[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40202-40208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20129]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 490
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
[Docket No. EE-RM-98-PURE]
RIN 1904-AA99
Alternative Fuel Transportation Program; P-series fuels
AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public
comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a petition filed by Pure Energy Corporation,
DOE proposes to amend the rules for the statutory program requiring
certain alternative fuel providers and State government fleets to
acquire an annually increasing percentage of alternative fueled
vehicles from among their purchases of new light duty vehicles. The
proposed regulatory amendments would add certain blends of
methyltetrahydrofuran, ethanol and hydrocarbons known as the P-series
fuels to the definition of ``alternative fuel.''
DATES: Written comments, eight (8) copies, must be received by DOE by
September 28, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, EE-34, Docket No. EE-RM-
98-PURE, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, telephone
(202) 586-3012.
Copies of the Pure Energy Corporation petition for rulemaking,
analyses of the petition by national laboratories, written comments
received, technical reference materials mentioned in this notice, and
any other documents related to this rulemaking may be read and copied
at the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, Room 1E-190, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) 586-
3142, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The docket file material will be filed
under EE-RM-98-PURE.
For more information concerning public participation in this
rulemaking proceeding, see section III of this notice (Public Comment
Procedures).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Katz, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, (EE-34), U.S. Department of Energy,
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-9171.
For information concerning submission of written comments and to
obtain copies of materials referenced in this notice, contact Andi
Kasarsky, (202) 586-3012.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction and Background
A. Fuel Characteristics
Pure Energy Corporation has petitioned DOE for a rulemaking to add
its proprietary fuel products to the definition of ``alternative
fuels'' under the Alternative Fuel Transportation Program (Program)
regulations (10 CFR part 490). Pure Energy Corporation's P-series fuels
are blends of ethanol, methyltetrahydrofuran (MTHF), and pentanes plus,
with butane added for blends that would be used in severe cold-weather
conditions to meet cold start requirements. It is anticipated that both
the ethanol and the MTHF will be derived from renewable resources, such
as waste cellulosic biomass that can be derived from waste paper,
agricultural waste and urban/industrial wood waste. Pure Energy
Corporation plans to use pentanes plus that are derived from the
processing and production of natural gas, as opposed to those derived
from refining processes. Pure Energy Corporation holds the exclusive
worldwide license to manufacture and distribute the P-series fuels,
which were developed by Dr. Stephen Paul of Princeton University. The
P-series fuels were awarded Patent number 5,697,987 by the United
States Patent and Trademark Office on December 16, 1997. DOE's
evaluation of Pure Energy Corporation's petition is restricted to those
formulations covered under this patent.
To make the P-series fuels, Pure Energy Corporation will be
producing ethanol and MTHF through an integrated production process.
Pure Energy Corporation expects to utilize commercially proven
concentrated acid hydrolysis processing as its base technology for this
integrated production process. MTHF is currently produced in limited
quantities from furfural (derived from both biomass and petroleum
feedstocks) for use as a specialty chemical in consumer end products
and/or process industries.
Pure Energy Corporation has developed a thermochemical technology
to produce MTHF from cellulosic feedstocks through a levulinic acid
pathway, integrating it with an ethanol production system to achieve
technical and economic efficiencies. In this process, the
lignocellulosic feedstock is converted into both five-and six-carbon
sugars, which are then bifurcated into fermentation and thermochemical
pathways to produce ethanol and MTHF, respectively.
Pure Energy Corporation has developed several fuel formulations for
the P-series fuels. Pure Energy Corporation proposes to vary the
components of its P-series fuels to meet particular market demands. The
formulations described in Table 1 are those for which Pure Energy
Corporation, in its petition, provided specific energy and emission
data. Pure Energy Corporation claims that the volumetric percentages of
each of the components of the P-series fuels can
[[Page 40203]]
range from 10 percent to 50 percent for pentanes plus; from 15 percent
to 55 percent for MTHF; from 25 percent to 55 percent for ethanol; and
from zero to 15 percent for normal butane. However, data was not
provided to DOE for fuel formulations that incorporate the entire
blending range. Data was provided to DOE only for the three specific
formulations discussed in this notice. Table 1 provides the
compositions, by volume, of the three P-series fuel formulations which
are the subject of Pure Energy Corporation's petition for rulemaking.
Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume composition of the P-series fuels
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituent Regular Premium Cold weather
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentanes plus............................................. 32.5 27.5 16.0
MTHF...................................................... 32.5 17.5 26.0
Ethanol................................................... 35.0 55.0 47.0
Normal butane............................................. 0 0 11.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure Energy Corporation claims that its P-series fuels are from 60
to 100 percent non-petroleum, on an energy basis, depending on the
source of the pentanes plus and n-butane components of the blends.
Pure Energy Corporation proposes to market the P-series fuels for
flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) originally designed to operate on E-85
(85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline), on gasoline, or on any blend
of those two fuels. Flexible fuel vehicles are currently available from
two major domestic auto manufacturers as mid-size sedans and minivans.
In the near future, a large number of minivans and compact pickup
trucks will be produced as flexible-fuel vehicles by these two domestic
manufacturers.
B. Patent
On December 16, 1997, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
issued U.S. Patent No. 5,697,987, titled Alternative Fuel, to Princeton
University on a new, non-petroleum substitute for gasoline called the
P-series. The abstract for this patent reads:
A spark ignition motor fuel composition consisting essentially
of: a hydrocarbon component containing one or more hydrocarbons
selected from five to eight carbon atoms straight-chained or
branched alkanes essentially free of olefins, aromatics, benzene and
sulfur, wherein the hydrocarbon component has a minimum anti-knock
index of 65 as measured by ASTM D-2699 and D-2700 and a maximum DVPE
of 15 psi as measured by ASTM D-5191; a fuel grade alcohol; and a
co-solvent for the hydrocarbon component and the fuel grade alcohol;
wherein the hydrocarbon component, the fuel grade alcohol and the
co-solvent are present in amounts selected to provide a motor fuel
with a minimum anti-knock index of 87 as measured by ASTM D2699 and
D-2700, and a maximum DVPE of 15 psi as measured by ASTM D-5191. A
method for lowering the vapor pressure of a hydrocarbon-alcohol
blend by adding a co-solvent for the hydrocarbon and the alcohol to
the blend is also disclosed.
C. Background
10 CFR part 490 sets forth the regulations that implement title V
of the Energy Policy Act 1992 (EPACT) (Public Law 102-486) which
mandates alternative fueled vehicle acquisition requirements for
certain alternative fuel providers and State government fleets. Part
490 is one of a variety of EPACT programs to promote alternative and
replacement fuels that reduce reliance on imported oil, reduce criteria
pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, and
help displace 10 percent and 30 percent of conventional motor fuels by
2000 and 2010, respectively.
Title III of EPACT requires Federal fleet acquisitions of
alternative fueled vehicles. Title IV includes specific authority for a
financial incentive program for States, a public information program,
and a program for certifying alternative fueled vehicle technician
training programs. In addition to the mandates for the purchase of
alternative fueled vehicles by certain alternative fuel providers and
State government fleets, title V provides for a possible similar
mandate for certain private and municipal fleets. Title VI provides for
a program to promote electric motor vehicles.
The types of vehicles that satisfy the alternative fuel provider
and State government fleet mandates in title V are determined in part
by the definition of ``alternative fuel'' in section 301(2). That
definition provides: `` `Alternative fuel' means methanol, denatured
ethanol, and other alcohols; mixtures containing 85 percent or more (or
such other percentage, but not less than 70 percent, as determined by
the Secretary, by rule, to provide for requirements relating to cold
start, safety, or vehicle functions) by volume of methanol, denatured
ethanol , and other alcohols with gasoline or other fuels; natural gas;
liquefied petroleum gas; hydrogen; coal-derived liquid fuels; fuels
(other than alcohol) derived from biological materials; electricity
(including electricity from solar energy); and any other fuel the
Secretary determines, by rule, is substantially not petroleum, and
would yield substantial energy security benefits and substantial
environmental benefits.'' [Emphasis added.] 42 U.S.C. 13211(2). The P-
series fuels do not fit within the classes of eligible fuels
specifically named in section 301(2). The emphasized phrase in the
definition of ``alternative fuel'' states the minimum procedural and
substantive requirements for adding a new fuel blend to the list of
fuels enumerated or implicitly covered by the provisions of section
301(2).
In the rulemaking to establish 10 CFR part 490, DOE concluded that
Congress deliberately omitted reformulated gasoline (RFG) from the
definition of ``alternative fuel'' in section 301(2) of the Act. The
basis for this conclusion was explained in a final rule at 61 FR 10622
(March 14, 1996). The relatively small percentage of non-petroleum
content in RFG was an important consideration in that explanation.
For reasons set forth in detail below, DOE proposes to determine
that the P-series fuels, as described by United States Patent number
5,697,987, which contain at least 60 percent non-petroleum energy
content derived from MTHF (manufactured solely from biomass feedstocks)
and ethanol, are substantially not petroleum and would yield
substantial energy security and substantial environmental benefits, and
thus should be added to the definition of ``alternative fuel'' in 10
CFR 490.2.
II. Statutory Criteria for Designating Additional Alternative Fuels
Neither section 301(2) nor any other provision of EPACT states
specifically or indicates how to measure whether a new fuel: (1) is
``substantially not petroleum'' and (2) would yield ``substantial
energy security benefits;'' and (3) would yield ``substantial
[[Page 40204]]
environmental benefits.'' Moreover, these criteria do not purport to be
exclusive, and in appropriate circumstances, DOE could consider other
criteria related to achievement of the purposes of the Program.
Legislative committee report language likewise does not identify
specifically what numbers and measures Congress viewed as defining the
minimum that would qualify as substantially not petroleum, substantial
energy security, and substantial environmental benefits. However, the
report of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce described the
pertinent language in section 301(2) as providing ``. . . the Secretary
with the opportunity to add alternative and replacement fuels that are
not now being marketed to those specifically identified in the
legislation.'' [Emphasis added.] H.R. Rep. No. 474(1), 102nd Cong., 2nd
Sess., 182, reprinted in 1992 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2005. The
word ``opportunity'' suggests that the authority to add fuels to the
definition of ``alternative fuel'' is largely discretionary.
A. Substantially Not Petroleum
Any standard dictionary or thesaurus indicates that
``substantially'' is an adverb that can be used to convey a variety of
subtly different meanings. ``Substantially'' is sometimes used as a
synonym for the word ``mainly.'' At other times, it is used as a
synonym for the words ``considerably'' or ``importantly.'' See, e.g.,
Webster's New World Thesaurus 725 (Simon & Schuster, 1985). The former
is a more narrow usage because the word ``mainly'' means the principal
and predominant portion of a whole. (Obviously, a fuel that is more
than 50 percent non-petroleum in energy equivalent terms is ``mainly''
and therefore ``substantially not petroleum.'') The latter usage is
broader because a less than principal or predominant portion of the
whole could still be large enough to be regarded as ``considerable'' or
``important.'' Whether to construe ``substantially'' narrowly or
broadly is a policy question. Since the petition does not involve fuels
that are less than 50 percent non-petroleum, in terms of energy
content, it is unnecessary to address this policy question in this
rulemaking.
Section 502(b) of the Act establishes goals for replacing the
projected consumption of motor fuel in the U.S. on an energy equivalent
basis. The goals provided by this section are that 10% of the motor
fuel consumed by 2000 and 30% of the motor fuel consumed by 2010 will
be replacement fuels. These goals are the driving force for all the
alternative and replacement fuel provisions in the Act. Because the
achievement of these goals is to be measured on an energy equivalent
basis, DOE believes that when evaluating a fuel, the determination of
whether it is ``substantially not petroleum'' should be based on an
analysis of the fuel's non-petroleum energy content, rather than a
volumetric analysis of the fuel's non-petroleum content.
Pure Energy Corporation claims that, on an energy basis, its P-
series fuels will be at least 60 percent derived, and may be 100
percent derived, from non-petroleum sources, depending on the source of
the light hydrocarbons in the blends. In its petition, the Pure Energy
Corporation provided DOE with information and analysis to substantiate
these claims, and DOE had the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) review those data. NREL confirmed the accuracy of Pure Energy
Corporation's claim regarding the energy-based, non-petroleum content
of the P-series fuels. Table 2 summarizes the worst-case (lowest non-
petroleum) makeup of the three P-series fuel formulations, based on the
net (lower) heating value of all constituents.
Table 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verified non-petroleum energy content of the P-series fuels
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Premium Cold weather
Constituent (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentanes plus................................................... 36.2 33.3 19.1
MTHF............................................................ 37.7 22.1 32.3
Ethanol......................................................... 26.1 44.6 37.5
Normal butane................................................... 0.0 0.0 11.2
Non-petroleum................................................... 63.8 66.7 69.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is evident to DOE that the MTHF (manufactured from biomass
feedstock) and the ethanol in the P-series fuels are non-petroleum.
However, it is less clear as to whether the pentanes plus component is
non-petroleum. The Department of Energy's Energy Information
Administration (EIA), in its publication Annual Energy Review 1996, 386
((DOE/EIA-0384(96)) defines ``pentanes plus'' as ``a mixture of
hydrocarbons, mostly pentanes and heavier, extracted from natural gas.
[This] includes isopentane, natural gasoline, and plant condensate.''
This same publication also defines petroleum products as including
``unfinished oils, liquefied petroleum gases, pentanes plus, aviation
gasoline, motor gasoline, naphtha-type jet fuel, kerosene-type jet
fuel, kerosene, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, petrochemical
feedstocks, special naphthas, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke,
asphalt, road oil, still gas, and miscellaneous products.'' Ibid.
However, it is unnecessary to determine whether to restrict pentanes
plus on the basis of source because the MTHF (manufactured from biomass
feedstock) and ethanol, which are present in all three fuel blends,
result in a non-petroleum energy content for the P-series formulations
of at least 63.8 percent. That percentage is the main or predominant
portion of the fuel, and even under the narrow definition of
``substantially,'' the three fuel blends are ``substantially not
petroleum.''
Because U.S. Patent number 5,697,987 does not specifically define
the composition of the P-series fuels, DOE has determined that the
fuels need to be more specifically described before they can be added
to the regulatory definition of ``alternative fuel.'' Given that the
petition shows that the P-series fuels will be at least 60 percent
derived from non-petroleum sources, DOE will be using that percentage
as a way of more narrowly defining the P-series fuels, yet allowing
some variability in the blend components and blend levels. DOE also
believes that the amount of MTHF and ethanol in the fuels will result
in a non-petroleum content of at least 60 percent for the P-series
fuels, absent any other non-petroleum component, if the MTHF is
manufactured solely from biomass feedstock. Since 60 percent represents
the main or predominant portion of the P-series fuels covered by the
petition for
[[Page 40205]]
rulemaking, DOE proposes to determine that they are ``substantially not
petroleum'' under section 301(2) of the Act.
B. Substantial Energy Security Benefits
Pure Energy Corporation claims in its petition that the P-series
fuels are 100 percent domestic and capable of displacing gasoline on
essentially a gallon-for-gallon basis. Pure Energy Corporation notes
that each gallon of the P-series fuel directly displaces 0.88 gallons
of RFG in vehicle use. Pure Energy Corporation also states that the
energy required to produce a one gallon equivalent of the fuel is
approximately 13,800 BTUs less than that required to produce one gallon
of RFG.
The petition provides information to support a claim that the
production of the P-series fuels results in a positive energy balance.
The process efficiency (BTUs produced per BTU of input) of the P-series
fuels is approximately 2.25 when the ethanol is produced from renewable
resources, such as biomass. If, however, the ethanol is produced from
corn, the process efficiency is slightly lower, with a value between
1.75 and 1.88. Although the process efficiency is slightly lower when
the ethanol is derived from corn, production of ethanol from either
feedstock represents a significant energy savings for the life cycle of
the fuel.
DOE has had NREL and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) examine
these claims. The analyses, ``Review of Pure Energy Petition for
Alternative Fuel Status'' (NREL) and ``Assessment of Fuel-Cycle Energy
Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Pure Energy's Proprietary Motor
Fuel'' (ANL) can be reviewed at DOE's Freedom of Information Reading
Room under Docket Number EE-RM-98-PURE. These analyses support Pure
Energy Corporation's claim of significant petroleum displacement,
although NREL found Pure Energy Corporation's claim of 100 percent
domestic content to be slightly high.
NREL estimated that the P-series fuels (regular grade) with
pentanes plus derived from natural gas would be 96 percent derived from
domestic resources. NREL believes that the feedstock for ethanol and
MTHF production will almost certainly be wholly domestic. NREL asserts
that the feedstock for the pentanes plus and the butane will be either
natural gas or petroleum. Because a portion of these feedstocks is
currently and will continue to be imported, it is debatable whether the
P-series fuels will ever be wholly derived from domestic resources.
However, if coal gas were used as the feedstock, the pentanes plus
would be wholly derived from domestic resources. If the pentanes plus
were derived from refining at oil import levels projected for 2015 (as
estimated by EIA), the regular grade of the P-series fuel would still
be 80 percent derived from domestic resources.
ANL estimated that the P-series fuels could reduce fossil energy
use by 49 to 57 percent, relative to RFG. ANL also estimates the P-
series fuels could reduce petroleum use by 79 to 81 percent, relative
to RFG. These estimates are affected by some key assumptions that ANL
used in its analysis. One assumption is that Pure Energy Corporation's
fuel production yield per dry ton of biomass is accurate. Another one
is that Pure Energy Corporation's assumption that the amount of steam
and electricity required in MTHF/ethanol plants is provided by
combustion of the lignin cake produced within the plants and that no
net energy input is required.
On the basis of the foregoing, DOE proposes that the P-series
fuels, as described by United States Patent number 5,697,987, which
contain at least 60 percent non-petroleum energy content derived from
MTHF (manufactured solely from biomass feedstock) and ethanol, would
yield ``substantial energy security benefits'' as that phrase is used
in section 301(2) of the Act.
C. Substantial Environmental Benefits
Pure Energy Corporation had vehicle tailpipe and evaporative
emissions tests conducted by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
certified automotive test laboratory using both the current Federal
testing procedure (FTP) and the US06 test. 40 CFR part 86. The US06 is
a high acceleration, aggressive driving schedule developed by the EPA
that is often identified as a ``Supplemental FTP'' driving schedule.
The US06 driving cycle is ten minutes in duration and has a maximum
speed of 80.3 miles per hour. This cycle was developed by EPA in
conjunction with the California Air Resources Board and vehicle
manufacturers. The cycle is used by EPA to set emission standards and
control emissions associated with aggressive, high-speed driving
conditions not represented by the FTP.
Pure Energy Corporation's test vehicles, two 1997 Ford Taurus E-85
flexible-fuel vehicles, were operated on seven fuels: three P-series
fuels (regular, premium and cold weather), E-85, Federal Certification
gasoline, California Phase 2 RFG and two commercial ``street''
gasolines (a summer and a winter blend). The results were submitted to
DOE as part of Pure Energy Corporation's petition. Pure Energy
Corporation also provided an analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions
associated with the production, distribution and use of the P-series
fuels and compared them to those of gasoline and E-85.
Both the criteria pollutant emissions test results and the
greenhouse gas analysis tend to support Pure Energy Corporation's claim
of substantial environmental benefits arising from the use of the P-
series fuels. Criteria emissions from the P-series fuels were
consistently among the lowest of all test fuels, met Federal Tier 1
standards and statutorily provided Federal Tier 2 standards in every
case, and compared favorably with those from E-85. The premium P-series
fuel had better emission characteristics than the regular P-series
fuel. NREL surmised that this may be due to the increased volume of
ethanol in the premium fuel. With regard to non-methane hydrocarbons
(NMHC) and total hydrocarbons, the P-series fuels reduced emissions by
almost a third compared to Phase 2 RFG. It is worth noting that all of
the fuels tested had evaporative emissions well below the evaporative
emissions standard for Federal Tier 1. Table 3 summarizes the results
of the Federal Test Procedure emissions results (all results in grams
per mile). The numbers are averages over both cars tested and all FTP
tests performed, as presented in Pure Energy Corporation's petition.
Table 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of Federal test procedure emission results (gram/mile)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Nitrogen
NMHC monoxide oxides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure Regular................................................... 0.074 1.081 0.064
Pure Premium................................................... .064 1.062 .059
Phase II RFG................................................... .115 1.247 .039
[[Page 40206]]
Tier 1 standards............................................... .250 3.4 .4
Tier 2 standards............................................... .125 1.7 .2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tier 2 standards that are referenced in Table 3 are the pending
standards identified by Congress in section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Section 202(i) of the CAA outlines a process for assessing
whether more stringent exhaust emission reductions from light duty
vehicles and light duty trucks should be required. Congress required
EPA to report the results of this assessment. Congress identified
specific standards that EPA must consider in making this assessment,
but stated that the study should also consider other possible
standards. These standards, referred to as ``Tier 2 standards'', would
be more stringent than the standards required for light duty vehicles
and light duty trucks in the CAA beginning in model year 1994, but
could not be implemented prior to the 2004 model year.
EPA recently released a Draft Tier 2 Study and published a Notice
of Document Availability regarding this document. 63 FR 23255. This
study assesses the air quality need, technical feasibility and cost
effectiveness of more stringent standards. It is DOE's understanding
that EPA will issue the Tier 2 Report to Congress by July 31, 1998.
Following submission of this Report to Congress, EPA will, through the
rulemaking process, determine whether: there is an air quality need for
further emission reductions; the technology for meeting more stringent
emissions standards will be available; and whether obtaining further
reductions in emissions from light duty vehicles and light duty trucks
is necessary and cost effective.
As seen in Table 4, the P-series fuels had reduced emissions for
ozone-forming potential (OFP), carbon monoxide and for air toxics. With
regard to NOX emissions, indolene and Phase 2 RFG
outperformed the P-series fuels by a small margin. However, the EPA
certified test laboratory pointed out that the Taurus' engine could be
adjusted to significantly reduce NOx emissions, while only
slightly increasing CO and hydrocarbon emissions to levels well below
the standard.
The OFP is a measure of the performance of the fuel-vehicle
combination, and is calculated by multiplying the fraction of each
compound in the emissions mixture by its reactivity. The specific
reactivity is calculated by dividing the OFP by the mass of the non-
methane organic gaseous emissions, and is considered a better gauge of
the reactivity of the fuels' emissions profile. Table 4 compares the
emission results of the P-series fuels, indolene, Phase 2 RFG and
commercial ``street'' gasoline to EPA's National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). 40 CFR part 63. The numbers are averages over both
cars tested and all FTP and US06 tests performed, as presented in Pure
Energy Corporation's petition.
Table 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of emission results related to NAAQS (gram/mile)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO NOX OFP Spec. React.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP USO6 FTP USO6 FTP USO6 FTP USO6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indo............................................ 1.421 11.99 0.056 0.040 0.488 0.470 3.248 3.092
RFG II.......................................... 1.247 10.56 .039 .049 .469 .379 3.640 3.059
Street.......................................... 1.427 12.07 .095 .077 .522 .501 3.334 3.070
E85............................................. 1.218 5.15 .056 .079 .494 .087 2.410 3.633
Pure 1.......................................... 1.081 6.15 .064 .057 .305 .161 3.360 3.460
Pure 2.......................................... 1.062 6.23 .059 .081 .282 .158 2.849 3.568
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition stated that the total emissions resulting from the
production of the P-series fuels are 71 percent lower than those
associated with the production of one gallon of Phase 2 RFG. Of note
are the claims that emissions are reduced, relative to Phase 2 RFG, by
more than 99 percent for methane, by 85 percent for SOx, by 71 percent
for carbon dioxide and by 68 percent for nitrogen oxides.
The petition claims that the P-series fuels perform better than
Phase 2 RFG or indolene in terms of direct carbon dioxide emissions and
that the P-series fuels will result in significant reductions in carbon
dioxide emissions when considered on a life-cycle basis. If the P-
series fuels are produced from biomass, as is the desire of Pure Energy
Corporation, it is claimed that a significant percent of the carbon
emissions associated with the gasoline life-cycle will be avoided.
Specifically, it is claimed that the P-series fuels are estimated, on a
life-cycle basis, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 63
percent.
Regarding toxicity, Pure Energy Corporation claims that its P-
series fuels appear to be less hazardous to human health than
conventional gasoline. Based on the results of recently conducted
animal studies, the P-series fuels are claimed to have lower inhalation
toxicity than gasoline. It is also claimed that the P-series fuels are
not skin sensitizers and are non-mutagenic/genotoxic in bacterial
assays.
DOE had NREL assess the emissions test results and had ANL perform
an analysis of the full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions of the P-
series fuels. NREL confirmed that regular and premium formulations of
the P-series fuels displayed carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and non-
methane hydrocarbon equivalent emissions that met the Tier 1 and
statutorily provided Tier 2 standards, and that their
[[Page 40207]]
evaporative emissions were well below the Tier 1 standards.
The FTP and US06 testing included measurements of the four toxics
associated with vehicle emissions: benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde. The total toxic emissions were
presented, along with the potency weighted toxics (PWT) emissions. The
PWT weighs each individual component by a factor that represents its
relative toxicity. NREL noted that the emissions of air toxics from the
P-series fuels were lower than those from all other test fuels, both in
terms of total mass emissions and in terms of their PWT. As a result,
the NREL analysis indicates that the P-series fuels hold the promise of
reduced toxics emissions.
ANL's evaluation of the full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions of
the P-series fuels confirmed that, over their entire production,
distribution and end-use cycle, the P-series fuels will result in
greenhouse gas emissions 45 to 50 percent below those of reformulated
gasoline. These reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are possible if
the ethanol component of the P-series fuels is made from biomass, as is
Pure Energy Corporation's intention.
On the basis of the foregoing, DOE proposes that the P-series
fuels, as described by United States Patent number 5,697,987, which
contain at least 60 percent non-petroleum energy content derived from
MTHF (manufactured solely from biomass feedstock) and ethanol, would
yield ``substantial environmental'' benefits as that phrase is used in
section 301(2) of the Act.
III. Opportunity for Public Comment
A. Participation in Rulemaking
Interested persons are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or comments with respect
to the subject set forth in this notice. Whenever applicable, full
supporting rationale, data, and detailed analyses should also be
submitted.
B. Written Comment Procedures
Written comments (8 copies) should be identified on the outside of
the envelope, and on the comments themselves, with the designation:
``P-series Fuel Rulemaking (Docket Number EE-RM-98-PURE)'' and must be
received by the date specified at the beginning of this notice. In the
event any person wishing to submit a written comment cannot provide
eight copies, alternative arrangements may be made in advance by
calling Ms. Andi Kasarsky at (202) 586-3012.
All comments received on or before the date specified at the
beginning of this notice and other relevant information will be
considered by DOE before final action is taken on the proposed rule.
All comments submitted will be available for examination in the
Rulemaking Docket File in DOE's Freedom of Information Reading Room.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting
information or data that is believed to be confidential, and which may
be exempt by law from public disclosure, should submit one complete
copy, as well as two copies from which the information claimed to be
confidential has been deleted. The DOE will make its own determination
of any such claim.
C. Public Hearing
In DOE's view, today's proposed rulemaking does not involve any
significant issues of law or fact that would warrant holding a public
hearing. Moreover, Pure Energy Corporation has not requested such a
hearing, and the opportunity to file written comments should suffice
for other members of the public who want DOE to considers their views.
For these reasons, DOE has not provided for a public hearing in this
notice. Nevertheless, if members of the public request the opportunity
to make oral comments and can identify issues that would justify
scheduling a public hearing, DOE will reconsider its position on
holding such a hearing
IV. Regulatory and Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Today's regulatory action has been determined not to be a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
Accordingly, this rulemaking has not been reviewed by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under Executive Order 12612
Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism,'' 52 FR 41685 (October 30,
1987) requires that regulations, rules, legislation and other policy
actions be reviewed for any substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or in the
distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of
government. If there are substantial effects, the Executive Order
requires the preparation of a federalism assessment to be used in all
decisions involved in promulgating and implementing policy action. DOE
has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and has determined there
are no federalism implications that would warrant the preparation of a
federalism assessment. The rule proposed today would simply allow an
additional fuel to qualify as an alternative fuel for the purposes of
the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The proposed rule would not have a
substantial direct effect on States, the relationship between the
States and Federal Government, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government.
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for every
rule which by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Today's proposed rule would provide an additional fuel choice for
organizations which must comply with the requirements of the
Alternative Fuel Transportation Fuel Program (10 CFR part 490). There
is no reason to anticipate any adverse impact. DOE certifies that the
proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
The proposed rule would identify the P-series fuels as
``alternative fuel'' as that term is defined in the Alternative
Transportation Fuels Program regulations (10 CFR 490.2) and section
301(2) of the Energy Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 13211(2)). The proposed rule
interprets statutory and regulatory definitions and would not change
the environmental effect of the Alternative Fuel Transportation Program
regulations. DOE, therefore, has determined that this proposed rule is
covered under the Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A5 to Subpart D,
10 CFR part 1021. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor
an environmental impact statement is required.
E. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
No new collection of information is proposed to be imposed by this
[[Page 40208]]
rulemaking. Accordingly, no clearance by the Office of Management and
Budget is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on
Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive
Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies
the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard
for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires
Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they
are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has
completed the required review and determined that, to the extent
permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 490
Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation, Fuel,
Motor vehicles.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, 1998.
Dan W. Reicher,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the Preamble, Title 10, Chapter II,
Subchapter D, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as set forth below:
PART 490--ALTERNATIVE FUEL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
1. The authority cite for Part 490 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7191, 13211, 13235, 13251, 13257, 13258,
13260-3.
Sec. 490.2 [AMENDED]
2. Section 490.2, Definitions, is amended by adding in the
definition of ``Alternative Fuel,'' the phrase, ``P-series fuels as
described by United States Patent number 5,697,987, dated December 16,
1997, and containing at least 60 percent non-petroleum energy content
derived from methyltetrahydrofuran (manufactured solely from biomass
feedstock) and ethanol,'' before ``and electricity (including
electricity from solar energy).''
[FR Doc. 98-20129 Filed 7-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P