[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34656-34663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15721]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0771; FRL-9958-88-OAR]


Notice of Opportunity To Comment on an Analysis of the Greenhouse 
Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Beta vulgaris 
ssp. vulgaris (Sugar Beets) for Use in Biofuel Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
inviting comment on its analysis of the upstream greenhouse gas 
emissions attributable to the production of Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris 
(sugar beets) for use as a biofuel feedstock. This notice describes 
EPA's greenhouse gas analysis of sugar beets produced for use as a 
biofuel feedstock, and describes how EPA may apply this analysis in the 
future to determine whether biofuels produced from sugar beets meet the 
necessary greenhouse gas reduction threshold required for qualification 
as renewable fuel under the Renewable Fuel Standard program. This 
notice considers a scenario in which non-cellulosic beet sugar is 
extracted for conversion to biofuel and the remaining beet pulp co-
product is used as animal feed. Based on this analysis, we anticipate 
that biofuels produced from sugar beets could qualify as renewable fuel 
or advanced biofuel, depending on the type and efficiency of the fuel 
production process technology used.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0771, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or withdrawn from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Ramig, Office of Air and 
Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6401A, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-1372; fax number: 202-
564-1177; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    This notice is organized as follows:

I. Introduction
II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated With Production and 
Transport of Sugar Beets for Use as a Biofuel Feedstock
    A. Overview of Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris (Sugar Beets)
    B. Analysis of Upstream GHG Emissions
    1. Methodology and Scenarios Evaluated
    2. Domestic Impacts
    3. International Impacts
    4. Feedstock Transport
    5. Results of Upstream GHG Lifecycle Analysis
    6. Fuel Production and Distribution
    7. Risk of Potential Invasiveness
III. Summary

I. Introduction

    Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act establishes the renewable fuel 
standard (``RFS'') program, under which EPA sets annual percentage 
standards specifying the amount of renewable fuel, as well as three 
subcategories of renewable fuel, that must be used to reduce or replace 
fossil fuel present in transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel. 
With limited exceptions, renewable fuel produced at facilities that 
commenced construction after enactment of the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (``EISA''), must achieve at least a twenty percent 
reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as compared to baseline 
2005 transportation fuel. Advanced biofuel and biomass-based diesel 
must achieve at least a fifty percent reduction, and cellulosic biofuel 
must achieve at least a sixty percent reduction.
    As part of changes to the RFS program regulations published on 
March 26, 2010 \1\ (the ``March 2010 RFS rule'') to implement EISA 
amendments to the RFS program, EPA identified a number of renewable 
fuel production pathways that satisfy the greenhouse gas reduction 
requirements of the Act. Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 of the RFS 
regulations lists three critical components of approved fuel pathways: 
(1) Fuel type; (2) feedstock; and (3) production process. In addition, 
for each pathway, the regulations specify a ``D code'' that indicates 
whether fuel produced by the specified pathway meets the requirements 
for renewable fuel or one of the three renewable fuel subcategories. 
EPA may independently approve additional fuel pathways not currently 
listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 for participation in the RFS 
program, or a party may petition for EPA to evaluate a new fuel pathway 
in accordance with 40 CFR 80.1416. Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, EPA 
received petitions from Green Vision Group, Tracy Renewable Energy, and 
Plant Sensory Systems, submitted under

[[Page 34657]]

partial claims of confidential business information (CBI), requesting 
that EPA evaluate the GHG emissions associated with biofuels produced 
using sugar beets as feedstock, and that EPA provide a determination of 
the renewable fuel categories, if any, for which such biofuels may be 
eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 75 FR 14670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's lifecycle analyses are used to assess the overall GHG impacts 
of a fuel throughout each stage of its production and use. The results 
of these analyses, considering uncertainty and the weight of available 
evidence, are used to determine whether a fuel meets the necessary GHG 
reductions required under the CAA for it to be considered renewable 
fuel or one of the subsets of renewable fuel. Lifecycle analysis 
includes an assessment of emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, 
including feedstock production, feedstock transportation, fuel 
production, fuel transportation and distribution, and tailpipe 
emissions. Per the CAA definition of lifecycle GHG emissions, EPA's 
lifecycle analyses also include an assessment of significant indirect 
emissions, such as indirect emissions from land use changes and 
agricultural sector impacts.
    This document describes EPA's analysis of the GHG emissions from 
feedstock production and feedstock transport associated with sugar 
beets when used to produce biofuel, including significant indirect 
impacts. This notice considers a scenario in which non-cellulosic beet 
sugar (primarily sucrose, glucose and/or fructose) is extracted for 
conversion to biofuel and the remaining beet pulp co-product is used as 
animal feed. As will be described in Section II, we estimate the GHG 
emissions associated with production and transport of sugar beets for 
use as a biofuel feedstock are approximately 45 kilograms of 
CO2-equivalent per wet short ton (kgCO2e per wet 
short ton) of sugar beets.\2\ Based on these results, we believe 
biofuels produced from sugar beets through recognized conversion 
processes could qualify as advanced biofuel and/or conventional (non-
advanced) renewable fuel, depending on the type and efficiency of the 
fuel production process technology used. EPA is seeking public comment 
on its analysis of greenhouse gas emissions related to sugar beet 
feedstock production and transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For purposes of this notice, we assume that sugar beets have 
an average moisture content of 76%. See Food and Agriculture 
Organization, 1999, ``Agribusiness Handbooks Vol. 4 Sugar Beets/
White Sugar'', http://www.responsibleagroinvestment.org/sites/responsibleagroinvestment.org/files/FAO_Agbiz%20handbook_White%20Sugar_0.pdf (Last Accessed: January 4, 
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If appropriate, EPA will update this analysis based on comments 
received in response to this notice. EPA will use this updated analysis 
as part of the evaluation of facility-specific petitions received 
pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 that propose to use sugar beets as a 
feedstock for the production of biofuel.\3\ Based on this information, 
EPA will determine the GHG emissions associated with petitioners' 
biofuel production processes, as well as emissions associated with the 
transport and use of the finished biofuel. EPA will combine these 
assessments into a full lifecycle GHG analysis used to determine 
whether the fuel produced at an individual facility satisfies the CAA 
GHG emission reduction requirements necessary to qualify as renewable 
fuel or one of the subcategories of renewable fuel under the RFS 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Assuming the fuel pathway proposed in such petitions involve 
extraction of non-cellulosic beet sugar for conversion to biofuel 
and use of the resulting beet pulp co-product as animal feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated With Production and Transport 
of Sugar Beets for Use as a Biofuel Feedstock

A. Overview of Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris (Sugar Beets)

    Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris, (commonly known as sugar beets) of the 
order Caryophylalles, is a widely cultivated plant of the Altissima 
group. Sugar beets are cultivated for their high percentage 
concentration of sucrose in their root mass. Domestication of the plant 
group took place approximately 200 years ago in Europe to selectively 
breed for sugar content from crosses between Beta vulgaris cultivars, 
including chard plants and fodder beets.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Juliane C. Dohm et al., ``The Genome of the Recently 
Domesticated Crop Plant Sugar Beet (Beta Vulgaris),'' Nature 505, 
no. 7484 (January 23, 2014): 546-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sugar beets are a biennial crop species grown across a wide 
tolerance of soil conditions in areas of temperate climate, and tend to 
be grown in rotation with other plant varieties.\5\ Sugar beets are 
grown for their relatively high sugar content, approximately 13 to 18 
percent of the plant's total mass, with around three quarters of the 
plant mass comprised of water.\6\ Once harvested, sugar beets are 
highly perishable and need to be processed in a short period of 
time.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Michael J. McConnell, ``USDA ERS--Background,'' Crops Sugar 
& Sweeteners Background, October 12, 2016, http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-sweeteners/background/.
    \6\ FAO, ``Sugar Crops and Sweeteners and Derived Products,'' 
accessed November 30, 2016, http://www.fao.org/es/faodef/fdef03e.HTM.
    \7\ Michael J. McConnell, ``USDA ERS--Policy,'' USDA ERS--
Policy, November 1, 2016, https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-sweeteners/policy.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the largest 
region for sugar beet production is the area of the Red River Valley of 
western Minnesota and eastern North Dakota, and sugar beets are 
commonly grown at agricultural scale across five regions of the 
country, encompassing 11 states.\8\ Western regions tend to require 
more irrigation while sugar beets grown in the eastern U.S. region make 
greater use of natural rainfall.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Michael J. McConnell, ``USDA ERS--Background.''
    \9\ Michael J. McConnell, ``USDA ERS--Background.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the mid-1990s, sugar beets have accounted for about 55 
percent of sugar production in the U.S.\10\ Sugar beets are included in 
the U.S. sugar program, designed to support domestic sugar prices 
through loans to sugar processors. The U.S. sugar program also includes 
a marketing allotment that sets the amount of sugar that domestic 
processors can sell in the U.S. for human consumption, and provides 
quotas on the amount of sugar that can be imported into the U.S.\11\ 
Sugar produced under the program cannot be used for biofuel purposes 
with an exception for surplus sugar made available under the USDA 
Feedstock Flexibility Program that specifically directs the excess 
sugar to be used for the purpose of domestic biofuel production.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Michael J. McConnell, ``USDA ERS--Background.''
    \11\ The U.S. sugar program is managed by USDA and supports 
domestic sugar prices through loans to sugar processors, a marketing 
allotment program, and quotas on the amount of sugar that can be 
imported to the U.S. Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. 
Public Law 107-171, Sec. 1401-1403.
    \12\ ``Feedstock Flexibility Program,'' page, accessed November 
17, 2016, https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/energy-programs/feedstock-flexibility/index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like other sugars, beet sugar can be fermented and used as a 
feedstock for biofuel production. The non-cellulosic sugars of sugar 
beets, the vast majority of which is sucrose, can be converted directly 
into a refined sugar available for processes such as alcoholic 
fermentation to produce biofuels (e.g., ethanol).\13\ Much of the water 
needed

[[Page 34658]]

for the fermentation process is provided by the sugar beets themselves. 
Sugar beet pulp is a fibrous co-product of the beet sugar extraction 
process.\14\ The sugar beet pulp is often dried to reduce 
transportation costs and is widely sold as feed supplement for cattle 
and other livestock.\15\ While biofuel production from beet sugar has 
historically been limited in the U.S., sugar beets accounted for about 
17 percent of European ethanol production in 2014.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Dr. Hossein Shapouri, Dr. Michael Salassi, and J. Nelson 
Fairbanks, ``The Economic Feasibility of Ethanol Production from 
Sugar in the United States'' (USDA, July 2006), http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/EthanolSugarFeasibilityReport3.pdf.
    \14\ Eggleston, Gillian et al., ``Ethanol from Sugar Crops.'' 
In, Singh, Bharat P., Industrial Crops and Uses. CABI, 2010, pp. 74-
75.
    \15\ Greg Lardy, ``Feeding Sugar Beet Byproducts to Cattle,'' 
accessed November 30, 2016, https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/livestock/feeding-sugar-beet-byproducts-to-cattle.
    \16\ ePURE, ``European Renewable Ethanol--Key Figures,'' 
accessed November 17, 2016, http://epure.org/media/1227/european-renewable-ethanol-statistics-2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Analysis of Upstream GHG Emissions

    EPA evaluated the upstream GHG emissions associated with using 
sugar beets as a biofuel feedstock based on information provided by 
USDA, petitioners, and other data sources. Upstream GHG emissions 
include emissions from production and transport of sugar beets used as 
a biofuel feedstock. The methodology EPA used for this analysis is 
generally the same approach used for the March 2010 RFS rule for 
lifecycle analyses of several other biofuel feedstocks, such as corn, 
soybean oil, and sugarcane.\17\ The subsections below describe this 
methodology, including assumptions and results of our analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The March 2010 RFS rule preamble (75 FR 14670, March 26, 
2010) and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (EPA-420-R-10-006) 
provide further discussion of our approach. These documents are 
available online at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/renewable-fuel-standard-rfs2-final-rule-additional-resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Methodology and Scenarios Evaluated
    The analysis EPA prepared for sugar beets used the same set of 
models that were used for the March 2010 RFS rule, including the 
Forestry and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM) developed 
by Texas A&M University for domestic impacts, 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 international impacts. For more 
information on the FASOM and FAPRI-CARD models, refer to the March 2010 
RFS rule preamble (75 FR 14670) and Regulatory Impact Analysis 
(RIA).\18\ Several modifications were made to the domestic and 
international agricultural economic modeling that differed from 
previous analyses in order to accurately represent the U.S. sugar 
program.\19\ Memoranda to the docket include detailed information on 
model inputs, assumptions, calculations, and the results of our 
assessment of the upstream GHG emissions for sugar beet biofuels.\20\ 
We invite comments on the scenarios and assumptions used for this 
analysis, in particular on the key assumptions described in this 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The March 2010 RFS rule preamble (75 FR 14670, March 26, 
2010) and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (EPA-420-R-10-006) 
provide further discussion of our approach. These documents are 
available online at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/renewable-fuel-standard-rfs2-final-rule-additional-resources.
    \19\ These differences are discussed further in Sections II.D.2 
and II.D.3 below.
    \20\ The memoranda and modeling files are available in the 
docket. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sugar beets grown under the U.S. sugar program cannot be used for 
the purpose of biofuel production, except under very limited conditions 
specified in the Feedstock Flexibility Program.\21\ Therefore, for this 
analysis, EPA assumed that there would be no change in sugar production 
on U.S. sugar program-designated acres because of demand for beet sugar 
for biofuel feedstock use.\22\ In our modeling, growers selling sugar 
beets to sugar processors under the U.S. sugar program in the control 
case continued to do so regardless of new demand for sugar beets as a 
biofuel feedstock in the test case. As a result of this assumption, in 
our modeling, demand for acreage to grow sugar beets for biofuel 
feedstock could only be fulfilled by converting acres from other crops 
besides sugar beets, and/or from other land uses besides crop 
production (e.g., pastureland, Conservation Reserve Program land).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Harry Baumes, et al. (USDA), ``Summary of Discussions 
Between US EPA and USDA Regarding Sugar Beets.''
    \22\ The U.S. sugar program designates acres of land used to 
grow sugar beets sold to domestic sugar processors who receive price 
support loans and are regulated by USDA market allotments under the 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our analysis also considers the significant restrictions on the 
trade of sugar beets between the U.S. and other countries. The U.S. 
does not export beet sugar, as this would violate the terms of 
participation in the sugar program. While the U.S. does import cane 
sugar under international agreements, it does not import raw beet 
sugar.\23\ Beet sugar may only enter the U.S. as refined sugar from 
Canada or Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 
and similar trade agreements, or as components of sugar-containing 
products.\24\ This quantity is strictly regulated. EPA is unaware of 
existing trade agreements that would allow raw beet sugar imports for 
any purpose, including biofuel production. This makes it unlikely that 
beet sugar would be imported for use as biofuel feedstock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The international agreements that allow for sugar import to 
the U.S. are primarily governed by NAFTA and the Uruguay Round 
Agreement on Agriculture, but also by CAFTA. See USDA's Web site on 
the Sugar Import Program for more details: https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/sugar-import-program (Last accessed December 30, 2016).
    \24\ Mark A. McMinimy, ``U.S. Sugar Program Fundamentals,'' 
April 6, 2016, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43998.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although sugar beets were modeled as grown in the U.S., we also 
intend that this analysis would cover sugar beets grown and processed 
into biofuels from other countries and imported to the U.S. as finished 
biofuel. We expect the vast majority of beet sugar-based biofuel used 
in the U.S. will come from sugar beets produced in the U.S., and 
incidental amounts of fuel from crops produced in other nations will 
not impact our average GHG emissions. Sugar beets require similar 
climatic regions as those where they are grown in the U.S., and would 
similarly impact crops such as wheat in those regions while sugar beet 
pulp would displace corn as livestock feed. Therefore, EPA interprets 
this upstream analysis as applicable, regardless of the country of 
origin assuming that sugar beet pulp is used as a livestock feed 
supplement.
    To assess the impacts of an increase in sugar beet demand for 
renewable fuel production, EPA modeled two scenarios: (1) A control 
case with ``business-as-usual'' assumptions \25\ and no biofuel 
production from sugar beets

[[Page 34659]]

and (2) a sugar beet biofuel case where 300 million ethanol-equivalent 
gallons of biofuels are assumed to be from beet sugar in 2022, 
requiring the use of 12 million wet short tons of sugar beets for 
biofuel production. The analysis presented in this notice considered 
all GHG emissions associated with the cultivation and production of 
sugar beets intended for biofuel feedstock use, as well as emissions 
from transporting these sugar beets to a biofuel production facility. 
In lifecycle analysis literature these emissions are often referred to 
as the ``upstream'' emissions, because they occur upstream of the fuel 
production facility (i.e., before the biofuel feedstock arrives at that 
facility).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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. 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 case is designed such that the only 
difference between the scenario 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 sugar beets case. The control 
case used for the March 2010 RFS rule, and used for this analysis, 
has zero gallons of sugar beet biofuel production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis presented in this notice does not include fuel 
production or ``downstream'' emissions, which consists of emissions 
associated with fuel transport and fuel combustion. Once comments on 
the upstream emissions described in this notice have been considered, 
we intend to combine the upstream analysis with the fuel production and 
downstream emissions associated with fuel produced at an individual 
biofuel facility to determine the lifecycle GHG emissions associated 
with that fuel. This lifecycle analysis would reflect any differences 
in emissions that may exist between producing different types of 
biofuels from sugar beets. Our analysis of the upstream emissions 
associated with sugar beets assumed that non-cellulosic sugars are 
extracted from the beets before the sugars are converted, and that the 
beet pulp would then be sold into feed markets. Fuel production methods 
that also convert the pulp into fuel (e.g., through pyrolysis of the 
beet) or use the pulp for other purposes may not be compatible with 
this analysis.
    We evaluated a scenario with biofuels produced from this amount of 
sugar beets for multiple reasons. Although biofuel production from 
sugar beets is currently small in the U.S., recent trends in domestic 
sugar beet yields and acreage indicate that 12 million wet short tons 
of sugar beets could be produced as biofuel feedstocks if a significant 
market demand emerged. An additional 12 million wet short tons of sugar 
beets would represent a 34 percent increase in U.S. sugar beet 
cultivation compared to 2015 levels.\26\ According to USDA data, 
harvested acres of sugar beets since 2010 were, on average, about 30 
percent lower than their most recent peak levels in the 1990s, an 
average difference of approximately 360,000 harvested acres.\27\ 
Increasing beet yields over time has reduced the number of acres needed 
to satisfy production targets under the U.S. sugar program.\28\ 
National average sugar beet yields since 2010 have been approximately 
25 percent higher than yields during the 1990s, and reached almost 31 
wet short tons per acre in the 2015 crop year.\29\ Were beet acres to 
return to their 1990s peak, the additional approximately 360,000 
harvested acres would produce about 11.2 million wet short tons of 
beets at these 2015 yield levels. However, based on the steady increase 
in yields over time, it seems likely that beet yields will continue to 
increase between now and 2022. If national average beet yields reach at 
least 33.4 wet short tons per acre by 2022, a fairly modest increase of 
about 8 percent over 2015 levels, an additional 12 million wet short 
tons of beets could be produced on these additional 360,000 acres. 
Since further expansion of beet area beyond the historical peak is also 
possible, an increase in beet production of 12 million wet short tons 
appears to be very feasible. We welcome comment on this assumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, USDA, ``Sugarbeet Area and Planted Harvested Yield and 
Production States and United States 2013-2015,'' in Crop Production 
2015 Summary, January 2016, ISSN: 1057-7823, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-0112-2016.pdf. This assumes an ethanol conversion rate of 25 gallons of 
ethanol/wet short ton of beets.
    \27\ USDA, ``NASS Quick Stats'', https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov (Last Accessed: November 16, 2016).
    \28\ USDA, ``NASS Quick Stats'', https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov (Last Accessed: November 16, 2016).
    \29\ USDA, ``NASS Quick Stats'', https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov (Last Accessed: November 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our analysis, FASOM allowed for sugar beet production in all 
areas of the continental 48 states where sugar beets had been grown 
historically, including states and areas that do not currently take 
part in the U.S. sugar program. The model was allowed to determine 
which of these regions would be optimal for growing sugar beets for 
biofuel feedstock, based on least cost of production and transport, and 
considering the opportunity cost of using that land for other uses 
(e.g., to produce other crops, grazing, forestry). The factors that 
contributed to these crop production choices include crop yield, input 
quantities, and growing strategies.
    Following the methodology established in the March 2010 RFS rule, 
EPA used the FAPRI model to evaluate the international impacts of 
producing and transporting 12 million wet short tons of sugar beets for 
biofuel production in the U.S. The FAPRI model included a 
representation of the U.S. sugar program, and modeled domestic sugar 
production as a function of this program. Production and consumption 
levels in the U.S. were set according to the parameters of the sugar 
program and were not affected by market forces. Because the existing 
U.S. sugar production module in FAPRI did not respond to market forces, 
for modeling purposes EPA had to make assumptions regarding in which 
regions sugar beets for biofuel feedstock use would be grown. Crop 
yields and the quantity of crop area displaced by expanded sugar beet 
production also had to be set by assumption, since the U.S. sugar 
module in FAPRI lacks market forces to create demand-pull for new beet 
acres. In order to derive the quantity of crop area displaced, EPA used 
a crop yield of approximately 26 wet short tons per acre, the 10-year 
national average yield for sugar beets (for crop years 2005 through 
2014).\30\ Actual yields on any given acre may be higher or lower than 
this assumed value, based on factors such as location, annual variation 
in growing conditions, growing practices, and crop rotation strategies. 
Because the FAPRI analysis assumed to displace acres in North Dakota 
and California, we did not believe that it was appropriate to use the 
USDA 2022 national average projections for sugar beets yield. As an 
alternative, EPA believes using the 10-year national average was a 
reasonable assumption for our international agricultural sector 
modeling. The increase in sugar yield trends over the last few decades 
suggests that future yields are unlikely to be lower than the 10-year 
average. As further support for our yield assumptions in FAPRI, we note 
that FASOM projected sugar beet yields in 2022 that are close to the 
assumptions used in FAPRI.\31\ We welcome comment on this assumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ USDA, ``NASS Quick Stats'', https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov (Last Accessed: November 16, 2016).
    \31\ See ``Sugar Beets for Biofuel Upstream Analysis Technical 
Memorandum'' in the docket for details. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of FAPRI modeling, EPA assumed that sugar beets 
for fuel use would be produced in equal amounts in North Dakota and 
California for the following reasons: At the onset of our analysis, 
these were the regions with indications of significant sugar beet 
biofuel interest.\32\ They are also

[[Page 34660]]

both regions with a long history of sugar beet production. As a 
simplifying assumption, EPA assumed that all crops grown in each of 
these regions were displaced by sugar beets proportionally to their 
crop area in the control case. We recognize there are significant 
differences in the way the sugar beet biofuel scenarios were 
implemented in FASOM and FAPRI for this analysis. For example, FASOM 
chose to produce all sugar beets for biofuels in North Dakota, whereas 
in FAPRI we modeled this production in North Dakota and California by 
assumption. Since these modeling exercises occurred concurrently, not 
sequentially, we could not anticipate what choices FASOM would make at 
the outset of our FAPRI modeling. This led to some differences in the 
regions utilized to produce beets. However, the nationwide agricultural 
market results projected by FASOM and FAPRI were similar, due to 
similar dominant trends in feed markets and crop exports at the 
national level. The similarity of these relevant national market 
results between the two models, despite differences in U.S. growing 
regions, indicates that the international impacts projected by the 
FAPRI model would not have been significantly different if we had 
applied the growing assumptions from FASOM. These results are discussed 
below and are available in the docket for this notice.\33\ We welcome 
comment on these assumptions and our results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ At the time of this modeling we had received the petitions 
from Green Vision Group proposing to produce ethanol from sugar 
beets grown in North Dakota and Tracy Renewable Energy proposing to 
produce ethanol from sugar beets grown in California but we had not 
received the petition from Plant Sensory Systems proposing to 
produce ethanol from sugar beets grown in Florida. EPA does not 
expect results would have varied significantly if sugar beets had 
been modeled by assumption in Florida under FAPRI due to the 
similarity of these results to the results from FASOM.
    \33\ See EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sugar beet scenario modeled included a number of key 
assumptions, such as biofuel and pulp yields per wet short ton of 
beets, and the amount of corn livestock feed displaced per pound of 
pulp. These key assumptions are discussed below. Information on 
additional assumptions, including sugar beet crop inputs (e.g., 
fertilizer, energy) is available in the docket for this notice.
    In conducting research for this analysis, we located sources for 
beet pulp yield of 0.06 dry short tons of sugar beet pulp per wet short 
tons of sugar beets \34\ and displacement rates of 0.9 pounds of corn 
feed displaced in cattle diets \35\ for every pound of sugar beet pulp. 
In livestock production, the fibrous sugar beet pulp is used as a 
roughage replacement making it of use primarily for ruminants rather 
than other types of livestock.\36\ In our analysis, sugar beet pulp use 
by the livestock market was an important factor leading to GHG 
reductions. Therefore this notice evaluates only using the non-
cellulosic portion of sugar beets for biofuel production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Panella, Lee and Stephen R. Kaffka, ``Sugar Beet (Beta 
vulgaris L) as a Biofuel Feedstock in the United States.'' Chapter 
10 in Sustainability of the Sugar and Sugar Ethanol Industries; 
Eggleston, G.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: 
Washington DC, 2010, pp. 165.
    \35\ To make a simplifying assumption, we averaged the value 
from corn in backgrounding diets and finishing diets. Lardy, Greg, 
and Rebecca Schafar, ``Feeding Sugar Beet Byproducts to Cattle,'' 
North Dakota State University, May 2008, pp. 2.
    \36\ Harry Baumes, et al. (USDA), ``Summary of Discussions 
Between US EPA and USDA Regarding Sugar Beets''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Domestic Impacts
    On the basis of least cost, FASOM chose to grow all sugar beets in 
North Dakota, with approximately 477,000 acres of land required to grow 
the additional sugar beets.
    The vast majority of the new sugar beet acres in North Dakota was 
from displacement of other crops rather than from new cropland (432,000 
acres from displaced crops, or nearly 91 percent of needed acres). 
Increasing sugar beet production in North Dakota primarily displaced 
wheat acreage, but also soybeans, corn, and hay among other crops.\37\ 
Most of these displaced crops shifted to other U.S. regions, and some 
crops, such as soybeans, shifted to new acreage that was more 
productive than the North Dakota acres from where they were displaced. 
Table II.1 indicates that production levels for hay, soy, and most 
other crops are maintained.\38\ However, national crop area and 
production for wheat and corn declined significantly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See ``FASOM Sugar Beets Results'' in the docket. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0771.
    \38\ Soy is captured in the ``All Else'' category in Table II.1. 
See ``FASOM Sugar Beets Results'' in the docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0771 
for more detail.

  Table II.1--Changes in U.S. Production (Million Pounds) and Harvested
       Area (Thousand Acres) in 2022 Relative To Control Case \39\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Harvested area
                                            Production       difference
                                            difference     from control
                                           from control        case
                                          case  (million     (thousand
                                              pounds)         acres)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sugar Beets.............................         +23,976            +477
Hay.....................................              +8            -106
Corn....................................            -867             -96
Wheat...................................            -352             -98
All Else................................              +3             -56
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................         +22,768            +121
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reductions in corn and wheat production were driven by 
different proximate causes (though both were ultimately driven by 
increased demand for sugar beets) and led to somewhat different impacts 
on commodity use and trade. In the case of wheat, the decline in 
production led to a decline in exports. As shown in Section II.B.3, the 
decline in wheat exports created pressure on international wheat 
markets and wheat production increased outside the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Totals may differ from subtotals due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of corn, the potential market impacts were mitigated by 
the increased availability of sugar beet pulp into U.S. feed markets as 
a result of beet sugar biofuel production. As described in Section 
II.A, sugar beet pulp is a co-product used as livestock feed 
supplement, mainly substituting for corn. Based on the FASOM results 
for 2022, approximately 1.4 billion pounds of sugar beet pulp were 
produced and sent to the feed market. In turn this displaced 
approximately 1.2 billion pounds of corn, which was significantly 
greater than the approximately 867 million pounds of corn production 
lost to displaced acres. This led to a decrease in total demand for 
corn in U.S. markets and, as a result, U.S. exports of corn increased. 
As discussed in Section II.B.3 below, this reduced the price of corn 
internationally and lessened the demand pull for corn to be grown in 
other countries.
    The rest of the needed sugar beet acres in North Dakota, 
approximately 46,000 acres, came from new cropland, particularly from 
cropland pasture (high-value pasture land that can also be utilized as 
cropland with minimal preparation) and from acres that would otherwise 
take part in the Conservation Reserve Program. Pasture area rose 
modestly in some other states causing the conversion of some forest 
acres to pasture. This relatively small decrease in forestland pushed 
up prices slightly for forest products, leading foresters to intensify 
growth on their stands. Relative to other feedstocks EPA has evaluated 
for the RFS program, these domestic shifts in land use were minor, and 
after the various land use changes were considered the net domestic 
land use change emissions impacts were close to zero.
3. International Impacts
    In the FAPRI model, the expansion of sugar beet cropland used to 
produce biofuel feedstock also led to increases in corn exports and 
decreases in wheat exports. Similar to the drivers of the

[[Page 34661]]

domestic results discussed in Section II.B.2, beet production displaced 
wheat acres, but the beet pulp co-product reduced domestic demand for 
corn. Further, the magnitude of these export impacts was quite similar 
between the two models, as shown in Table II.2 below.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Impacts on the exports of other crops were relatively 
minor, but interested readers can examine the full set of FAPRI crop 
trade impacts in the docket.

 Table II.2--Changes in U.S. Corn and Wheat Exports in 2022 Relative To
                          Control Case by Model
                            [Million pounds]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Difference      Difference
                                           from control    from  control
                                          case in  FASOM   case in FAPRI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn....................................            +307            +355
Wheat...................................            -292            -281
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With sugar beet pulp displacing corn feed, FAPRI modeling indicated 
that in 2022, both corn production and acreage would decline globally. 
Production outside the U.S. of certain other crops however increased in 
response to U.S. increasing demand for sugar beets; most significantly 
wheat and soybeans. Wheat increased internationally in terms of both 
production and acreage, with a strong response particularly in India. 
Soybean acres and production also increased, particularly in Brazil. 
Table II.3 below summarizes the non-U.S. increases in harvested area by 
crop type, while Table II.4 shows which countries had the largest 
impacts.

 Table II.3--Non-U.S. Harvested Area by Crop in 2022 Relative To Control
                                  Case
                          [Thousand acres] \41\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Difference
                                                           from control
                                                               case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sugar Beets.............................................               0
Corn....................................................             -45
Wheat...................................................             +43
Soybeans................................................             +20
All Else................................................             +37
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................             +55
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As increasing sugar beet pulp use for livestock feed in the U.S. 
freed up more corn for export, international livestock feed prices 
declined modestly, and with it was a small rise in meat production 
globally. Many of these changes occurred in Brazil and this caused some 
expansion in grazing land, including in the Amazon region. This caused 
further international land use change impacts, as shown in Table II.4 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ These totals do not include pastureland in Brazil. Totals 
may differ from subtotals due to rounding.
    \42\ Totals may differ from subtotals due to rounding. Brazil 
totals include pastureland. Other regions are cropland only.

          Table II.4--Non-U.S. Changes in Agricultural Land by Region in 2022 Relative To Control Case
                                              [Thousand acres] \42\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Change in       Change in     Total  change
                                                                  area harvested   pasture acres     in acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil..........................................................              +9             +20             +29
India...........................................................             +15  ..............             +15
Rest of Non-USA.................................................             +32  ..............             +32
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Non-USA...............................................  ..............  ..............             +75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Feedstock Transport
    When harvested, sugar beets are heavy and perishable; therefore, 
transport of sugar beets from field to processing site is expected to 
occur over short distances. Information from stakeholders and 
literature states that sugar beets used for biofuels are shipped by 
truck from point of production to the plant with typical distances for 
transport around 30 miles.\43\ GHG emissions for the transport of sugar 
beets are based on emission factors developed for the March 2010 RFS 
rule for trucks including capacity, fuel economy, and type of fuel 
used.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Farahmand, K., N. Dharmadhikari, and V. Khiabani. 
``Analysis of Transportation Economics of Sugar-Beet Production in 
the Red River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota using 
Geographical Information System.'' Journal of Renewable Agriculture 
7(2013):126-131.
    \44\ The March 2010 RFS rule preamble (75 FR 14670, March 26, 
2010) and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (EPA-420-R-10-006) 
provide further discussion of our approach. These documents are 
available online at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/renewable-fuel-standard-rfs2-final-rule-additional-resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Results of Upstream GHG Lifecycle Analysis
    As described above, EPA analyzed the GHG emissions associated with 
feedstock production and transport. Table II.5 below breaks down by 
stage the calculated GHG upstream emissions for producing biofuels from 
sugar beets in 2022.

      Table II.5--Upstream GHG Lifecycle Emissions for Sugar Beets
                         [gCO2-eq/wet short ton]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Emissions  (gCO2-eq/wet
                   Process                            short ton)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Agriculture (w/o land use change).......                     +21,615
Domestic Land Use Change....................                        -882
International Land Use Change, Mean.........                     +16,038
(Low/High)..................................             (+9249/+23,672)

[[Page 34662]]

 
Feedstock Transport.........................                      +8,183
                                             ---------------------------
    Total Upstream Emissions, Mean..........                     +44,954
    (Low/High)..............................           (+38,210/+52,588)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Net agricultural emissions included domestic and international 
impacts related to changes in crop inputs such as fertilizer, energy 
used in agriculture, livestock production, and other agricultural 
changes in the scenario modeled. Increased demand for sugar beets 
resulted in positive net agricultural emissions relative to the control 
case. Compared with other crops, sugar beets required relatively high 
levels of agricultural chemical inputs (e.g., herbicides and 
pesticides).\45\ Domestic land use change emissions were close to zero 
for sugar beets, as described in Section II.B.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Harry Baumes, et al. (USDA), ``Summary of Discussions 
Between US EPA and USDA Regarding Sugar Beets''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    International land use change emissions increased as a result of 
demand for sugar beets. The increase in international land use change 
emissions for sugar beets was significantly larger than the decrease in 
domestic land use change emissions. This is because increased demand 
for sugar beets led to a significant reduction in key U.S. crop exports 
(e.g., wheat exports), but very little change in domestic consumption 
of agricultural goods. These greater international emissions led to a 
net increase in global land use change emissions. Feedstock transport 
included emissions from moving sugar beets from the farm to a biofuel 
production facility, as described in Section II.B.4 above.
6. Fuel Production and Distribution
    Sugar beets are suitable for the same biofuel conversion processes 
as sugarcane. In Europe, where sugar beets are widely used as biofuel 
feedstock, virtually all of the fuel is non-cellulosic beet sugar 
ethanol produced through fermentation with the beet pulp sold into the 
feed markets. Based on these data, and on information from our 
petitioners and other stakeholders, EPA anticipates that most biofuel 
produced from sugar beets in the U.S. would also be from the non-
cellulosic sugars via fermentation. Our upstream analysis would apply 
for all facilities where non-cellulosic beet sugar is converted to 
biofuel and the co-product beet pulp is used as animal feed.
    Given the importance of the beet pulp co-product on the upstream 
GHG emissions associated with beet pulp, pathways that do not produce a 
beet pulp feed coproduct, or use it for purposes other than animal 
feed, may not be compatible with our analysis. EPA would likely need to 
conduct supplemental upstream GHG analysis in order to determine the 
lifecycle GHG emissions associated with fuels produced under these 
types of pathways.
    After reviewing comments received in response to this action, EPA 
will combine the evaluation of upstream GHG emissions associated with 
the use of sugar beet feedstock with an evaluation of the GHG emissions 
associated with individual producers' production processes and finished 
fuels to determine whether fuel produced at petitioners' facilities 
from the sugar in sugar beets satisfy the CAA lifecycle GHG emissions 
reduction requirements for renewable fuels. Each biofuel producer 
seeking to generate Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) for non-
grandfathered volumes of biofuel from sugar beets will need to submit a 
petition requesting EPA's evaluation of their new renewable fuel 
pathway pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 of the RFS regulations, and include 
all of the information specified at 40 CFR 80.1416(b)(1).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Petitioners with pending petitions involving use of sugar 
from sugar beets as feedstock will not be required to submit new 
petitions. However, if any information has changed from their 
original petitions, EPA will request that they update that 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because EPA is evaluating the GHG emissions associated with the 
production and transport of sugar beet feedstock through this notice 
and comment process, petitioners requesting EPA's evaluation of biofuel 
pathways involving sugar beet feedstock need not include the 
information for new feedstocks specified at 40 CFR 80.1416(b)(2). Based 
on our evaluation of the upstream GHG emissions attributable to the 
production and transport of sugar beet feedstock, including our 
assumptions regarding the average yield of ethanol in mmBtu per wet 
short ton of sugar beets used, EPA anticipates that if a facility 
produces emissions of no more than approximately 23 kgCO2e/
mmBtu of ethanol, the fuel produced would meet the 50 percent advanced 
biofuel GHG reduction threshold.\47\ If a facility produces no more 
than 53 kgCO2e/mmBtu of ethanol, EPA anticipates it would 
meet the 20 percent renewable fuel GHG reduction threshold. EPA will 
evaluate petitions for fuel produced from sugar beet feedstock on a 
case-by-case basis, and will make adjustments as necessary for each 
facility including consideration of differences in the yield of ethanol 
per wet short ton of sugar beets used.\48\ We welcome comments on this 
application of our upstream analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ In this case, emissions produced by the facility refers to 
fuel production emissions, including emissions associated with 
energy used for fuel, feedstock and co-product operations at the 
facility. For more details on the assumptions used in this analysis, 
see ``Sugar Beets for Biofuel Upstream Analysis Technical 
Memorandum'' in the docket. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0771.
    \48\ For example, EPA may need to consider additional feedstock 
transportation emissions in cases where beet sugar extraction and 
biofuel production do not occur in the same location, as may be the 
case for biofuel produced under the USDA Feedstock Flexibility 
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Risk of Potential Invasiveness
    Sugar beets were not listed on the Federal noxious weed list nor 
did they appear on USDA's composite listing of introduced, invasive, 
and noxious plants by U.S state.49 50 Based on consultation 
with USDA, EPA does not believe sugar beets pose a risk of invasiveness 
at this time. Current cultivars of sugar beets require extensive weed 
management to survive.\51\ However, USDA notes that future cross 
breeding, hybridization, and genetic manipulation could change the

[[Page 34663]]

invasiveness potential of beets, in which case a re-evaluation may be 
required.\52\ Based on currently available information, EPA does not 
believe monitoring and reporting of data for invasiveness concerns 
would be a requirement for biofuel producers generating fuel from sugar 
beets at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ USDA, ``Federal Noxious Weed List,'' July 13, 2016, https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist.pdf.
    \50\ USDA, ``State and Federal Noxious Weeds List,'' accessed 
November 17, 2016, http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxComposite.
    \51\ Harry Baumes, et al. (USDA), ``Summary of Discussions 
Between US EPA and USDA Regarding Sugar Beets.''
    \52\ Harry Baumes, et al. (USDA), ``Summary of Discussions 
Between US EPA and USDA Regarding Sugar Beets.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary

    EPA invites public comment on its analysis of GHG emissions 
associated with the production and transport of sugar beets as a 
feedstock for biofuel production. This notice analyzes a non-cellulosic 
sugar beet-to-biofuel production process. Although EPA has not received 
a petition for cellulosic sugar beet biofuel production, the agency is 
aware of interest in this process and invites comment on the analysis 
of beet pulp and its effect on agricultural markets. EPA will consider 
public comments received when evaluating petitions received pursuant to 
40 CFR 80.1416 that involve pathways using sugar beets as a feedstock.

    Dated: January 18, 2017.
Christopher Grundler,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and 
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2017-15721 Filed 7-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P