR 

58486, December 12, 2017). The 2018 BBD volume requirement was established in the 2017 final rule (81 FR 89746, December 12, 2016). cThe 2019 BBD volume requirement was established in the 2018 final rule (82 FR 58486, December 12, 2017). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
32026 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

7The 2015 BBD standard was based on actual 

data for the first 9 months of 2015 and on 

projections for the latter part of the year for which 

data on actual use was not available at the time. 

8The proposed 330 million gallon increase for 

BBD would generate approximately 500 million 

RINs, due to the higher equivalence value of 

biodiesel (1.5 RINs/gallon) and renewable diesel 

(generally 1.7 RINs/gallon). 

A. Summary of Major Provisions in This 

Action 

This section briefly summarizes the 

major provisions of this final rule. We 

are proposing applicable volume 

requirements and associated percentage 

standards for cellulosic biofuel, 

advanced biofuel, and total renewable 

fuel for 2019; for BBD we are proposing 

the percentage standard for 2019 and 

the applicable volume requirement for 

2020. 

1. Approach to Setting Volume 

Requirements 

For advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel, we are proposing 

reductions based on the ‘‘cellulosic 

waiver authority’’ that would result in 

advanced biofuel and total renewable 

fuel volume requirements that are lower 

than the statutory targets by the same 

magnitude as the reduction in the 

cellulosic biofuel applicable volume. 

This follows the same general approach 

as in the 2018 final rule. The proposed 

volumes for cellulosic biofuel, advanced 

biofuel, and total renewable fuel exceed 

the required volumes for these fuel 

types in 2018. 

Section II provides a general 

description of our approach to setting 

volume requirements in today’s rule, 

including a review of the statutory 

waiver authorities and our 

consideration of carryover RINs. Section 

III provides our assessment of the 2019 

cellulosic biofuel volume, based on a 

projection of production that reflects a 

neutral aim at accuracy. Section IV 

describes our assessment of advanced 

biofuel and total renewable fuel. 

Finally, Section VI provides our 

proposal regarding the 2020 BBD 

volume requirement, reflecting a 

proposed analysis of a set of factors 

stipulated in CAA section 

211(o)(2)(B)(ii). 

2. Cellulosic Biofuel 

EPA must annually 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 

production volume. In this rule we are 

proposing a cellulosic biofuel volume 

requirement of 381 million ethanolequivalent gallons for 2019 based on our 

production projection. Our projection 

reflects consideration of RIN generation 

data for past years and 2018 to date that 

is available to EPA through EMTS; the 

information we have received regarding 

individual facilities’ capacities, 

production start dates, and biofuel 

production plans; a review of cellulosic 

biofuel production relative to EPA’s 

projections in previous annual rules; 

and EPA’s own engineering judgment. 

To project cellulosic biofuel production 

for 2019 we used the same basic 

methodology described in the 2018 final 

rule. However, we have used updated 

data to derive percentile values used in 

our production projection for liquid 

cellulosic biofuels and to derive the 

year-over-year change in the rate of 

production of CNG/LNG derived from 

biogas that is used in the projection for 

CNG/LNG. EPA anticipates that our 

final projection of cellulosic biofuel will 

be based on additional data we will 

obtain prior to issuing the final rule, 

including an estimate of cellulosic 

biofuel production for 2019 to be 

provided by the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA). 

3. Advanced Biofuel 

If we reduce the applicable volume of 

cellulosic biofuel below the volume 

specified in CAA section 

211(o)(2)(B)(i)(III), we also have the 

authority to reduce the applicable 

volumes of advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel by the same or a lesser 

amount. We refer to this as the 

‘‘cellulosic waiver authority.’’ The 

conditions that caused us to reduce the 

2018 volume requirement for advanced 

biofuel below the statutory target remain 

relevant in 2019. As for 2018, we 

investigated the projected availability of 

non-cellulosic advanced biofuels in 

2019. We took into account the various 

constraints on the ability of the market 

to make advanced biofuels available, the 

ability of the standards we set to bring 

about market changes in the time 

available, the potential impacts 

associated with diverting biofuels and/ 

or biofuel feedstocks from current uses 

to the production of advanced biofuel 

used in the U.S., the fact that the 

biodiesel tax credit is currently not 

available for 2019, the tariffs on imports 

of biodiesel from Argentina and 

Indonesia, as well as the cost of 

advanced biofuels. Based on these 

considerations we are proposing to 

reduce the statutory volume target for 

advanced biofuel by the same amount as 

we are reducing the statutory volume 

target for cellulosic biofuel. This would 

result in an advanced biofuel volume for 

2019 of 4.88 billion gallons, which 

would be 590 million gallons higher 

than the advanced biofuel volume for 

2018. 

4. Total Renewable Fuel 

As for advanced biofuel, we are 

proposing the maximum reduction 

permissible under the cellulosic waiver 

authority. We are proposing that the 

reduction in total renewable fuel would 

be the same as the reduction in 

advanced biofuel, such that the 

resulting implied volume requirement 

for conventional renewable fuel would 

be 15 billion gallons. 

5. 2020 Biomass-Based Diesel 

In EISA, Congress specified increasing 

applicable volumes of BBD through 

2012. Beyond 2012 Congress stipulated 

that EPA, in coordination with DOE and 

USDA, was to establish the BBD volume 

taking into consideration 

implementation of the program to date 

and various specified factors, provided 

that the required volume for BBD could 

not be less than 1.0 billion gallons. For 

2013, EPA established an applicable 

volume of 1.28 billion gallons. For 2014 

and 2015 we established the BBD 

volume requirement to reflect the actual 

volume for each of these years of 1.63 

and 1.73 billion gallons.7 For 2016 and 

2017, we set the BBD volume 

requirements at 1.9 and 2.0 billion 

gallons respectively. Finally, for 2018 

and 2019 the BBD volume requirement 

was set a 2.1 billion gallons. We are 

proposing to increase the BBD volume 

for 2020 to 2.43 billion gallons. 

Given current and recent market 

conditions, the advanced biofuel 

volume requirement is driving the 

production and use of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel volumes over and 

above volumes required through the 

separate BBD standard, and we expect 

this to continue. While EPA continues 

to believe it is appropriate to maintain 

the opportunity for other advanced 

biofuels to compete for market share, 

the vast majority of the advanced 

biofuel obligations in recent years have 

been satisfied with BBD. Thus, after a 

review of the implementation of the 

program to date and considering the 

statutory factors, and in light of the 500 

million gallon increase we are 

proposing for non-cellulosic advanced 

biofuels, we are proposing, in 

coordination with USDA and DOE, an 

applicable volume of BBD for 2020 of 

2.43 billion gallons.8


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32027 

9The final percentage standards will be based on 

the most recent gasoline and diesel projected 

volumes provided by EIA. 10See 80 FR 77420 (December 14, 2015). 

6. Annual Percentage Standards 

The renewable fuel standards are 

expressed as a volume percentage and 

are used by each refiner and importer of 

fossil-based gasoline or diesel to 

determine their renewable fuel volume 

obligations. 

Four separate percentage standards 

are required under the RFS program, 

corresponding to the four separate 

renewable fuel categories shown in 

Table I.A–1. The specific formulas we 

use in calculating the renewable fuel 

percentage standards are contained in 

the regulations at 40 CFR 80.1405. The 

percentage standards represent the ratio 

of the national applicable volume of 

renewable fuel volume to the national 

projected non-renewable gasoline and 

diesel volume less any gasoline and 

diesel attributable to small refineries 

granted an exemption prior to the date 

that the standards are set. The volume 

of transportation gasoline and diesel 

used to calculate the proposed 

percentage standards was based on the 

April 2018 version of EIA’s Short-Term 

Energy Outlook.9 The proposed 

percentage standards for 2019 are 

shown in Table I.B.6–1. Detailed 

calculations can be found in Section VII, 

including the projected gasoline and 

diesel volumes used. 

TABLE I.B.6–1—PROPOSED 2019 

PERCENTAGE STANDARDS

Proposed 

percentage 

standards 

Cellulosic biofuel ................... 0.209 

Biomass-based diesel .......... 1.72 

Advanced biofuel .................. 2.67 

Renewable fuel ..................... 10.88 

B. RIN Market Operations 

In the rulemaking notice proposing 

the 2018 RFS volume requirements, 

EPA noted that various stakeholders had 

raised concerns regarding lack of 

transparency and potential 

manipulation in the RIN market. We 

asked for comment from the public on 

those issues, and received multiple 

suggestions from stakeholders in 

response. Commenters suggested a 

number of potential steps EPA could 

take, including increasing the public 

availability of data related to the RIN 

market; establishing new regulations 

relating to the purchase, ownership, and 

retirement of RINs; and increasing 

coordination with sister federal 

agencies. Since receiving those 

comments, we have held additional 

meetings with stakeholders on these 

topics, through which we have 

continued to hear various perspectives 

on RIN market operations and potential 

changes. 

A number of the comments received 

in response to the 2018 NPRM suggested 

increasing the amount of data related to 

the RIN market that EPA makes publicly 

available. For example, commenters 

urged EPA to consider increasing the 

frequency at which currently available 

information is posted. EPA is currently 

exploring the possibility of posting 

regular updates to the number of RINs 

we anticipate will be required for 

compliance. These updates could take 

into account several factors, such as 

updated information on gasoline and 

diesel consumption throughout the year, 

the impact of small refinery exemptions, 

and the volume of renewable fuel 

exported from the United States for 

which RINs were generated, and would 

thus need to be retired. EPA is also 

considering publicly posting average 

RIN prices based on the price 

information submitted to EPA through 

EMTS. Other information that may be of 

interest to the public could be 

aggregated information related to the 

number of RINs held by different 

categories of entities, such as renewable 

fuel producers, obligated parties, and 

parties that neither produce renewable 

fuel nor have an RVO under the RFS 

program. Finally, we are considering 

whether there may be value in 

increasing the frequency of the release 

of data that is already posted publicly, 

such as information related to RIN 

generation by D-code and fuel type. 

Stakeholders have also suggested 

ways EPA could amend the RFS 

regulations to change rules related to 

who may purchase RINs, the duration 

for which RINs could be held, and other 

rules related to the buying, selling, or 

holding of RINs. The goal of such 

changes would be to minimize or 

eliminate potential manipulation in the 

market. EPA is currently considering a 

handful of ideas, including: Prohibiting 

parties other than obligated parties from 

purchasing separated RINS; requiring 

public disclosure if a party holds a 

certain percentage of the RIN market; 

and/or requiring obligated parties to 

retire RINs for compliance purposes on 

a more frequent basis (e.g., requiring 

monthly compliance). EPA requests 

comment on the expected impact that 

these specific potential regulatory 

changes could have on the RIN market, 

positively or negatively, as well as on 

any other potential regulatory changes 

commenters may recommend to address 

perceived vulnerabilities in the RIN 

market. Today’s action is not proposing 

to make any such regulatory changes. 

Should EPA decide to move forward on 

any of these ideas, we would do so 

through a separate proposed 

rulemaking. That rulemaking would be 

informed by comments received in 

response to today’s notice. 

Finally, we note that multiple 

stakeholders have encouraged 

cooperation and coordination between 

EPA and other federal agencies that may 

play an oversight role in the RFS or 

broader fuels market, including the 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission and the Federal Trade 

Commission. EPA has engaged with 

both agencies on an ongoing basis and 

will continue to do so. 

C. EPA Response to Court Decision in 

Americans for Clean Energy v. EPA 

In the annual rule establishing the 

2014–2016 renewable fuel standards, we 

determined that there would be an 

‘‘inadequate domestic supply’’ of 

renewable fuel to consumers in 2016, 

and so exercised the general waiver 

authority to reduce the applicable 

volume of total renewable fuel to a level 

we believed could be supplied.10 In 

response to a petition for review of the 

2014–2016 rule, the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit ruled that EPA improperly 

focused on assessing the supply of 

renewable fuel to consumers, and that 

the statute instead requires a ‘‘supplyside’’ assessment of the volumes of 

renewable fuel that can be supplied to 

refiners, importers and blenders. The 

court vacated EPA’s decision to reduce 

the total renewable fuel volume 

requirements for 2016 using general 

waiver authority, and remanded the rule 

to EPA for further consideration in light 

of the decision. Americans for Clean 

Energy (‘‘ACE’’) v. EPA, 864 F.3d 691 

(2017). 

EPA is currently considering a 

number of issues raised by the need to 

respond to the court’s remand in a 

separate process from this annual 

rulemaking. EPA is not requesting 

comment on this rulemaking process at 

this time and any comments on this 

issue will be treated as outside of the 

scope of this rulemaking. EPA 

understands that there is a compelling 

need to respond to the remand and 

intends to expeditiously move ahead 

with a separate rule to resolve this 

matter. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
32028 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

11The statutory total renewable fuel, advanced 

biofuel and cellulosic biofuel requirements for 2019 

are 28.0, 13.0, and 8.5 billion gallons, respectively. 

This implies a conventional renewable fuel 

applicable volume (the difference between the total 

renewable fuel and advanced biofuel volumes, 

which can be satisfied by with conventional (D6) 

RINs) and a non-cellulosic advanced biofuel 

applicable volume (the difference between the 

advanced biofuel and cellulosic biofuel volumes, 

which can be satisfied with advanced (D5) RINs) of 

15.0 and 4.5 billion gallons, respectively. 

12See 81 FR 89752–89753 (December 12, 2016). 

13See 80 FR 77433–34 (December 14, 2015). 

14ACE, 864 F.3d at 730. 

15 Id. at 733. 

16 Id. 

17 Id. at 734. 

II. Authority and Need for Waiver of 

Statutory Applicable Volumes 

The CAA provides EPA with the 

authority to enact volume requirements 

below the applicable volume targets 

specified in the statute under specific 

circumstances. This section discusses 

those authorities. As described in the 

executive summary, we are proposing a 

single volume requirement for cellulosic 

biofuel at the level we project to be 

available for 2019, and an associated 

applicable percentage standard. For 

advanced biofuel and total renewable 

fuel, we are proposing volume 

requirements and associated applicable 

percent standards, based on use of the 

‘‘cellulosic waiver authority’’ that 

would result in advanced biofuel and 

total renewable fuel volume 

requirements that are lower than the 

statutory targets by the same magnitude 

as the reduction in the cellulosic biofuel 

reduction. This would effectively 

maintain the implied statutory volumes 

for non-cellulosic advanced biofuel and 

conventional biofuel.11

A. Statutory Authorities for Reducing 

Volume Targets 

In CAA section 211(o)(2), Congress 

specified increasing annual volume 

targets for total renewable fuel, 

advanced biofuel, and cellulosic biofuel 

for each year through 2022, and for BBD 

through 2012, and authorized EPA to set 

volume requirements for subsequent 

years in coordination with USDA and 

DOE, and after consideration of 

specified factors. However, Congress 

also recognized that under certain 

circumstances it would be appropriate 

for EPA to set volume requirements at 

a lower level than reflected in the 

statutory volume targets, and thus 

provided waiver provisions in CAA 

section 211(o)(7). 

1. Cellulosic Waiver Authority 

Section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) of the CAA 

provides that if EPA determines that the 

projected volume of cellulosic biofuel 

production for a given year is less than 

the applicable volume specified in the 

statute, then EPA must reduce the 

applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel 

required to the projected production 

volume for that calendar year. In making 

this projection, EPA may not ‘‘adopt a 

methodology in which the risk of 

overestimation is set deliberately to 

outweigh the risk of underestimation’’ 

but must make a projection that ‘‘takes 

neutral aim at accuracy.’’ API v. EPA, 

706 F.3d 474, 479, 476 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

Pursuant to this provision, EPA has set 

the cellulosic biofuel requirement lower 

than the statutory volume for each year 

since 2010. As described in Section 

III.D, the projected volume of cellulosic 

biofuel production for 2019 is less than 

the 8.5 billion gallon volume target in 

the statute. Therefore, for 2019, we are 

proposing to set the cellulosic biofuel 

volume requirement at a level lower 

than the statutory applicable volume, in 

accordance with this provision. 

CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) also 

provides EPA with the authority to 

reduce the applicable volume of total 

renewable fuel and advanced biofuel in 

years when it reduces the applicable 

volume of cellulosic biofuel under that 

provision. The reduction must be less 

than or equal to the reduction in 

cellulosic biofuel. For 2019, we are also 

proposing to reduce the applicable 

volumes of advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel under this authority. 

EPA has used the cellulosic waiver 

authority to lower the cellulosic biofuel, 

advanced biofuel and total renewable 

fuel volumes every year since 2014. 

Further discussion of the cellulosic 

waiver authority, and EPA’s 

interpretation of it, can be found in the 

preamble to the 2017 final rule.12 See 

also API v. EPA, 706 F.3d 474 (D.C. Cir. 

2013) (requiring that EPA’s cellulosic 

biofuel projections reflect a neutral aim 

at accuracy); Monroe Energy v. EPA, 750 

F.3d 909 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (affirming 

EPA’s broad discretion under the 

cellulosic waiver authority to reduce 

volumes of advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel); Americans for Clean 

Energy v. EPA (‘‘ACE’’), 864 F.3d 691 

(D.C. Cir. 2017) (discussed below). 

In ACE, the court evaluated EPA’s use 

of the cellulosic waiver authority in the 

2014–2016 annual rulemaking to reduce 

the advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel volumes for 2014, 2015, 

and 2016. There, EPA used the 

cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the 

advanced biofuel volume to a level that 

was reasonably attainable, and then 

provided a comparable reduction under 

this authority for total renewable fuel.13

The Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia, relying on the analysis in 

Monroe Energy, reaffirmed that EPA 

enjoys ‘‘broad discretion’’ under the 

cellulosic waiver authority ‘‘to consider 

a variety of factors—including demandside constraints in the advanced 

biofuels market.’’ 14 The Court noted 

that the only textual limitation on the 

use of the cellulosic waiver authority is 

that it cannot exceed the amount of the 

reduction in cellulosic biofuel.15 The 

Court contrasted the general waiver 

authority under CAA section 

211(o)(7)(A) and the biomass based 

diesel waiver authority under CAA 

section 211(o)(7)(E), which ‘‘detail the 

considerations and procedural steps that 

EPA must take before waiving fuel 

requirements,’’ with the cellulosic 

waiver authority, which identifies no 

factors regarding reductions in 

advanced and total renewable fuel other 

than the limitation that any such 

reductions may not exceed the 

reduction in cellulosic biofuel 

volumes.16 The Court also concluded 

that the scope of EPA’s discretionary 

authority to reduce advanced and total 

volumes is the same under the 

cellulosic waiver provision whether 

EPA is declining to exercise its 

authority to waive volumes, or choosing 

to do so.17

In this action we are proposing to use 

the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce 

the statutory volume targets for 

advanced biofuels and total renewable 

fuel by equal amounts, consistent with 

our long-held interpretation of this 

provision and our approach in setting 

the 2014–2018 standards. This approach 

considers the Congressional objectives 

reflected in the volume tables in the 

statute, and the environmental 

objectives that generally favor the use of 

advanced biofuels over non-advanced 

biofuels. See 81 FR 89752–89753 

(December 12, 2016). See also 78 FR 

49809–49810 (August 15, 2013); 80 FR 

77434 (December 14, 2015). We are 

proposing, as described in Section IV, 

that the applicable volume for advanced 

biofuels specified in the statute for 2019 

is not attainable, and thus to exercise 

our cellulosic waiver authority to lower 

the applicable volume of advanced 

biofuel by the same quantity as the 

reduction in cellulosic biofuel, and to 

provide an equal reduction under the 

cellulosic waiver authority in the 

applicable volume of total renewable 

fuel. The volumes of advanced and total 

renewable fuel resulting from this 

exercise of the cellulosic waiver 

authority provide for an implied volume 

allowance for conventional biofuel of 

fifteen billion gallons, equal to the 

implied statutory volume for 2019. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32029 

18CAA section 211(o)(5) requires that EPA 

establish a credit program as part of its RFS 

regulations, and that the credits be valid to show 

compliance for 12 months as of the date of 

generation. EPA implemented this requirement 

though the use of RINs, which can be used to 

demonstrate compliance for the year in which they 

are generated or the subsequent compliance year. 

Obligated parties can obtain more RINs than they 

need in a given compliance year, allowing them to 

‘‘carry over’’ these excess RINs for use in the 

subsequent compliance year, although use of these 

carryover RINs is limited to 20 percent of the 

obligated party’s RVO. For the bank of carryover 

RINs to be preserved from one year to the next, 

individual carryover RINs are used for compliance 

before they expire and are essentially replaced with 

newer vintage RINs that are then held for use in the 

next year. For example, if the volume of the 

collective carryover RIN bank is to remain 

unchanged from 2017 to 2018, then all of the 

vintage 2017 carryover RINs must be used for 

compliance in 2018, or they will expire. However, 

the same volume of 2018 RINs can then be 

‘‘banked’’ for use in 2019. 

19See 80 FR 77482–87 (December 14, 2015), 81 

FR 89754–55 (December 12, 2016), and 82 FR 

58493–95 (December 12, 2017). 

20See 72 FR 23900 (May 1, 2007), 80 FR 77482– 

87 (December 14, 2015), 81 FR 89754–55 (December 

12, 2016), and 82 FR 58493–95 (December 12, 

2017). 

21See 79 FR 49793–95 (August 15, 2013). 

22 Monroe Energy v. EPA, 750 F.3d 909 (D.C. Cir. 

2014), ACE at 713. 

23Here we use the term ‘‘buffer’’ as shorthand 

reference to all of the benefits that are provided by 

a sufficient bank of carryover RINs. 

24See 82 FR 58494 (December 12, 2017). 

25The calculations performed to estimate the 

number of carryover RINs currently available can be 

found in the memorandum, ‘‘Carryover RIN Bank 

Calculations for 2019 NPRM,’’ available in the 

docket. 

26Per PESRM’s bankruptcy filings, PESRM had an 

RVO of 467 million RINs for 2017 (including its 

deficit carryforward from 2016). Pursuant to the 

settlement agreement, which was based on the 

unique facts and circumstances present in this case, 

including the insolvency and risk of liquidation, 

PESRM agreed to retire 138 million RINs to meet 

its 2017 RVO and the portion of its 2018 RVO 

during the bankruptcy proceedings (approximately 

97 million RINs). See docket for PES Holdings, LLC, 

1:18bk10122, ECF Document Nos. 244 (proposed 

settlement agreement), 347 (United States’ motion 

Continued 

2. General Waiver Authority 

Section 211(o)(7)(A) of the CAA 

provides that EPA, in consultation with 

the Secretary of Agriculture and the 

Secretary of Energy, may waive the 

applicable volumes specified in the Act 

in whole or in part based on a petition 

by one or more States, by any person 

subject to the requirements of the Act, 

or by the EPA Administrator on his own 

motion. Such a waiver must be based on 

a determination by the Administrator, 

after public notice and opportunity for 

comment that: (1) Implementation of the 

requirement would severely harm the 

economy or the environment of a State, 

a region, or the United States; or (2) 

there is an inadequate domestic supply. 

At this time, we do not believe that the 

circumstances exist that would justify a 

waiver of volumes under the general 

waiver authority. 

As discussed further in Section IV.C 

below, EPA is soliciting comment on 

whether further reductions under the 

general waiver authority could be 

justified. 

B. Treatment of Carryover RINs 

Consistent with our approach in the 

final rules establishing the RFS 

standards for 2013 through 2018, we 

have also considered the availability 

and role of carryover RINs in evaluating 

whether we should exercise our 

discretion to use our waiver authorities 

in setting the cellulosic, advanced, and 

total volume requirements for 2019. 

Neither the statute nor EPA regulations 

specify how or whether EPA should 

consider the availability of carryover 

RINs in exercising the cellulosic waiver 

authority.18 As noted in the context of 

the rules establishing the RFS standards 

for 2014 through 2018, we believe that 

a bank of carryover RINs is extremely 

important in providing obligated parties 

compliance flexibility in the face of 

substantial uncertainties in the 

transportation fuel marketplace, and in 

providing a liquid and well-functioning 

RIN market upon which success of the 

entire program depends.19 Carryover 

RINs provide flexibility in the face of a 

variety of circumstances that could limit 

the availability of RINs, including 

weather-related damage to renewable 

fuel feedstocks and other circumstances 

potentially affecting the production and 

distribution of renewable fuel.20 On the 

other hand, carryover RINs can be used 

for compliance purposes, and in the 

context of the 2013 RFS rulemaking we 

noted that an abundance of carryover 

RINs available in that year, together 

with possible increases in renewable 

fuel production and import, justified 

maintaining the advanced and total 

renewable fuel volume requirements for 

that year at the levels specified in the 

statute.21 EPA’s approach to the 

consideration of carryover RINs in 

exercising our cellulosic waiver 

authority was affirmed in Monroe 

Energy and ACE.22

An adequate RIN bank serves to make 

the RIN market liquid. Just as the 

economy as a whole functions best 

when individuals and businesses 

prudently plan for unforeseen events by 

maintaining inventories and reserve 

money accounts, we believe that the 

RFS program functions best when 

sufficient carryover RINs are held in 

reserve for potential use by the RIN 

holders themselves, or for possible sale 

to others that may not have established 

their own carryover RIN reserves. Were 

there to be no RINs in reserve, then even 

minor disruptions causing shortfalls in 

renewable fuel production or 

distribution, or higher than expected 

transportation fuel demand (requiring 

greater volumes of renewable fuel to 

comply with the percentage standards 

that apply to all volumes of 

transportation fuel, including the 

unexpected volumes) could lead to the 

need for a new waiver of the standards, 

undermining the market certainty so 

critical to the RFS program. Moreover, 

a significant drawdown of the carryover 

RIN bank leading to a scarcity of RINs 

may stop the market from functioning in 

an efficient manner (i.e., one in which 

there are a sufficient number of 

reasonably available RINs for obligated 

parties seeking to purchase them), even 

where the market overall could satisfy 

the standards. For all of these reasons, 

the collective carryover RIN bank 

provides a needed programmatic buffer 

that both facilitates individual 

compliance and provides for smooth 

overall functioning of the program.23

1. Carryover RIN Bank Size 

At the time of the 2018 standards final 

rule, we estimated that there were 

approximately 2.22 billion total 

carryover RINs available and decided 

that carryover RINs should not be 

counted on to avoid or minimize the 

need to reduce the 2018 statutory 

volume targets.24 We also stated that we 

may or may not take a similar approach 

in future years, and that we would 

evaluate the issue on a case-by-case 

basis considering the facts in future 

years. Since that time, obligated parties 

have submitted their compliance 

demonstrations for the 2017 compliance 

year and we now estimate that there are 

currently approximately 3.06 billion 

total carryover RINs available, an 

increase of 840 million RINs from the 

previous estimate of 2.22 billion total 

carryover RINs in the 2018 final rule.25

This increase in the total carryover RIN 

bank compared to that projected in the 

2018 final rule results from various 

factors, including market factors, 

regulatory and enforcement actions, and 

judicial proceedings. They include the 

approximately 1,460 million RINs that 

were not required to be retired by small 

refineries that were granted hardship 

exemptions for 2017 and approximately 

790 million RINs that were not required 

to be retired by small refineries that 

were granted hardship exemptions for 

2016, along with the RINs that 

Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining 

and Marketing, LLC (‘‘PESRM’’) was not 

required to retire as part of its 

bankruptcy settlement agreement.26


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
32030 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

to approve proposed settlement agreement), and 

376 (order approving proposed settlement 

agreement), (Bankr. D. Del.). 27See 40 CFR 80.1427(a)(5). 28See ‘‘Carryover RIN Bank Calculations for 2018 

Final Rule,’’ Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 

0091–4989. 29The calculations performed to estimate the 

number of carryover RINs currently available can be 

found in the memorandum, ‘‘Carryover RIN Bank 

Calculations for 2019 NPRM,’’ available in the 

docket. 30See 40 CFR 80.1427(a)(5). 

31The majority of the cellulosic RINs generated 

for CNG/LNG are sourced from biogas from 

landfills; however, the biogas may come from a 

variety of sources including municipal wastewater 

treatment facility digesters, agricultural digesters, 

separated MSW digesters, and the cellulosic 

components of biomass processed in other waste 

digesters. 

While EPA cannot predict how 

obligated parties will comply in 2018 or 

the amount of additional small refinery 

hardship exemptions that may be 

granted in the future, the 2016 and 2017 

exemptions have directly increased the 

number of carryover RINs that will 

likely be available for compliance with 

the 2019 standards. This total volume of 

carryover RINs is approximately 15 

percent of the total renewable fuel 

volume requirement that EPA is 

proposing for 2019, which is less than 

the 20 percent maximum limit 

permitted by the regulations to be 

carried over for use in complying with 

the 2019 standards.27

The above discussion applies to total 

carryover RINs; we have also considered 

the available volume of advanced 

biofuel carryover RINs. At the time of 

the 2018 final rule, we estimated that 

there were approximately 810 million 

advanced carryover RINs available.28

Since that time, obligated parties have 

submitted their compliance 

demonstrations for the 2017 compliance 

year and we now estimate that there are 

currently approximately 640 million 

advanced carryover RINs available, a 

decrease of 170 million RINs from the 

previous estimate in the 2018 final 

rule.29 This volume of advanced 

carryover RINs is approximately 14 

percent of the advanced renewable fuel 

volume requirement that EPA is 

proposing for 2019, which is less than 

the 20 percent maximum limit 

permitted by the regulations to be 

carried over for use in complying with 

the 2019 standards.30

However, there remains considerable 

uncertainty surrounding these estimates 

for a number of reasons, including the 

potential impact of any future action to 

address the remand in ACE, the 

possibility of additional small refinery 

exemptions, and the impact of 2018 RFS 

compliance on the bank of carryover 

RINs. In addition, we note that there 

have been enforcement actions in past 

years that have resulted in the 

retirement of carryover RINs to make up 

for the generation and use of invalid 

RINs and/or the failure to retire RINs for 

exported renewable fuel. Future 

enforcement actions could have similar 

results, and require that obligated 

parties and/or renewable fuel exporters 

settle past enforcement-related 

obligations in addition to the annual 

standards, thereby potentially creating 

demand for RINs greater than can be 

accommodated through actual 

renewable fuel blending in 2019. In 

light of these uncertainties, the net 

result could be a bank of total carryover 

RINs larger or smaller than 15 percent 

of the proposed 2019 total renewable 

fuel volume requirement, and a bank of 

advanced carryover RINs larger or 

smaller than 14 percent of the proposed 

2019 advanced biofuel volume 

requirement. 

2. EPA’s Proposed Decision Regarding 

the Treatment of Carryover RINs 

We have evaluated the volume of 

carryover RINs currently available and 

considered whether it would justify a 

reduced use of our cellulosic waiver 

authority in setting the 2019 volume 

requirements in order to intentionally 

draw down the carryover RIN bank. For 

the reasons described above and in 

Section IV, we do not believe this to be 

the case. The current bank of carryover 

RINs provides an important and 

necessary programmatic buffer that will 

both facilitate individual compliance 

and provide for smooth overall 

functioning of the program. We believe 

that a balanced consideration of the 

possible role of carryover RINs in 

achieving the statutory volume 

objectives for advanced and total 

renewable fuels, versus maintaining an 

adequate bank of carryover RINs for 

important programmatic functions, is 

appropriate when EPA exercises its 

discretion under the cellulosic waiver 

authority, and that the statute does not 

specify the extent to which EPA should 

require a drawdown in the bank of 

carryover RINs when it exercises this 

authority. Therefore, for the reasons 

noted above and consistent with the 

approach we took in the final rules 

establishing the RFS standards for 2014 

through 2018, we are not proposing to 

set the 2019 volume requirements at 

levels that would envision an 

intentional drawdown in the bank of 

carryover RINs. 

III. Cellulosic Biofuel Volume for 2019 

In the past several years, production 

of cellulosic biofuel has continued to 

increase. Cellulosic biofuel production 

reached record levels in 2017, driven 

largely by CNG and LNG derived from 

biogas. Production volumes have 

continued to increase in 2018.31

Production of liquid cellulosic biofuel 

has also increased in recent years, even 

as the total production of liquid 

cellulosic biofuels remains much 

smaller than the production volumes of 

CNG and LNG derived from biogas. This 

section describes our assessment of the 

volume of cellulosic biofuel that we 

project will be produced or imported 

into the U.S. in 2018, and some of the 

uncertainties associated with those 

volumes. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32031 

32CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i). The U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

evaluated this requirement in API v. EPA, 706 F.3d 

474, 479–480 (D.C. Cir. 2013), in the context of a 

challenge to the 2012 cellulosic biofuel standard. 

The Court stated that in projecting potentially 

available volumes of cellulosic biofuel EPA must 

apply an ‘‘outcome-neutral methodology’’ aimed at 

providing a prediction of ‘‘what will actually 

happen.’’ Id. at 480, 479. 

33CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i). 

34See CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(ii); 40 CFR 

80.1456. 

In order to project the volume of 

cellulosic biofuel production in 2019, 

we considered the accuracy of the 

methodologies used to project cellulosic 

biofuel production in previous years, 

data reported to EPA through EMTS, 

and information we collected through 

meetings with representatives of 

facilities that have produced or have the 

potential to produce qualifying volumes 

of cellulosic biofuel for consumption as 

transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet 

fuel in the U.S. in 2019. Our projection 

of cellulosic biofuel in the final rule will 

also reflect Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA) projection of 

cellulosic biofuel production, comments 

received on the 2019 NPRM, and 

updated data on cellulosic biofuel 

production in 2018 and projections for 

2019. 

There are two main elements to the 

cellulosic biofuel production projection. 

To project the range of potential 

production volumes of liquid cellulosic 

biofuel we used the same methodology 

as the methodology used in the 2018 

final rule. However, we have adjusted 

the percentile values used to select a 

point estimate within a projected 

production range for each group of 

companies based on updated 

information (through the end of 2017) 

with the objective of improving the 

accuracy of the projections. To project 

the production of cellulosic biofuel 

RINs for CNG/LNG derived from biogas 

we use the same year-over-year growth 

rate methodology as in the 2018 final 

rule. This methodology reflects the 

mature status of this industry, the large 

number of facilities registered to 

generate cellulosic biofuel RINs from 

these fuels, and EPA’s continued 

attempts to refine its methodology to 

yield estimates that are as accurate as 

possible. This methodology is an 

improvement on the methodology that 

EPA used to project cellulosic biofuel 

production for CNG/LNG derived from 

biogas in the 2017 and previous years. 

The methodologies used to project the 

production of liquid cellulosic biofuels 

and cellulosic CNG/LNG derived from 

biogas are described in more detail in 

Sections III.C–1 and III.C–2 below. 

After a brief description of the 

statutory requirements in Section III.A, 

we discuss the companies the EPA 

reviewed in the process of projecting 

qualifying cellulosic biofuel production 

in the U.S. in 2018 in Section III.B. 

Section III.C discusses the 

methodologies used by EPA to project 

cellulosic biofuel production in 2019 

and the resulting projection of 381 

million ethanol-equivalent gallons. 

A. Statutory Requirements 

CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) states 

the statutory volume targets for 

cellulosic biofuel. The volume of 

cellulosic biofuel specified in the statute 

for 2019 is 8.5 billion gallons. The 

statute provides that if EPA determines, 

based on a letter provided to the EPA by 

EIA, that the projected volume of 

cellulosic biofuel production in a given 

year is less than the statutory volume, 

then EPA shall reduce the applicable 

volume of cellulosic biofuel to the 

projected volume available during that 

calendar year.32

In addition, if EPA reduces the 

required volume of cellulosic biofuel 

below the level specified in the statute, 

we may reduce the applicable volumes 

of advanced biofuels and total 

renewable fuel by the same or a lesser 

volume,33 and we are also required to 

make cellulosic waiver credits 

available.34 Our consideration of the 

2019 volume requirements for advanced 

biofuel and total renewable fuel is 

presented in Section IV. 

B. Cellulosic Biofuel Industry 

Assessment 

In order to project liquid cellulosic 

biofuel production for 2019 we have 

tracked the progress of a number of 

potential cellulosic biofuel production 

facilities, located both in the U.S. and in 

foreign countries. As we have done in 

previous years, we have focused on 

facilities with the potential to produce 

commercial-scale volumes of cellulosic 

biofuel rather than small research and 

development (R&D) or pilot-scale 

facilities. Larger commercial-scale 

facilities are much more likely to 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10JY18.002</GPH>
32032 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

35While a few small R&D and pilot scale facilities 

have registered as cellulosic RIN generators, total 

production from each of these facilities from 2011 

through March 2018 has been less than 150,000 

RINs. This is approximately 0.6 percent of all liquid 

cellulosic biofuel production through March 2018. 

See ‘‘D3 RIN generation by Company Through 

March 2018—CBI.’’ 

36This methodology is most recently described in 

the 2017 final rule. See 81 FR 89746, 89755 

(December 12, 2016). 

37EPA only projected cellulosic biofuel 

production for the final three months of 2015, since 

data on the availability of cellulosic biofuel RINs 

(D3+D7) for the first nine months of the year were 

available at the time the analyses were completed 

for the final rule. 

38EPA projected that 123 million, 230 million 

cellulosic, and 311 million RINs would be 

generated in 2015, 2016, and 2017 respectively. The 

number of available cellulosic RINs in these years 

(RINs generated minus RINs retired for noncompliance reasons) was 140 million, 190 million, 

and 250 million RINs. All numbers are derived from 

EMTS data. 

39 82 FR 58486 (December 12, 2017). 

40The volume projection from CNG/LNG 

producers does not represent production from a 

single company or facility, but rather a group of 

facilities utilizing the same production technology. 

41According to data from Argus Media, the price 

for 2017 cellulosic biofuel RINs averaged $2.78 in 

2017. Alternatively, obligated parties can obtain a 

RIN value equivalent to a cellulosic biofuel RIN by 

purchasing an advanced (or biomass-based diesel) 

RIN and a cellulosic waiver credit. The price for 

2017 advanced biofuel RINs averaged $0.99 in 2017 

while the price for a 2017 cellulosic waiver credit 

is $2.00 (EPA–420–B–17–036). 

generate RINs for the fuel they produce 

and the volumes they produce will have 

a far greater impact on the cellulosic 

biofuel standard for 2019. The volume 

of cellulosic biofuel produced from R&D 

and pilot-scale facilities is small in 

relation to that expected from the 

commercial-scale facilities. R&D and 

demonstration-scale facilities have also 

generally not generated RINs for the fuel 

they have produced in the past. Their 

focus is on developing and 

demonstrating the technology, not 

producing commercial volumes. RIN 

generation from R&D and pilot-scale 

facilities in previous years has not 

contributed significantly to the overall 

number of cellulosic RINs generated.35

We have therefore not considered 

production from R&D and pilot-scale 

facilities in our projection of cellulosic 

biofuel production for 2019. 

From this list of commercial-scale 

facilities capable of producing liquid 

cellulosic biofuel, we used information 

from EMTS, the registration status of 

potential biofuel production facilities as 

cellulosic biofuel producers in the RFS 

program, publicly available information 

(including press releases and news 

reports), and information provided by 

representatives of potential cellulosic 

biofuel producers, to make a 

determination of which facilities are 

most likely to produce liquid cellulosic 

biofuel and generate cellulosic biofuel 

RINs in 2019. Each of these companies 

was investigated further in order to 

determine the current status of its 

facilities and its likely cellulosic biofuel 

production and RIN generation volumes 

for 2019. Both in our discussions with 

representatives of individual companies 

and as part of our internal evaluation 

process we gathered and analyzed 

information including, but not limited 

to, the funding status of these facilities, 

current status of the production 

technologies, anticipated construction 

and production ramp-up periods, 

facility registration status, and annual 

fuel production and RIN generation 

targets. 

As an initial matter, it is useful to 

review the accuracy of EPA’s past 

cellulosic biofuel projections. EPA used 

a consistent methodology to project 

cellulosic biofuel production in the final 

three months of 2015 and all of 2016 

and 2017.36 The record of actual 

production indicates that EPA’s 

projection was lower than the actual 

number of cellulosic RINs made 

available in 2015,37 and higher than the 

actual number of RINs made available in 

2016 and 2017.38 The fact that the 

projections made using this 

methodology have been somewhat 

inaccurate, under-estimating the actual 

number of RINs made available in 2015 

and over-estimating in 2016 and 2017, 

reflects the inherent difficulty with 

projecting cellulosic biofuel production. 

It also emphasizes the importance of 

continuing to make refinements to our 

projection methodology in order to 

make our projections more accurate. 

EPA’s projections of liquid cellulosic 

biofuel were higher than the actual 

volume of liquid cellulosic biofuel 

produced in 2015–2017. As a result of 

these over-projections, and in an effort 

to take into account the most recent data 

available and make the liquid cellulosic 

biofuel projections more accurate, EPA 

adjusted our methodology in the 2018 

final rule.39 In this 2019 proposed rule 

we are once again using adjusted 

percentile values to project liquid 

cellulosic biofuel production based on 

actual liquid cellulosic biofuel 

production in 2016 and 2017. Use of 

this updated data also results in 

different percentile values than we used 

to project production of liquid cellulosic 

biofuel for 2018. We believe that the use 

of the methodology (described in 

Section III.C.1 below), with the adjusted 

percentile values used to project 

production volumes for liquid cellulosic 

biofuels, results in a projection that 

reflects a neutral aim at accuracy since 

it accounts for expected growth in the 

near future by using historical data that 

is free of any subjective bias. At this 

time, we do not have sufficient data to 

assess the accuracy of this methodology 

to project cellulosic biofuel production 

for 2018, however we anticipate that for 

the final rule we will assess the 

accuracy of this methodology in 

projecting liquid cellulosic biofuel in 

2018 and will make adjustments where 

appropriate. 

We next turn to the projection of 

CNG/LNG derived from biogas. For 

2018, EPA used for the first time an 

industry-wide approach, rather than an 

approach that projects volumes for 

individual companies or facilities, to 

project the production of CNG/LNG 

derived from biogas. This updated 

approach reflects the fact that this 

industry is far more mature than the 

liquid cellulosic biofuel industry, and 

that there are a large number of facilities 

registered to generate cellulosic biofuel 

RINs from biogas, rendering a facilityby-facility analysis difficult and 

unnecessary for purposes of accuracy. 

As described in Section III.C.2 below, 

EPA is again proposing to project 

production of CNG/LNG derived from 

biogas by calculating a year-over-year 

rate of growth in the renewable CNG/ 

LNG industry by comparing RIN 

generation for CNG/LNG derived from 

biogas from April 2016–March 2017 to 

the RIN generation for these same fuels 

from April 2017–March 2018 (the most 

recent month for which data are 

available). We then apply this year-overyear growth rate to the total number of 

cellulosic RINs available for compliance 

from CNG/LNG in 2017 (the most recent 

year for which complete data are 

available), to estimate the production of 

CNG/LNG derived from biogas in 2019. 

The remainder of this section 

describes in more detail the 

methodology EPA is using to project 

cellulosic biofuel production in 2019 

(including a review of cellulosic biofuel 

production and the accuracy of the 

projection methodology in previous 

years). 

1. Potential Domestic Producers 

There are several companies and 

facilities 40 located in the U.S. that have 

either already begun producing 

cellulosic biofuel for use as 

transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet 

fuel at a commercial scale, or are 

anticipated to be in a position to do so 

at some time during 2019. The financial 

incentive provided by cellulosic biofuel 

RINs,41 combined with the fact that to 

date nearly all cellulosic biofuel 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32033 

42The only known exception was a small volume 

of fuel produced at a demonstration scale facility 

exported to be used for promotional purposes. 43Most of the facilities listed in Table III.B.3–1 

are registered to produce cellulosic (D3 or D7) RINs 

with the exception of several of the producers of 

CNG/LNG derived from biogas and Ensyn’s PortCartier, Quebec facility. 44 ‘‘Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Company 

Descriptions (May 2018),’’ memorandum from 

Dallas Burkholder to EPA Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2018–0167. 

45EPA has consistently interpreted the term 

‘‘projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production’’ 

in CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) to include volumes 

of cellulosic biofuel likely to be made available in 

the U.S., including from both domestic production 

and imports (see 80 FR 77420 (December 14, 2015) 

and 81 FR 89746 (December 12, 2016)). We do not 

believe it would be reasonable to include in the 

projection all cellulosic biofuel produced 

throughout the world, regardless of likelihood of 

import to the U.S., since volumes that are not 

imported would not be available to obligated parties 

for compliance and including them in the 

projection would render the resulting volume 

requirement and percentage standards 

unachievable. 

46 ‘‘Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Company 

Descriptions (May 2018),’’ memorandum from 

Dallas Burkholder to EPA Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2018–0167. 

produced in the U.S. has been used 

domestically 42 and all the domestic 

facilities we have contacted in deriving 

our projections intend to produce fuel 

on a commercial scale for domestic 

consumption and plan to use approved 

pathways, gives us a high degree of 

confidence that cellulosic biofuel RINs 

will be generated for any fuel produced 

by domestic commercial scale facilities. 

In order to generate RINs, each of these 

facilities must be registered with EPA 

under the RFS program and comply 

with all the regulatory requirements. 

This includes using an approved RINgenerating pathway and verifying that 

their feedstocks meet the definition of 

renewable biomass. Most of the 

domestic companies and facilities 

considered in our assessment of 

potential cellulosic biofuel producers in 

2018 have already successfully 

completed facility registration, and have 

successfully generated RINs.43 A brief 

description of each of the domestic 

companies (or group of companies for 

cellulosic CNG/LNG producers) that 

EPA believes may produce commercialscale volumes of RIN generating 

cellulosic biofuel by the end of 2019 can 

be found in a memorandum to the 

docket for this final rule.44 General 

information on each of these companies 

or group of companies considered in our 

projection of the potentially available 

volume of cellulosic biofuel in 2019 is 

summarized in Table III.B.3–1 below. 

2. Potential Foreign Sources of 

Cellulosic Biofuel 

In addition to the potential sources of 

cellulosic biofuel located in the U.S., 

there are several foreign cellulosic 

biofuel companies that may produce 

cellulosic biofuel in 2019. These 

include facilities owned and operated 

by Beta Renewables, Enerkem, Ensyn, 

GranBio, and Raizen. All of these 

facilities use fuel production pathways 

that have been approved by EPA for 

cellulosic RIN generation provided 

eligible sources of renewable feedstock 

are used and other regulatory 

requirements are satisfied. These 

companies would therefore be eligible 

to register their facilities under the RFS 

program and generate RINs for any 

qualifying fuel imported into the U.S. 

While these facilities may be able to 

generate RINs for any volumes of 

cellulosic biofuel they import into the 

U.S., demand for the cellulosic biofuels 

they produce is expected to be high in 

their own local markets. 

In addition to projecting the domestic 

production of cellulosic biofuel, EPA 

also projects the volume of cellulosic 

biofuel that will be imported into the 

U.S.45 For the purposes of this final rule 

we have considered all the registered 

foreign facilities under the RFS program 

to be potential sources of cellulosic 

biofuel in 2019. We believe that due to 

the strong demand for cellulosic biofuel 

in local markets, the significant 

technical challenges associated with the 

operation of cellulosic biofuel facilities, 

and the time necessary for potential 

foreign cellulosic biofuel producers to 

register under the RFS program and 

arrange for the importation of cellulosic 

biofuel to the U.S., cellulosic biofuel 

imports from foreign facilities not 

currently registered to generate 

cellulosic biofuel RINs are generally 

highly unlikely in 2019. For purposes of 

our 2019 cellulosic biofuel projection 

we have, with one exception (described 

below), excluded potential volumes 

from foreign cellulosic biofuel 

production facilities that are not 

currently registered under the RFS 

program. 

Cellulosic biofuel produced at three 

foreign facilities (Ensyn’s Renfrew 

facility, GranBio’s Brazilian facility, and 

Raizen’s Brazilian facility) generated 

cellulosic biofuel RINs for fuel exported 

to the U.S. in 2017; projected volumes 

from each of these facilities are included 

in our projection of available volumes 

for 2019. EPA has also included 

projected volume from two additional 

foreign facilities. One of these facilities 

has completed the registration process 

as a cellulosic biofuel producer 

(Enerkem’s Canadian facility). The other 

facility (Ensyn’s Port-Cartier, Quebec 

facility), while not yet registered as a 

cellulosic biofuel producer, is owned by 

a Ensyn, a company that has previously 

generated cellulosic biofuel RINs using 

the same technology at a different 

facility. We believe that it is appropriate 

to include volume from these facilities 

in light of their proximity to the U.S., 

the proven technology used by these 

facilities, the volumes of cellulosic 

biofuel exported to the U.S. by the 

company in previous years (in the case 

of Ensyn), and the company’s stated 

intentions to market fuel produced at 

these facilities to qualifying markets in 

the U.S. All of the facilities included in 

EPA’s cellulosic biofuel projection for 

2019 are listed in Table III.B.3–1 below. 

3. Summary of Volume Projections for 

Individual Companies 

General information on each of the 

cellulosic biofuel producers (or group of 

producers in the case of producers of 

CNG/LNG derived from biogas and 

liquid cellulosic biofuel facilities using 

Edeniq’s technology) that factored into 

our projection of cellulosic biofuel 

production for 2019 is shown in Table 

III.B.3–1. This table includes both 

facilities that have already generated 

cellulosic RINs, as well as those that 

have not yet generated cellulosic RINs, 

but are projected to do so by the end of 

2019. As discussed above, we have 

focused on commercial-scale cellulosic 

biofuel production facilities. Each of 

these facilities (or group of facilities) is 

discussed further in a memorandum to 

the docket.46


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
32034 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

47The Facility Capacity is generally equal to the 

nameplate capacity provided to EPA by company 

representatives or found in publicly available 

information. Capacities are listed in physical 

gallons (rather than ethanol-equivalent gallons). If 

the facility has completed registration and the total 

permitted capacity is lower than the nameplate 

capacity then this lower volume is used as the 

facility capacity. For companies generating RINs for 

CNG/LNG derived from biogas the Facility Capacity 

is equal to the lower of the annualized rate of 

production of CNG/LNG from the facility at the 

time of facility registration or the sum of the volume 

of contracts in place for the sale of CNG/LNG for 

use as transportation fuel (reported as the actual 

peak capacity for these producers). 

48Where a quarter is listed for the first production 

date EPA has assumed production begins in the 

middle month of the quarter (i.e., August for the 3rd 

quarter) for the purposes of projecting volumes. 49For more information on these facilities see 

‘‘May 2018 Assessment of Cellulosic Biofuel 

Production from Biogas (2019),’’ memorandum from 

Dallas Burkholder to EPA Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2018–0167. 50The nameplate capacity of Enerkem’s facility is 

10 million gallons per year. However, we anticipate 

that a portion of their feedstock will be nonbiogenic MSW. RINs cannot be generated for the 

portion of the fuel produced from non-biogenic 

feedstocks. We have taken this into account in our 

production projection for this facility (See ‘‘May 

2018 Liquid Cellulosic Biofuel Projections for 2018 

CBI’’). 

51This date reflects the first production of ethanol 

from this facility. The facility began production of 

methanol in 2015. 

52 ‘‘May 2018 Liquid Cellulosic Biofuel 

Projections for 2018 CBI’’ and ‘‘Calculating the 

Percentile Values Used to Project Liquid Cellulosic 

Biofuel Production for the 2019 NPRM,’’ 

memorandums from Dallas Burkholder to EPA 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0167. 

53Consistent with previous years, we have 

considered whether there is reason to believe any 

of the facilities considered as potential cellulosic 

biofuel producers for 2019 is likely to produce a 

smaller volume of cellulosic biofuel in 2019 than 

in the previous 12 months for which data are 

available. At this time, EPA is not aware of any 

information that would indicate lower production 

in 2019 from any facility considered than in the 

previous 12 months for which data are available. 

54As in our 2015–2018 projections, EPA 

calculated a high end of the range for each facility 

(or group of facilities) based on the expected startup date and a six-month straight line ramp-up 

period. The high end of the range for each facility 

(or group of facilities) is equal to the value 

calculated by EPA using this methodology, or the 

number of RINs the producer expects to generate in 

2019, whichever is lower. 

55More information on the data and methods EPA 

used to calculate each of the ranges in these tables 

in contained in ‘‘May 2018 Liquid Cellulosic 

Biofuel Projections for 2018 CBI’’ memorandum 

from Dallas Burkholder to EPA Docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2018–0167. We have not shown the projected 

ranges for each individual company. This is 

because the high end of the range for some of these 

companies are based on the company’s production 

projections, which they consider confidential 

business information (CBI). Additionally, the low 

end of the range for facilities that have achieved 

consistent commercial scale production is based on 

actual RIN generation data in the most recent 12 

months, with is also claimed as CBI. EPA has 

included additional information on the calculations 

used to define the production ranges, including the 

production ranges for each individual company or 

facility, in a memo to the docket, ‘‘May 2018 Liquid 

Cellulosic Biofuel Projections for 2018 CBI’’. 

TABLE III.B.3–1—PROJECTED PRODUCERS OF CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL IN 2019 

Company name Location Feedstock Fuel 

Facility 

capacity 

(million 

gallons 

per year) 47

Construction 

start date First production 48

CNG/LNG Producers 49 ......... Various .................................. Biogas ................................... CNG/LNG ..... Various ......... Various ......... August 2014. 

Edeniq ................................... Various .................................. Corn Kernel Fiber .................. Ethanol ......... Various ......... Various ......... October 2016. 

Enerkem ................................ Edmonton, AL, Canada ......... Separated MSW .................... Ethanol ......... 10 50 .............. 2012 .............. September 2017.51

Ensyn ..................................... Renfrew, ON, Canada ........... Wood Waste .......................... Heating Oil .... 3 .................... 2005 .............. 2014. 

Ensyn ..................................... Port-Cartier, QC, Canada ..... Wood Waste .......................... Heating Oil .... 10.5 ............... June 2016 ..... January 2018. 

Envia Energy ......................... Oklahoma City, OK ............... Biogas ................................... Diesel ............ 2 .................... May 2015 ...... February 2017. 

GranBio ................................. Sa ̃o Miguel dos Campos, 

Brazil.

Sugarcane bagasse .............. Ethanol ......... 21 .................. Mid 2012 ....... September 2014. 

Poet-DSM .............................. Emmetsburg, IA .................... Corn Stover ........................... Ethanol ......... 20 .................. March 2012 .. 4Q 2015. 

QCCP .................................... Galva, IA ............................... Corn Kernel Fiber .................. Ethanol ......... 4 .................... Late 2013 ..... October 2014. 

Raizen ................................... Piracicaba City, Brazil ........... Sugarcane bagasse .............. Ethanol ......... 11 .................. January 2014 July 2015. 

C. Cellulosic Biofuel Volume for 2019 

1. Liquid Cellulosic Biofuel 

For our 2019 liquid cellulosic biofuel 

projection, we use the same general 

approach as we have in projecting these 

volumes in previous years. We begin by 

first categorizing potential liquid 

cellulosic biofuel producers in 2019 

according to whether or not they have 

achieved consistent commercial scale 

production of cellulosic biofuel to date. 

Next we define a range of likely 

production volumes for 2019 for each 

group of companies. Finally, we use a 

percentile value to project from the 

established range a single projected 

production volume for each group of 

companies in 2019. As in 2018, we are 

proposing to calculate percentile values 

for each group of companies based on 

the past performance of each group 

relative to our projected production 

ranges. This methodology is briefly 

described here, and is described in 

detail in memoranda to the docket.52

Consistent with our approach in 

previous years, we separated the list of 

potential producers of cellulosic biofuel 

(listed in Table III.B.3–1) into two 

groups according to whether the 

facilities have achieved consistent 

commercial-scale production and 

cellulosic biofuel RIN generation. We 

next defined a range of likely 

production volumes for each group of 

potential cellulosic biofuel producers. 

The low end of the range for each group 

of producers reflects actual RIN 

generation data over the last 12 months 

for which data are available at the time 

our technical assessment was completed 

(April 2017–March 2018).53 For 

potential producers that have not yet 

generated any cellulosic RINs, the low 

end of the range is zero. For the high 

end of the range of production volumes 

for companies expected to produce 

liquid cellulosic biofuel we considered 

a variety of factors, including the 

expected start-up date and ramp-up 

period, facility capacity, and the 

number of RINs the producer expects to 

generate in 2019.54 The projected range 

for the groups of companies considered 

in our 2019 cellulosic biofuel projection 

are shown in Tables III.C.1–1 and 

III.C.1–2 below.55


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32035 

56Actual production is calculated by subtracting 

RINs retired for any reason other than compliance 

with the RFS standards from the total number of 

cellulosic RINs generated. 

57Companies characterized as new producers in 

the 2014–2016 and 2017 final rules were as follows: 

Abengoa (2016), CoolPlanet (2016), DuPont (2016, 

2017), Edeniq (2016, 2017), GranBio (2016, 2017), 

IneosBio (2016), and Poet (2016, 2017). 

58Companies characterized as consistent 

producers in the 2014–2016 and 2017 final rules 

were as follows: Ensyn (2016 and 2017) and Quad 

County Corn Processors (2016 and 2017). 

59 In the 2018 final rule EPA used the 10th and 

12th percentile for new facilities and consistent 

producers respectively. The slightly higher 

percentile values used to project liquid cellulosic 

biofuel production in 2019 reflect additional 

production data from the fourth quarter of 2017 that 

was not available at the time the analyses were 

completed for the 2018 final rule. For more detail 

on the calculation of the percentile values used in 

this proposed rule see ‘‘Calculating the Percentile 

Values Used to Project Liquid Cellulosic Biofuel 

Production for the 2019 NPRM,’’ available in EPA 

docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0167. 

TABLE III.C.1–1—2019 PRODUCTION RANGES FOR LIQUID CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL PRODUCERS WITHOUT CONSISTENT

COMMERCIAL SCALE PRODUCTION

[Million ethanol-equivalent gallons] 

Companies included Low end of 

the range 

High end of 

the range a

Enerkem, Ensyn (Port Cartier facility), Envia Energy ............................................................................................. 0 18 

a Rounded to the nearest million gallons. 

TABLE III.C.1–2—2019 PRODUCTION RANGES FOR LIQUID CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL PRODUCERS WITH CONSISTENT

COMMERCIAL SCALE PRODUCTION

[Million ethanol-equivalent gallons] 

Companies included Low end of 

the range a

High end of 

the range b

Facilities using Edeniq’s technology (registered facilities), Ensyn (Renfrew facility), Poet-DSM, GranBio, Quad 

County Corn Processors, Raizen ........................................................................................................................ 15 56 

a Rounded to the nearest million gallons. 

After defining likely production 

ranges for each group of companies we 

next considered the percentile values to 

use in projecting a production volume 

for each group of companies. In this 

proposed rule we have calculated the 

percentile values used to project liquid 

cellulosic biofuel production from 

within the range of projected production 

values, using data on actual liquid 

cellulosic biofuel production from both 

2016 and 2017. This is consistent with 

the approach taken in the 2018 final 

rule, however we now have complete 

data from 2017, rather than only data 

through September 2017. For the final 

rule we anticipate using available 

production data from 2018 to make 

further adjustments to the percentile 

values used to project liquid cellulosic 

biofuel production for 2019. 

The projected ranges for liquid 

cellulosic biofuel production in 2016 

and 2017, along with the actual number 

of cellulosic RINs generated in each year 

that are/were available for compliance, 

and the percentile values that would 

have resulted in a projection equal to 

the actual production volume are shown 

in Table III.C.1–3 below. 

TABLE III.C.1–3—PROJECTED AND ACTUAL LIQUID CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL PRODUCTION IN 2016 AND 2017 

[Million gallons] 

l Low end of 

the range 

High end of 

the range 

Actual 

production 56

Actual 

percentile 

New Facilities: 57

2016 .......................................................................................................... 0 76 1.06 1st 

2017 .......................................................................................................... 0 33 8.79 27th 

Average a .................................................................................................. N/A N/A N/A 14th 

Consistent Producers 58

2016 .......................................................................................................... 2 5 3.28 43rd 

2017 .......................................................................................................... 3.5 7 3.02 ¥14th 

Average a .......................................................................................................... N/A N/A N/A 15th 

aWe have not averaged the low and high ends of the ranges, or actual production, as we believe it is more appropriate to average the actual 

percentiles from 2016 and 2017 rather than calculating a percentile value for 2016 and 2017 in aggregate. This approach gives equal weight to 

the accuracy of our projections from 2016 and 2017, rather than allowing the average percentiles calculated to be dominated by years with greater projected volumes. 

For this proposed rule EPA has 

projected cellulosic biofuel production 

from facilities that have not yet 

achieved consistent commercial scale 

production at the 14th percentile of the 

calculated range and projected 

cellulosic biofuel production from 

facilities that have achieved commercial 

scale production at the 15th 

percentile.59 These percentiles are 

calculated by averaging the percentiles 

that would have produced cellulosic 

biofuel projections equal to the volumes 

produced by each group of companies 

in 2016 and 2017. We have not 

considered data from years prior to 

2016, as prior to 2016 a different 

methodology was used to project 

available volumes of cellulosic biofuel. 

In determining the percentile values to 

use for 2019 we have decided to weight 

the observed actual percentile values 

from 2016 and 2017 equally. While the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
32036 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

60For example, rather than weighting the 

percentiles that would have resulted in the actual 

production volumes in 2016 and 2017 equally, EPA 

could first aggregate the projected ranges for 

companies with and without consistent commercial 

scale production for 2016 and 2017 (5.5 million–12 

million and 0–109 million respectively) and then 

use the combined production volumes for 2016 and 

2017 for each group (6.3 million and 9.8 million 

respectively) to calculate percentile values for each 

group of companies for 2019. This would result in 

slightly different percentile values (12th percentile 

for companies with consistent production and the 

9th percentile for companies without consistent 

production). 

61Historically RIN generation for CNG/LNG 

derived from biogas has increased each year. It is 

possible, however, that RIN generation for these 

fuels in the most recent 12 months for which data 

are available could be lower than the preceding 12 

months. We believe our methodology accounts for 

this possibility. In such a case, the calculated rate 

of growth would be negative. 

percentile value from 2017 represents 

the most recent data available, it is also 

dependent on the performance of a 

relatively small number of companies in 

a single year. Using data from multiple 

years is likely more representative of the 

future performance of these groups of 

companies than data from any single 

year. For the final rule we anticipate 

using available production data from 

2018 (likely January–September), along 

with updated production projections for 

months in which data is not available 

(likely October–December) to make 

further adjustments to the percentile 

values used to project liquid cellulosic 

biofuel production for 2019. We propose 

using production volumes for months 

for which data is not available (likely 

October–December 2018) in a similar 

manner to the way we projected 

production volumes for months in 

which data were not available in the 

2018 final rule (based on available 

historical data along with seasonal 

production trends; see ‘‘Calculating the 

Percentile Values Used to Project Liquid 

Cellulosic Biofuel Production for 2018, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0091). We request 

comment on this projection 

methodology, as well as the 

appropriateness of using data from 2018 

to adjust the percentile values used to 

projection liquid cellulosic biofuel 

production for 2019. We believe that 

adjusting the percentile values used in 

this final rule will improve the accuracy 

of the production projection and will 

further EPA’s objective to project 

volumes with a ‘‘neutral aim at 

accuracy.’’ We request comment on the 

data that should be used to calculate the 

percentile values used to project liquid 

cellulosic biofuel production in 2019 

(e.g. whether we should use data from 

2016–2018, or just a sub-set of this data) 

and how to weight data from each of 

these years.60

Finally, we used these percentile 

values, together with the ranges 

determined for each group of companies 

discussed above, to project a volume for 

each group of companies in 2019. These 

calculations are summarized in Table 

III.C.1–4 below. 

TABLE III.C.1–4—PROJECTED VOLUME OF LIQUID CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL IN 2019 

[Million ethanol-equivalent gallons] 

Low end of 

the range a

High end of 

the range a Percentile Projected 

volume a

Liquid Cellulosic Biofuel Producers; Producers without Consistent Commercial Scale Production ................................................................................... 0 18 14th 3 

Liquid Cellulosic Biofuel Producers; Producers with Consistent Commercial 

Scale Production .......................................................................................... 15 56 15th 21 

Total .......................................................................................................... N/A N/A N/A 24 

aVolumes rounded to the nearest million gallons. 

EPA also considered whether it would 

be appropriate to modify other 

individual components of the past 

methodology for projecting liquid 

cellulosic biofuel (such as the factors 

used to calculate the high or low end of 

the projected range for each company), 

but we do not believe that such changes 

are warranted at this time. Making the 

adjustment to the percentile values used 

in the methodology while keeping other 

components of the methodology 

constant should, we believe, provide an 

appropriate refinement of the 

methodology that reflects recent 

experience. We acknowledge, however, 

that using the calculated percentile 

values from previous years to project 

liquid cellulosic biofuel production in 

future years does not eliminate the 

possibility that actual production will 

differ from our projections. This is 

especially true for the liquid cellulosic 

biofuel industry, which is currently in 

the early stages of commercialization. 

Nevertheless, based on the record before 

us, we believe the ranges of projected 

production volumes for each company 

(or group of companies for those using 

the Edeniq technology) are reasonable, 

and that projecting overall production 

in 2019 in the manner described above 

results in a neutral estimate (neither 

biased to produce a projection that is 

too high or too low) of likely liquid 

cellulosic biofuel production in 2019 

(24 million gallons). 

2. CNG/LNG Derived From Biogas 

For 2019, EPA is using the same 

methodology as in the 2018 final rule, 

an industry wide projected based on a 

year-over-year growth rate, to project 

production of CNG/LNG derived from 

biogas used as transportation fuel.61 For 

this proposed rule, EPA has calculated 

the year-over-year growth rate in CNG/ 

LNG derived from biogas by comparing 

RIN generation from April 2017–March 

2018 (the most recent 12 months for 

which data are available) to RIN 

generation in the 12 months that 

immediately precede this time period 

(April 2016–March 2017). These RIN 

generation volumes are shown in Table 

III.C.2–1 below. 

TABLE III.C.2–1—GENERATION OF CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL RINS FOR CNG/LNG DERIVED FROM BIOGAS

[Million gallons] 62

RIN Generation (April 2016–March 2017) RIN Generation (April 2017–March 2018) Year-Over-Year Increase 

189 247 30.5% 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32037 

62Further detail on the data used to calculate 

each of these numbers in this table, as well as the 

projected volume of CNG/LNG derived from biogas 

used as transportation fuel in 2019 can be found in 

‘‘May 2018 Assessment of Cellulosic Biofuel 

Production from Biogas (2019)’’ memorandum from 

Dallas Burkholder to EPA Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2018–0167. 

63To calculate this value, EPA multiplied the 

number of 2018 RINs projected to be generated for 

CNG/LNG derived from biogas in the 2018 final rule 

(274 million), see 82 FR 58502–03, by 1.305 

(representing a 30.5 percent year-over-year 

increase). 

64EPA projects that 580 million ethanolequivalent gallons of CNG/LNG will be used as 

transportation fuel in 2019 based on EIA’s March 

2018 Short Term Energy Outlook (STEO). To 

calculate this estimate, EPA used the Natural Gas 

Vehicle Use from the STEO Custom Table Builder 

(0.13 billion cubic feet/day in 2019). This projection 

includes all CNG/LNG used as transportation fuel 

from both renewable and non-renewable sources. 

EIA does not project the amount of CNG/LNG from 

biogas used as transportation fuel. To convert 

billion cubic feet/day to ethanol-equivalent gallons 

EPA used conversion factors of 946.5 BTU per cubic 

foot of natural gas (lower heating value, per 

calculations using ASTM D1945 and D3588) and 

77,000 BTU of natural gas per ethanol-equivalent 

gallon per § 80.1415(b)(5). 

65 ‘‘Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Company 

Descriptions (May 2018),’’ memorandum from 

Dallas Burkholder to EPA Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2018–0167. In the case of cellulosic biofuel 

produced from CNG/LNG and facilities using 

Edeniq’s technology, we have discussed the 

production potential from these facilities as a group 

rather than individually. 

EPA then applied this 30.5 percent 

year-over-year growth rate to the total 

number of 2018 cellulosic RINs 

projected to be generated for CNG/LNG 

in the 2018 final rule. This methodology 

results in a projection of 358 million 

gallons of CNG/LNG derived from 

biogas in 2019.63 We believe that 

projecting the production of CNG/LNG 

derived from biogas in this manner 

appropriately takes into consideration 

the actual recent rate of growth of this 

industry, and that this growth rate 

accounts for both the potential for future 

growth and the challenges associated 

with increasing RIN generation from 

these fuels in future years. This 

methodology may not be appropriate to 

use as the projected volume of CNG/ 

LNG derived from biogas approaches 

the total volume of CNG/LNG that is 

used as transportation fuel, as RINs can 

be generated only for CNG/LNG used as 

transportation fuel. We do not believe 

that this is yet a constraint, however, as 

our projection for 2019 is well below the 

total volume of CNG/LNG that is 

currently used as transportation fuel.64

We request comment on estimates of the 

volume of CNG/LNG likely to be used 

as transportation fuel in 2019, as well as 

the ability of the CNG/LNG market to 

provide the documentation necessary to 

verify the use of this fuel as 

transportation fuel. 

EPA has also reviewed data submitted 

by potential producers of CNG/LNG 

derived from biogas that is used as 

transportation fuel. The total volume of 

CNG/LNG derived from biogas projected 

to be produced in 2019 by the potential 

producers of these fuels exceeds the 

volume that EPA is projecting for 2019. 

Since producers of CNG/LNG derived 

from biogas have historically overestimated their production of these 

fuels, it would not be appropriate to 

simply adopt this projection for 2019. 

The fact that the industry projections 

exceed EPA’s projected volume, 

however, indicates that the volume of 

these fuels projected for 2019 can be 

satisfied by a combination of projects 

currently producing CNG/LNG derived 

from biogas for these purposes and 

projects expected to product biogas by 

the end of 2019. 

We believe that while our projection 

methodology uses a growth rate based 

on historical data it adequately 

anticipates higher production volumes 

in future years, including both increased 

production from existing facilities as 

well as production from new facilities. 

In this way it satisfies our charge to 

project future cellulosic biofuel 

production in a reasonable manner, and 

with neutrality, despite the fact that it 

does not consider all potential 

producers of these fuels on a facility-byfacility basis. For the final rule we 

anticipate using all available data from 

2018 to update both the year-over-year 

increase as well as the projected 

production volume of cellulosic biofuel 

for 2018 to which we apply the yearover-year increase to project the 

production of CNG/LNG derived from 

biogas in 2019. 

3. Total Cellulosic Biofuel in 2019 

After projecting production of 

cellulosic biofuel from liquid cellulosic 

biofuel production facilities and 

producers of CNG/LNG derived from 

biogas, EPA combined these projections 

to project total cellulosic biofuel 

production for 2019. These projections 

are shown in Table III.C.3–1. Using the 

methodologies described in this section, 

we project that 381 million ethanolequivalent gallons of cellulosic biofuel 

will be produced in 2019. We believe 

that projecting overall production in 

2019 in the manner described above 

results in a neutral estimate (neither 

biased to produce a projection that is 

too high nor too low) of likely cellulosic 

biofuel production in 2019. 

TABLE III.C.3–1—PROJECTED VOLUME OF CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL IN 2019 

[Million gallons] 

Projected 

volume a

Liquid Cellulosic Biofuel Producers; Producers without Consistent Commercial Scale Production ................................................... 3 

Liquid Cellulosic Biofuel Producers; Producers with Consistent Commercial Scale Production ........................................................ 21 

CNG/LNG Derived from Biogas .......................................................................................................................................................... 358 

Total .............................................................................................................................................................................................. b 381 

aVolumes rounded to the nearest million gallons. 

bTotal projection of cellulosic biofuel appears less than the sum of the projected volume for each group of companies due to rounding 

Further discussion of the individual 

companies we believe will produce 

cellulosic biofuel and make it 

commercially available in 2019 can be 

found in a memorandum to the 

docket.65 We request comment on this 

projection of cellulosic biofuel 

production for 2019, including the 

various aspects of the methodology used 

to project production of both liquid 

cellulosic biofuels and CNG/LNG 

derived from biogas. 

IV. Advanced Biofuel and Total 

Renewable Fuel Volumes for 2019 

The national volume targets for 

advanced biofuel and total renewable 

fuel to be used under the RFS program 

each year through 2022 are specified in 

CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) and (II). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
32038 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

66For instance, see 81 FR 89750 (December 12, 

2016). 

67While sugarcane ethanol, as well as a number 

of other fuel types, can also contribute to the supply 

of advanced biofuel, in recent years supply of these 

other advanced biofuels has been considerably 

lower than supply of advanced biodiesel or 

renewable diesel. See Table IV.B.3–1. 

68 ‘‘Affirmative Final Antidumping Duty 

Determinations on Biodiesel From Argentina and 

Indonesia,’’ available in docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2018–0167. 

69 ‘‘US adds more duties on biodiesel from 

Argentina & Indonesia,’’ Reuters article available in 

docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0167. 

Congress set annual renewable fuel 

volume targets that envisioned growth 

at a pace that far exceeded historical 

growth and, for years after 2011, 

prioritized that growth as occurring 

principally in advanced biofuels 

(contrary to previous growth patterns 

where most growth was in conventional 

renewable fuel). Congressional intent is 

evident in the fact that the implied 

statutory volume for conventional 

renewable fuel is 15 billion gallons for 

all years after 2014, while the advanced 

volumes, driven largely by growth in 

cellulosic volumes, continue to grow 

each year through 2022 to a total of 21 

billion gallons. 

Due to a shortfall in reasonably 

attainable volumes of cellulosic and 

advanced biofuel, and consistent with 

our long-held interpretation of the 

cellulosic waiver authority as best 

interpreted and applied by providing 

equal reductions in advanced biofuel 

and total renewable fuel, we are 

proposing a reduction from the statutory 

volumes for both advanced biofuel and 

total renewable fuel for 2019 using the 

full extent of the cellulosic waiver 

authority. 

In this Section we discuss our 

proposed use of the discretion afforded 

by the cellulosic waiver authority at 

CAA 211(o)(7)(D)(i) to reduce volumes 

of advanced biofuel and total renewable 

fuel. We first discuss our assessment of 

advanced biofuel and the considerations 

which have led us to conclude that the 

advanced biofuel volume target in the 

statute should be reduced by the full 

amount permitted under the cellulosic 

waiver authority. We then address total 

renewable fuel in the context of our 

interpretation, articulated in previous 

annual rulemakings, that advanced 

biofuel and total renewable fuel should 

be reduced by the same amount under 

the cellulosic waiver authority. 

To begin, we have evaluated the 

capabilities of the market and are 

proposing to find that the 13.0 billion 

gallons specified in the statute for 

advanced biofuel cannot be reached in 

2019. This is primarily due to the 

expected continued shortfall in 

cellulosic biofuel; production of this 

fuel type has consistently fallen short of 

the statutory targets by 95 percent or 

more, and as described in Section III, we 

project that it will fall far short of the 

statutory target of 8.5 billion gallons in 

2019. For this and other reasons 

described in this section we are 

proposing to reduce the advanced 

biofuel statutory target by the full 

amount of the shortfall in cellulosic 

biofuel for 2019. 

In previous years when we have used 

the cellulosic waiver authority, we have 

determined the appropriate amount of 

the permissible waiver to apply to 

advanced biofuel by taking into account 

the availability of advanced biofuels, 

their energy security and GHG impacts, 

the availability of carryover RINs, the 

apparent intent of Congress as reflected 

in the statutory volumes tables to 

substantially increase the use of 

advanced biofuels over time, as well as 

factors such as increased costs 

associated with the use of advanced 

biofuels and the reduced benefits likely 

associated with use of advanced 

volumes achieved through diversion of 

foreign fuels or substitution of advanced 

feedstocks from other uses to biofuel 

production. Until the 2018 standards 

rule, the consideration of these factors 

led us to conclude that it was 

appropriate to set the advanced biofuel 

standard in a manner that would allow 

the partial backfilling of missing 

cellulosic volumes with non-cellulosic 

advanced biofuels.66 For the 2018 

standards, we placed a greater emphasis 

on cost considerations in the context of 

balancing the various considerations, 

ultimately concluding that partial 

backfilling with non-cellulosic 

advanced biofuels was not warranted 

and the applicable volume requirement 

for advanced biofuel should be based on 

the maximum reduction permitted 

under the cellulosic waiver authority. 

Although we continue to believe that 

the factors earlier considered in 

exercising the cellulosic waiver 

authority are relevant and appropriate, 

we project that there will be insufficient 

reasonably attainable volumes of noncellulosic biofuels in 2019 to allow any 

backfilling for missing volumes of 

cellulosic biofuel. As a result of this 

projection and our proposed 

consideration of carryover RINs, we are 

proposing to reduce the statutory 

volume target for advanced biofuel by 

the same amount as the reduction in 

cellulosic biofuel. This would result in 

the non-cellulosic component of the 

advanced biofuel volume requirement 

being equal to the implied statutory 

volume of 4.5 billion gallons in 2019. 

We note that the predominant noncellulosic advanced biofuels available in 

the near term are advanced biodiesel 

and renewable diesel.67 We expect a 

decreasing rate of growth in the 

availability of feedstocks used to 

produce these fuel types, absent the 

diversion of these feedstocks from other 

uses. In addition, we expect 

diminishing GHG benefits and higher 

per gallon costs as the required volumes 

of advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel increase. These outcomes are a 

result of the fact that the lowest cost and 

most easily available feedstocks are 

typically used first, and each additional 

increment of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel requires the use of 

feedstocks that are incrementally more 

costly and/or more difficult to obtain. 

Moreover, to the extent that higher 

advanced biofuel requirements cannot 

be satisfied through growth in the 

production of advanced biofuel 

feedstocks, they would instead be 

satisfied through a re-direction of such 

feedstocks from competing uses. 

Products that were formerly produced 

using these feedstocks are likely to be 

replaced by products produced using 

the lowest cost alternatives, likely 

derived from palm or petroleum 

sources. This in turn could increase the 

lifecycle GHG emissions associated with 

these incremental volumes of noncellulosic advanced biofuel. There 

would also likely be market disruptions 

and increased burden associated with 

shifting feedstocks among the wide 

range of companies that are relying on 

them today and which have optimized 

their processes to use them. Higher 

advanced biofuel standards could also 

be satisfied by diversion of foreign 

advanced biofuel from foreign markets, 

and there would also likely be 

diminished benefits associated with 

such diversions. Taking these 

considerations into account, we believe, 

as discussed in more detail below, that 

we should exercise our discretion under 

the cellulosic waiver authority to set the 

advanced biofuel volume requirement at 

a level that would minimize such 

diversions. 

Furthermore, two other factors have 

added uncertainty regarding the volume 

of advanced biofuels that we project to 

be attainable in 2019. The first is the 

fact that the tax credit for biodiesel has 

not been renewed for 2019. The second 

is the final determination by the 

Department of Commerce that tariffs 

should be imposed on biodiesel imports 

from Argentina and Indonesia, and the 

potential for those tariffs to increase.68 69

Each of these factors is discussed in 

more detail in Section IV.B.2 below. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32039 

70When expressing volumes in billion gallons, 

we use standard rounding methods to two decimal 

places, as done in previous annual standard-setting 

rulemakings. Volumes are sometimes shown in 

million gallons for clarity, but with the exception 

of cellulosic biofuel it is volumes in billion gallons 

that are used to calculate the applicable percentage 

standards. For cellulosic biofuel, it is million 

gallons that are used to calculate the percentage 

standards. 

71CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i). 

72See ACE, 864 F.3d at 730–35 (citing Monroe, 

750 F.3d 909, 915–16). 

We believe that the factors and 

considerations noted above are all 

appropriate to consider under the broad 

discretion provided under the cellulosic 

waiver authority, and that consideration 

of these factors supports our proposed 

use of this authority. Many of the 

considerations discussed in this 

proposed rule are related to the 

availability of non-cellulosic advanced 

biofuels (e.g., historic data on domestic 

supply, expiration of the biodiesel 

blenders’ tax credit, potential imports of 

biodiesel in light of the Commerce 

Department’s determination on tariffs 

on biodiesel imports from Argentina 

and Indonesia, potential imports of 

sugarcane ethanol, and anticipated 

decreasing growth in production of 

feedstocks for advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel), while others focus on 

the potential benefits and costs of 

requiring use of available volumes (e.g., 

relative cost of advanced biofuels to the 

petroleum fuels they displace, GHG 

reduction benefits, and energy security 

benefits). As discussed in further detail 

in the following sections, EPA’s 

preliminary projection of the available 

volume of advanced biofuel in 2019 

suggests that while achieving the 

implied statutory volume for noncellulosic advanced biofuel in 2019 (4.5 

billion gallons) may be attainable, doing 

so would likely require a higher rate of 

growth in the domestic advanced 

biofuel industry than we have seen in 

recent years. This is especially true if 

the tariffs on biodiesel imported from 

Argentina and Indonesia result in 

decreased volumes of imported 

advanced biofuel in 2019. While it may 

also be possible that a volume of noncellulosic advanced biofuel greater than 

4.5 billion gallons may be attainable, 

this higher volume would very likely 

result in the diversion of advanced 

feedstocks from other uses or diversion 

of advanced biofuels from foreign 

sources. In that case, our preliminary 

assessment of other factors, such as cost 

and GHG impacts, indicate that it would 

not be appropriate to set the advanced 

biofuel volume requirement so as to 

require use of such volumes to partially 

backfill for missing cellulosic volumes. 

The impact of our exercise of the 

cellulosic waiver authority is that after 

waiving the cellulosic biofuel volume 

down to the projected available level, 

and applying the same volume 

reduction to the statutory volume target 

for advanced biofuel, the resulting 

volume requirement for advanced 

biofuel for 2019 would be 590 million 

gallons more than the applicable 

volume used to derive the 2018 

percentage standard. Furthermore, after 

applying the same reduction to the 

statutory volume target for total 

renewable fuel, the volume requirement 

for total renewable fuel would also be 

590 million gallons more than the 

applicable volume used to derive the 

2018 percentage standard. 

A. Volumetric Limitation on Use of the 

Cellulosic Waiver Authority 

As described in Section II.A, when 

making reductions in advanced biofuel 

and total renewable fuel under the 

cellulosic waiver authority, the statute 

limits those reductions to no more than 

the reduction in cellulosic biofuel. As 

described in Section III.D, we are 

proposing to establish a 2019 applicable 

volume for cellulosic biofuel of 381 

million gallons, representing a 

reduction of 8,119 million gallons from 

the statutory target of 8,500 million 

gallons. As a result, 8,119 million 

gallons is the maximum volume 

reduction for advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel that is permissible using 

the cellulosic waiver authority. Use of 

the cellulosic waiver authority to this 

maximum extent would result in 

volumes of 4.88 and 19.88 billion 

gallons for advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel, respectively.70

TABLE IV.A–1—LOWEST PERMISSIBLE VOLUMES USING ONLY THE CELLULOSIC WAIVER AUTHORITY

[Million gallons] a

Advanced 

biofuel 

Total 

renewable 

fuel 

Statutory target ........................................................................................................................................................ 13,000 28,000 

Maximum reduction permitted under the cellulosic waiver authority ...................................................................... 8,119 8,119 

Lowest 2019 volume requirement permitted using only the cellulosic waiver authority ......................................... 4,881 19,881 

a Calculations are typically shown in million gallons for all four standards for clarity. However, when using volumes to calculate percentage 

standards, we specify the volume requirements as billion gallons with two decimal places to be consistent with the volume targets as given in the 

statute. The only exception is for cellulosic biofuel which we specify in million gallons due to the substantial reduction from the statutory target. 

We are authorized under the 

cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the 

advanced biofuel and total renewable 

fuel volumes ‘‘by the same or a lesser’’ 

amount as the reduction in the 

cellulosic biofuel volume.71 As 

discussed in Section II.A, EPA has 

broad discretion in using the cellulosic 

waiver authority in instances where its 

use is authorized under the statute, 

since Congress did not specify factors 

that EPA must consider in determining 

whether to use the authority or what the 

appropriate volume reductions (within 

the range permitted by statute) should 

be. This broad discretion was affirmed 

in both Monroe and ACE.72 Thus, EPA 

could potentially set the 2019 advanced 

biofuel standard at a level that is 

designed to partially backfill for the 

shortfall in cellulosic biofuel. However, 

based on our consideration of a number 

of relevant factors, we are proposing to 

use the full extent of the cellulosic 

waiver authority in deriving volume 

requirements for 2019. 

B. Attainable Volumes of Advanced 

Biofuel 

We have considered both reasonably 

attainable and attainable volumes of 

advanced biofuel to inform our exercise 

of the cellulosic waiver authority. 

Volumes described as ‘‘reasonably 

attainable’’ are those that can be reached 

without market disruptions and/or 

higher costs, such as those that could 

result from diverting advanced biofuels 

or advanced biofuel feedstocks from 

existing uses. We use this phrase in 

today’s action in the same way that we 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
32040 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

73 81 FR 89762 (December 12, 2016). 

74See ACE, 864 F.3d at 730–35. However, EPA 

may not consider demand-side factors in assessing 

whether there is an ‘‘inadequate domestic supply’’ 

that would justify use of the general waiver 

authority. See id. at 704–13. 

75See ACE, 864 F.3d at 735–36. 76 82 FR 58507 (December 12, 2017). 

used it in previous actions. Volumes 

described as ‘‘attainable,’’ in contrast, 

are those we believe can be reached, but 

would likely result in market disruption 

and/or higher costs. Neither ‘‘reasonably 

attainable’’ nor ‘‘attainable’’ are meant 

to convey the ‘‘maximum achievable’’ 

level, which as described in the 2017 

final rule we do not consider, in our 

discretion, to be an appropriate target 

under the cellulosic waiver authority.73

As in prior rulemakings, EPA has 

considered what volumes of advanced 

biofuels are reasonably attainable. As 

the Court noted in ACE, EPA may 

consider demand-side considerations in 

addition to supply-side considerations 

when it assesses ‘‘reasonably attainable’’ 

volumes for purposes of its cellulosic 

waiver assessment.74 Our proposed 

assessment of reasonably attainable 

volumes of advanced biofuel is 

described below. 

In ACE, the Court noted that in 

assessing what volumes are ‘‘reasonably 

attainable,’’ EPA had considered the 

availability of feedstocks, domestic 

production capacity, imports, and 

market capacity to produce, distribute, 

and consume renewable fuel.75 We are 

taking a similar approach for 2019, with 

the added consideration of the 

possibility that higher volume 

requirements would lead to ‘‘feedstock 

switching’’ or diversion of advanced 

biofuels from use in other countries, 

which we took into account in setting 

the 2017 and 2018 volume requirements 

and, we believe, are appropriate 

considerations under the broad 

discretion provided by the cellulosic 

waiver authority. 

As noted above, a higher advanced 

biofuel volume requirement has a 

greater potential to increase the 

incentive for switching advanced 

biofuel feedstocks from existing uses to 

biofuel production. We are proposing to 

set the advanced biofuel volume 

requirement at a level that would seek 

to minimize such feedstock/fuel 

diversions. Our individual assessments 

of reasonably attainable volumes of each 

type of advanced biofuel reflects this 

approach. That is, while we refer to 

them as ‘‘reasonably attainable’’ 

volumes for convenience, they represent 

those volumes that are not likely to lead 

to feedstock/fuel diversions. Greater 

volumes could likely be made available 

if such diversions were not of concern. 

EPA proposes to find that 100 million 

gallons of advanced ethanol, 60 million 

gallons of other advanced biofuels, and 

2.65 billion gallons of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel are 

reasonably attainable. Together with our 

projected volume of 381 million gallons 

of cellulosic biofuel, the sum of these 

volumes falls short of 4.88 billion 

gallons, which is the lowest advanced 

biofuel requirement that EPA can 

determine under the cellulosic waiver 

authority. 

Therefore, we also have considered 

whether the market can nonetheless 

make available 4.88 billion gallons of 

advanced biofuel, notwithstanding 

likely feedstock/fuel diversions. In 

particular, we assess whether additional 

volumes of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel are attainable. We 

conclude that 2.8 billion gallons of 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel is likely attainable 

notwithstanding likely feedstock/fuel 

diversions. This quantity of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel, together 

with the cellulosic biofuel, sugarcane 

ethanol, and other advanced biofuels 

described above, would enable the 

market to make available 4.88 billion 

gallons of advanced biofuels. 

1. Imported Sugarcane Ethanol 

The predominant available source of 

advanced biofuel other than cellulosic 

biofuel and BBD is imported sugarcane 

ethanol. In setting the 2018 standards, 

we estimated that 100 million gallons of 

imported sugarcane ethanol would be 

reasonably attainable.76 This was a 

reduction from the 200 million gallons 

we had assumed for 2016 and 2017, and 

was based on a combination of data 

from 2016 and part of 2017 as well as 

an attempt to balance the lower-thanexpected imports from recent data with 

indications that higher volumes were 

possible based on older data. We also 

noted the high variability in ethanol 

import volumes in the past (including of 

Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, the 

predominant form of imported ethanol, 

and the only significant source of 

imported advanced ethanol), increasing 

gasoline consumption in Brazil, and 

variability in Brazilian production of 

sugar as reasons that it would be 

inappropriate to assume that sugarcane 

ethanol imports would reach the much 

higher levels suggested by some 

stakeholders. 

During 2017 when we were 

developing the 2018 standards 

rulemaking, we used available data from 

a portion of 2017 to estimate that import 

volumes of sugarcane ethanol were 

likely to fall significantly below the 200 

million gallons we had assumed when 

we set the 2017 standards. Import data 

for most of 2017 is now available, and 

indicates that imports of sugarcane 

ethanol reached just 77 million gallons. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32041 

77 ‘‘Sugar—World Markets and Trade,’’ USDA, 

November 2016. Available in docket EPA–HQ–

OAR–2018–0167. 

78 ‘‘Commodity Markets Outlook,’’ World Bank 

Group, January 2017. Available in docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2018–0167. 

While it is difficult to predict imports 

for 2019, we believe it would be 

reasonable not to increase the assumed 

volume above 100 million gallons for 

purposes of determining whether an 

advanced biofuel volume requirement of 

4.88 billion gallons is reasonably 

attainable for 2019. Although imports of 

advanced ethanol have been below 100 

million gallons for 2014–2017, our 

proposed advanced biofuel volume 

requirement for 2019 would be higher 

than that for 2018, creating some 

incentive for increases in imports. 

However, the E10 blendwall and the fact 

that imported sugarcane ethanol 

typically costs more than corn ethanol 

create disincentives for increasing 

imports above the levels in recent years. 

Taking all of these considerations into 

account, we propose using 100 million 

gallons of imported sugarcane ethanol 

for the purposes of projecting 

reasonably attainable volumes of 

advanced biofuel for 2019. This level 

reflects a balancing of the information 

available to EPA at this time; both the 

lower import volumes that have 

occurred more recently with the higher 

volumes that are possible based on 

earlier years and under the influence of 

the higher standards in 2019. 

We note that the future projection of 

imports of sugarcane ethanol is 

inherently imprecise, and that actual 

imports in 2019 could be lower or 

higher than 100 million gallons. Factors 

that could result in import volumes 

below 100 million gallons include 

weather and harvests in Brazil, world 

ethanol demand and prices, constraints 

associated with the E10 blendwall in the 

U.S., and the cost relative to that of corn 

ethanol. Also, global sugar consumption 

has continued to increase steadily, 

while global production has 

decreased.77 If this trend continues, 

Brazilian production of sugar could 

increase, with a concurrent reduction in 

Brazilian production of ethanol. On the 

other hand, the world average price of 

sugar has been projected to remain 

relatively flat between 2016 and 2018, 

suggesting little change in sugar 

production and implying that ethanol 

production in Brazil might likewise 

remain unchanged.78 After considering 

these factors, and in light of the high 

degree of variability in historical 

imports of sugarcane ethanol, we 

believe that 100 million gallons is 

reasonably attainable for 2019. As we 

have done in past years, we plan to take 

into consideration available data on 

imports in 2018, as well as information 

provided in comments, in making a 

final estimate of reasonably attainable 

volumes of sugarcane ethanol for the 

final rule. 

2. Other Advanced Biofuel 

In addition to cellulosic biofuel, 

imported sugarcane ethanol, and 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel, there are other D5 advanced 

biofuels that can be counted in the 

determination of reasonably attainable 

volumes of advanced biofuel for 2019. 

These other D5 advanced biofuels 

include non-cellulosic CNG, naphtha, 

heating oil, and domestically-produced 

advanced ethanol. However, the supply 

of these fuels has been relatively low in 

the last several years. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10JY18.003</GPH>
32042 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

79 79 FR 42128 (July 18, 2014). 

80No RIN-generating volumes of these other 

advanced biofuels were produced in 2017, and less 

than 1 million gallons total in prior years. 

81To calculate the volume of advanced biodiesel 

and renewable diesel that would generate the 4.34 

billion RINs needed to meet the proposed advanced 

biofuel volume EPA divided the 4.34 billion RINs 

by 1.55. 1.55 is the approximate average (weighted 

by the volume of these fuels expected to be 

produced in 2019) of the equivalence values for 

biodiesel (generally 1.5) and renewable diesel 

(generally 1.7). 

82Throughout this section we refer to advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel as well as advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel feedstocks. In this 

context, advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel 

refer to any biodiesel or renewable diesel for which 

RINs can be generated that satisfy an obligated 

party’s advanced biofuel obligation (i.e., D4 or D5 

RINs). An advanced biodiesel or renewable 

feedstock refers to any of the biodiesel, renewable 

diesel, jet fuel, and heating oil feedstocks listed in 

Table 1 to § 80.1426 or in petition approvals issued 

TABLE IV.B.2–1—HISTORICAL SUPPLY OF OTHER ADVANCED BIOFUELS

[Million ethanol-equivalent gallons] 

CNG/LNG Heating oil Naphtha Domestic 

ethanol Total a

2013 ..................................................................................... 26 0 3 23 52 

2014 ..................................................................................... 20 0 18 26 64 

2015 ..................................................................................... 0 1 24 25 50 

2016 ..................................................................................... 0 2 26 27 55 

2017 ..................................................................................... 2 2 32 26 62 

aExcludes consideration of D5 renewable diesel, as this category of renewable fuel is considered separately as part of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel in Section IV.B.3 below. 

The downward trend over time in 

CNG/LNG from biogas as advanced 

biofuel with a D code of 5 is due to the 

re-categorization in 2014 of landfill 

biogas from advanced (D code 5) to 

cellulosic (D code 3).79 Total supply of 

these other advanced biofuels has 

exhibited no consistent trend during 

2013–2017. Based on this historical 

record, we propose that 60 million 

gallons would be reasonably attainable 

in 2019. 

We recognize that the potential exists 

for additional volumes of advanced 

biofuel from sources such as jet fuel, 

liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), butanol, 

and liquefied natural gas (as distinct 

from compressed natural gas), as well as 

non-cellulosic CNG from biogas 

produced in digesters. However, since 

they have been produced, if at all, in 

only de minimis and sporadic amounts 

in the past, we do not have a basis for 

projecting substantial volumes from 

these sources in 2019.80

3. Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel 

Having projected the production 

volume of cellulosic biofuel, and the 

reasonably attainable volumes of 

imported sugarcane ethanol and ‘‘other’’ 

advanced biofuels, we next calculated 

the volume of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel that would need to be 

supplied to meet the volume of 

advanced biofuel for 2019 after reducing 

the advanced biofuel volume by the 

same amount as the cellulosic biofuel 

volume. Based on our projections of 

other advanced biofuels presented in 

the preceding sections, the market 

would need to supply 2.8 billion gallons 

of biodiesel and renewable diesel, 

generating 4.34 billion RINs, to meet a 

total advanced biofuel volume of 4.88 

billion gallons. This calculation is 

shown in Table IV.B.3–1 below. 

Calculating the volume of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel that 

would be needed to meet the volume of 

advanced biofuel for 2019 is an 

important benchmark to help inform 

EPA’s consideration of our waiver 

authorities. In situations where the 

reasonably attainable volume of 

biodiesel and renewable diesel exceeds 

the volume of these fuels that would be 

needed to meet the volume of advanced 

biofuel after reducing the advanced 

biofuel volume by the same amount as 

the cellulosic biofuel volume, as was the 

case in 2017 and 2018, EPA may 

consider whether or not to allow 

additional volumes of these fuels to 

backfill for missing cellulosic biofuel 

volumes. In situations where the 

reasonably attainable volume of 

biodiesel and renewable diesel is less 

than the volume of these fuels that 

would be needed to meet the volume of 

advanced biofuel after reducing the 

advanced biofuel volume by the same 

amount as the cellulosic biofuel volume, 

EPA may consider whether or not to use 

additional waiver authorities, to the 

extent available, to make further 

reductions to the advanced biofuel 

volume. 

TABLE IV.B.3–1—DETERMINATION OF VOLUME OF BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL NEEDED IN 2019 TO ACHIEVE 4.88 

BILLION GALLONS OF ADVANCED BIOFUEL

[Million ethanol-equivalent gallons except as noted] 

Lowest 2019 advanced biofuel volume requirement permitted using under the cellulosic waiver authority ...................................... 4,881 

Cellulosic biofuel .................................................................................................................................................................................. 381 

Imported sugarcane ethanol ................................................................................................................................................................ 100 

Other advanced ................................................................................................................................................................................... 60 

Calculated advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel needed (ethanol-equivalent gallons/physical gallons) 81 ............................... 4,340/2,800 

Having calculated the volume of 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel that would need to be supplied to 

meet the volume of advanced biofuel for 

2019 after reducing the advanced 

biofuel volume by the same amount as 

the cellulosic biofuel volume, EPA next 

projected the reasonably attainable 

volume of these fuels for 2019. With 

regard to advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel, there are many 

different factors that could potentially 

influence the reasonably attainable 

volume of these fuels used as 

transportation fuel or heating oil in the 

U.S. These factors could include the 

availability of qualifying biodiesel and 

renewable diesel feedstocks, the 

production capacity of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel facilities (both in the 

U.S. and internationally), and the 

availability of imported volumes of 

these fuels.82 A review of the volumes 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32043 

pursuant to § 80.1416, that can be used to produce 

fuel that qualifies for D4 or D5 RINs. These 

feedstocks include, for example, soy bean oil; oil 

from annual cover crops; oil from algae grown 

photosynthetically; biogenic waste oils/fats/greases; 

non-food grade corn oil; camelina sativa oil; and 

canola/rapeseed oil (See pathways F, G, and H of 

Table 1 to § 80.1426). 

83We believe palm or petroleum derived 

products would likely be used replace advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel diverted to the U.S. 

as these products are currently the lowest cost 

sources. 

84From 2011 through 2017 approximately 95% of 

all biodiesel and renewable diesel supplied to the 

U.S. (including domestically-produced and 

imported biodiesel and renewable diesel) qualified 

as advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel (11,701 

million gallons of the 12,323 million gallons) 

according to EMTS data. 

85From 2011 through 2017 over 99.9% of all the 

domestically produced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel supplied to the U.S. qualified as advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel (10,089 million 

gallons of the 10,096 million gallons) according to 

EMTS data. 

of advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel used in previous years is 

especially useful in projecting the 

potential for growth in the production 

and use of such fuels, since for these 

fuels there are a number of complex and 

inter-related factors beyond simply the 

total production capacity for biodiesel 

and renewable diesel (including the 

availability of advanced feedstocks, the 

expiration of the biodiesel tax credit, 

recent tariffs on biodiesel from 

Argentina and Indonesia, and other 

market-based factors) that are likely to 

affect the supply of advanced biodiesel 

and renewable diesel. 

In addition to a review of the volumes 

of advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel used in previous years, we 

believe the likely growth in production 

of feedstocks used to produce these 

fuels, as well as the total projected 

available volumes of these feedstocks, 

are important factors to consider. This is 

because while there are many factors 

that could potentially limit the 

production and availability of these 

fuels, the impacts of increasing 

production of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel on factors such as 

costs, energy security, and GHG 

emissions are expected to vary 

depending on whether the feedstocks 

used to produce these fuels are sourced 

from increased production of advanced 

feedstocks or alternatively from 

diverting these feedstocks from existing 

uses. The energy security and GHG 

reduction value associated with the 

growth in the use of advanced biofuels 

is greater when that growth is associated 

with an increase in advanced feedstock 

production, rather than a switching of 

existing advanced feedstocks from other 

uses to renewable fuel production or the 

diversion of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel from foreign markets. 

This is especially true if the parties that 

previously used the advanced biofuel or 

feedstocks replace these oils with low 

cost palm or petroleum derived 

products, as we believe would likely be 

the case in 2019.83 In this case the 

global supply of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel would not increase, 

and the potential benefits associated 

with increasing the diversity of the 

supply of transportation fuel (energy 

security) and the production of 

additional volumes of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel (low 

GHG sources of transportation fuel) 

would not be realized. Such feedstock 

switching or fuel diversion could also 

result in unintended negative 

consequences, such as market 

disruption in other markets where such 

oils are used, which could offset some 

or all of the anticipated GHG benefits of 

the production and use of advanced 

biofuels. 

Before considering the projected 

growth in the production of qualifying 

feedstocks that could be used to 

produce advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel, as well as the total 

volume of feedstocks that could be used 

to produce these fuels, it is helpful to 

review the volumes of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel that have been used in 

the U.S. in recent years. While historic 

data and trends alone are insufficient to 

project the volumes of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel that could be provided 

in future years, historic data can serve 

as a useful reference in considering 

future volumes. Past experience 

suggests that a high percentage of the 

biodiesel and renewable diesel used in 

the U.S. (from both domestic production 

and imports) qualifies as advanced 

biofuel.84 In previous years, biodiesel 

and renewable diesel produced in the 

U.S. have been almost exclusively 

advanced biofuel.85 Imports of 

advanced biodiesel have also increased 

in recent years, as seen in Table IV.B.2– 

1. Volumes of imported advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel have 

varied significantly from year to year, as 

they are impacted both by domestic and 

foreign policies, as well as many 

economic factors. 

TABLE IV.B.2–1—ADVANCED (D4 AND D5) BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL FROM 2011 TO 2017 

[Million gallons] a

2011 2012 2013 2014 b 2015 b 2016 2017 

Domestic Biodiesel (Annual Change) ............ 967 (N/A) 1,014 (+47) 1,376 (+362) 1,303 (¥73) 1,253 (¥50) 1,633 (+380) 1,573 (¥60) 

Domestic Renewable 

Diesel (Annual 

Change) .................... 58 (N/A) 11 (¥47) 92 (+81) 155 (+63) 175 (+20) 221 (+46) 258 (+37) 

Imported Biodiesel (Annual Change) ............ 44 (N/A) 40 (¥4) 156 (+116) 130 (¥26) 261 (+131) 561 (+300) 462 (¥99) 

Imported Renewable 

Diesel (Annual 

Change) .................... 0 (N/A) 28 (+28) 145 (+117) 129 (¥16) 121 (¥8) 170 (+49) 193 (+23) 

Exported Biodiesel and 

Renewable Diesel 

(Annual Change) ...... 48 (N/A) 102 (+54) 125 (+23) 134 (+9) 133 (¥1) 129 (¥4) 157 (+28) 

Total (Annual 

Change) ............. 1,021 (N/A) 991 (¥30) 1,644 (+653) 1,583 (¥61) 1,677 (+94) 2,456 (+779) 2,329 (¥127) 

aAll data from EMTS. EPA reviewed all advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel RINs retired for reasons other than demonstrating compliance with the RFS standards and subtracted these RINs from the RIN generation totals for each category in the table above to calculate the volume in each year. b RFS required volumes for these years were not established until December 2015. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
32044 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

86We also acknowledge that the fact that EPA did 

not finalize the required volumes of renewable fuel 

under the RFS program for 2014 and 2015 until 

December 2015 likely had an impact on the volume 

of advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel 

supplied in these years. Further, the preliminary 

tariffs on biodiesel imported from Argentina and 

Indonesia announced in August 2017 likely had a 

negative impact on the volume of biodiesel 

supplied in 2017. 

TABLE IV.B.2–2—CONVENTIONAL (D6) BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL FROM 2011 TO 2016 

[Million gallons] a

2011 2012 2013 2014 b 2015 b 2016 2017 

Domestic Biodiesel (Annual Change) ............ 0 (N/A) 0 (+0) 6 (+6) 1 (¥5) 0 (+0) 0 (+0) 0 (+0) 

Domestic Renewable 

Diesel (Annual 

Change) .................... 0 (N/A) 0 (+0) 0 (+0) 0 (+0) 0 (+0) 0 (+0) 0 (+0) 

Imported Biodiesel (Annual Change) ............ 0 (N/A) 0 (+0) 31 (+31) 52 (+21) 74 (+22) 113 (+39) 0 (¥113) 

Imported Renewable 

Diesel (Annual 

Change) .................... 0 (N/A) 0 (+0) 53 (+53) 0 (¥53) 106 (+106) 43 (¥63) 144 (+101) 

Exported Biodiesel and 

Renewable Diesel 

(Annual Change) ...... 0 (N/A) 0 (+0) 0 (+0) 0 (+0) 0 (+0) 1 (+1) 0 (¥1) 

Total (Annual 

Change) ............. 0 (N/A) 0 (+0) 90 (+90) 53 (¥37) 180 (+127) 155 (¥25) 144 (¥11) 

aAll data from EMTS. EPA reviewed all conventional biodiesel and renewable diesel RINs retired for reasons other than demonstrating compliance with the RFS standards and subtracted these RINs from the RIN generation totals for each category in the table above to calculate the volume in each year. b RFS required volumes for these years were not established until December 2015. 

Since 2011 the year-over-year changes 

in the volume of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel used in the U.S. have 

varied greatly, from a low of negative 

127 million gallons from 2016 to 2017 

to a high of 779 million gallons from 

2015 to 2016. These changes were likely 

influenced by multiple factors such as 

the cost of biodiesel feedstocks and 

petroleum diesel, the status of the 

biodiesel blenders tax credit, growth in 

marketing of biodiesel at high volume 

truck stops and centrally fueled fleet 

locations, demand for biodiesel and 

renewable diesel in other countries, 

biofuel policies in both the U.S. and 

foreign countries, and the volumes of 

renewable fuels (particularly advanced 

biofuels) required by the RFS. This 

historical information does not indicate 

that the maximum previously observed 

increase of 779 million gallons of 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel would be reasonable to expect 

from 2018 to 2019, nor does it indicate 

that the low (or negative) growth rates 

observed in other years would recur in 

2019. Rather, these data illustrate both 

the magnitude of the increases in 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel in previous years and the 

significant variability in these increases. 

The historic data indicates that the 

biodiesel tax policy in the U.S. can have 

a significant impact on the volume of 

biodiesel and renewable diesel used in 

the U.S. in any given year. While the 

biodiesel blenders tax credit has applied 

in each year from 2010—2017, it has 

only been prospectively in effect during 

the calendar year in 2011, 2013 and 

2016, while other years it has been 

applied retroactively. The biodiesel 

blenders tax credit expired at the end of 

2009 and was re-instated in December 

2010 to apply retroactively in 2010 and 

extend through the end of 2011. 

Similarly, after expiring at the end of 

2011, 2013, and 2014 the tax credit was 

re-instated in January 2013 (for 2012 

and 2013), December 2014 (for 2014), 

December 2015 (for 2015 and 2016), and 

February 2018 (for 2017). Each of the 

years in which the biodiesel blenders 

tax credit was in effect during the 

calendar year (2013 and 2016) resulted 

in significant increases in the volume of 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel used in the U.S. over the previous 

year (653 million gallons and 779 

million gallons respectively). However, 

following these large increases in 2013 

and 2016, there was little to no growth 

in the use of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel in the following years, 

only 33 million gallons from 2013 to 

2015 and negative 127 million gallons 

from 2016 to 2017. This decrease from 

2016 to 2017 happened despite the fact 

that the required volume of advanced 

biofuel increased from 3.61 in 2016 to 

4.28 billion gallons in 2017. This 

pattern is likely the result of both 

accelerated production and/or 

importation of biodiesel and renewable 

diesel in the final few months of years 

during which the tax credit was 

available to take advantage of the 

expiring tax credit, as well as relatively 

lower volumes of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel production and import 

in 2014, 2015, and 2017 than would 

have occurred if the tax credit had been 

in place.86

The historical data suggests that the 

supply of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel could potentially 

increase from 2.33 billion gallons in 

2017 to 2.8 billion gallons in 2019 (the 

projected volume needed to meet the 

advanced biofuel volume for 2019 after 

reducing the statutory advanced biofuel 

volume by the same amount as the 

cellulosic biofuel reduction). This 

would represent an average annual rate 

of growth of approximately 235 million 

gallons per year, slightly higher than the 

average increase in the volume of 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel used in the U.S. from 2011 

through 2017 (218 million gallons per 

year) and significantly less the highest 

annual increase during this time (779 

million gallons from 2015 to 2016). 

After reviewing the historical volume 

of advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel used in the U.S. and considering 

the possible impact of the expiration of 

the biodiesel tax credit (discussed 

above), EPA next considers other factors 

that may impact the production, import, 

and use of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel in 2019. The 

production capacity of registered 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel production facilities is highly 

unlikely to limit the production of these 

fuels, as the total production capacity 

for biodiesel and renewable diesel at 

registered facilities in the U.S. (4.1 

billion gallons) exceeds the volume of 

these fuels that are projected to be 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32045 

87The production capacity of the sub-set of 

biodiesel and renewable diesel producers that 

generated RINs in 2017 is approximately 3.1 billion 

gallons. See ‘‘Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel 

Registered Capacity (May 2018)’’ Memorandum 

from Dallas Burkholder to EPA Docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2018–0167. 

88The March 2018 WASDE projects production of 

vegetable oils in 2017/18 in the World to be 197.78 

million metric tons. This quantity of vegetable oil 

would be sufficient to produce approximately 56.5 

billion gallons of biodiesel and renewable diesel. 

89For example, corn oil is a co-product of corn 

grown primarily for feed or ethanol production, 

while soy and canola are primarily grown as 

livestock feed. 

90According to EIA data 6,230 million pounds of 

soy bean oil and 1,579 million pounds of corn oil 

were used to produce biodiesel in the U.S. in 2017. 

Other significant sources of feedstock were yellow 

grease (1,471 million pounds), canola oil (1,452 

million pounds), and white grease (591 million 

pounds). Numbers from EIA’s March 2018 Monthly 

Biodiesel Production Report. 

91According to the March 2018 WASDE report, 

U.S. vegetable oil production in the 2016/2017 

agricultural marketing year is estimated to be 11.43 

million metric tons. According to the January 2013 

WASDE report, U.S. vegetable oil production in the 

2010/2011 agricultural marketing year was 9.76 

million metric tons. 

92To calculate this volume, we have used a 

conversion of 7.7 pounds of feedstock per gallon of 

biodiesel. This is based on the expected conversion 

of soybean oil (http://extension.missouri.edu/p/ 

G1990), which is the largest source of feedstock 

used to produce advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel. Conversion rates for other types of vegetable 

oils used to produce biodiesel and renewable diesel 

are similar to those for soybean oil. 

93 Distillers corn oil is non-food grade corn oil 

produced by ethanol production facilities. 

94For the purposes of this rule, EPA relied on 

WAEES modeling results submitted as comments 

by the National Biodiesel Board on the 2018 final 

rule (Kruse, J., ‘‘Implications of an Alternative 

Advanced and Biomass Based Diesel Volume 

Obligation for Global Agriculture and Biofuels’’, 

August 21, 2017, World Agricultural Economic and 

Continued 

needed to meet the advanced biofuel 

volume for 2019 after exercising the 

cellulosic waiver authority (2.8 billion 

gallons).87 Significant registered 

production also exists internationally. 

Similarly, the ability for the market to 

distribute and use advanced biodiesel 

and renewable diesel appears unlikely 

constrain the growth of these fuels to a 

volume lower than 2.8 billion gallons. 

The investments required to distribute 

and use this volume of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel are expected to be 

modest, as this volume is less than 200 

million gallons greater than the volume 

of biodiesel and renewable diesel 

produced, imported, and used in the 

U.S. in 2016. 

Conversely, the availability of 

advanced feedstocks that can be used to 

produce advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel and the projected 

availability of imported advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel may 

limit the volume of these fuels available 

to the U.S. in 2019. We acknowledge 

that an increase in the required use of 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel could be realized through a 

diversion of advanced feedstocks from 

other uses, or a diversion of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel from 

existing markets in other countries, and 

that volume of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel and advanced 

feedstocks produced globally exceeds 

the volume projected to be required in 

2019 (2.8 billion gallons of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel and the 

corresponding volume of advanced 

feedstocks) by a significant margin.88

However, we perceive the net benefits 

associated with such increased 

advanced biofuel and renewable fuel 

volumes to be significantly less than the 

net benefits associated with the 

production of additional advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel from 

newly-available advanced feedstocks, 

due to the likelihood that parties that 

previously used advanced biofuel 

feedstocks will replace them with low 

cost palm or petroleum derived 

products. 

This is both because of the potential 

disruption and associated cost impacts 

to other industries resulting from 

feedstock switching, and the potential 

adverse effect on lifecycle GHG 

emissions associated with feedstocks for 

biofuel production that would have 

been used for other purposes and which 

must then be backfilled with other 

feedstocks. Similarly, increasing the 

supply of biodiesel and renewable 

diesel to the U.S. by diverting fuel that 

would otherwise have been used in 

other countries results in higher 

lifecycle GHG emissions than if the 

supply of these fuels was increased 

through additional biofuel production, 

especially if this diversion results in 

increased consumption of petroleum 

fuels in the countries that would have 

otherwise consumed the biodiesel or 

renewable diesel. By focusing our 

assessment of the potential growth in 

the attainable volume of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel on the expected 

growth in the production of advanced 

feedstocks (rather than the total supply 

of these feedstocks in 2018, which 

would include feedstocks currently 

being used for non-biofuel purposes), 

we are attempting to minimize the 

incentives for the RFS program to 

increase the supply of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel through 

feedstock switching or diverting 

biodiesel and renewable diesel from 

foreign market to the U.S. 

Advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel feedstocks include both waste 

oils, fats, and greases; and oils from 

planted crops. While we believe a small 

increase in supply of waste oils, fats, 

and greases may be possible in 2019, we 

believe this increase is limited as most 

of these waste oils, fats, and greases that 

can be recovered economically are 

already being recovered and used in 

biodiesel and renewable diesel 

production or for other purposes. Most 

of the vegetable oil used to produce 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel that is sourced from planted 

crops comes from crops primarily grown 

for purposes other than providing 

feedstocks for biodiesel and renewable 

diesel, such as for livestock feed with 

the oil that is used as feedstock for 

renewable fuel production a co-product 

or by-product.89 This is true for 

soybeans and corn, which are the two 

largest sources of feedstock from 

planted crops used for biodiesel 

production in the U.S.90 We do not 

believe that the increased demand for 

soybean oil or corn oil caused by a 

higher 2019 advanced biofuel standard 

would result in an increase in soybean 

or corn prices large enough to induce 

significant changes in agricultural 

activity, at least for the changes in 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel feedstock demand that may be 

caused by this proposed 2019 standard. 

We believe the most reliable source 

for projecting the expected increase in 

vegetable oils in the U.S. is USDA’s 

World Agricultural Supply and Demand 

Estimates (WASDE). At the time of our 

assessment for this proposed rule, the 

most current version of the WASDE 

report only projects domestic vegetable 

oil production through 2018. Based on 

domestic vegetable oil production from 

2011–2017 as reported by WASDE, the 

average annual increase in vegetable oil 

production in the U.S. was 0.278 

million metric tons per year.91

Assuming a similar increase in domestic 

vegetable oil production from 2018 to 

2019, this additional quantity of 

vegetable oils could be used to produce 

approximately 80 million additional 

gallons of advanced biodiesel or 

renewable diesel in 2019 relative to 

2018.92

In addition to virgin vegetable oils, we 

also expect increasing volumes of 

distillers corn oil 93 to be available for 

use in 2019. The WASDE report does 

not project distillers corn oil 

production, so EPA must use an 

alternative source to project the growth 

in the production of this feedstock. For 

this proposed rule EPA is using results 

from the World Agricultural Economic 

and Environmental Services (WAEES) 

model to project the growth in the 

production of distillers corn oil.94 In 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
32046 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Environmental Services (WAEES), EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2017–0091–3880). 

95 Id. 

96 82 FR 58512 (December 12, 2017). 

97The March 2018 WASDE projects production of 

vegetable oils in 2017/18 in the U.S. and the World 

to be 11.64 and 197.78 million metric tons 

respectively. To convert projected vegetable oil 

production to potential biodiesel and renewable 

diesel production we have used a conversion of 7.7 

pounds of feedstock per gallon of biodiesel. 98These reasons include the demand for 

vegetable oil in the food, feed, and industrial 

markets both domestically and globally; constraints 

related to the production, import, distribution, and 

use of significantly higher volumes of biodiesel; and 

the fact that biodiesel and renewable diesel 

produced from much of the vegetable oil available 

globally would not qualify as an advanced biofuel 

under the RFS program. 

99Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Public Law 115– 

123, 132 Stat. 64 §§ 40406, 40407, and 40415 

(2018). 

100 ‘‘Biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia 

Injures U.S. Industry, says USITC,’’ Available 

online at: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_

release/2017/er1205ll876.htm. 

101See ‘‘EIA Biomass-Based Diesel Import Data’’ 

available in docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0167. 

assessing the likely increase in the 

availability of distillers corn oil from 

2018 to 2019, the authors of the WAEES 

model considered the impacts of an 

increasing adoption rate of distillers 

corn oil extraction technologies at 

domestic ethanol production facilities, 

as well as increased corn oil extraction 

rates enabled by advances in this 

technology. The WAEES model projects 

that production of distillers corn oil in 

2018 will increase by 167 million 

pounds, from 2615 million pounds in 

agricultural marketing year 2017/2018 

to 2,782 million pounds in agricultural 

marketing year 2018/2019. According to 

the WAEES model, this projected 

increase in the production of distillers 

corn oil, if devoted entirely to biofuel 

production, could be used to produce 

approximately 22 million additional 

gallons of advanced biodiesel or 

renewable diesel in 2019. We believe it 

is reasonable to use these estimates from 

the WAEES model for these purposes. 

While the vast majority of the increase 

in advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel feedstocks produced in the U.S. 

from 2018 to 2019 is expected to come 

from virgin vegetable oils and distillers 

corn oil, increases in the supply of other 

sources of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel feedstocks, such as 

biogenic waste oils, fats, and greases, 

may also occur. These increases, 

however, are expected to be modest, as 

many of these feedstocks that can be 

recovered economically are already 

being used to produce biodiesel or 

renewable diesel, or in other markets. In 

fact, the WAEES model projects a 

decrease of 3 million gallons in the 

volume of biodiesel produced from 

feedstocks other than soybean oil, 

canola oil, and distillers corn oil from 

2018 to 2019.95 In total, we expect that 

increases in feedstocks produced in the 

U.S. are sufficient to produce 

approximately 100 million more gallons 

of advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel in 2019 relative to 2018. In our 

2018 final rule, we determined that 2.55 

billion gallons of advanced biodiesel 

and renewable diesel were reasonably 

attainable in 2018,96 therefore our 

projection of the reasonably attainable 

volume of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel in 2019 is 2.65 billion 

gallons. 

EPA’s projections of the growth of 

advanced feedstocks does not, however, 

suggest that the total supply of 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel to the U.S. in 2018 will be limited 

to 2.65 billion gallons. Rather, this is the 

volume of these fuels that we project 

could be supplied without diverting 

significant quantities of advanced 

feedstocks or biofuels from existing 

uses. The March 2018 WASDE reports 

that production of vegetable oil in the 

U.S. in the 2017/2018 market year (the 

latest year for which projections are 

available) will be sufficient to produce 

approximately 3.3 billion gallons of 

biodiesel and renewable diesel 

(including both advanced and 

conventional biofuels) if the entire 

volume of vegetable oil was used to 

produce these fuels. Additional 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel could be produced from waste 

fats, oils, and greases. The global 

production of vegetable oil projected in 

the 2017/2018 marketing year would be 

sufficient to produce approximately 

56.5 billion gallons of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel (including both 

advanced and conventional biofuels).97

While it would not be reasonable to 

assume that all, or even a significant 

portion, of global vegetable oil 

production could be available to 

produce biodiesel or renewable diesel 

supplied to the U.S. for a number of 

reasons,98 the large global supply of 

vegetable oil strongly suggests that 

under the right market conditions 2.8 

billion gallons of advanced biodiesel 

and renewable diesel is attainable in 

2019. Reaching these levels, however, 

may result in the diversion of advanced 

feedstocks currently used in other 

markets and/or the import of biodiesel 

and renewable diesel from these 

feedstocks. 

Further, the supply of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel to the 

U.S. in 2019 could be increased by 

approximately 150 million gallons if all 

of the exported volumes of these fuels 

were used domestically. Diverting this 

fuel to markets in the U.S. may be 

complicated, however, as doing so 

would likely require higher prices for 

these fuels in the U.S. (to divert the 

fuels from foreign markets that are 

presumably more profitable currently). 

It may also be more difficult and costly 

to distribute this additional volume of 

biodiesel and renewable diesel to 

domestic markets than the current 

foreign markets. Finally, reducing 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel exports may indirectly result in 

the decreased availability of imported 

volumes of these fuels, as other 

countries seek to replace volumes 

previously imported from the U.S. 

EPA next considered potential 

changes in the imports of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel 

produced in other countries. In previous 

years, significant volumes of foreign 

produced advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel have been supplied to 

markets in the U.S. (see Table IV.B.2–1 

above). These significant imports were 

likely the result of a strong U.S. demand 

for advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel, supported by the RFS standards, 

the LCFS in California, the biodiesel 

blenders tax credit, and the opportunity 

for imported biodiesel and renewable 

diesel to realize these incentives. 

The RFS requirements and 

California’s LCFS are expected to 

continue to provide an incentive for 

imports of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel in 2019. Several other 

factors, however, may negatively impact 

the volume of these fuels imported in 

2019. In February 2018 the biodiesel 

blenders tax credit, which had expired 

at the end of 2016, was retroactively 

reinstated for biodiesel blended in 2017 

but was not extended to apply to 

biodiesel blended in 2018 or 2019.99

Perhaps more significantly, in December 

2017 the U.S. International Trade 

Commission adopted tariffs on biodiesel 

imported from Argentina and 

Indonesia.100 According to data from 

EIA,101 no biodiesel was imported from 

Argentina or Indonesia from September 

2017—February 2018, after a 

preliminary decision to impose tariffs 

on biodiesel imported from these 

countries was announced in August 

2017. Biodiesel imports from these 

countries were significant, accounting 

for over 550 million gallons in 2016 and 

approximately 290 million gallons in 

2017. At this time, the ultimate impact 

these tariffs will have on overall imports 

of advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel to the U.S. remains uncertain. It 

is possible that imports of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel from 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32047 

102According to EIA data, total biodiesel imports 

from countries other than Argentina and Indonesia 

totaled 153 million gallons in 2016 and 103 million 

gallons in 2017. See ‘‘EIA Biomass-Based Diesel 

Import Data’’ available in docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2018–0167. 

103According to data from EMTS, 954 million 

gallons of advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel 

were imported into the U.S. in 2016 and 854 

million gallons of these fuels were imported in 

2017. Note that imported volumes of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel from EMTS and EIA do not 

precisely match. The primary reason for this 

difference is that EIA data is sourced from EIA 

surveys, while the EMTS data is generated by the 

parties that produce and/or import biodiesel and 

renewable diesel into the U.S. For the purposes of 

this discussion we have cited the EIA data, as this 

data more easily allows us to quantify the fuel 

impacted by the recent tariffs (biodiesel imported 

from Argentina and Indonesia). 

104Note that this estimate assumes that the U.S. 

consumes all domestically produced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel, rather than exporting any of this 

fuel. Alternatively, if the U.S. continues to export 

approximately 150 million gallons of biodiesel per 

year in 2019 domestic production of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel would have to 

increase by approximately 200 million gallons per 

year. 

105 In the 2018 final rule, EPA projected that 

advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel feedstocks 

would increase to allow production of 

approximately 150 million additional gallons of 

advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel in 2018. 

82 FR 58511 (December 12, 2017). In this proposed 

rule we are projecting additional growth in 

advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel feedstocks 

to allow production of approximately 100 million 

additional gallons of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel in 2019 (relative to the volume of 

advanced feedstocks projected for 2018). 

106See, e.g., Response to Comments Document for 

the 2014–2016 Rule, pages 628–631, available in 

docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0111. 

other countries not impacted by these 

tariffs will increase to make up for all, 

or some portion of the biodiesel 

imported from Argentina and Indonesia 

in previous years. The volume of 

imported biodiesel in 2017 sourced 

from countries not impacted by the 

tariffs, however, is significantly less 

than the volume supplied by Argentina 

and Indonesia.102 It is possible, 

therefore, that the supply of imported 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel available in the U.S. in 2019 will 

decrease from the relatively high levels 

in recent years.103

Domestic production of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel in 2016 

and 2017 was approximately 1.85 

billion gallons. Of this total, 

approximately 150 million gallons of 

domestically produced biodiesel was 

exported in 2016 and 2017. An 

additional 100 to150 million gallons of 

these fuels were imported from 

countries unaffected by the recent 

tariffs. If, by 2019, alternative sources of 

imported biodiesel and renewable diesel 

are identified and the imported volume 

of advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel returns to the levels observed in 

2016 and 2017 (approximately 700 

million gallons per year) domestic 

production would need to increase by 

approximately 125 million gallons per 

year in both 2018 and 2019 to reach a 

total advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel supply of 2.8 billion gallons by 

2019.104 These increases appear 

attainable, as they are lower than the 

average annual increase of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel 

production in the U.S. between 2011 

and 2017 (134 million gallons per year). 

These increases are also approximately 

equal to the projected increases in 

advanced feedstock availability in 2017 

and 2018.105 We therefore project that a 

volume of 2.8 billion gallons of 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel is attainable in 2019 if the 

imported volume of these fuels does not 

fall significantly below the volumes 

imported in 2016 and 2017. We note, 

however, that using this volume of 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel in the U.S. would likely result in 

the diversion of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel and/or feedstocks used 

to produce these fuels, as advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel that is 

currently exported would instead be 

used in the U.S. and alternative sources 

for significant volumes of these fuels 

would need to be found. 

After a careful consideration of the 

factors discussed above, EPA has 

determined that 2.8 billion gallons of 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel projected needed to satisfy the 

implied statutory volume for noncellulosic advanced biofuel in 2019 (4.5 

billion gallons) are attainable. The total 

production capacity of registered 

biodiesel and renewable diesel 

producers is significantly higher than 

2.8 billion gallons, even if only those 

facilities that generated RINs for 

advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel in 2017 are considered. This 

volume (2.8 billion gallons) is also not 

significantly higher than the total 

volume of biodiesel and renewable 

diesel supplied in 2016 (approximately 

2.6 billion gallons), strongly suggesting 

that production capacity and the ability 

to distribute and use biodiesel and 

renewable diesel will not limit the 

supply of advanced biodiesel and 

renewable diesel to a volume below 2.8 

billion gallons in 2018. Sufficient 

feedstocks are expected to be available 

to produce this volume of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel in 2019, 

however doing so may result in some 

level of diversion of advanced 

feedstocks and/or advanced biodiesel 

and renewable diesel from existing uses. 

Achieving this level of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel in 2019, 

however, will likely require finding 

alternative sources for biodiesel imports 

to replace the volume of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel that were supplied 

from Argentina and Indonesia in 2016 

and 2017. Alternatively, obligated 

parties could rely on the significant 

volume of carryover advanced RINs 

projected to be available in 2019 (See 

Section II.B for a further discussion of 

carryover RINs). 

C. Proposed Volume Requirement for 

Advanced Biofuel 

In exercising the cellulosic waiver 

authority for 2017 and earlier, we 

determined it was appropriate to require 

a partial backfilling of missing cellulosic 

volumes with volumes of non-cellulosic 

advanced biofuel we determined to be 

reasonably attainable, notwithstanding 

the increase in costs associated with 

those decisions.106 For the 2018 

standards, in contrast, we placed a 

greater emphasis on cost considerations 

in the context of balancing the various 

considerations, ultimately concluding 

that the applicable volume requirement 

should be based on the maximum 

reduction permitted under the cellulosic 

waiver authority. We are proposing to 

take a similar approach for 2019. That 

is, while it may be possible that more 

than 4.88 billion gallons of advanced 

biofuel might be attainable in 2019, 

requiring additional volumes would 

lead to higher costs, feedstock switching 

and/or diversion of foreign advanced 

biofuels. We do not believe that it 

would be appropriate to set the 

advanced biofuel volume requirement 

higher than 4.88 billion gallons given 

that it could lead to these results. 

Based on the information presented 

above, we believe that 4.88 billion 

gallons of advanced biofuel is attainable 

in 2019. After a consideration of the 

projected volume of cellulosic biofuel 

and reasonably attainable volumes of 

imported sugarcane ethanol and other 

advanced biofuels, we determined that 

2.8 billion gallons of advanced biodiesel 

and renewable diesel would be needed 

to reach 4.88 billion gallons of advanced 

biofuel. Based on a review of the factors 

relevant to the supply of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel as 

discussed in Section IV.B.2 above, 

including historic production and 

import data, the production capacity of 

registered biodiesel and renewable 

diesel producers, and the availability of 

advanced feedstocks, we have 

determined that 2.8 billion gallons of 

BBD is attainable in 2019. 

However, we also acknowledge that 

2.8 billion gallons of BBD is 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
32048 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

107For instance, see discussion in the final rules 

setting the 2013, 2014–2016, and 2017 standards: 78 

FR 49809 –49810, August 15, 2013; 80 FR 77434, 

December 14, 2015; 81 FR 89752—89753, December 

12, 2016. 

108EPA also considered the availability of 

carryover RINs in determining whether reduced use 

of the cellulosic waiver authority would be 

warranted. For the reasons described in Section 

II.B, we do not believe this to be the case. 

109 ‘‘Market impacts of biofuels in 2019,’’ 

memorandum from David Korotney to docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2018–0167. In prior actions including the 

2018 annual rule proposal, similar analyses 

indicated that the market was capable of both 

producing and consuming the required volume of 

renewable fuels, and that as a result there was no 

basis for finding an inadequate domestic supply of 

total renewable fuel. See 82 FR 34229 & n.82. Given 

the D.C. Circuit’s decision in ACE, however, the 

current assessment of demand-side constraints is no 

longer relevant for determining inadequate 

domestic supply. However, we believe 

consideration of the ways that the market could 

make this volume available may still be relevant to 

whether and how EPA exercises its waiver 

authorities, such as our consideration of whether 

the proposed volumes will cause severe economic 

harm. 

considerably higher than the 2.33 

billion gallons actually supplied in 2017 

and the 2.55 billion gallons determined 

to be reasonably attainable in 2018. 

While 2.8 billion gallons would require 

an average growth in supply of 235 

million gallons per year between 2017 

and 2019, this is only slightly higher 

than the average annual growth rate in 

years 2011—2017. Nevertheless, there is 

some uncertainty regarding whether 2.8 

billion gallons is attainable in 2019. 

This fact has led us to consider whether 

the use of carryover RINs might be 

appropriate. 

The carryover RIN bank has 

continued to grow over the past several 

years as described in Section II.B, and 

is currently at its largest historical level. 

It represents a source of RINs that could 

help obligated parties meet an advanced 

biofuel volume requirement of 4.88 

billion gallons in 2019 if the market fails 

to supply sufficient advanced biofuels 

in 2019. If the market does choose to 

meet a volume requirement of 4.88 

billion gallons in this way, it would be 

for the first time in the history of the 

RFS program. Although we did point to 

the carryover RIN bank in 2013, along 

with the potential for additional 

volumes of E85, as a means for meeting 

the statutory volume requirement of 

16.55 billion gallons, in that case the 

concern was the portion of the standard 

that is not required to be advanced 

biofuel (e.g. conventional biofuel). 

Ultimately, the market supplied more 

advanced biofuel than it needed to meet 

the applicable volume requirement for 

advanced biofuel while falling short of 

the total renewable fuel volume 

requirement. 

Although we believe that the 2.8 

billion gallon volume is attainable, and 

any shortfalls could be met through the 

use of carryover RINs, we also solicit 

comment and supporting data and 

rationale on whether circumstances 

exist that would warrant further 

reductions in volumes through the 

exercise of the general waiver authority 

(e.g., due to severe economic harm). We 

recognize that identifying severe 

economic harm caused by the 

implementation of RFS requirements is 

a difficult and complex issue and one of 

intense interest to a number of 

stakeholders. We discussed in past 

notices, and in the most recent annual 

rulemaking for 2018, the type of 

information we generally think would 

be relevant to identifying severe 

economic harm. For example, in 2008, 

we examined modeling showing 

expected levels of production and price 

for both corn and ethanol with and 

without a waiver. We also provided 

quantitative estimates of the impact of a 

waiver on: Food expenditures for 

average and lowest quintile households; 

feeds costs for cattle, pigs, poultry and 

dairy; and gasoline prices and gasoline 

expenditures for average and lowest 

quintile households. 

It should be noted that by exercising 

the full cellulosic waiver authority for 

advanced biofuel, the implied statutory 

volume target for non-cellulosic 

advanced biofuel of 4.5 billion gallons 

in 2019 would be maintained. This 

represents an increase of 0.5 billion 

gallons from the 2018 volume 

requirements. 

D. Proposed Volume Requirement for 

Total Renewable Fuel 

As discussed in Section II.A.1, we 

believe that the cellulosic waiver 

provision is best interpreted to provide 

equal reductions in advanced biofuel 

and total renewable fuel. We have 

consistently articulated this 

interpretation.107 For the reasons we 

have previously articulated, we believe 

this interpretation is consistent with the 

statutory language and best effectuates 

the objectives of the statute. If EPA were 

to reduce the total renewable fuel 

volume requirement by a lesser amount 

than the advanced biofuel volume 

requirement, we would effectively 

increase the opportunity for 

conventional biofuels to participate in 

the RFS program beyond the implied 

statutory volume of 15 billion gallons. 

Applying an equal reduction of 8.12 

billion gallons to both the statutory 

target for advanced biofuel and the 

statutory target for total renewable fuel 

would result in a total renewable fuel 

volume of 19.88 billion gallons as 

shown in Table IV.A–1.108 A 

memorandum to the docket provides a 

description of the ways in which the 

market could make this volume of total 

renewable fuel available.109

This volume of total renewable fuel 

results in an implied volume of 15 

billion gallons of conventional fuel, 

which is the same as in the 2018 final 

rule. 

V. Impacts of 2019 Volumes on Costs 

In this section, EPA presents its 

assessment of the illustrative costs of 

the proposed 2019 RFS rule. It is 

important to note that these illustrative 

costs do not attempt to capture the full 

impacts of this proposed rule. We frame 

the analyses we have performed for this 

proposed rule as ‘‘illustrative’’ so as not 

to give the impression of comprehensive 

estimates. These estimates are provided 

for the purpose of showing how the cost 

to produce a gallon of a ‘‘representative’’ 

renewable fuel compares to the cost of 

petroleum fuel. There are a significant 

number of caveats that must be 

considered when interpreting these 

illustrative cost estimates. For example, 

there are many different feedstocks that 

could be used to produce biofuels, and 

there is a significant amount of 

heterogeneity in the costs associated 

with these different feedstocks and 

fuels. Some renewable fuels may be cost 

competitive with the petroleum fuel 

they replace; however, we do not have 

cost data on every type of feedstock and 

every type of fuel. Therefore, we do not 

attempt to capture this range of 

potential costs in our illustrative 

estimates. 

Illustrative cost estimates are 

provided below for the proposal 

discussed in Sections III and IV that 

reduces the cellulosic, advanced, and 

total renewable fuel volume 

requirements using the cellulosic waiver 

authority under CAA section 

211(o)(7)(D)(i). For this proposal, we 

examine two different cases. In the first 

case, we provide illustrative cost 

estimates by comparing the proposed 

2019 renewable fuel volumes to 2019 

statutory volumes under CAA section 

211(o)(7)(D)(i). In the second case, we 

examine the proposed 2019 renewable 

fuel volumes to the final 2018 

renewable fuel volumes to estimate 

changes in the annual costs of the 

proposed 2019 RFS volumes in 

comparison to the 2018 volumes. 

A. Illustrative Costs Analysis of 

Exercising the Cellulosic Waiver 

Authority Compared to the 2019 

Statutory Volumes Baseline 

In this section, EPA provides 

illustrative cost estimates that compare 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32049 

110EPA projects that 580 million ethanolequivalent gallons of CNG/LNG will be used as 

transportation fuel in 2019 based on EIA’s April 

2018 Short Term Energy Outlook (STEO). To 

calculate this estimate, EPA used the Natural Gas 

Vehicle Use from the STEO Custom Table Builder 

(0.13 billion cubic feet/day in 2019). This projection 

includes all CNG/LNG used as transportation fuel 

from both renewable and non-renewable sources. 

EIA does not project the amount of CNG/LNG from 

biogas used as transportation fuel. To convert 

billion cubic feet/day to ethanol-equivalent gallons 

EPA used conversion factors of 946.5 BTU per cubic 

foot of natural gas (lower heating value, per 

calculations using ASTM D1945 and D3588) and 

77,000 BTU of natural gas per ethanol-equivalent 

gallon per § 80.1415(b)(5). 

111 Details of the data and assumptions used can 

be found in a Memorandum available in the docket 

entitled ‘‘Cost Impacts of the Proposed 2019 Annual 

Renewable Fuel Standards’’, Memorandum from 

Michael Shelby, Dallas Burkholder, and Aaron 

Sobel available in docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 

0167. 

112For the purposes of the cost estimates in this 

section, EPA has not attempted to adjust the price 

of the petroleum fuels to account for the impact of 

the RFS program, since the changes in the 

renewable fuel volume are relatively modest. 

Rather, we have simply used the wholesale price 

projections for gasoline and diesel as reported in 

EIA’s April 2018 STEO. 

113For this table and all subsequent tables in this 

section, approximate costs in per gallon cost 

difference estimates are rounded to the cents place. 

114For this table and all subsequent tables in this 

section, approximate resulting costs (other than in 

per-gallon cost difference estimates) are rounded to 

two significant figures. 

115These volumes do not add to 93 million 

gallons due to rounding. 

the proposed 2019 cellulosic biofuel 

volume requirements to the 2019 

cellulosic statutory volume that would 

be required absent the exercise of our 

cellulosic waiver authority under CAA 

section 211(o)(7)(D)(i). As described in 

Section III, we are proposing a cellulosic 

volume of 381 million gallons for 2019. 

The result is that we are using our 

cellulosic waiver authority to waive the 

statutory cellulosic volume of 8.5 billion 

gallons by 8.12 billion gallons. 

Estimating the cost savings from 

volumes that are not projected to be 

produced is inherently challenging. EPA 

has taken the relatively straightforward 

methodology of multiplying this waived 

volume of 8.12 billion gallons by the 

wholesale per-gallon costs of cellulosic 

biofuel production relative to the 

petroleum fuels they displace. 

While there may be growth in other 

cellulosic renewable fuel sources, we 

believe it is appropriate to use cellulosic 

ethanol produced from corn kernel fiber 

as the representative cellulosic 

renewable fuel. The majority of liquid 

cellulosic biofuel in 2019 is expected to 

be produced using this technology, and 

application of this technology in the 

future could result in significant 

incremental volumes of cellulosic 

biofuel. In addition, as explained in 

Section III, we believe that production 

of the major alternative cellulosic 

biofuel—CNG/LNG derived from 

biogas—is limited to approximately 630 

million gallons due to a limitation in the 

number of vehicles capable of using this 

form of fuel.110

EPA uses a ‘‘bottom-up’’ engineering 

cost analysis to quantify the costs of 

producing a gallon of cellulosic ethanol 

derived from corn kernel fiber. There 

are multiple processes that could yield 

cellulosic ethanol from corn kernel 

fiber. EPA assumes a cellulosic ethanol 

production process that generates 

biofuel using distiller’s grains, a coproduct of generating corn starch 

ethanol that is commonly dried and sold 

into the feed market as distillers dried 

grains with solubles (DDGS), as the 

renewable biomass feedstock. We 

assume an enzymatic hydrolysis process 

with cellulosic enzymes to break down 

the cellulosic components of the 

distiller’s grains. This process for 

generating cellulosic ethanol is similar 

to approaches currently used by 

industry to generate cellulosic ethanol 

at a commercial scale, and we believe 

these cost estimates are likely 

representative of the range of different 

technology options being developed to 

produce ethanol from corn kernel fiber. 

We then compare the per-gallon costs of 

the cellulosic ethanol to the petroleum 

fuels that would be replaced at the 

wholesale stage, since that is when the 

two are blended together. 

These cost estimates do not consider 

taxes, retail margins, or other costs or 

transfers that occur at or after the point 

of blending (transfers are payments 

within society and are not additional 

costs). We do not attempt to estimate 

potential cost savings related to avoided 

infrastructure costs (e.g., the cost 

savings of not having to provide pumps 

and storage tanks associated with 

higher-level ethanol blends). When 

estimating per-gallon costs, we consider 

the costs of gasoline on an energyequivalent basis as compared to ethanol, 

since more ethanol gallons must be 

consumed to travel the same distance as 

on gasoline due to the ethanol’s lower 

energy content. 

Table V.A–1 below presents the 

cellulosic fuel cost savings with this 

proposed rule that are estimated using 

this approach.111 The per-gallon cost 

difference estimates for cellulosic 

ethanol ranges from $0.49–$2.65 per 

ethanol-equivalent gallon.112 Given that 

cellulosic ethanol production is just 

starting to become commercially 

available, the cost estimates have a 

significant range. Multiplying those pergallon cost differences by the amount of 

cellulosic biofuel waived in this 

proposed rule results in approximately 

$4.0–$22 billion in cost savings. 

TABLE V.A–1—ILLUSTRATIVE COSTS OF EXERCISING THE CELLULOSIC WAIVER AUTHORITY COMPARED TO THE 2019 

STATUTORY VOLUMES BASELINE

Cellulosic Volume Required (Million Ethanol-Equivalent Gallons) ...................................................................................................... 381 

Change in Required Cellulosic Biofuel from 2019 Statutory Volume (Million Ethanol-Equivalent Gallons) ....................................... (8,119) 

Cost Difference Between Cellulosic Corn Kernel Fiber Ethanol and Gasoline Per Gallon ($/Ethanol-Equivalent Gallons) 113 ........ $0.49–$2.65 

Annual Change in Overall Costs (Million $) 114 ................................................................................................................................... $(4,000)– 

$(22,000) 

B. Illustrative Costs Analysis of 

Exercising the Cellulosic Waiver 

Authority Compared to the 2018 RFS 

Volumes Baseline 

In this section, we provide illustrative 

cost estimates for EPA exercising its 

cellulosic waiver authority to reduce 

statutory cellulosic volumes for 2019 

(with corresponding reductions to the 

advanced and total renewable fuel 

volumes) compared to the final 2018 

RFS volumes. This results in an increase 

in cellulosic volumes for the 2019 RFS 

of 93 gallons (ethanol-equivalent) and 

an increase in the non-cellulosic 

advanced biofuel volumes for 2019 of 

500 million gallons (ethanolequivalent). 

1. Cellulosic Biofuel 

We anticipate that the increase in 

proposed 2019 cellulosic biofuel 

volumes would be composed of 10 

million gallons of liquid cellulosic 

biofuel and 84 million gallons of CNG/ 

LNG derived from landfill biogas.115

Based upon the methodology outlined 

above in V.A, we use corn kernel fiber 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
32050 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

116 Ibid. 117Henry Hub Spot price estimate for 2019. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA), Short 

Term Energy Outlook (STEO) available in docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0167. 

as the representative liquid cellulosic 

biofuel to develop cost estimates of 

cellulosic ethanol. We estimate a cost 

difference between cellulosic corn fiberderived ethanol and gasoline of $0.49– 

$2.65 on an ethanol-equivalent gallon 

basis. Next, the per-gallon costs of 

cellulosic renewable fuel are multiplied 

by the 10 million gallon increase 

between the proposed 2019 cellulosic 

volume and the final 2018 cellulosic 

RFS volume requirements to estimate 

the total costs from the increase in 

cellulosic ethanol. 

For CNG/LNG-derived cellulosic 

biogas, we provide estimates of the cost 

of displacing natural gas with CNG/LNG 

derived from landfill biogas to produce 

84 million ethanol-equivalent gallons of 

cellulosic fuel. To estimate the cost of 

production of CNG/LNG derived from 

landfill gas (LFG), EPA uses Version 3.2 

of the Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model, 

or LFG cost-Web. EPA ran the financial 

cost calculator for projects with a design 

flow rate of 1,000 and 10,000 cubic feet 

per minute with the suggested default 

data and a project start year of 2019. The 

costs estimated for this analysis exclude 

any pipeline costs to transport the high 

BTU gas, as well as any costs associated 

with compressing the gas to CNG/LNG. 

These costs are not expected to differ 

significantly between LFG or natural 

gas. In addition, the cost estimates 

excluded the gas collection and control 

system infrastructure at the landfill, as 

EPA expects that landfills that begin 

producing high BTU gas in 2019 are 

very likely to already have this 

infrastructure in place.116

To estimate the illustrative cost 

impacts of the change in CNG/LNG 

derived from LFG, we compared the 

cost of production of CNG/LNG derived 

from LFG in each case to the projected 

price for natural gas in 2019 in EIA’s 

April 2018 STEO.117 Finally, we 

converted these costs to an ethanolequivalent gallon basis. The resulting 

cost estimates are shown in Table 

V.B.2–1. Adding the cost of cellulosic 

ethanol to the costs of CNG/LNG landfill 

gas, the total costs of the proposed 2019 

cellulosic volume compared to 2018 

RFS cellulosic volume range from 

$2.3–$32 million. 

2. Advanced Renewable Fuel 

EPA provides a range of illustrative 

cost estimates for the increases in the 

advanced standard of 500 million 

ethanol-equivalent gallons using two 

different advanced biofuels. In the first 

scenario, we assume that all the increase 

in advanced biofuel volumes is 

comprised of soybean oil BBD. In the 

second scenario, we assume that all the 

increase in the advanced volume is 

comprised of sugarcane ethanol from 

Brazil. 

Consistent with the analysis in 

previous annual RFS volume rules, a 

‘‘bottom-up’’ engineering cost analysis 

is used that quantifies the costs of 

producing a gallon of soybean-based 

biodiesel and then compares that cost to 

the energy-equivalent gallon of 

petroleum-based diesel. We compare the 

cost of biodiesel and diesel fuel at the 

wholesale stage, since that is when the 

two are blended together and represents 

the approximate costs to society absent 

transfer payments and any additional 

infrastructure costs. On this basis, EPA 

estimates the costs of producing and 

transporting a gallon of biodiesel to the 

blender in the U.S. 

To estimate the illustrative costs of 

sugarcane ethanol, we compare the cost 

of sugarcane ethanol and gasoline at the 

wholesale stage, since that is when the 

two are blended together and represents 

the approximate costs to society absent 

transfer payments and any additional 

infrastructure costs (e.g., blender 

pumps). On this basis, EPA estimates 

the costs of producing and transporting 

a gallon of sugarcane ethanol to the 

blender in the U.S. More background 

information on the cost assessment 

described in this Section, including 

details of the data sources used and 

assumptions made for each of the 

scenarios, can be found in a 

Memorandum available in the 

docket.118

Table VI.B.2–1 below also presents 

estimates of per energy-equivalent 

gallon costs for producing: (1) Soybean 

biodiesel (in ethanol-equivalent gallons) 

and (2) Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, 

relative to the petroleum fuels they 

replace at the wholesale level. For each 

of the fuels, these per-gallon costs are 

then multiplied by the increase in the 

2019 non-cellulosic advanced volume 

relative to the 2018 final advanced 

standard volume to obtain an overall 

cost increase of $380–$710 million. In 

addition, in Table V.B.2–1, we also 

present estimates of the total cost of this 

proposal relative to 2018 RFS fuel 

volumes. We add the increase in cost of 

the proposed 2019 cellulosic standard 

volume, $2.3–$32 million, with the 

additional costs of the increase in noncellulosic advanced biofuel volumes 

resulting from the proposed 2019 

advanced standard volume, $380–$710 

million. The overall total costs of this 

proposal range from $380–$740 million. 

TABLE V.B.2–1—ILLUSTRATIVE COSTS OF EXERCISING THE CELLULOSIC WAIVER AUTHORITY COMPARED TO THE 2018 

RFS VOLUMES BASELINE

Cellulosic Volume 

Corn Kernel Fiber Cellulosic Ethanol Costs: 

Cost Difference Between Cellulosic Corn Kernel Fiber Ethanol and Gasoline Per Gallon ($/Ethanol-Equivalent Gallons) ...... $0.49–$2.65 

Annual Increase in Overall Costs (Million $) ................................................................................................................................ 4.9–26 

CNG/LNG Derived from Biogas Costs: 

Cost Difference Between CNG/LNG Derived from Landfill Biogas and Natural Gas Per Gallon (/Ethanol-Equivalent Gallons) (0.03)–0.08 

Annual Increase in Overall Costs (Million $) ................................................................................................................................ (2.6)–6.4 

Annual Increase in Costs with Cellulosic Volume ...............................................................................................................................

(Million $) ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2.3–32 

Advanced Volume 

Soybean Biodiesel Scenario: 

Cost Difference Between Soybean Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Per Gallon (/Ethanol-Equivalent Gallons) ........................ 1.04–1.43 

Annual Increase in Overall Costs (Million $) ................................................................................................................................ 520–710 

Brazilian Sugarcane Ethanol Scenario: 

Cost Difference Between Sugarcane Ethanol and Gasoline Per Gallon (/Ethanol-Equivalent Gallons) .................................... 0.76–1.22 

Annual Increase in Overall Costs (Million $) ................................................................................................................................ 380–610 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32051 

119RFS2 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). 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. 120See CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(v). 

TABLE V.B.2–1—ILLUSTRATIVE COSTS OF EXERCISING THE CELLULOSIC WAIVER AUTHORITY COMPARED TO THE 2018 

RFS VOLUMES BASELINE—Continued 

Annual Increase in Overall Costs with Non-Cellulosic Advanced Volume (Million $) ........................................................................ 380–710 

Cellulosic and Advanced Volumes 

Annual Increase in Overall Costs with Cellulosic and Advanced Volume ..........................................................................................

(Million $) ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 380–740 

The annual volume-setting process 

encourages consideration of the RFS 

program on a piecemeal (i.e., year-toyear) basis, which may not reflect the 

full, long-term costs and benefits of the 

program. For the purposes of this 

proposed rule, other than the estimates 

of costs of producing a ‘‘representative’’ 

renewable fuel compared to cost of 

petroleum fuel, EPA did not 

quantitatively assess other direct and 

indirect costs or benefits of changes in 

renewable fuel volumes. These direct 

and indirect costs and benefits may 

include infrastructure costs, investment, 

lifecycle GHG emissions and air quality 

impacts, and energy security benefits, 

which all are to some degree affected by 

the annual volumes. For example, we do 

not have a quantified estimate of the 

lifecycle GHG or energy security 

benefits for a single year (e.g., 2019). 

Also, there are impacts that are difficult 

to quantify, such as rural economic 

development and employment changes 

from more diversified fuel sources, that 

are not quantified in this rulemaking. 

While some of these impacts were 

analyzed in the 2010 final rulemaking 

that established the current RFS 

program,119 we have not analyzed these 

impacts for the 2019 volume 

requirements. 

VI. Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 

2020 

In this section we discuss the 

proposed BBD applicable volume for 

2020. We are proposing this volume in 

advance of those for other renewable 

fuel categories in light of the statutory 

requirement in CAA section 

211(o)(2)(B)(ii) to establish the 

applicable volume of BBD for years after 

2012 no later than 14 months before the 

applicable volume will apply. We are 

not at this time proposing the BBD 

percentage standards that would apply 

to obligated parties in 2020 but intend 

to do so in late 2019, after receiving 

EIA’s estimate of gasoline and diesel 

consumption for 2020. Although the 

BBD applicable volume sets a floor for 

required BBD use, because the BBD 

volume requirement is nested within 

both the advanced biofuel and the total 

renewable fuel volume requirements, 

any BBD produced beyond the 

mandated 2020 BBD volume can be 

used to satisfy both of these other 

applicable volume requirements. 

A. Statutory Requirements 

The statute establishes applicable 

volume targets for years through 2022 

for cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, 

and total renewable fuel. For BBD, 

applicable volume targets are specified 

in the statute only through 2012. For 

years after those for which volumes are 

specified in the statute, EPA is required 

under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) to 

determine the applicable volume of 

BBD, 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 volumes and an analysis of 

the following factors: 

1. The impact of the production and 

use of renewable fuels on the 

environment, including on air quality, 

climate change, conversion of wetlands, 

ecosystems, wildlife habitat, water 

quality, and water supply; 

2. The impact of renewable fuels on 

the energy security of the United States; 

3. The expected annual rate of future 

commercial production of renewable 

fuels, including advanced biofuels in 

each category (cellulosic biofuel and 

BBD); 

4. 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; 

5. The impact of the use of renewable 

fuels on the cost to consumers of 

transportation fuel and on the cost to 

transport goods; and 

6. 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. 

The statute also specifies that the 

volume requirement for BBD cannot be 

less than the applicable volume 

specified in the statute for calendar year 

2012, which is 1.0 billion gallons.120

The statute does not, however, establish 

any other numeric criteria, or provide 

any guidance on how the EPA should 

weigh the importance of the often 

competing factors and the overarching 

goals of the statute when the EPA sets 

the applicable volumes of BBD in years 

after those for which the statute 

specifies such volumes. In the period 

2013–2022, the statute specifies 

increasing applicable volumes of 

cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and 

total renewable fuel, but provides no 

guidance, beyond the 1.0 billion gallon 

minimum, on the level at which BBD 

volumes should be set. 

In establishing the BBD and cellulosic 

standards as nested within the advanced 

biofuel standard, Congress clearly 

intended to support development of 

BBD and especially cellulosic biofuels, 

while also providing an incentive for 

the growth of other non-specified types 

of advanced biofuels. In general, the 

advanced biofuel standard provides an 

opportunity for other advanced biofuels 

(advanced biofuels that do not qualify as 

cellulosic biofuel or BBD) to compete 

with cellulosic biofuel and BBD to 

satisfy the advanced biofuel standard 

after the cellulosic biofuel and BBD 

standards have been met. 

B. Determination of the 2020 Applicable 

Volume of Biomass-Based Diesel 

One of the primary considerations in 

determining the BBD volume for 2020 is 

a review of the implementation of the 

program to date, as it affects BBD. This 

review is required by the CAA, and also 

provides insight into the capabilities of 

the industry to produce, import, export, 

and distribute BBD. It also helps us to 

understand what factors, beyond the 

BBD standard, may incentivize the 

production and import of BBD. Table 

VI.B.1–1 below shows, for 2011–2017, 

the number of BBD RINs generated, the 

number of RINs retired due to export, 

the number of RINs retired for reasons 

other than compliance with the annual 

BBD standards, the consequent number 

of available BBD RINs, and the BBD and 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
32052 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

121Available BBD RINs Generated, Exported BBD 

RINs, and BBD RINs Retired for Non-Compliance 

Reasons information from EMTS. 

122The biodiesel tax credit was reauthorized in 

January 2013. It applied retroactively for 2012 and 

for the remainder of 2013. It was once again 

extended in December 2014 and applied 

retroactively to all of 2014 as well as to the 

remaining weeks of 2014. In December 2015 the 

biodiesel tax credit was authorized and applied 

retroactively for all of 2015 as well as through the 

end of 2016. In February 2018 the biodiesel tax 

credit was authorized and applied retroactively for 

all of 2017. 

123See 80 FR 77490–92, 77495 (December 14, 

2015). 

124This is because when an obligated party retires 

a BBD RIN (D4) to help satisfy their BBD obligation, 

the nested nature of the BBD standard means that 

this RIN also counts towards satisfying their 

advanced and total renewable fuel obligations. 

Advanced RINs (D5) count towards both the 

advanced and total renewable fuel obligations, 

while conventional RINs (D6) count towards only 

the total renewable fuel obligation. 

125We would still expect D4 RINs to be valued 

at a slight premium to D5 and D6 RINs in this case 

(and D5 RINs at a slight premium to D6 RINs) to 

reflect the greater flexibility of the D4 RINs to be 

used towards the BBD, advanced biofuel, and total 

renewable fuel standard. This pricing has been 

observed over the past several years. 

advanced biofuel standards for 2011– 

2019. 

TABLE VI.B.1–1—BIOMASS-BASED DIESEL (D4) RIN GENERATION AND ADVANCED BIOFUEL AND

BIOMASS-BASED DIESEL STANDARDS IN 2011–2019 

[Million RINs or gallons] 121

BBD RINs 

generated 

Exported BBD 

(RINs) 

BBD RINs 

retired, noncompliance 

reasons 

Available 

BBD RINs a

BBD standard 

(gallons) 

BBD standard 

(RINs) 

Advanced 

biofuel 

standard 

(RINs) 

2011 ............................. 1,692 72 98 1,522 800 1,200 1,350 

2012 ............................. 1,737 102 90 1,545 1,000 1,500 2,000 

2013 ............................. 2,739 124 101 2,514 1,280 1,920 2,750 

2014 ............................. 2,710 134 92 2,484 1,630 b 2,490 2,670 

2015 ............................. 2,796 145 32 2,619 1,730 b 2,655 2,880 

2016 ............................. 4,008 203 96 3,709 1,900 2,850 3,610 

2017 ............................. 3,849 244 35 3,570 2,000 3,000 4,280 

2018 ............................. N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,100 3,150 4,290 

2019 ............................. N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,100 3,150 4,880 

aAvailable BBD RINs may not be exactly equal to BBD RINs Generated minus Exported RINs and BBD RINs Retired, Non-Compliance Reasons, due to rounding. bEach gallon of biodiesel qualifies for 1.5 RINs due to its higher energy content per gallon than ethanol. Renewable diesel qualifies for between 1.5 and 1.7 RINs per gallon, but generally has an equivalence value of 1.7. While some fuels that qualify as BBD generate more than 1.5 

RINs per gallon, EPA multiplies the required volume of BBD by 1.5 in calculating the percent standard per 80.1405(c). In 2014 and 2015 however, the number of RINs in the BBD Standard column is not exactly equal to 1.5 times the BBD volume standard as these standards were established based on actual RIN generation data for 2014 and a combination of actual data and a projection of RIN generation for the last three 

months of the year for 2015, rather than by multiplying the required volume of BBD by 1.5. Some of the volume used to meet the BBD standard 

in these years was renewable diesel, with an equivalence value higher than 1.5. 

In reviewing historical BBD RIN 

generation and use, we see that the 

number of RINs available for 

compliance purposes exceeded the 

volume required to meet the BBD 

standard in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2016 and 

2017. Additional production and use of 

biodiesel was likely driven by a number 

of factors, including demand to satisfy 

the advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuels standards, the biodiesel 

tax credit,122 and favorable blending 

economics. The number of RINs 

available in 2014 and 2015 was 

approximately equal to the number 

required for compliance in those years, 

as the standards for these years were 

finalized at the end of November 2015 

and EPA’s intent at that time was to set 

the standards for 2014 and 2015 to 

reflect actual BBD use.123 In 2016, with 

RFS standards established prior to the 

beginning of the year and the blenders 

tax credit in place, available BBD RINs 

exceeded the volume required by the 

BBD standard by 859 million RINs (30 

percent). In 2017, the RFS standards 

were established prior to the beginning 

of the year, and the blenders tax credit 

was only applied retroactively; even 

without the certainty of a tax credit, the 

available BBD RINs exceeded the 

volume required by the BBD standard 

by 570 million RINs (19 percent). This 

indicates that in appropriate 

circumstances there is demand for BBD 

beyond the required volume of BBD. We 

also note that while EPA has 

consistently established the required 

volume in such a way as to allow nonBBD fuels to compete for market share 

in the advanced biofuel category, since 

2016 the vast majority of non-cellulosic 

advanced biofuel used to satisfy the 

advanced biofuel obligations has been 

BBD. 

The prices paid for advanced biofuel 

and BBD RINs beginning in early 2013 

through the March 2018 also support 

the conclusion that advanced biofuel 

and/or total renewable fuel standards 

provide a sufficient incentive for 

additional biodiesel volume beyond 

what is required by the BBD standard. 

Because the BBD standard is nested 

within the advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel standards, and therefore 

can help to satisfy three RVOs, we 

would expect the price of BBD RINs to 

exceed that of advanced and 

conventional renewable RINs.124 If, 

however, BBD RINs are being used (or 

are expected to be used) by obligated 

parties to satisfy their advanced biofuel 

obligations, above and beyond the BBD 

standard, we would expect the prices of 

advanced biofuel and BBD RINs to 

converge.125 Further, if BBD RINs are 

being used (or are expected to be used) 

to satisfy obligated parties’ total 

renewable fuel obligation, above and 

beyond their BBD and advanced biofuel 

requirements, we would expect the 

price for all three RIN types to converge. 

When examining RIN price data from 

2012 through March 2018, shown in 

Figure VI.B.2–1 below, we see that 

beginning in early 2013 and through 

March 2018 (the last month for which 

data are available) the advanced RIN 

price and BBD RIN prices were 

approximately equal. Similarly, from 

early 2013 through late 2016 the 

conventional renewable fuel and BBD 

RIN prices were approximately equal. 

This suggests that the advanced biofuel 

standard and/or total renewable fuel 

standard are capable of incentivizing 

increased BBD volumes beyond the BBD 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32053 

126Although we did not issue a rule establishing 

the final 2013 standards until August of 2013, we 

believe that the market anticipated the final 

standards, based on EPA’s July 2011 proposal and 

the volume targets for advanced and total renewable 

fuel established in the statute. (76 FR 38844, 

38843.) 

127See 80 FR 33100 (2014–16 standards proposed 

June 10, 2015); 78 FR 71732 (2014 standards 

proposed Nov. 29, 2013). 

128EPA proposed a BBD standard of 1.28 billion 

gallons (1.92 billion RINs) for 2014 in our 

November 2013 proposed rule. The number of BBD 

RINs available in 2014 was 2.67 billion. EPA 

proposed a BBD standard of 1.70 billion gallons 

(2.55 billion RINs) for 2015 in our June 2015 

proposed rule. The number of BBD RINs available 

in 2015 was 2.92 billion. 

129 77 FR 59458, 59462. 

130 594 million advanced ethanol RINs were 

generated in 2012. 

standard. The advanced biofuel 

standard has incentivized additional 

volumes of BBD since 2013, while the 

total standard had incentivized 

additional volumes of BBD from 2013 

through 2016.126 While final standards 

were not in place throughout 2014 and 

most of 2015, EPA had issued proposed 

rules for both of these years.127 In each 

year, the market response was to supply 

volumes of BBD that exceeded the 

proposed BBD standard in order to help 

satisfy the proposed advanced and total 

biofuel standards.128 Additionally, the 

RIN prices in these years strongly 

suggests that obligated parties and other 

market participants anticipated the need 

for BBD RINs to meet their advanced 

and total biofuel obligations, and 

responded by purchasing advanced 

biofuel and BBD RINs at approximately 

equal prices. We do note, however, that 

in 2012 the BBD RIN price was 

significantly higher than both the 

advanced biofuel and conventional 

renewable fuel RIN prices. In 2012 the 

E10 blendwall had not yet been reached, 

and it was likely more cost effective for 

most obligated parties to satisfy the 

portion of the advanced biofuel 

requirement that exceeded the BBD and 

cellulosic biofuel requirements with 

advanced ethanol. 

In raising the 2013 BBD volume above 

the 1 billion gallon minimum mandated 

by Congress, the EPA sought to ‘‘create 

greater certainty for both producers of 

BBD and obligated parties’’ while also 

acknowledging that, ‘‘the potential for 

somewhat increased costs is appropriate 

in light of the additional certainty of 

GHG reductions and enhanced energy 

security provided by the advanced 

biofuel volume requirement of 2.75 

billion gallons.’’ 129 Unknown at that 

time was the degree to which the 

required volumes of advanced biofuel 

and total renewable fuel could 

incentivize volumes of BBD that 

exceeded the BBD standard. In 2012 the 

available supply of BBD RINs exceeded 

the required volume of BBD by a very 

small margin (1,545 million BBD RINs 

were made available for compliance 

towards meeting the BBD requirement 

of 1,500 million BBD RINs). The 

remainder of the 2.0 billion-gallon 

advanced biofuel requirement was 

satisfied with advanced ethanol, which 

was largely imported from Brazil.130

From 2012 to 2013 the statutory 

advanced biofuel requirement increased 

by 750 million gallons. If EPA had not 

increased the required volume of BBD 

for 2013, and the advanced biofuel 

standard had proved insufficient to 

increase the supply of BBD beyond the 

statutory minimum of 1.0 billion 

gallons, an additional 750 million 

gallons of non-BBD advanced biofuels 

beyond the BBD standard would have 

been needed to meet the advanced 

biofuel volume requirement. 

The only advanced biofuel other than 

BBD available in appreciable quantities 

in 2012 and 2013 was advanced ethanol, 

the vast majority of which was imported 

sugarcane ethanol. EPA had significant 

concerns as to whether or not the 

supply of advanced ethanol could 

increase this significantly (750 million 

gallons) in a single year. These concerns 

were heightened by the approaching 

E10 blendwall, which had the potential 

to increase the challenges associated 

with supplying increasing volumes of 

ethanol to the U.S. If neither BBD 

volumes nor advanced ethanol volumes 

increased sufficiently, EPA was 

concerned that some obligated parties 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2EP10JY18.004</GPH>
32054 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

131 ‘‘BBD RIN Generation by Company 2012, 

2016, and 2017 CBI,’’ available in EPA docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2017–0167. 

132 Id. 

133See, e.g. Comments from National Biodiesel 

Board on the 2018 Annual Standards, available in 

EPA docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0167. 

might be unable to acquire the advanced 

biofuel RINs necessary to demonstrate 

compliance with their RVOs in 2013. 

Therefore, as discussed above, EPA 

increased the volume requirement for 

BBD in 2013 to help create greater 

certainty for BBD producers (by 

ensuring demand for their product 

above the 1.0 billion gallon statutory 

minimum) and obligated parties (by 

ensuring that sufficient RINs would be 

available to satisfy their advanced 

biofuel RVOs). Since 2013, however, 

EPA has gained significant experience 

implementing the RFS program. As 

discussed above, RIN generation data 

has consistently demonstrated that the 

advanced biofuel volume requirement, 

and to a lesser degree the total 

renewable fuel volume requirement, are 

capable of incentivizing the supply of 

BBD above and beyond the BBD volume 

requirement. The RIN generation data 

also show that while EPA has 

consistently preserved the opportunity 

for fuels other that BBD to contribute 

towards satisfying the required volume 

of advanced biofuel, these other 

advanced biofuels have not been 

supplied in significant quantities since 

2013. 

TABLE VI.B.1–2—OPPORTUNITY FOR AND RIN GENERATION OF ‘‘OTHER’’ ADVANCED BIOFUELS

[Million RINs] 

Opportunity for 

‘‘other’’ 

advanced 

biofuels a

Available 

advanced (D5) 

RINs 

Available BBD 

(D4) RINs in 

excess of the 

BBD 

requirement b

2011 ............................................................................................................................................. 150 225 322 

2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 500 597 45 

2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 829 552 594 

2014 c ........................................................................................................................................... 192 143 39 

2015 c ........................................................................................................................................... 162 147 24 

2016 ............................................................................................................................................. 530 97 903 

2017 ............................................................................................................................................. 969 144 570 

aThe required volume of ‘‘other’’ advanced biofuel is calculated by subtracting the number of cellulosic biofuel and BBD RINs required each 

year from the number of advanced biofuel RINs required. This portion of the advanced standard can be satisfied by advanced (D5) RINs, BBD 

RINs in excess of those required by the BBD standard, or cellulosic RINs in excess of those required by the cellulosic standard. bThe available BBD (D4) RINs in excess of the BBD requirement is calculated by subtracting the number of BBD RINs required each year 

from the number of BBD RINs available for compliance in that year. This number does not include carryover RINs. cThe 2014 and 2015 volume requirements were established in November 2015 and were set equal to the number of RINs projected to be 

available for each year. 

In 2014 and 2015, EPA set the BBD 

and advanced standards at actual RIN 

generation, and thus the space between 

the advanced biofuel standard and the 

biodiesel standard was unlikely to 

provide an incentive for ‘‘other’’ 

advanced biofuels. EPA now has data on 

the amount of ‘‘other’’ advanced 

biofuels produced in 2016 and 2017 as 

shown in the table above. For 2016 and 

2017, the gap between the BBD standard 

and the advanced biofuel provided an 

opportunity for ‘‘other’’ advanced 

biofuels to be generated to satisfy the 

advanced biofuel standard. While EPA 

allowed for up to 530 million and 969 

million gallons of ‘‘other’’ advanced for 

2016 and 2017 respectively, only 97 

million and 144 million gallons of 

‘‘other’’ advanced biofuels were 

generated. This is significantly less than 

the volumes of ‘‘other’’ advanced 

available in 2012–2013. Despite creating 

space within the advanced biofuel 

standard for ‘‘other’’ advanced, in recent 

years, that space has not been filled 

with significant volumes of ‘‘other’’ 

advanced and BBD continues to fill 

most of the gap between the BBD 

standard and the advanced standard. 

Thus, while the advanced biofuel 

standard is sufficient to drive biodiesel 

volume separate and apart from the BBD 

standard, there would not appear to be 

a compelling reason to increase the 

‘‘space’’ maintained for ‘‘other’’ 

advanced biofuel volumes. The overall 

volume of non-cellulosic advanced 

biofuel volume is proposed to increase 

by 500 million gallons for 2019. 

Increasing the BBD volume by the same 

amount would preserve the space 

already available for other advanced 

biofuels to compete. 

At the same time, the rationale for 

preserving the ‘‘space’’ for ‘‘other’’ 

advanced biofuels remains. We note that 

the BBD industry in the U.S. and abroad 

has matured since EPA first increased 

the required volume of BBD beyond the 

statutory minimum in 2013. To assess 

the maturity of the biodiesel industry, 

EPA compared information on BBD RIN 

generation by company in 2012 and 

2017 (the most recent year for which 

complete RIN generation by company is 

available). In 2012, the annual average 

RIN generation per company producing 

BBD was about 11 million RINs (about 

7.3 million gallons) with approximately 

50 percent of companies producing less 

the 1 million gallons of BBD a year.131

The agency heard from multiple 

commenters during the 2012 and 2013 

rulemakings that higher volume 

requirements for BBD would provide 

greater certainty for the emerging BBD 

industry and encourage further 

investment. Since that time, the BBD 

industry has matured in a number of 

critical areas, including growth in the 

size of companies, the consolidation of 

the industry, and more stable funding 

and access to capital. In 2012, the BBD 

industry was characterized by smaller 

companies with dispersed market share. 

By 2017, the average BBD RIN 

generation per company had climbed to 

almost 33 million RINs (22 million 

gallons) annually, a 3-fold increase. 

Only 33 percent of the companies 

produced less than 1 million gallons of 

BBD in 2017.132

We are conscious of public comments 

claiming that BBD volume requirements 

that are a significant portion of the 

advanced volume requirements 

effectively disincentivize the future 

development of other promising 

advanced biofuel pathways.133 A variety 

of different types of advanced biofuels, 

rather than a single type such as BBD, 

would increase energy security (e.g., by 

increasing the diversity of feedstock 

sources used to make biofuels, thereby 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32055 

134All types of advanced biofuel, including BBD, 

must achieve lifecycle GHG reductions of at least 

50 percent. See CAA section 211(o)(1)(B)(i), (D). 

135 ‘‘Memorandum to docket: Draft Statutory 

Factors Assessment for the 2020 Biomass-Based 

Diesel (BBD) Applicable Volumes.’’ See Docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0167. 

136See CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV), (II). 

137While excess BBD production could also 

displace conventional renewable fuel under the 

total renewable standard, as long as the BBD 

applicable volume is lower than the advanced 

biofuel applicable volume our action in setting the 

BBD applicable volume is not expected to displace 

conventional renewable fuel under the total 

renewable standard, but rather other advanced 

biofuels. We acknowledge, however, that under 

certain market conditions excess volumes of BBD 

may also be used to displace conventional biofuels. 

138Even though we are not proposing to set the 

2020 advanced biofuel volume requirement as part 

of this rulemaking, we expect that, as in the past, 

the 2020 advanced volume requirement will be 

higher than the 2020 BBD requirement, and, 

therefore, that the BBD volume requirement for 

2020 would not be expected to impact the volume 

of BBD that is actually produced and imported 

during the 2020-time period. 

reducing the impacts associated with a 

shortfall in a particular type of 

feedstock) and increase the likelihood of 

the development of lower cost advanced 

biofuels that meet the same GHG 

reduction threshold as BBD.134

With the considerations discussed 

above in mind, as well as our analysis 

of the factors specified in the statute, we 

are proposing to set the applicable 

volume of BBD at 2.43 billion gallons 

for 2020. This increase, in conjunction 

with the statutory increase of 500 

million gallons of non-cellulosic 

advanced biofuel in 2019, would 

continue to preserve a gap between the 

advanced biofuel volume and the sum 

of the cellulosic biofuel and BBD 

volumes. This would allow other 

advanced biofuels to continue to 

compete with excess volumes of BBD 

for market share under the advanced 

biofuel standard. We believe this 

volume sets the appropriate floor for 

BBD, and that the volume of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel actually 

used in 2020 will be driven by the level 

of the advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel standards that the 

Agency will establish for 2020. It also 

recognizes that while maintaining an 

opportunity for other advanced biofuels 

is important, the vast majority of the 

advanced biofuel used to comply with 

the advanced biofuel standard in recent 

years has been BBD. Based on 

information now available from 2016 

and 2017, despite providing a 

significant degree of space for ‘‘other’’ 

advanced biofuels, smaller volumes of 

‘‘other’’ advanced have been utilized to 

meet the advanced standard. EPA 

believes that the BBD standard we are 

proposing to set today still provides 

sufficient incentive to producers of 

‘‘other’’ advanced biofuels, while also 

acknowledging that the advanced 

standard has been met predominantly 

with biomass-based diesel. Our 

assessment of the required statutory 

factors, summarized in the next section 

and detailed in a memorandum to the 

docket (the ‘‘2020 BBD docket 

memorandum’’), supports our 

proposal.135 We request comment on the 

biomass-based diesel volume 

requirement for 2020. 

We believe this approach strikes the 

appropriate balance between providing 

a market environment where the 

development of other advanced biofuels 

is incentivized, while also maintaining 

support for the BBD industry. Based on 

our review of the data, and the nested 

nature of the BBD standard within the 

advanced standard, we conclude that 

the advanced standard continues to 

drive the ultimate volume of BBD 

supplied. However, given that BBD has 

been the predominant source of 

advanced biofuel in recent years and the 

500 million gallon increase in noncellulosic advanced biofuel we are 

proposing in this rule, we are proposing 

a volume of 2.43 billion gallons of BBD 

for 2020. Setting the BBD standard in 

this manner would preserve a 

considerable portion of the advanced 

biofuel volume that could be satisfied 

by either additional gallons of BBD or 

by other unspecified and potentially 

less costly types of qualifying advanced 

biofuels. 

C. Consideration of Statutory Factors 

Set Forth in CAA Section 

211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)–(VI) for 2020 

The BBD volume requirement is 

nested within the advanced biofuel 

requirement, and the advanced biofuel 

requirement is, in turn, nested within 

the total renewable fuel volume 

requirement.136 This means that any 

BBD produced beyond the mandated 

BBD volume can be used to satisfy both 

these other applicable volume 

requirements. The result is that in 

considering the statutory factors we 

must consider the potential impacts of 

increasing or decreasing BBD in 

comparison to other advanced 

biofuels.137 For a given advanced 

biofuel standard, greater or lesser BBD 

volume requirements do not change the 

amount of advanced biofuel used to 

displace petroleum fuels; rather, 

increasing the BBD requirement may 

result in the displacement of other types 

of advanced biofuels that could have 

been used to meet the advanced biofuels 

volume requirement. EPA is proposing 

to increase the BBD volume for 2020 to 

2.43 billion gallons from 2.1 billion 

gallons in 2019 based on our review of 

the statutory factors and the other 

considerations noted above and in the 

2020 BBD Docket Memorandum. This 

increase, in conjunction with the 

statutory increase of 500 million gallons 

of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel in 

2019, would preserve a gap for ‘‘other’’ 

advanced biofuels, that is the difference 

between the advanced biofuel volume 

and the sum of the cellulosic biofuel 

and BBD volumes. This would allow 

other advanced biofuels to continue to 

compete with excess volumes of BBD 

for market share under the advanced 

biofuel standard, while also supporting 

further growth in the BBD industry. 

Consistent with our approach in 

setting the final BBD volume 

requirement for 2019, EPA’s primary 

assessment of the statutory factors for 

the 2020 BBD applicable volume is that 

because the BBD requirement is nested 

within the advanced biofuel volume 

requirement, we expect that the 2020 

advanced volume requirement, when set 

next year, will determine the level of 

BBD production and imports that occur 

in 2020.138 Therefore, EPA continues to 

believe that approximately the same 

overall volume of BBD would likely be 

supplied in 2020 even if we were to 

mandate a somewhat lower or higher 

BBD volume for 2020 in this final rule. 

Thus, we do not expect our 2020 BBD 

volume requirement to result in a 

difference in the factors we consider 

pursuant to CAA section 

211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)–(VI). 

As an additional supplementary 

assessment, we have considered the 

potential impacts of selecting an 

applicable volume of BBD other than 

2.43 billion gallons in 2020. Even if BBD 

volumes were to be impacted by the 

2020 BBD standard (which as noted 

above we do not currently expect), 

setting a requirement higher or lower 

than 2.43 billion gallons in 2020 would 

only be expected to affect BBD volumes 

minimally, protecting to a greater or 

lesser degree BBD from competition 

with other potential advanced biofuels. 

In this supplementary assessment we 

have considered all of the statutory 

factors found in CAA section 

211(o)(2)(B)(ii), and as described in the 

2020 BBD docket memorandum, our 

assessment does not, based on available 

information, lead us to conclude that a 

higher or lower volume requirement for 

BBD than 2.43 billion gallons is more 

appropriate for 2020. 

Overall and as described in the 2020 

BBD docket memorandum, we have 

determined that both the primary 

assessment and the supplemental 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
32056 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

139The 2019 volume requirement for BBD was 

established in the 2018 final rule. 

140See 75 FR 14670 (March 26, 2010). 

141 In some cases a gallon of renewable diesel 

generates either 1.5 or 1.6 RINs. 

142A small refiner that meets the requirements of 

40 CFR 80.1442 may also be eligible for an 

exemption. 

assessment of the statutory factors 

specified in CAA section 

211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)–(VI) for the year 2020 

does not lead us to conclude that we 

should set the BBD standard at a level 

higher or lower than 2.43 billion gallons 

in 2020. 

VII. Percentage Standards for 2019 

The renewable fuel standards are 

expressed as volume percentages and 

are used by each obligated party to 

determine their Renewable Volume 

Obligations (RVOs). Since there are four 

separate standards under the RFS 

program, there are likewise four 

separate RVOs applicable to each 

obligated party. Each standard applies 

to the sum of all non-renewable gasoline 

and diesel produced or imported. The 

percentage standards are set so that if 

every obligated party meets the 

percentages by acquiring and retiring an 

appropriate number of RINs, then the 

amount of renewable fuel, cellulosic 

biofuel, BBD, and advanced biofuel 

used will meet the applicable volume 

requirements on a nationwide basis. 

Sections II through V provide our 

rationale and basis for the proposed 

volume requirements for 2019.139 The 

volumes used to determine the 

proposed percentage standards are 

shown in Table VII–1. 

TABLE VII–1—VOLUMES FOR USE IN DETERMINING THE PROPOSED 2019 APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE STANDARDS

Cellulosic biofuel ......................................................................... Million ethanol-equivalent gallons .............................................. 381 

Biomass-based diesel ................................................................. Billion gallons ............................................................................. 2.1 

Advanced biofuel ........................................................................ Billion ethanol-equivalent gallons .............................................. 4.88 

Renewable fuel ........................................................................... Billion ethanol-equivalent gallons .............................................. 19.88 

For the purposes of converting these 

volumes into percentage standards, we 

generally use two decimal places to be 

consistent with the volume targets as 

given in the statute, and similarly two 

decimal places in the percentage 

standards. However, for cellulosic 

biofuel we use three decimal places in 

both the volume requirement and 

percentage standards to more precisely 

capture the smaller volume projections 

and the unique methodology that in 

some cases results in estimates of only 

a few million gallons for a single 

producer. 

A. Calculation of Percentage Standards 

To calculate the percentage standards, 

we are following the same methodology 

for 2019 as we have in all prior years. 

The formulas used to calculate the 

percentage standards applicable to 

producers and importers of gasoline and 

diesel are provided in 40 CFR 80.1405. 

The formulas rely on estimates of the 

volumes of gasoline and diesel fuel, for 

both highway and nonroad uses, which 

are projected to be used in the year in 

which the standards will apply. The 

projected gasoline and diesel volumes 

are provided by EIA, and include 

projections of ethanol and biodiesel 

used in transportation fuel. Since the 

percentage standards apply only to the 

non-renewable gasoline and diesel 

produced or imported, the volumes of 

renewable fuel are subtracted out of the 

EIA projections of gasoline and diesel. 

Transportation fuels other than 

gasoline or diesel, such as natural gas, 

propane, and electricity from fossil 

fuels, are not currently subject to the 

standards, and volumes of such fuels are 

not used in calculating the annual 

percentage standards. Since under the 

regulations the standards apply only to 

producers and importers of gasoline and 

diesel, these are the transportation fuels 

used to set the percentage standards, as 

well as to determine the annual volume 

obligations of an individual gasoline or 

diesel producer or importer under 

§ 80.1407. 

As specified in the RFS2 final rule,140

the percentage standards are based on 

energy-equivalent gallons of renewable 

fuel, with the cellulosic biofuel, 

advanced biofuel, and total renewable 

fuel standards based on ethanol 

equivalence and the BBD standard 

based on biodiesel equivalence. 

However, all RIN generation is based on 

ethanol-equivalence. For example, the 

RFS regulations provide that production 

or import of a gallon of qualifying 

biodiesel will lead to the generation of 

1.5 RINs. The formula specified in the 

regulations for calculation of the BBD 

percentage standard is based on 

biodiesel-equivalence, and thus assumes 

that all BBD used to satisfy the BBD 

standard is biodiesel and requires that 

the applicable volume requirement be 

multiplied by 1.5 in order to calculate 

a percentage standard that is on the 

same basis (i.e., ethanol-equivalent) as 

the other three standards. However, 

BBD often contains some renewable 

diesel, and a gallon of renewable diesel 

typically generates 1.7 RINs.141 In 

addition, there is often some renewable 

diesel in the conventional renewable 

fuel pool. As a result, the actual number 

of RINs generated by biodiesel and 

renewable diesel is used in the context 

of our assessing volumes for purposes of 

deriving the applicable volume 

requirements and associated percentage 

standards for advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel, and likewise in 

obligated parties’ determination of 

compliance with any of the applicable 

standards. While there is a difference in 

the treatment of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel in the context of 

determining the percentage standard for 

BBD versus determining the percentage 

standard for advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel, it is not a significant one 

given our approach to determining the 

BBD volume requirement. Our intent in 

setting the BBD applicable volume is to 

provide a level of guaranteed volume for 

BBD, but as described in Section VI.B, 

we do not expect the BBD standard to 

be binding in 2019. That is, we expect 

that actual supply of BBD, as well as 

supply of conventional biodiesel and 

renewable diesel, will be driven by the 

advanced biofuel and total renewable 

fuel standards. 

B. Small Refineries and Small Refiners 

In CAA section 211(o)(9), enacted as 

part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

and amended by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007, 

Congress provided a temporary 

exemption to small refineries142 through 

December 31, 2010. Congress provided 

that small refineries could receive a 

temporary extension of the exemption 

beyond 2010 based either on the results 

of a required DOE study, or based on an 

EPA determination of ‘‘disproportionate 

economic hardship’’ on a case-by-case 

basis in response to small refinery 

petitions. In reviewing petitions, EPA, 

in consultation with the Department of 

Energy, evaluates whether the small 

refinery has demonstrated 

disproportionate economic hardship, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32057 

143To determine the 49-state values for gasoline 

and diesel, the amount of these fuels used in Alaska 

is subtracted from the totals provided by EIA 

because petroleum based fuels used in Alaska do 

not incur RFS obligations. The Alaska fractions are 

determined from the June 30, 2017 EIA State Energy 

Data System (SEDS), Energy Consumption 

Estimates. 

144See ‘‘Calculation of proposed % standards for 

2019’’ in docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0167. 

and may grant refineries exemptions 

upon such demonstration. 

EPA has granted exemptions pursuant 

to this process in the past. However, at 

this time no exemptions have been 

approved for 2019, and therefore we 

have calculated the percentage 

standards for 2019 without any 

adjustment for exempted volumes. EPA 

is maintaining its approach that any 

exemptions for 2019 that are granted 

after the final rule is released will not 

be reflected in the percentage standards 

that apply to all gasoline and diesel 

produced or imported in 2019. EPA is 

not soliciting comments on how small 

refinery exemptions are accounted for in 

the percentage standards formulas in 40 

CFR 80.1405, and any such comments 

will be deemed beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

C. Proposed Standards 

The formulas in 40 CFR 80.1405 for 

the calculation of the percentage 

standards require the specification of a 

total of 14 variables covering factors 

such as the renewable fuel volume 

requirements, projected gasoline and 

diesel demand for all states and 

territories where the RFS program 

applies, renewable fuels projected by 

EIA to be included in the gasoline and 

diesel demand, and exemptions for 

small refineries. The values of all the 

variables used for this final rule are 

shown in Table VII.C–1.143

TABLE VII.C–1—VALUES FOR TERMS IN CALCULATION OF THE PROPOSED 2019 STANDARDS 144

[Billion gallons] 

Term Description Value 

RFVCB ............................ Required volume of cellulosic biofuel ..................................................................................................... 0.381 

RFVBBD .......................... Required volume of biomass-based diesel ............................................................................................. 2.10 

RFVAB ............................ Required volume of advanced biofuel .................................................................................................... 4.88 

RFVRF ............................ Required volume of renewable fuel ........................................................................................................ 19.88 

G .................................... Projected volume of gasoline .................................................................................................................. 143.76 

D .................................... Projected volume of diesel ...................................................................................................................... 56.46 

RG .................................. Projected volume of renewables in gasoline .......................................................................................... 14.74 

RD .................................. Projected volume of renewables in diesel .............................................................................................. 2.83 

GS .................................. Projected volume of gasoline for opt-in areas ........................................................................................ 0.00 

RGS ............................... Projected volume of renewables in gasoline for opt-in areas ................................................................ 0.00 

DS .................................. Projected volume of diesel for opt-in areas ............................................................................................ 0.00 

RDS ............................... Projected volume of renewables in diesel for opt-in areas .................................................................... 0.00 

GE .................................. Projected volume of gasoline for exempt small refineries ...................................................................... 0.00 

DE .................................. Projected volume of diesel for exempt small refineries .......................................................................... 0.00 

Projectedvolumes of gasoline and 

diesel, and the renewable fuels 

contained within them, were derived 

from the April 2018 version of EIA’s 

Short-Term Energy Outlook. 

Using the volumes shown in Table 

VII.C–1, we have calculated the 

proposed percentage standards for 2019 

as shown in Table VII.C–2. 

TABLE VII.C–2—PROPOSED

PERCENTAGE STANDARDS FOR 2019 

Cellulosic biofuel ................... 0.209 

Biomass-based diesel .......... 1.72 

Advanced biofuel .................. 2.67 

Renewable fuel ..................... 10.88 

VIII. Public Participation 

We request comment on all aspects of 

this proposal. This section describes 

how you can participate in this process. 

A. How do I submit comments? 

We are opening a formal comment 

period by publishing this document. We 

will accept comments during the period 

indicated under the DATES section 

above. If you have an interest in the 

proposed standards, 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 Docket (see 

ADDRESSES section above) by the end of 

the comment period. 

You may submit comments 

electronically through the electronic 

public docket, www.regulations.gov, by 

mail to the address shown in 

ADDRESSES, 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 VIII.B 

below. 

EPA will also hold a public hearing 

on this proposed rule. We will 

announce the public hearing date and 

location for this proposal in a 

supplemental Federal Register 

document. 

B. How should I submit CBI to the 

agency? 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI electronically 

through the electronic public docket, 

www.regulations.gov, or by email. 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–2018–0167. 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
32058 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

145 ‘‘Screening Analysis for the Proposed 

Renewable Fuel Standards for 2019,’’ memorandum 

from Dallas Burkholder, Nick Parsons, and Tia 

Sutton to EPA Air Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2018– 

0167. 

146For a further discussion of the ability of 

obligated parties to recover the cost of RINs see 

‘‘Denial of Petitions for Rulemaking to Change the 

RFS Point of Obligation,’’ EPA–420–R–17–008, 

November 2017. 

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. This non-CBI version of your 

comments may be submitted 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier. 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. 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. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is an economically 

significant regulatory action that was 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. Any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket. The EPA 

prepared an analysis of illustrative costs 

associated with this action. This 

analysis is presented in Section V of this 

preamble. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is expected to be an 

Executive Order 13771 regulatory 

action. Details on the estimated costs of 

this proposed rule can be found in 

EPA’s analysis of the illustrative costs 

associated with this action. This 

analysis is presented in Section V of this 

preamble. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. OMB has previously approved the 

information collection activities 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control numbers 

2060–0637 and 2060–0640. The 

proposed standards will not impose 

new or different reporting requirements 

on regulated parties than already exist 

for the RFS program. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. An agency may 

certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, has 

no net burden, or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

The small entities directly regulated 

by the RFS program are small refiners, 

which are defined at 13 CFR 121.201. 

We have evaluated the impacts of this 

proposed rule on small entities from 

two perspectives: As if the 2019 

standards were a standalone action or if 

they are a part of the overall impacts of 

the RFS program as a whole. 

When evaluating the standards as if 

they were a standalone action separate 

and apart from the original rulemaking 

which established the RFS2 program, 

then the standards could be viewed as 

increasing the cellulosic biofuel volume 

by 93 million gallons and the advanced 

and total renewable fuel volumes 

required of obligated parties by 590 

million gallons between 2018 and 2019. 

To evaluate the impacts of the volume 

requirements on small entities relative 

to 2018, EPA has conducted a screening 

analysis 145 to assess whether it should 

make a finding that this action would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Currently available information 

shows that the impact on small entities 

from implementation of this rule would 

not be significant. EPA has reviewed 

and assessed the available information, 

which shows that obligated parties, 

including small entities, are generally 

able to recover the cost of acquiring the 

RINs necessary for compliance with the 

RFS standards through higher sales 

prices of the petroleum products they 

sell than would be expected in the 

absence of the RFS program.146 This is 

true whether they acquire RINs by 

purchasing renewable fuels with 

attached RINs or purchase separated 

RINs. The costs of the RFS program are 

thus generally being passed on to 

consumers in the highly competitive 

marketplace. Even if we were to assume 

that the cost of acquiring RINs were not 

recovered by obligated parties, and we 

used the maximum values of the 

illustrative costs discussed in Section V 

of this preamble and the gasoline and 

diesel fuel volume projections and 

wholesale prices from the April 2018 

version of EIA’s Short-Term Energy 

Outlook, and current wholesale fuel 

prices, a cost-to-sales ratio test shows 

that the costs to small entities of the 

RFS standards are far less than 1 percent 

of the value of their sales. 

While the screening analysis 

described above supports a certification 

that this rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on small 

refiners, we continue to believe that it 

is more appropriate to consider the 

standards as a part of ongoing 

implementation of the overall RFS 

program. When considered this way, the 

impacts of the RFS program as a whole 

on small entities were addressed in the 

RFS2 final rule (75 FR 14670, March 26, 

2010), which was the rule that 

implemented the entire program as 

required by EISA 2007. As such, the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel process 

that took place prior to the 2010 rule 

was also for the entire RFS program and 

looked at impacts on small refiners 

through 2022. 

For the SBREFA process for the RFS2 

final rule, EPA conducted outreach, 

fact-finding, and analysis of the 

potential impacts of the program on 

small refiners, which are all described 

in the Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, located in the rulemaking 

docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161). 

This analysis looked at impacts to all 

refiners, including small refiners, 

through the year 2022 and found that 

the program would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and that this impact was expected to 

decrease over time, even as the 

standards increased. For gasoline and/or 

diesel small refiners subject to the 

standards, the analysis included a costto-sales ratio test, a ratio of the 

estimated annualized compliance costs 

to the value of sales per company. From 

this test, it was estimated that all 

directly regulated small entities would 

have compliance costs that are less than 

one percent of their sales over the life 

of the program (75 FR 14862, March 26, 

2010). 

We have determined that this 

proposed rule would not impose any 

additional requirements on small 

entities beyond those already analyzed, 

since the impacts of this rule are not 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32059 

147See CAA section 211(o)(9)(B). 

148EPA is currently evaluating 4 additional 2017 

petitions, bringing the total number of petitions for 

2017 to 33. 

greater or fundamentally different than 

those already considered in the analysis 

for the RFS2 final rule assuming full 

implementation of the RFS program. 

This rule proposes to increase the 2019 

cellulosic biofuel volume requirement 

by 93 million gallons and the advanced 

and total renewable fuel volume 

requirements by 590 million gallons 

relative to the 2018 volume 

requirements, but those volumes remain 

significantly below the statutory volume 

targets analyzed in the RFS2 final rule. 

This exercise of EPA’s waiver authority 

reduces burdens on small entities, as 

compared to the burdens that would be 

imposed under the volumes specified in 

the Clean Air Act in the absence of 

waivers—which are the volumes that we 

assessed in the screening analysis that 

we prepared for implementation of the 

full program. Regarding the BBD 

standard, we are proposing to increase 

the volume requirement for 2020 by 330 

million gallons relative to the 2019 

volume requirement we finalized in the 

2018 final rule. While this volume is an 

increase over the statutory minimum 

value of 1 billion gallons, the BBD 

standard is a nested standard within the 

advanced biofuel category, which we 

are significantly reducing from the 

statutory volume targets. As discussed 

in Section VI, we are proposing to set 

the 2020 BBD volume requirement at a 

level below what is anticipated will be 

produced and used to satisfy the 

reduced advanced biofuel requirement. 

The net result of the standards being 

proposed in this action is a reduction in 

burden as compared to implementation 

of the statutory volume targets as was 

assumed in the RFS2 final rule analysis. 

While the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

there are compliance flexibilities in the 

program that can help to reduce impacts 

on small entities. These flexibilities 

include being able to comply through 

RIN trading rather than renewable fuel 

blending, 20 percent RIN rollover 

allowance (up to 20 percent of an 

obligated party’s RVO can be met using 

previous-year RINs), and deficit carryforward (the ability to carry over a 

deficit from a given year into the 

following year, providing that the deficit 

is satisfied together with the next year’s 

RVO). In the RFS2 final rule, we 

discussed other potential small entity 

flexibilities that had been suggested by 

the SBREFA panel or through 

comments, but we did not adopt them, 

in part because we had serious concerns 

regarding our authority to do so. 

Additionally, we realize that there 

may be cases in which a small entity 

may be in a difficult financial situation 

and the level of assistance afforded by 

the program flexibilities is insufficient. 

For such circumstances, the program 

provides hardship relief provisions for 

small entities (small refiners), as well as 

for small refineries.147 As required by 

the statute, the RFS regulations include 

a hardship relief provision (at 40 CFR 

80.1441(e)(2)) that allows for a small 

refinery to petition for an extension of 

its small refinery exemption at any time 

based on a showing that the refinery is 

experiencing a ‘‘disproportionate 

economic hardship.’’ EPA regulations 

provide similar relief to small refiners 

that are not eligible for small refinery 

relief (see 40 CFR 80.1442(h)). EPA has 

currently identified a total of 10 small 

refiners that own 12 refineries subject to 

the RFS program, all of which have been 

identified as being small refineries. 

EPA evaluates these petitions on a 

case-by-case basis and may approve 

such petitions if it finds that a 

disproportionate economic hardship 

exists. In evaluating such petitions, EPA 

consults with the U.S. Department of 

Energy, and takes the findings of DOE’s 

2011 Small Refinery Study and other 

economic factors into consideration. 

EPA successfully implemented these 

provisions by evaluating petitions for 

exemption from 20 small refineries for 

the 2016 RFS standards (3 of which 

were owned by a small refiner) and 29 

small refineries for the 2017 RFS 

standards (8 of which were owned by a 

small refiner).148

Given that this proposed rule would 

not impose additional requirements on 

small entities, would decrease burden 

via a reduction in required volumes as 

compared to statutory volume targets, 

would not change the compliance 

flexibilities currently offered to small 

entities under the RFS program 

(including the small refinery hardship 

provisions we continue to implement), 

and available information shows that 

the impact on small entities from 

implementation of this rule would not 

be significant viewed either from the 

perspective of it being a standalone 

action or a part of the overall RFS 

program, we have therefore concluded 

that this action would have no net 

regulatory burden for directly regulated 

small entities. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action implements mandates 

specifically and explicitly set forth in 

CAA section 211(o) and we believe that 

this action represents the least costly, 

most cost-effective approach to achieve 

the statutory requirements. 

F. 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. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This proposed rule will be 

implemented at the Federal level and 

affects transportation fuel refiners, 

blenders, marketers, distributors, 

importers, exporters, and renewable fuel 

producers and importers. Tribal 

governments would be affected only to 

the extent they produce, purchase, and 

use regulated fuels. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it implements specific 

standards established by Congress in 

statutes (CAA section 211(o)) and does 

not concern an environmental health 

risk or safety risk. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

This action proposes the required 

renewable fuel content of the 

transportation fuel supply for 2019, 

consistent with the CAA and waiver 

authorities provided therein. The RFS 

program and this rule are designed to 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2
32060 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

achieve positive effects on the nation’s 

transportation fuel supply, by increasing 

energy independence and security and 

lowering lifecycle GHG emissions of 

transportation fuel. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, low 

income populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

This proposed rule does not affect the 

level of protection provided to human 

health or the environment by applicable 

air quality standards. This action does 

not relax the control measures on 

sources regulated by the RFS regulations 

and therefore will not cause emissions 

increases from these sources. 

X. Statutory Authority 

Statutory authority for this action 

comes from section 211 of the Clean Air 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545. Additional support 

for the procedural and compliance 

related aspects of this proposed rule 

comes 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 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Fuel 

additives, Gasoline, Imports, Oil 

imports, Petroleum, Renewable fuel. 

Dated: June 26, 2018. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 80 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, 7521, 7542, 

7545, and 7601(a). 

Subpart M—Renewable Fuel Standard 

■ 2. Section 80.1405 is amended by 

adding new paragraph (a)(10) to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.1405 What are the Renewable Fuel 

Standards? 

(a) * * * 

(10) Renewable Fuel Standards for 

2019. 

(i) The value of the cellulosic biofuel 

standard for 2019 shall be 0.209 percent. 

(ii) The value of the biomass-based 

diesel standard for 2019 shall be 1.72 

percent. 

(iii) The value of the advanced biofuel 

standard for 2019 shall be 2.67 percent. 

(iv) The value of the renewable fuel 

standard for 2019 shall be 10.88 percent. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–14448 Filed 7–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS2