Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44075 

attainment date, that area is reclassified 

to serious by operation of law. 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Liberty-Clairton 

Area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of December 31, 2011. Therefore, 

EPA has met the requirement of CAA 

section 188(b)(2) to determine, based on 

the area’s air quality as of the attainment 

date, whether the area attained the 

standard by that date. The effect of a 

final determination of attainment by the 

area’s attainment date would be to 

discharge EPA’s obligation under CAA 

section 188(b)(2). 

VI. Proposed Actions 

Pursuant to sections 188(b)(2) of the 

CAA, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Liberty-Clairton Area has 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

by its attainment date, December 31, 

2011. Separately and independently, 

EPA is proposing to determine, based on 

the most recent three years of qualityassured and certified data meeting the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N, that the Liberty-Clairton 

Area is currently attaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In conjunction 

with and based upon our proposed 

determination that the Liberty-Clairton 

Area has attained and is currently 

attaining the standard, EPA proposes to 

determine that the obligation to submit 

the following attainment-related 

planning requirements is not applicable 

for so long as the area continues to 

attain the PM2.5 standard: The part D, 

subpart 4 obligations to provide an 

attainment demonstration pursuant to 

section 189(a)(1)(B), the RACM 

provisions of section 189(a)(1)(C), the 

RFP provisions of section 189(c), and 

related attainment demonstration, 

RACM, RFP, and contingency measure 

provisions requirements of subpart 1, 

section 172. This proposed rulemaking 

action, if finalized, would not constitute 

a redesignation to attainment under 

CAA section 107(d)(3). 

These proposed determinations are 

based upon quality-assured, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data 

that show the area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for the 2009–2011 and 2010– 

2012 monitoring periods. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This rulemaking action proposes to 

make determinations of attainment 

based on air quality, and would, if 

finalized, result in the suspension of 

certain federal requirements, and would 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, these proposed 

determinations of attainment: 

• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule, 

proposing to determine that the LibertyClairton Area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: July 8, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17688 Filed 7–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 80 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0178; FRL_9834–3] 

Notice of Data Availability Concerning 

Renewable Fuels Produced From 

Barley Under the RFS Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Data Availability 

(NODA). 

SUMMARY: This Notice provides an 

opportunity to comment on EPA’s draft 

analysis of the lifecycle greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions of ethanol that is 

produced using barley as a feedstock. 

EPA’s draft analysis indicates that 

ethanol produced from barley has an 

estimated lifecycle GHG emissions 

reduction of 47% as compared to 

baseline conventional fuel when the 

barley ethanol is produced at a dry mill 

facility that uses natural gas for all 

process energy, uses electricity from the 

grid, and dries up to 100% of distillers 

grains. Such barley ethanol would 

therefore meet the minimum 20% GHG 

emissions reduction threshold for 

conventional biofuels under the Clean 

Air Act Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 

program. In addition, EPA analyzed two 

potential options for producing barley 

ethanol that would meet the 50% GHG 

emissions reduction threshold for 

advanced biofuels. Ethanol produced 

from dry-milling barley meet the 

advanced biofuels GHG reduction 

threshold if it is produced at a facility 

that uses no more than 30,700 Btu of 

natural gas for process energy, no more 

than 4,200 Btu of biomass from barley 

hulls or biogas from landfills, waste 

treatment plants, barley hull digesters, 

or waste digesters for process energy, 

and no more than 0.84 kWh of 

electricity from the grid for all 

electricity used at the renewable fuel 

production facility, calculated on a per 

gallon basis. Ethanol produced from 

dry-milling barley can also meet the 

advanced biofuel GHG reduction 

threshold if the production facility uses 

no more than 36,800 Btu of natural gas 

for process energy and also uses natural 

gas for on-site production of all 

electricity used at the facility other than 

up to 0.19 kWh of electricity from the 

grid, calculated on a per gallon basis. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44076 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 22, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0178, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, EPA/ 

DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20004. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket and the 

Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Ramig, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, 

Transportation and Climate Division, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460 (MC: 6041A); telephone 

number: 202–564–1372; fax number: 

202–564–1177; email address: 

ramig.christopher@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Outline of This Preamble 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

II. Analysis of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions for Ethanol Produced From 

Barley 

A. Methodology 

1. Scope of Analysis 

2. Models Used 

3. Model Modifications 

4. Scenarios Modeled for Impacts of 

Increased Demand for Barley 

B. Results 

1. Agro-Economic Impacts 

2. International Land Use Change 

Emissions 

3. Barley Ethanol Processing 

4. Results of Lifecycle Analysis for Ethanol 

From Barley (Conventional Ethanol 

Example) 

5. Impacts of Different Process Technology 

Approaches on Barley Ethanol Lifecycle 

Results 

C. Consideration of Lifecycle Analysis 

Results 

1. Implications for Threshold 

Determinations 

2. Consideration of Uncertainty 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action are those involved with the 

production, distribution, and sale of 

transportation fuels, including gasoline 

and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such 

as biodiesel and renewable diesel. 

Regulated categories include: 

Category NAICS1 Codes SIC 2 Codes Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry ....................................................... 324110 2911 Petroleum Refineries. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

2Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to 

engage in activities that may be affected 

by today’s action. To determine whether 

your activities would be affected, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR Part 80, 

Subpart M. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding section. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI 

Do not submit this information to EPA 

through www.regulations.gov or email. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44077 

1EPA, 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(March 2010 RFS) Regulation of Fuels and Fuel 

Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard 

Program; Final Rule. 40 CFR Part 80, http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-03-26/pdf/2010- 

3851.pdf. 

2EPA. 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(March 2010 RFS) Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

EPA–420–R–10–006. http://www.epa.gov/oms/ 

renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf. 

3EPA. 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(March 2010 RFS) Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

EPA–420–R–10–006. http://www.epa.gov/oms/ 

renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf. 4Personal communication with USDA experts. 

5Personal communication with USDA experts. 

6See Memo to the Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178–0001, Dated June 20th, 2013 and personal 

communication with USDA. 7See Memo to the Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178–0001, Dated June 20th, 2013 and personal 

communication with USDA. 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

• Identify the NODA by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Analysis of Lifecycle Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions for Ethanol Produced 

From Barley 

A. Methodology 

1. Scope of Analysis 

On March 26, 2010, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published changes to the Renewable 

Fuel Standard program regulations as 

required by 2007 amendments to 

Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). This rulemaking is commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘March 2010 RFS’’ 

rule.1 As part of the March 2010 RFS 

rule we analyzed various biofuels 

production pathways to determine 

whether fuels produced through those 

pathways meet minimum lifecycle 

greenhouse gas reduction thresholds 

specified in the CAA for different 

categories of biofuel (i.e., 60% for 

cellulosic biofuel, 50% for biomassbased diesel and advanced biofuel, and 

20% for other renewable fuels). The 

March 2010 RFS rule focused on fuels 

that were anticipated to contribute 

relatively large volumes of renewable 

fuel by 2022 and thus did not cover all 

fuels that either are contributing or 

could potentially contribute to the 

program. In the preamble to the rule, 

EPA indicated that it had not completed 

the GHG emissions analyses for several 

specific biofuel production pathways 

but that this work would be completed 

through a supplemental rulemaking 

process. Since the March 2010 rule was 

issued, we have continued to examine 

several additional pathways. This 

Notice of Data Availability presents our 

draft analysis of three pathways for 

producing ethanol from barley. The 

modeling approach EPA used in this 

analysis is the same general approach 

used in the final March 2010 RFS rule 

for lifecycle analyses of other biofuels.2

The March 2010 RFS rule preamble and 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 

provide further discussion of our 

approach. 

EPA is seeking public comment on 

EPA’s draft analyses of lifecycle GHG 

emissions related to the production and 

use of ethanol from barley. We intend to 

consider all of the relevant comments 

received prior to taking final action that 

could lead to amendment of the RFS 

program regulations to identify barley 

ethanol pathways as among those which 

can be used to produce qualifying 

renewable fuel. In general, comments 

will be considered relevant if they 

pertain to the lifecycle GHG emissions 

of barley ethanol and especially if they 

provide specific information for 

consideration in our modeling. 

2. Models Used 

The analysis EPA has prepared for 

barley ethanol uses the same set of 

models that was used for the final 

March 2010 RFS rule, including the 

Forestry and Agricultural Sector 

Optimization Model (FASOM) 

developed by Texas A&M University 

and the Food and Agricultural Policy 

and Research Institute international 

models as maintained by the Center for 

Agricultural and Rural Development 

(FAPRI–CARD) at Iowa State University. 

For more information on the FASOM 

and FAPRI–CARD models, refer to the 

March 2010 RFS rule preamble (75 FR 

14670) or the March 2010 RFS 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).3

These documents are available in the 

docket or online at http://www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/ 

regulations.htm. The models require a 

number of inputs and assumptions that 

are specific to the pathway being 

analyzed, including projected yields of 

feedstock per acre planted, projected 

fertilizer use, and energy use in 

feedstock processing and fuel 

production. The docket includes 

detailed information on model inputs, 

assumptions, calculations, and the 

results of our assessment of the lifecycle 

GHG emissions performance for barley 

ethanol. 

3. Model Modifications 

In the United States, barley is grown 

using one of two primary cropping 

strategies. The majority of barley 

production, over 90 percent every year 

since 1970, is ‘‘spring barley’’.4 For 

example, in the 2010/11 crop year, 

spring barley represented approximately 

94 percent of the total barley crop. 

Spring barley is primarily grown in the 

Great Plains, Rocky Mountains, and the 

Pacific Northwest regions.5 It is planted 

in the spring and harvested in the fall, 

as are most grains in these regions. 

However, a significant minority of 

barley production (between 3 percent 

and 5 percent since the 2000/01 crop 

year, and as much as 6 percent between 

1970 and 2000) comes from ‘‘winter 

barley’’, which is grown in the 

Southeast and Mid-Atlantic regions.6

Historically, winter barley is ‘‘doublecropped’’ with soybeans, meaning that 

the grower plants two crops, a soybean 

crop and a barley crop, in one year.7

Farmers that utilize this doublecropping method plant their soybean 

crop in the mid or late spring and 

harvest it in the early fall followed soon 

after with a barley crop that is planted 

in the fall and harvested in the early 

spring. Soybean acres in the Southeast 

and Mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44078 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

8See Memo to the Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178–0001, Dated June 20th, 2013 and personal 

communication with USDA. 9See Memo to the Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178–0001, Dated June 20th, 2013. 

10See Memo to the Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178–0001, Dated June 20th, 2013. 

11As described in the following sections, the 

FASOM model projected the combined impacts on 

the winter/spring barley market (e.g., by allowing 

the increased demand for barley ethanol to be filled 

by reduced use of barley for feed, increased 

production of winter or spring barley, decrease in 

exports). This volume assumption did not assume 

that all new barley production would be 

‘‘backfilled’’ at a ratio of 80/140 spring barley to 60/ 

140 winter barley. 

12See Memo to the Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178–0002, Dated June 20th, 2013. 

that are not double-cropped with barley 

are generally left fallow during the 

winter months.8 This also means that 

any barley that is double-cropped with 

soybeans in the Southeast and MidAtlantic regions of the U.S. is not 

replacing another double-crop practice 

between soybeans and another 

commodity. 

FASOM has not previously taken the 

winter barley cropping strategy into 

account. However, given that a portion 

of barley ethanol production can come 

from winter barley and industry input 

indicates that winter barley is likely to 

be a potentially significant contributor 

to total barley ethanol production, it is 

important to consider the full range of 

barley production methods available. 

Based on information from industry 

stakeholders and USDA, FASOM 

modeling was conducted assuming that 

all barley produced in the Mid-Atlantic 

and Southeast regions of the United 

States is winter barley double-cropped 

with soybeans and that all barley grown 

elsewhere is spring barley.9 Specifically, 

FASOM was updated such that all 

barley grown in the Mid-Atlantic and 

Southeast regions of the United States 

was grown in conjunction with soybean 

acres, rather than competing with other 

crops grown during the typical ‘‘spring’’ 

planting season. 

Because of differences in model 

architecture, it was not possible to 

differentiate between spring and winter 

barley in the FAPRI–CARD model. 

However, we believe not modeling 

double cropping for barley in the 

Southeast and Mid-Atlantic region of 

the U.S. in the FAPRI–CARD model 

results in a conservative estimate of 

lifecycle GHG emissions, as it may 

slightly overstate the land use change 

and commodity market impacts of an 

increase in demand for barley ethanol. 

4. Scenarios Modeled for Impacts of 

Increased Demand for Barley 

To assess the impacts of an increase 

in renewable fuel volume from 

business-as-usual (what is likely to have 

occurred without the RFS biofuel 

mandates) to levels required by the 

statute, we established a control case 

and other cases for a number of biofuels 

analyzed for the March 2010 RFS rule. 

The control case included a projection 

of renewable fuel volumes that might be 

used to comply with the RFS renewable 

fuel volume mandates in full. The other 

cases are designed such that the only 

difference between a given case and the 

control case is the volume of an 

individual biofuel, all other volumes 

remaining the same. In the March 2010 

RFS rule, for each individual biofuel, 

we analyzed the incremental GHG 

emission impacts of increasing the 

volume of that fuel from business as 

usual levels to the level of that biofuel 

projected to be used in 2022, together 

with other biofuels, to fully meet the 

CAA requirements. Rather than focus on 

the GHG emissions impacts associated 

with a specific gallon of fuel and 

tracking inputs and outputs across 

different lifecycle stages, we determined 

the overall aggregate impacts across 

sectors of the economy in response to a 

given volume change in the amount of 

biofuel produced. For this analysis we 

compared impacts in the control case to 

the impacts in a new ‘‘barley ethanol’’ 

case. Some assumptions related to 

barley production and ethanol use were 

incorporated based on consultation with 

USDA, academic experts, and industry 

stakeholders. However, the volume of 

biofuels assumed to be produced in the 

control case used for modeling barley 

ethanol is the same as was assumed for 

the March 2010 RFS rule. Specifically, 

the control case used for the March 2010 

RFS rule, and used for this analysis, has 

zero gallons of barley ethanol 

production. This is compared to a 

‘‘barley ethanol’’ case that does include 

barley ethanol production (see 

paragraph below). See our ‘‘Barley 

Inputs and Assumptions’’ document, 

included in the docket for this NODA, 

for further details.10

For the ‘‘barley ethanol’’ case, our 

modeling analyzed a shock of 140 

million gallons of barley ethanol in 2022 

above the production volume observed 

in the control case. In FASOM, this 

volume was divided into 80 million 

gallons of ‘‘spring barley’’ ethanol and 

60 million gallons of ‘‘winter barley’’ 

ethanol.11 EPA chose this modeled 

volume based upon consultations with 

industry stakeholders and USDA. Input 

from industry stakeholders has 

suggested that there is interest in 

utilizing both spring and winter barley 

as ethanol feedstock, and EPA selected 

the 80/60 ratio of spring to winter barley 

for FASOM modeling based on this 

industry input. In the FAPRI–CARD 

model, as stated above, no distinction is 

made between winter and spring barley. 

For this reason, the volume in the 

FAPRI–CARD model is simply 

represented as 140 million gallons of 

barley ethanol. 

Our volume scenario of 

approximately 140 million gallons in 

the barley case in 2022 is based on 

several factors including potential 

feedstock availability and other 

competitive uses (e.g., animal feed or 

exports). Our assessment is described 

further in the inputs and assumptions 

document that is available through the 

docket.12 Based in part on consultation 

with experts at the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and 

industry representatives, we believe that 

these volumes represent a reasonable 

projection of how much barley ethanol 

could be produced by 2022 if these 

pathways are approved, and are 

therefore reasonable for the purposes of 

evaluating the impacts of producing 

ethanol from barley. However, we invite 

comment both regarding the 

assumptions made in our analysis of 

barley ethanol and regarding the 

efficacy of any alternative assumptions 

that could be utilized to model the 

impacts of barley ethanol production 

within the FASOM and FAPRI–CARD 

frameworks. 

While the FASOM and FAPRI–CARD 

models project how much barley will be 

supplied to ethanol production, it 

should be noted that the amount of 

barley needed for ethanol production 

will likely come from a combination of 

increased production, decreases in 

others uses (e.g., animal feed), and 

decreases in exports compared to the 

control case 

B. Results 

As we did for our analysis of other 

renewable fuel feedstocks in the March 

2010 RFS rule, we assessed what the 

lifecycle GHG emissions impacts would 

be from the use of additional volumes 

of barley for biofuel production. The 

information provided in this section 

discusses the outputs of the analysis 

using the FASOM and FAPRI–CARD 

agro-economic models to determine 

changes in the agricultural and livestock 

markets. These results from FASOM and 

FAPRI–CARD are then used to 

determine the GHG emissions impacts 

due to barley feedstock production. 

Finally, we include our analysis of the 

GHG emissions associated with different 

processing pathways and how these 

technologies affect the lifecycle GHG 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44079 

13U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic 

Research Service, Feed Grains Database, http:// 

www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/feed-grainsdatabase.aspx#.UcMXqDvku2k (Last accessed: June 

20th, 2013). 

14 Ibid. 

15See Memo to the Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178–0002, Dated June 20th, 2013. 

16Table II.B.1–1 shows that wheat production 

remains virtually flat across cases. The increase in 

wheat acreage shown in Table II.B.1–2 reflects the 

fact that increased barley demand is forcing wheat 

to shift to less productive acres. 

17U.S. Department of Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, NASS Quick Stats, 

http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ (Last accessed: 

June 20th, 2013). 

18See Memo to the Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178–0002, Dated June 20th, 2013. 

emissions associated with barley 

ethanol. 

1. Agro-Economic Impacts 

As demand increases for biofuel 

production from a particular 

commodity, the supply generally comes 

from some mix of increased production, 

decreased exports, increased imports, 

and decreases in other uses of the 

commodity (e.g., use in animal feed or 

food). The primary use for barley in the 

U.S. is beer malting. For example, in the 

2011/12 crop year, approximately 148 

million bushels of barley went to 

malting, out of a total U.S. supply of 261 

million bushels.13 However, barley must 

meet very high quality specifications for 

characteristics including protein and 

starch content to be sold as malting 

barley. For this reason, malting-quality 

barley is sold at a premium. Barley that 

does not meet malting specifications is 

generally sold at a discount to the feed 

markets. For example, over the last five 

marketing years (2007/08 to 2011/12), 

farmers received an average price of 

$4.82 per bushel for malting quality 

barley but only $3.78 per bushel for 

non-malting quality barley.14 Because of 

this dynamic, we expect malting to 

remain the highest value use, even if 

EPA approved an advanced biofuels 

pathway for barley ethanol. To the 

extent that barley is drawn from other 

uses for ethanol production, we expect 

it to come from either the feed or export 

markets.15

In the case of barley, FASOM 

estimates that the aggregate response to 

an increase in barley ethanol production 

of 140 million gallons (requiring 3.11 

billion lbs of barley) by 2022 comes 

from an increase in production of barley 

(3.08 billion lbs). The increase in barley 

production is made possible partially by 

shifting production of wheat out of 

some barley-producing regions and 

partially by reducing production of corn 

and hay, though other factors have some 

influence as well (see Table II.B.1–1).16

As demand for barley for ethanol 

production increases, harvested crop 

area in the U.S. is predicted to increase 

by 824 thousand acres in 2022 (see 

Table II.B.1–2). The majority of this net 

agricultural acre expansion occurs in 

Montana, a major spring barley 

producer. Crop acreage in Montana is in 

long-term decline, a trend that shows no 

signs of reversal, creating a large stock 

of idle crop acres in this region.17 In the 

barley scenario, Montana crop acres 

continue to decline, but this decline is 

smaller than in the control case (see 

Table II.B.1–3). 

TABLE II.B.1–1—SELECTED PROJECTED CHANGES IN PRODUCTION IN THE U.S. IN 2022 18

[Millions of lbs] 

Control case Barley case Difference 

Barley ........................................................................................................................................... 17,512 20,594 3,082 

Distillers Grains ............................................................................................................................ 150,669 151,527 858 

Wheat ........................................................................................................................................... 152,214 152,218 4 

Hay ............................................................................................................................................... 76,657 76,643 ¥15 

Corn ............................................................................................................................................. 888,788 887,987 ¥802 

TABLE II.B.1–2—PROJECTED CHANGE IN CROP HARVESTED AREA BY CROP IN THE U.S. IN 2022 

[Thousands of acres] 

Control case Barley case Difference 

Barley ........................................................................................................................................... 5,115 5,886 771 

Wheat ........................................................................................................................................... 46,775 46,994 219 

Soybeans ..................................................................................................................................... 73,191 73,267 76 

Corn ............................................................................................................................................. 84,916 84,835 ¥81 

Hay ............................................................................................................................................... 42,059 41,881 ¥178 

Other ............................................................................................................................................ 59,454 59,471 17 

Total* .................................................................................................................................... 311,511 312,335 824 

*Total may differ from subtotals due to rounding. 

TABLE II.B.1–3—PROJECTED CHANGE IN CROP HARVESTED AREA BY REGION IN THE U.S. IN 2022 

[Thousands of Acres] 

Control case Barley case Difference 

Montana ....................................................................................................................................... 6,868 7,653 785 

Other ............................................................................................................................................ 304,645 304,683 38 

All* ........................................................................................................................................ 311,511 312,335 824 

*Total may differ from subtotals due to rounding. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44080 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

19See Memo to the Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178–0002, Dated June 20th, 2013. 

20 In the 2010/11 crop year, Virginia harvested 48 

thousand acres of barley out of a total of 

approximately 160 thousand nationwide. 

Pennsylvania harvested 45 thousand acres of winter 

barley. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Economic Research Service, Feed Grains Database, 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/feed-grainsdatabase.aspx#.UcMXqDvku2k (Last accessed: June 

20th, 2013). 

21See Memo to the Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178–0002, Dated June 20th, 2013. 

22See Memo to the Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178–0002, Dated June 20th, 2013. 

Looking more closely at barley 

production specifically, although our 

barley ethanol production estimate 

assumes 60 million gallons from winter 

barley and 80 million gallons from 

spring barley, the majority of acreage 

expansion in all barley occurs in spring 

barley (approximately 95 percent). Since 

there is perfect substitution between 

spring and winter barley in the animal 

feed, malting, and export markets, much 

of the spring barley being diverted to 

ethanol production can be backfilled 

with winter barley. This does indeed 

happen in our analysis; all winter barley 

production in the control case is shifted 

from other uses (e.g., feed, exports) to 

ethanol production, with only a minor 

increase in overall winter barley 

production. Therefore, all of the 

additional spring barley production not 

only contributes to ethanol production 

from spring barley, but also to the feed 

and export markets that winter barley 

no longer contributes to in the barley 

case. 

TABLE II.B.1–4—CHANGES IN BARLEY PRODUCTION AND USE IN THE U.S. IN 2022 19

[Millions of Bushels] 

Control case Barley case Difference 

Winter Barley 

Production .................................................................................................................................... 1,236 1,389 154 

Used in Biofuel Production .......................................................................................................... 0 1,328 1,328 

Spring Barley 

Production .................................................................................................................................... 16,277 19,205 2,958 

Used in Biofuel Production .......................................................................................................... 0 1,780 1,780 

All Barley 

Production .................................................................................................................................... 17,512 20,594 3,082 

Used in Biofuel Production .......................................................................................................... 0 3,108 3,108 

Used in Feed ............................................................................................................................... 4,151 4,150 ¥1 

Used in Food and Malting ........................................................................................................... 13,796 13,786 ¥7 

Net Exports .................................................................................................................................. ¥435 ¥453 ¥19 

Since spring barley represents over 90 

percent of annual production, we would 

expect to see more expansion of this 

growing practice. As Table II.B.1–5 

below shows, spring barley production 

does indeed expand significantly in 

Oregon and Montana, two major spring 

barley producing regions, and to a lesser 

extent in the mid-tier barley producing 

areas of Wyoming and California. 

Winter barley production primarily 

expands in Virginia, which, along with 

Pennsylvania, is generally the largest 

producer of winter barley.20

TABLE II.B.1–5—SELECTED PROJECTED CHANGES IN REGIONAL BARLEY PRODUCTION IN THE U.S. IN 2022 21

[Millions of lbs] 

Control case Barley case Difference 

Oregon ......................................................................................................................................... 1,457 2,834 1,376 

Wyoming ...................................................................................................................................... 592 1,154 562 

Montana ....................................................................................................................................... 3,748 4,276 528 

Virginia ......................................................................................................................................... 284 415 131 

California ...................................................................................................................................... 735 813 77 

Rest of U.S. ................................................................................................................................. 8,506 8,528 22 

The FASOM model projects that 

direct use of barley for feed will decline 

by approximately 1 million lbs as a 

result of demand for ethanol production 

(see Table II.B.1–6). There is also a 

significant influx of distillers’ grains 

(DGs) into the feed markets as a result 

of barley ethanol production. DG 

consumption in the domestic livestock 

sector increases by 858 million lbs. This 

increase primarily displaces corn and 

sorghum, whose use as feed declines by 

477 and 178 million lbs respectively. 

Hay use for feed also declines by 61 

million lbs. See Table II.B.1–6 below for 

further details.22


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44081 

23See Memo to the Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178–0002, Dated June 20th, 2013. 

24The FAPRI–CARD analysis conducted for this 

rulemaking can be accessed as a Memo to the 

Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0178–0003, Dated 

June 20th, 2013. The Control Case was previously 

docketed as part of the March 2010 RFS FRM (see 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161–3166). See these two 

documents for full net export data on all major 

crops. 

25See our FAPRI–CARD results for full 

information on these tables and our other 

international modeling in support of this 

rulemaking. The analysis conducted for this 

rulemaking can be accessed as Memo to the Docket, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0178–0003, and Dated June 

20th, 2013. The Control Case was previously 

docketed as part of the March 2010 RFS FRM (see 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161–3166). 

TABLE II.B.1–6—SELECTED PROJECTED CHANGES IN FEED USE IN THE U.S. IN 2022 23

[Millions of lbs] 

Control case Barley case Difference 

Distillers Grains ............................................................................................................................ 78,171 79,028 858 

Barley ........................................................................................................................................... 4,151 4,150 ¥1 

Hay ............................................................................................................................................... 182,291 182,231 ¥61 

Sorghum ...................................................................................................................................... 33,022 32,844 ¥178 

Corn ............................................................................................................................................. 310,627 310,150 ¥477 

Other ............................................................................................................................................ 212,310 212,271 ¥39 

All Feed Use ................................................................................................................................ 820,571 820,675 103 

As demand for barley use in U.S. 

ethanol production increases, the 

FAPRI–CARD model estimates that the 

U.S. will decrease net exports of barley 

by 564 million lbs. Additionally, the 

U.S. will decrease exports of corn by 

798 million lbs, wheat by 79 million lbs, 

and soybeans by 71 million lbs. This 

combination of impacts on the world 

trade of barley, corn, wheat, and 

soybeans has effects both on major 

importers, as well as on other major 

exporters. For example, Canada, a large 

net exporter of barley, increases its net 

barley exports by 227 million lbs; and 

Brazil, a large corn exporter, increases 

its net corn exports by 214 million lbs. 

Details for other major importers and 

exporters of barley and corn can be 

found in Table II.B.1–7 and Table 

II.B.1–8, respectively.24

TABLE II.B.1–7—PROJECTED CHANGE IN NET EXPORTS OF BARLEY BY COUNTRY IN 2022 

[Millions of lbs] 

Control case Barley case Difference 

U.S. .............................................................................................................................................. ¥330 ¥893 ¥564 

Canada ........................................................................................................................................ 4,486 4,713 227 

Russia .......................................................................................................................................... 6,112 6,190 78 

EU ................................................................................................................................................ 14,166 14,198 32 

Australia ....................................................................................................................................... 7,308 7,338 30 

Rest of World ............................................................................................................................... 30,281 30,084 196 

Note: A country with negative Net Exports is a Net Importer. 

TABLE II.B.1–8—PROJECTED CHANGE IN NET EXPORTS OF CORN BY COUNTRY IN 2022 

[Millions of lbs] 

Control Case Barley Case Difference 

U.S. .............................................................................................................................................. 121,329 120,531 ¥798 

Brazil ............................................................................................................................................ 23,853 24,067 214 

Mexico .......................................................................................................................................... ¥26,449 ¥26,266 182 

China ............................................................................................................................................ 12,388 12,474 85 

Canada ........................................................................................................................................ ¥4,657 4,600 57 

Rest of World ............................................................................................................................... ¥125,586 ¥125,326 260 

Note: A country with negative Net Exports is a Net Importer 

The change in trade patterns directly 

impacts the amount of production and 

harvested crop area around the world. 

Harvested crop area for barley is not 

only predicted to increase in the U.S., 

but also in Russia (26 thousand acres), 

Canada (25 thousand acres) and other 

parts of the world. Worldwide barley 

harvested area outside of the U.S. would 

increase by 107 thousand acres. 

Similarly, the decrease in U.S. corn and 

soy exports would lead to an increase of 

harvested acres outside the U.S. for 

these crops. EPA predicts that 

worldwide corn harvested area outside 

of the U.S. would increase by 51 

thousand acres and that soybean 

harvested area outside of the U.S. would 

increase by 10 thousand acres. 

Overall harvested crop area in other 

countries also increases, particularly in 

Brazil. Brazil’s total harvested area is 

predicted to increase by 35 thousand 

acres by 2022. This is mostly comprised 

of an increase in corn of 19 thousand 

acres, and an increase in soybeans of 17 

thousand acres, along with minor 

changes in other crops. More details on 

projected changes in world harvested 

crop area in 2022 can be found below 

in Table II.B.1–9, Table II.B.1–10, Table 

II.B.1–11, Table II.B.1–12, and Table 

II.B.1–13.25


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44082 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II.B.1–9—PROJECTED CHANGE IN INTERNATIONAL (NON-U.S.) HARVESTED AREA BY COUNTRY IN 2022 

[Thousands of acres] 

Control case Barley case Difference 

Brazil ............................................................................................................................................ 136,739 136,773 35 

Africa & Middle East .................................................................................................................... 222,669 222,357 28 

Russia .......................................................................................................................................... 96,920 96,940 20 

India ............................................................................................................................................. 332,143 332,155 12 

Rest of World (non-U.S.) ............................................................................................................. 1,237,730 1,237,746 17 

International Total (non-U.S.) ...................................................................................................... 2,026,200 2,026,312 112 

TABLE II.B.1–10—PROJECTED CHANGE IN INTERNATIONAL (NON-U.S.) HARVESTED AREA BY CROP IN 2022 

[Thousands of acres] 

Control case Barley case Difference 

Barley ........................................................................................................................................... 136,223 136,329 107 

Corn ............................................................................................................................................. 307,392 307,442 51 

Soybeans ..................................................................................................................................... 202,157 202,167 10 

Other ............................................................................................................................................ 1,380,428 1,380,373 ¥55 

International Total (non-U.S.) ...................................................................................................... 2,026,200 2,026,312 112 

TABLE II.B.1–11—PROJECTED CHANGE IN INTERNATIONAL (NON-U.S.) BARLEY HARVESTED AREA BY CROP IN 2022 

[Thousands of acres] 

Control case Barley case Difference 

Russia .......................................................................................................................................... 24,981 25,006 26 

Canada ........................................................................................................................................ 9,512 9,537 25 

Africa & Middle East .................................................................................................................... 29,522 29,538 16 

Australia ....................................................................................................................................... 10,308 10,319 11 

Rest of World ............................................................................................................................... 61,900 61,929 29 

International Total (non-U.S.) ...................................................................................................... 136,223 136,329 107 

TABLE II.B.1–12—PROJECTED CHANGE IN INTERNATIONAL (NON-U.S.) CORN HARVESTED AREA BY CROP IN 2022 

[Thousands of acres] 

Control case Barley case Difference 

Brazil ............................................................................................................................................ 21,096 21,115 19 

Africa & Middle East .................................................................................................................... 73,081 73,095 15 

China ............................................................................................................................................ 79,471 79,479 8 

India ............................................................................................................................................. 20,156 20,162 6 

Mexico .......................................................................................................................................... 19,000 19,005 5 

Rest of World ............................................................................................................................... 94,589 94,587 ¥3 

International Total (non-U.S.) ...................................................................................................... 307,392 307,443 51 

TABLE II.B.1–13—PROJECTED CHANGE IN INTERNATIONAL (NON-U.S.) SOYBEANS HARVESTED AREA BY CROP IN 2022 

[Thousands of acres] 

Control case Barley case Difference 

Brazil ............................................................................................................................................ 69,452 69,469 17 

Rest of World ............................................................................................................................... 132,705 132,698 ¥7 

International Total (non-U.S.) ...................................................................................................... 202,157 202,167 10 

2. International Land Use Change 

Emissions 

Today’s assessment of barley as an 

ethanol feedstock considers GHG 

emissions from international land use 

changes related to the production and 

use of barley and applies the same land 

use change modeling approach used in 

the March 2010 RFS rule for analyses of 

other biofuel pathways. 

In our analysis, GHG emissions per 

acre of land conversion internationally 

(i.e., outside of the United States) are 

determined using the emissions factors 

developed for the March 2010 RFS rule 

following IPCC guidelines. In addition, 

estimated average forest carbon stocks 

were updated based on a new study 

which uses a more robust and higher 

resolution analysis. For the March 2010 

RFS rule, international forest carbon 

stocks were estimated from several data 

sources each derived using a different 

methodological approach. Two new 

analyses on forest carbon stock 

estimation were completed since the 

release of the final March 2010 RFS 

rule, one for three continental regions 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44083 

26Saatchi, S.S., Harris, N.L., Brown, S., Lefsky, 

M., Mitchard, E.T.A., Salas, W., Zutta, B.R., 

Buermann, W., Lewis, S.L., Hagen, S., Petrova, S., 

White, L., Silman, M. And Morel, A. 2011. 

Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical 

regions across three continents. PNAS doi: 10.1073/ 

pnas.1019576108. 

27 Gallaun, H., Zanchi, G., Nabuurs, G.J., 

Hengeveld, G., Schardt, M., Verkerk, P.J. 2010. EUwide maps of growing stock and above-ground 

biomass in forests based on remote sensing and 

field measurements. Forest Ecology and 

Management 260: 252–261. 

28See Section 5, Forest Carbon Stocks in EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0542–0058, Attachment 9. 

29See Memo to the Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178–0006, and Dated June 20th, 2013. 

by Saatchi et al.26 and the other for the 

EU by Gallaun et al.27 We have 

integrated this updated understanding 

of forest carbon stocks into our recent 

pathways analyses. More detailed 

information on the land use change 

emissions can be found in the 

accompanying docket.28

Table II.B.2–1 includes the 

international land use change GHG 

emissions results for the scenarios 

modeled, in terms of kilograms of 

carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions per 

million British thermal units of barley 

ethanol (kgCO2e/mmBtu). 

TABLE II.B.2–1—INTERNATIONAL LAND

USE CHANGE GHG EMISSIONS

[kgCO2e/mmBtu] 29

Region Emissions 

Brazil ........................................... 17 

Asia ............................................. 5 

Africa and Middle East ............... 2 

Eastern Europe & Russia ........... 2 

India ............................................ 2 

International Total (non-U.S.) ..... 26 

3. Barley Ethanol Processing 

Based on information submitted by 

petitioners, we expect dry milling will 

be the most common process for 

producing ethanol from barley. 

Therefore this section focuses on a 

lifecycle GHG emissions analysis of 

several variations of the dry mill 

process. In the dry milling process, the 

barley is ground and fermented to 

produce ethanol. The remaining 

components (distillers grains) are then 

either left wet if used in the near-term 

or dried for longer term use as animal 

feed. 

For this analysis the amount of barley 

used for ethanol production as modeled 

by the FASOM and FAPRI–CARD 

models was based on yield assumptions 

built into those two models. 

Specifically, the models assume barley 

ethanol yields of 2.16 gallons (pure 

ethanol) per bushel for dry mill plants 

(yields represent pure ethanol). 

As per the analysis done in the March 

2010 RFS rule, the GHG emission 

calculation from ethanol production 

needs to account for not only the 

renewable fuel produced, but also any 

co-products. For barley ethanol 

production, this analysis accounts for 

the DG co-product use directly in the 

FASOM and FAPRI–CARD agricultural 

sector modeling described above. DG are 

considered a replacement animal feed 

and thus reduce the need to make up for 

the barley production that went into 

ethanol production. Since FASOM takes 

the production and use of DG into 

account, no further allocation was 

needed at the ethanol plant and all plant 

emissions are accounted for there. 

Our analysis assumed hulled barley 

was grown and used to produce ethanol. 

The hulls are abrasive and during the 

ethanol process they are removed prior 

to further processing and conversion of 

the barley into ethanol. Our modeling 

considered two scenarios for the barley 

hulls, either they were discarded and 

received no co-product benefit, or they 

were used beneficially as an energy 

source replacing some of the energy 

used on-site. The results of considering 

the beneficial use of the hulls as an 

energy source are shown below. 

Overall fuel and electricity use for 

barley ethanol production was based on 

the energy use information for corn 

ethanol production from the March 

2010 RFS rule analysis. For the March 

2010 RFS rule, EPA modeled future 

plant energy use to represent plants that 

would be built to meet requirements of 

increased ethanol production, as 

opposed to current or historic data on 

energy used in ethanol production. The 

energy use at dry mill ethanol plants 

was based on ASPEN models developed 

by USDA and updated to reflect changes 

in technology out to 2022 as described 

in the March 2010 RFS rule RIA Chapter 

1. 

The work done on ethanol production 

for the March 2010 RFS rule was based 

on converting corn to ethanol. 

Converting barley to ethanol will result 

in slightly different energy use based on 

differences in the grains and how they 

are processed. For example, a barley 

plant requires more energy than a corn 

plant per gallon of ethanol produced 

since the starch/fiber ratio in corn is 

different than it is in barley. The same 

ASPEN USDA models used for corn 

ethanol in the final rule were also 

developed for barley ethanol. Based on 

the numbers from USDA, a barley 

ethanol plant uses 1.2 times the thermal 

process energy of a corn ethanol plant 

and 1.3 times the electrical energy per 

gallon of ethanol produced. 

The GHG emissions from production 

of ethanol from barley were calculated 

in the same way as other fuels analyzed 

as part of the March 2010 RFS rule. The 

GHG emissions were calculated by 

multiplying the BTUs of the different 

types of energy inputs at the barley 

ethanol plant by emissions factors for 

combustion of those fuel sources. The 

emission factors for the different fuel 

types are the same as those used in the 

March 2010 RFS rule and were based on 

assumed carbon contents of the different 

process fuels. The emissions from 

producing electricity in the U.S. were 

also the same as used in the March 2010 

RFS rule, which were taken from 

GREET and represent average U.S. grid 

electricity production emissions. 

4. Results of Lifecycle Analysis for 

Ethanol From Barley (Conventional 

Ethanol Example) 

Consistent with our approach for 

analyzing other pathways, our analysis 

for barley ethanol includes a mid-point 

estimate as well as a range of possible 

lifecycle GHG emission results based on 

an uncertainty analysis conducted by 

the Agency (see Section II.C.2 for further 

information). The graph included below 

(Figure II.B.4–1) depicts the results of 

our analysis (including the uncertainty 

in our land use change modeling) for 

barley ethanol produced in a plant that 

uses natural gas for process energy, 

electricity from the grid and produces 

100% dry DG. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44084 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

30The 95% confidence interval around that 

midpoint results in range of a 36% reduction to a 

56% reduction compared to the 2005 gasoline fuel 

baseline. 

31Totals in the table may not sum due to 

rounding. 

Figure II.B.4–1 shows the results of 

our barley ethanol modeling for this 

type of plant. It shows the percent 

difference between lifecycle GHG 

emissions for 2022 barley ethanol and 

those for the 2005 baseline for 

petroleum gasoline. Lifecycle GHG 

emissions equivalent to the gasoline fuel 

baseline are represented on the graph by 

the zero on the X-axis. The midpoint of 

the range of results is a 47% reduction 

in GHG emissions compared to the 2005 

gasoline baseline.30 As in the case for 

biofuel pathways analyzed as part of the 

March 2010 RFS rule, the range of 

results shown in Figure II.B.4–1 is based 

on our assessment of uncertainty 

regarding the location and types of land 

that may be impacted as well as the 

GHG impacts associated with these land 

use changes. These results, if finalized, 

would justify a determination that 

barley ethanol would meet the 20% 

reduction threshold required for the 

generation of conventional renewable 

fuel RINs. 

Table II.B.4–1 breaks down by stage 

the lifecycle GHG emissions of the 2005 

gasoline baseline and of barley ethanol 

that is produced in 2022 in a dry mill 

plant using natural gas for process 

energy, grid electricity, and drying 

100% of DG.31 Results are included 

using our mid-point estimate of land use 

change emissions, as well as with the 

low and high end of the 95% confidence 

interval. Net agricultural emissions 

include impacts related to changes in 

crop inputs, such as fertilizer, energy 

used in agriculture, livestock 

production and other agricultural 

changes in the scenarios modeled. The 

fuel production stage includes 

emissions from ethanol production 

plants. Fuel and feedstock transport 

includes emissions from transporting 

bushels of harvested barley from the 

farm to ethanol production facility. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1EP23JY13.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44085 

TABLE II.B.4–1—LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS FOR BARLEY ETHANOL PRODUCED IN DRY MILL PLANTS THAT USE

NATURAL GAS FOR PROCESS ENERGY, GRID ELECTRICITY AND PRODUCE 100% DRY DG 

[g CO2-eq/mmBtu] 

Fuel type Barley ethanol 2005 Gasoline 

baseline 

Net Agriculture (w/o land use change) ............................................................................................ ¥3,975 ........................

Land Use Change, Mean (Low/High) .............................................................................................. 11,290 (2,784/21,679) ........................

Fuel Production ................................................................................................................................ 39,069 19,200 

Fuel and Feedstock Transport ........................................................................................................ 4,861 * 

Tailpipe Emissions ........................................................................................................................... 880 79,004 

Total Emissions, Mean (Low/High) .................................................................................................. 52,124 (43,618/62,513) 98,204 

Midpoint Lifecycle GHG Percent Reduction Compared to Petroleum Baseline ............................. 47% ........................

* Emissions included in fuel production stage. 

It should be noted that there are a 

number of reasons why the estimated 

land use change emissions attributed to 

any given feedstock may differ from 

those estimated for another feedstock 

that has been analyzed in the past. Chief 

among these are differences in inputs 

required for production; differences in 

markets for a given commodity, and 

how they are impacted; and differences 

in regional production patterns and the 

relationships to markets and other 

commodities in those regions 

(domestically and internationally). The 

FASOM and FAPRI–CARD model take 

all of these differences into account in 

our analysis. The docket for this NODA 

provides more details on our key model 

inputs and assumptions (e.g., crop 

yields, biofuel conversion yields, and 

agricultural energy use). These inputs 

and assumptions are based on our 

analysis of peer-reviewed literature and 

consideration of recommendations of 

experts from within the barley and 

ethanol industries, USDA, and academic 

institutions. EPA invites comment on all 

aspects of its modeling of barley 

ethanol, including all assumptions and 

modeling inputs. 

5. Impacts of Different Process 

Technology Approaches on Barley 

Ethanol Lifecycle Results 

There are a number of process 

technologies that could be employed in 

the production of barley ethanol that 

would result in lower GHG emissions 

than shown in the previous section for 

a natural gas barley plant that uses grid 

electricity and produces 100% dry DG. 

Three different approaches are 

examined here with their associated 

GHG emissions. 

• Production of wet DG. 

• Replacement of purchased grid 

electricity with electricity having a 

lower GHG emissions factor. 

• Replacement of natural gas with 

lower GHG emitting fuel source. 

One of the energy drivers of ethanol 

production is drying of the DG. Plants 

that are located close to feedlots have 

the ability to provide the co-product 

without drying and thus reducing their 

natural gas use and associated GHG 

emissions. This energy use and GHG 

reduction has a large enough impact on 

overall results in previous analyses that 

in the March 2010 RFS rule we 

established separate pathways for corn 

ethanol when the co-product DG was 

wet versus dry. The amount of fuel used 

to dry DG is related to percent of DG 

that are dried, but some dry mills can 

dry DG more efficiently (i.e., use less 

natural gas per pound of DG dried) and/ 

or replace the natural gas used to dry 

DG with lower-GHG emitting fuel 

sources. As the GHG calculations 

related to fuel use at processing 

facilities are based on the amount of fuel 

used times an emission factor plus the 

amount of electricity used from the grid 

times an emission factor, the percent of 

DG dried only matters to the extent that 

it impacts the amount of fuel and 

electricity used per batch of ethanol 

produced. Therefore, instead of 

analyzing and proposing a pathway for 

barley ethanol that is based on reduced 

DG drying as an option to produce fuel 

that qualifies as advanced biofuel 

(minimum 50% GHG reduction), we are 

instead proposing to ascertain the 

amount and types of process fuel used 

and the amount of grid electricity used 

per gallon of barley ethanol produced 

that would be consistent with a 50% 

GHG reduction. 

Production facilities that utilize 

combined heat and power (CHP) 

systems can also reduce GHG emissions 

relative to less efficient system 

configurations. CHP, also known as 

cogeneration, refers to industrial 

processes in which waste heat from the 

production of electricity is used for 

process energy in the renewable fuel 

production facility. The most common 

configuration in ethanol plants, and the 

one considered here, involves using the 

boiler to power a turbine generator unit 

that produces electricity and using 

waste heat to produce process steam. 

While the thermal energy demand for an 

ethanol plant using CHP technology is 

slightly higher than that of a 

conventional plant, the additional 

energy used is far less than what would 

be required to produce the same amount 

of electricity in an offsite (central) 

power plant. The increased efficiency is 

due to the ability of the ethanol plant to 

effectively utilize the waste heat from 

the electricity generation process. Since 

CHP technologies on natural gas plants 

replace some of the purchased 

electricity but increase process energy 

use emissions (because of increased 

natural gas use on-site), the net result is 

a small reduction in overall emissions. 

The difference between CHP and nonCHP plants is reflected in their use of 

different amount of primary energy 

(natural gas, biogas, etc.) and the 

amount of electricity used from the grid. 

Because the only advanced biofuel 

pathways we are proposing today for the 

production of barley ethanol specify 

maximum amounts of primary energy 

and grid electricity that can be used per 

gallon of ethanol produced, we are not 

proposing a pathway that specifies the 

use of CHP. However, we believe that 

CHP is likely to be one of the 

technologies used to meet these energy 

and electricity use thresholds. 

Use of an alternative fuel source to 

replace natural gas for process energy 

can also reduce the GHG emissions of a 

barley ethanol plant. As shown in the 

‘‘Supplemental Determination for 

Renewable Fuels Produced Under the 

Final RFS2 Program From Grain 

Sorghum’’ Published December 17, 2012 

(77 FR 242), hereafter the ‘‘Sorghum 

rule,’’ switching from natural gas to 

biogas can reduce lifecycle GHG 

emissions from ethanol production. Use 

of such biogas would also provide a way 

for barley ethanol plants to reduce their 

GHG emissions. We have assumed for 

purposes of this NODA that biogas used 

for process energy comes from landfills, 

waste treatment plants or waste 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44086 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

32See Memo to the Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178–0001, Dated June 20th, 2013. 

33As with our analysis showing that barley 

ethanol meets the 20 percent threshold to qualify 

as conventional biofuel, our analysis here included 

a 95 percent confidence interval that represents the 

uncertainty in our modeling. See Memo to the 

Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0178–0005, Dated 

June 20th, 2013. 

digesters. Such biogas is assumed to 

have zero upstream GHG impacts, as 

discussed in the sorghum rule. Our 

modeling shows that even if a dry mill 

plant uses grid electricity and dries 

100% of its DGs, that plant may be able 

to replace enough natural gas with 

biogas from a landfill, waste treatment 

plant or waste digester to lower their 

GHG emissions enough to meet a 50% 

lifecycle GHG reduction compared to 

the baseline petroleum gasoline 

replaced. As such, today we are 

proposing two pathways that would 

allow barley ethanol to qualify as 

advanced biofuel if it is produced at dry 

mills that keep their use of natural gas 

and grid electricity below certain levels, 

as specified below. Because the use of 

biogas results in some lifecycle GHG 

emissions, although significantly lower 

than the use of fossil-based natural gas, 

the advanced biofuel pathways for 

barley ethanol proposed in today’s 

NODA specify maximum amounts of 

biogas that can be used in combination 

with natural gas and grid electricity 

while still meeting the 50% lifecycle 

GHG reduction threshold. 

Specific to the barley ethanol process 

is the possibility of using barley hulls as 

an energy source. In the case of barley 

hulls, the upstream CO2 emissions from 

the hulls are already accounted for as 

part of the land use change calculations 

for the barley as a renewable fuel 

feedstock. Furthermore, since none of 

the barley ethanol emissions were 

allocated to the hulls, as discussed 

above, the beneficial use of the hulls 

would not require any adjustment to the 

barley lifecycle results. Therefore, 

similar to GHG emissions associated 

with use of biogas from the sources 

listed above, the use of barley hulls 

either directly as an energy source or in 

digesters producing biogas would not 

result in additional CO2 emissions, and 

can replace the use of higher-GHG 

emitting sources of energy, such as 

natural gas and grid electricity. Because 

the use of barley hulls results in some 

lifecycle GHG emissions, although 

significantly lower than the use of 

fossil-based natural gas, the advanced 

biofuel pathways for barley ethanol 

proposed in today’s NODA specify 

maximum amounts of barley hulls that 

can be used in combination with natural 

gas and grid electricity while still 

meeting the 50% lifecycle GHG 

reduction threshold. 

The following Table II.B.5–1 shows 

the mean lifecycle GHG reductions 

compared to the baseline petroleum fuel 

for a number of different barley ethanol 

pathways. 

TABLE II.B.5–1—LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR DRY MILL BARLEY ETHANOL FACILITIES

[% Change compared to petroleum gasoline] 

Fuel type and technology % Change 

Dry mill process, using natural gas for process energy, grid electricity, and producing up to 100% dry DG ................................... 47 

Dry mill process using, on a per gallon basis averaged over the number of gallons in each batch, no more than 30,700 Btu of 

natural gas for process energy, no more than 4,200 Btu of biomass from barley hulls or biogas (biogas must be from landfills, 

waste treatment plants, barley hull digesters, or waste digesters) for process energy, and no more than 0.84 kWh of electricity from the grid for all electricity used at the renewable fuel facility ......................................................................................... >50 

Dry mill process using no more than 36,800 Btu natural gas for process energy calculated on a per gallon basis averaged over 

the number of gallons in each batch, and using natural gas for on-site production of all electricity used at the renewable fuel

facility other than up to 0.19 kWh of electricity from the grid calculated on a per gallon basis averaged over the number of 

gallons in each batch ....................................................................................................................................................................... >50 

As stated above, the docket for this 

NODA provides more details on our key 

modeling assumptions. EPA invites 

comment on all aspects of its modeling 

of advanced barley ethanol 

configurations, including all 

assumptions and modeling inputs.32

C. Consideration of Lifecycle Analysis 

Results 

1. Implications for Threshold 

Determinations 

As discussed above, EPA’s analysis 

shows that, based on the mid-point of 

the range of results, ethanol produced 

from barley using a variety of processing 

technologies has the potential to meet 

the 50 percent GHG emissions reduction 

threshold needed to qualify as an 

advanced biofuel.33 Barley ethanol 

meets the 20% lifecycle GHG emissions 

reduction threshold for conventional 

biofuels when assuming natural gas is 

used as the process fuel in a dry mill 

plant using grid electricity and drying 

100% DG. If finalized, Table 1 to 

Section 80.1426 would be modified to 

add these new pathways. Table II.C.1– 

1 illustrates how these new pathways 

would be included in the existing table. 

Data, analysis and assumptions for each 

of these processing technologies are 

provided in the docket for this NODA. 

We invite comment on all aspects of this 

analysis. 

TABLE II.C.1–1—PROPOSED APPLICABLE D CODES FOR BARLEY ETHANOL PRODUCED WITH DIFFERENT PROCESSING

TECHNOLOGIES

Fuel type Feedstock Production process requirements D-Code 

Ethanol ..................... Barley ..................... Dry mill process, using natural gas for process energy and grid electricity, and 

producing up to 100% DG 

6 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44087 

TABLE II.C.1–1—PROPOSED APPLICABLE D CODES FOR BARLEY ETHANOL PRODUCED WITH DIFFERENT PROCESSING

TECHNOLOGIES—Continued 

Fuel type Feedstock Production process requirements D-Code 

Ethanol ..................... Barley ..................... Dry mill process using, on a per gallon basis averaged over the number of gallons in each batch, no more than 30,700 Btu of natural gas for process energy, 

no more than 4,200 Btu of biomass from barley hulls or biogas from landfills, 

waste treatment plants, barley hull digesters, or waste digesters for process 

energy, and no more than 0.84 kWh of electricity from the grid for all electricity 

used at the renewable fuel production facility.

5 

Ethanol ..................... Barley ..................... Dry mill process using no more than 36,800 Btu natural gas for process energy 

calculated on a per gallon basis averaged over the number of gallons in each 

batch, and using natural gas for on-site production of all electricity used at the 

renewable fuel production facility other than up to 0.19 kWh of electricity from 

the grid calculated on a per gallon basis averaged over the number of gallons 

in each batch.

5 

The advanced biofuel pathways for 

barley ethanol proposed in Table II.C.1– 

1, specify maximum amounts of 

different types of energy and grid 

electricity that can be used for the fuel 

to qualify as advanced biofuel. In the 

RFS March 2010 rule, EPA used a 

technology-based approach for 

determining whether a fuel from a 

specific feedstock met the lifecycle GHG 

emissions reduction thresholds required 

by CAA (o). As outlined in § 80.1426 

Table 1, EPA specified the feedstock 

(e.g., corn starch), fuel (e.g., ethanol), 

and process type (e.g., dry mill process 

using natural gas and two advanced 

technologies in Table 2) needed to 

generate a conventional (D–6) RIN. 

Examples of advanced corn ethanol 

technologies in Table 2 include 

membrane separation, corn oil 

fractionation and combined heat and 

power configurations. This technology 

based approach included certain 

assumptions about conversion yields 

and energy use, and how advanced 

technologies could reduce average GHG 

emissions. The regulations also 

specified a time period over which 

application of advanced technologies 

would be averaged. For example, the 

corn ethanol pathways specify that the 

amount of DG drying was to be 

calculated on an annual basis. 

As discussed above and as was done 

in the sorghum rule, our analysis finds 

a range of possible technologies and 

process configurations for barley 

ethanol production that could meet a 

50% lifecycle GHG reduction. As such, 

instead of prescribing certain types of 

technologies that producers must use to 

meet the thresholds, we are proposing 

pathways (like we did for sorghum) that 

are based on the maximum amount of 

different sources of energy that can be 

used to produce the barley ethanol. 

This approach generates a number of 

questions, therefore, we discuss and 

invite comment on several aspects of the 

proposed advanced biofuel pathways for 

barley ethanol, including what energy 

should be included in the calculation 

and how the calculation should be 

conducted. Beyond the specifics of the 

calculations, however, is also how 

compliance is to be measured and 

reported, along with the associated 

record keeping requirements. We 

specifically invite comments from 

producers, obligated parties, and parties 

that purchase and verify RINs regarding 

how we should structure the regulations 

to attribute energy inputs to specific 

batches of fuel, and from parties that 

purchase and verify RINs regarding how 

to structure requirements that will 

enable them to efficiently evaluate 

whether RINs generated under the 

proposed pathways are valid before they 

purchase or verify the validity of the 

RINs. 

The two advanced biofuel pathways 

for barley ethanol proposed in Table 

II.C.1–1 specify maximum amounts of 

different types of energy and grid 

electricity that can be used for the fuel 

to qualify as advanced biofuel, 

calculated on a per gallon basis 

averaged over the number of gallons of 

ethanol in each batch. A key element of 

this approach is the ability of renewable 

fuel producers to accurately calculate 

each type of energy used on a per batch 

basis. Evaluating ethanol on a batch-bybatch basis allows parties to evaluate 

whether such requirements have been 

met at the time of RIN generation. The 

structure of the RFS program is already 

set up in several respects to consider 

compliance on a batch basis for 

qualifying renewable fuels. Similarly, 

the EPA Moderated Transaction System 

(EMTS) used to manage RIN 

transactions was designed for batch-bybatch record-keeping, reporting and 

transactions. 

The main benefit of batch-by-batch 

compliance is that it allows parties to 

know whether the requirements for the 

advanced biofuel pathways are being 

met at the time of RIN generation. Since 

invalid RINs cannot be transferred or 

used for compliance, EPA puts a high 

priority on ensuring that any new 

pathways will allow parties to evaluate 

the validity of RINs at the time they are 

generated. 

The main concern with evaluating 

compliance with the GHG thresholds for 

barley on a batch-by-batch basis, 

however, is that it may allow cherrypicking in the production of barley 

ethanol, allowing more energy 

consumption to be associated with some 

fuel batches and less with others. This 

might allow some barley ethanol to 

qualify as advanced (D5), while over 

time barley ethanol production may not 

otherwise meet the advanced threshold. 

Alternatively, evaluating compliance on 

a batch-by-batch basis may result in 

reduced volumes of advanced biofuel 

being produced if during times of 

abnormal operations energy 

consumption spiked. The result would 

be batches of biofuel produced 

temporarily that would not meet the 

lifecycle thresholds while over the 

course of weeks, months, or years such 

aberrations would not cause the 

pathway to satisfy the lifecycle 

performance thresholds. 

In addition, batch-by-batch 

compliance means that parties would 

have to have the ability not only to 

express things like energy consumption 

on a batch specific basis, but also to 

measure, and verify that things like 

energy consumption met the 

requirements for each and every batch 

despite operational changes and 

fluctuations. Energy use is ongoing as is 

fuel production; however there are 

energy intensive operations associated 

with a certain gallon of ethanol 

produced that may occur on a different 

timeframe than ethanol production. For 

example, if DG is produced from a 

certain gallon but then set aside and not 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44088 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

dried until a later date, the energy used 

to dry the DG would not occur at the 

same time as ethanol production. 

Furthermore, energy use could be 

ongoing during times when no ethanol 

is produced. There is concern that 

energy use would not be accounted for 

if it occurred in between production of 

batches. EPA seeks comment on how 

renewable fuel producers should assign 

energy use to each batch, and on 

whether the regulations should specify 

the formula or allow RIN generators to 

provide a plan that demonstrates and 

documents how a facility would 

calculate energy use on a per batch 

basis. EPA is seeking comment on 

whether the renewable fuel producer 

would be able to accurately track (and 

account for the energy use) that is 

associated with any particular batch of 

ethanol. While EPA is taking comment 

on a number of different options in this 

NODA, it is our intent to codify only 

one approach in the final rule. 

An alternative approach that EPA is 

considering calculates the energy use 

per gallon over a time period instead of 

over the number of gallons in each 

batch. For example, energy use per 

gallon of barley ethanol could be 

calculated on a weekly, monthly, 

quarterly or annual basis. This approach 

may make it more difficult for a party 

who purchases RINs that are generated 

during the averaging period (e.g., during 

a particular quarter if calculations are 

done on a quarterly basis) to have 

confidence in the validity of the RINs. 

One advantage of requiring the energy 

use to be calculated on a quarterly basis 

is that the RFS program currently 

requires biofuel producers to report 

certain data on a quarterly basis. The 

quarterly reports require a more 

comprehensive set of information from 

fuel producers than what is currently 

collected on a batch-by-batch basis. As 

such, calculating the energy use per 

gallon of barley ethanol on a quarterly 

or annual basis may allow for closer 

alignment with the types of information 

that are already reported at such 

intervals. The primary reason that EPA 

is not proposing to use a quarterly or 

annual basis to calculate average energy 

use per gallon of barley ethanol for the 

advanced pathways is that it would not 

always allow parties purchasing or 

verifying barley ethanol RINs to know 

whether the requirements for the 

advanced biofuel pathways are being 

met at the time of RIN generation. If it 

was determined at the end of the 

averaging period that the pathway 

requirements were not met, then all 

RINs generated during the time period 

would be invalid. We invite comment 

on whether a weekly, monthly, 

quarterly or annual basis for calculating 

average energy use per gallon would be 

better than the proposed batch-by-batch 

basis for barley ethanol. 

Another alternative that we seek 

comment on is whether to calculate 

average energy use per gallon as a 

rolling average for all gallons of barley 

ethanol in the batch in question and all 

gallons of barley ethanol produced at 

the facility during a preceding time 

period. If the rolling average period was 

one year, this approach would average 

the total amount of energy used for the 

current batch with the average amount 

of energy used in all batches produced 

in the preceding 364 days. This 

approach would still calculate average 

energy use at the time that each batch 

of barley ethanol was produced, so it 

would also have the advantage of being 

well-aligned with the RFS regulations at 

§ 80.1426. The use of a rolling average 

would provide the additional benefit of 

smoothing out variability in energy use 

at barley ethanol facilities. For example, 

energy use could fluctuate significantly 

in the winter compared to the summer, 

or due to other circumstances. A rolling 

average approach could allow a barley 

ethanol producer who consistently 

maintained energy use below the 

maximum levels to continue generating 

advanced biofuel RINs if their energy 

use increased during one season or 

month of the year. 

Under the rolling average approach, 

no special requirements would be 

needed for facilities that dry DG in 

batches as compared to facilities that 

dry them continuously. This is because 

the rolling average approach is designed 

to account for temporal variability in 

energy use. For example, if a facility 

stockpiled and dried a large enough 

batch of DG to push their energy use 

above the maximum levels specified in 

the advanced biofuel pathways, then 

they would not be able to generate RINs 

until their rolling average came back 

down to compliant levels. This 

approach would provide parties who 

purchase RINs with the information that 

they need to evaluate the validity of the 

RINs before the purchase them, and 

would reduce the risk that the RIN 

would later be found to be invalid. This 

illustrates one example of where the 

rolling average approach may have 

significant advantages. However, using a 

rolling average approach might create 

reporting challenges if a plant is 

coprocessing barley with another 

feedstock. For example, if the rolling 

average is done on a fuel-specific basis, 

a producer could attempt to allocate 

high energy activities to the fuel 

produced from the other feedstock, 

making energy used to produce barley 

ethanol look less intensive than it 

actually is. 

EPA invites comment on whether the 

proposed advanced biofuel pathways for 

barley ethanol should calculate average 

energy use per gallon as a rolling 

average for all gallons of barley ethanol 

produced at the facility during a 

preceding time period and whether this 

approach would be preferable to other 

approaches. This includes comment on 

methods for preventing any sort of 

gaming of the system under a rolling 

average approach. 

EPA seeks comment on the best 

approach for calculating the average 

energy use per gallon of ethanol for the 

proposed advanced biofuel pathways for 

barley ethanol. The Agency asks 

commenters to consider the complexity 

of any proposed approach, how well it 

fits within the existing RFS regulations, 

and how well it addresses the issues 

(e.g., temporal variation in energy use) 

discussed above. 

EPA also seeks comment on the most 

appropriate way for renewable fuel 

producers to track and report the energy 

use associated with a batch of renewable 

fuel. One possible approach is for a 

renewable fuel producer to take meter 

readings at the start and end of a batch, 

documentation of which would need to 

be included in the recordkeeping 

requirements. EPA seeks comment on 

the practicability of this approach, 

especially considering that any drying 

of DG associated with a given batch of 

ethanol would necessarily need to be 

completed by the time energy use is 

calculated for a given batch. EPA is 

proposing to attribute all the energy 

used (e.g., lights, administrative offices) 

at the renewable fuel facility to the 

batch, for ease in tracking and 

compliance purposes. EPA is also taking 

comment on whether there are practical 

ways to limit the energy use more 

directly to the batch of fuel. If all energy 

use should not be attributed to 

production of the renewable fuel, EPA 

seeks comments on which equipment 

should be included, and how the 

renewable fuel producer would be able 

to track and report the energy use for 

renewable fuel separate from ancillary 

functions. We also seek comment on 

whether the energy use associated with 

ancillary functions significantly 

contributes to the GHG emissions 

associated with a renewable fuel. 

EPA proposes to prohibit parties that 

use multiple pathways to produce a 

single batch of fuel from generating 

RINs under the proposed advanced 

barley pathways. We do not believe that 

it is practical to determine if a producer 

meets the energy usage limitations 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44089 

34See Memo to the Docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0178–0012. 

35The Monte Carlo analysis is described in EPA 

(2010a), Section 2.4.4.2.8. 

required by the Barley pathways if it is 

using multiple pathways to produce a 

given batch of fuel. 

EPA also invites comment on 

whether, if the annual average, batchby-batch or rolling average approaches 

to compliance for the advanced barley 

pathways raise significant 

implementation concerns that cannot be 

addressed, it would be more appropriate 

to use the technology based approach 

currently in place for corn ethanol 

facilities. 

EPA is also proposing a recordkeeping and reporting system that will 

allow eligible barley ethanol producers 

using the proposed advanced biofuel 

pathways to demonstrate compliance 

with the 50% GHG reduction threshold. 

The proposed record-keeping and 

reporting approach will allow producers 

to show compliance with the new 

pathway by reporting and keeping 

records, on an ongoing basis regarding 

their process energy and electricity use 

and fuel production yields. The details 

of EPA’s proposed new pathways and 

potential accompanying compliance 

approach (including registration, 

recordkeeping, and reporting) are 

described in a Memo to the Docket.34

2. Consideration of Uncertainty 

Because of the inherent uncertainty 

and the state of evolving science 

regarding lifecycle analysis of biofuels, 

any threshold determinations that EPA 

makes for barley ethanol will be based 

on an approach that considers the 

weight of evidence currently available. 

For this pathway, the evidence 

considered includes the mid-point 

estimate as well as the range of results 

based on statistical uncertainty and 

sensitivity analyses conducted by the 

Agency. EPA will weigh all of the 

evidence available to it, while placing 

the greatest weight on the best-estimate 

value for the scenarios analyzed. 

As part of our assessment of the 

barley ethanol pathway, we have 

identified key areas of uncertainty in 

our analysis. Although there is inherent 

uncertainty in all portions of the 

lifecycle modeling, we focused our 

analysis on the factors that are the most 

uncertain and have the biggest impact 

on the results. The indirect, 

international emissions are the 

component of our analysis with the 

highest level of uncertainty. The type of 

land that is converted internationally 

and the emissions associated with this 

land conversion are critical issues that 

have a large impact on the GHG 

emissions estimates. 

Our analysis of land use change GHG 

emissions includes an assessment of 

uncertainty that focuses on two aspects 

of indirect land use change—the types 

of land converted and the GHG 

emissions associates with different 

types of land converted. These areas of 

uncertainty were estimated statistically 

using the Monte Carlo analysis 

methodology developed for the March 

2010 RFS rule.35 Figure II.B.4–1 shows 

the results of our statistical uncertainty 

assessment. 

Based on the weight of evidence 

considered, and putting the most weight 

on our mid-point estimate results, the 

results of our analysis indicate that 

barley ethanol would meet the 

minimum 20% GHG performance 

threshold for qualifying renewable fuel 

under the RFS program when using 

natural gas for all process energy, grid 

electricity, and drying 100% DG, and 

would meet the minimum 50% GHG 

performance threshold for advanced 

biofuels under the RFS program when 

using technologies that either reduce 

energy use or rely on low GHG-emitting 

energy sources. This conclusion is 

supported by our midpoint estimates, 

our statistical assessment of land use 

change uncertainty, as well as our 

consideration of other areas of 

uncertainty. 

An additional source of uncertainty is 

the distribution of ethanol production 

between spring and winter barley. EPA 

has worked to mitigate this source of 

uncertainty through extensive 

consultation with public and private 

sector barley experts and stakeholders. 

This consultation led to the 

determination that approximately 140 

million gallons of barley ethanol 

production by 2022 would be a 

reasonable assumption, as would the 

assumption that approximately 80 

million gallons will come from spring 

barley and approximately 60 million 

gallons will come from winter barley. 

However, we acknowledge that there 

remains uncertainty regarding how 

much ethanol will be produced from 

each of the two regional growing 

practices. We also acknowledge that this 

pathway would be applicable to 

international production. Based on our 

consultation of USDA and other experts, 

we do not anticipate any significant 

international production of barley 

ethanol. But that is an additional source 

of potential uncertainty. We therefore 

invite comment regarding the 

magnitude and significance of this 

uncertainty with regards to our analysis, 

as well as potential alternative methods 

of accounting for any significant 

uncertainty in our analytical framework. 

The docket for this NODA provides 

more details on all aspects of our 

analysis of barley ethanol. EPA invites 

comment on all aspects of its modeling 

of barley ethanol. We also invite 

comment on the consideration of 

uncertainty as it relates to making GHG 

threshold determinations. 

Dated: July 8, 2013. 

Christopher Grundler, 

Director, Office of Transportation & Air 

Quality. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16928 Filed 7–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 770 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0018; FRL–9394–1] 

RIN 2070–AJ92 

Formaldehyde Emissions Standards 

for Composite Wood Products; 

Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register of June 10, 2013, 

concerning formaldehyde emissions 

standards for composite wood products. 

This document extends the comment 

period from August 9, 2013, to 

September 9, 2013. After receiving 

requests for an extension, EPA believes 

it is appropriate to extend the comment 

period in order to give stakeholders 

additional time to assess the impacts of 

the proposal, review technical 

documents in the docket, and prepare 

comments. 

DATES: The EPA is extending the 

comment date on a proposed rule 

published June 10, 2013 at 78 FR 34820. 

Comments, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2012–0018, must be received on 

or before September 9, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed 

instructions as provided under 

ADDRESSES in the Federal Register 

document of June 10, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Cindy 

Wheeler, National Program Chemicals 

Division, Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 566–0484; email address: 

wheeler.cindy@epa.gov. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1