Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Summary and Analysis of 

Comments
EPA-420-R-10-003

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Summary and Analysis of 

Comments
Index of RFS2 

Proposal Commenters 

Commenter Abbreviation Docket ID Number 

Abengoa Bioenergy Corporation EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2487 

Aberdeen Development Corp. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1051 

Ad-Hoc Coalition of Small Business 

Refiners 

SBR EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2135, 2307, 2399 

Advanced Biofuels Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2346, 2408 

AE Biofuels, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2079, 2318 

Ag Partners EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2087 

Ag Processing Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2363 

Alliance for a Safe Alternative Fuels 

Environment 

AllSAFE EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2241 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Alliance EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2132 

Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2017 

Altrius Group EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-0911, 2244 

American Bakers Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2303 

American Council for Ethanol ACE EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1050, 2101 

American Farm Bureau Federation AFBF EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2150 

American Forest and Paper Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2493 

American Frozen Food Institute EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2504 

American Meat Institute EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2138, 2402 

American Petroleum Institute API EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2393, 2523 

American Snack Food Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2246 

American Soybean Association ASA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2100 

i
American Trucking Association ATA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2141 

Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2374 

Arcadia Biosciences EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2111 

Archer Daniels Midland Company ADM EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2360 

Association of American Railroads AAR EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2103 

Association of International Automobile 

Manufacturers 

AIAM EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2128 

Atlantic Biofuels1 EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1011 

Beckley Ag Products EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2165, 2584 

Beta Analytic, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-0998, 1027 

Beveridge & Diamond, PC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2096 

BioPure Fuels EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2048 

BioEnergy Producers Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2350, 2532, 2539 

Biomass Rules, LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2112 

Biotechnology Industry Organization 

(Industrial and Environmental Section) 

BIO EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2385 

BlueFire Ethanol EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2389 

Blue Flint Ethanol, LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-0993 

Boeing Company EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2392 

BP America BP EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2384 

Brazilian Sugarcane Industry 

Association (UNICA) 

UNICA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1761, 2137, 2476 

Brazilian Biodiesel Union URABIO EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2133 

Brazilian Vegetable Oil Industry 

Association 

ABIOVE EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2133 

Burack Environmental Law Offices EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2342 

Butterball, LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2506, 2627 

ii
California Air Resources Board CARB EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2337 

Canada, Foreign Affairs and 

International Trade 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2519 

Canadian Bioenergy Corporation EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1975 

Canopy Prospecting and Trinidad 

Dehydration Company, Limited 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2362 

Cargill Incorporated EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2419, 2511 

Caribbean Basin Ethanol Producers 

Group 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2012 

Caterpillar EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2127, 2518 

CC Gas Systems1 EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1010 

Chris Gould Farms EPA-HQ-OAR-2005 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1987-0161-2212 

Central Iowa Energy1 EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2013 

Chevron EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2110 

Chesapeake Bay Commission EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2080, 2113 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2334 

Clean Air Task Force CATF EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2129, 2414, 2538, 

2414, 2538 

Clean Energy EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2401 

Clean Fuels Clearinghouse EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2018, 2019, 2083, 

2243, 2319 

ConocoPhillips EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2154 

Conservation International EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2512 

Conservis Corporation EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2521 

Corn Plus EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2115 

Cornell University EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1987 

Coskata EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

iii
0161-2526, 2389 

Cotner Consulting Services1 EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1005 

Council of Western State Foresters EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2494 

CountryMark Cooperative EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2118 

County Sanitation Districts of Los 

Angeles County 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2376, 2540 

Covanta Energy EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2395 

CVR Energy EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2396 

Darling International Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-0999, 2151, 2546 

Dial Corporation (Henkel Company) EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2499 

Dolphin Land Co. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1040 

Dow AgroSciences EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2300 

DuPont Applied BioSciences EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2146 

DSI Fabrication, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1041 

Dynamic Fuels, LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2149, 2386 

e-biofuels, LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2210 

Edison Electric Institute EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2335 

Embassy of Brazil EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2525 

Endicott Biofuels II, LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2106 

Enerkem EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2416 

EnerTech Environmental, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2085, 2139 

Engine Manufacturers Association EMA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2147 

Ensus Ltd. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1871, 1990, 2387 

Environmental Consultant EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1000 

Environmental Defense Fund EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

iv
0161-2308 

Environmental Working Group EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2129, 2414, 2508, 

2538 

Environmental Intelligence, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1669 

Enzyme Development Corporation and 

Genencor International (Technical 

Consultant for) 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2189 

EthylChem, Ltd. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2426, 2637 

European Commission EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2020 

ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Co. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2130, 2427 

Farbest Foods, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2527 

Farm Econ LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2138, 2402 

First United Ethanol EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2168 

Flint Hills Resources FHR EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2145 

Ford Motor Company EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2465 

Forest Landowners Association FLA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2417, 2507 

Friends of the Earth EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2129, 2414, 2538 

Fuel Marketing Corporation EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1002 

Fulcrum BioEnergy EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2021, 2073, 2389 

Galva Holstein Ag, LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2000 

Gen-X Energy Group, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1044 

Georgia Forestry Commission EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2156, 2535 

Gevo Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2304 

Glenwood Farms1 EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1012 

Goldsboro Milling Company EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2107 

Governors’ Biofuels Coalition EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

v
0161-2390 

Gradek Energy EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1026 

Great River Energy EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-0953 

Green Earth Fuels, LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2423 

GreenShift Corporation EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2074, 2094 

Griffin Industries, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-0994 

Grocery Manufacturers Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2309 

Growmark, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2495 

Growth Energy EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1959, 2320, 2330, 

2332, 2359, 2378, 2379, 

2380, 2381, 2382, 2383, 

2415, 2635 

Highlands EnviroFuels, LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2445 

Hillside Ag EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2366 

Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-0982, 0983, 0986 

Honeywell International, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2099 

Hornbeck Agricultural EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2148 

ICM, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2638 

Illinois Corn Growers Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2339, 2372 

Illinois Corn Growers Association, et. al. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2245 

Illinois Farm Bureau EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2347 

Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2322 

Illinois River Energy, LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2190 

Illinois Soybean Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2174 

Imperium Renewables, Inc. IRI EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2516 

vi
Independent Fuel Terminal Operators 

Association 

IFTOA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2345 

Indonesian Palm Oil Commission EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2361 

INEOS Bio EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2389 

Institute for Agriculture and Trade 

Policy 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2513 

Institute for International Trade 

Negotiations, the Brazilian Institute for 

International Negotiations 

ICONE EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1958 

International Council on Clean 

Transportation 

ICCT EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2491 

Iogen Corporation EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2248, 2492, 2533 

Iowa Biodiesel Board EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2357 

Iowa Corn Growers Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2372 

Iowa Farm Bureau Federation EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1989 

Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2510 

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association IRFA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-0921, 2136, 2247, 

2321, 2372 

Iowa Soybean Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2078, 2353, 2530 

John Deere Agriculture & Turf Division EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2344 

Kansas Corn Growers Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2488 

Kauai Westside Watershed Council EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1616 

Kentucky Division of Forestry, Energy 

and Environment Cabinet 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2005, 2349 

Kurzman Clean Tech Research & 

Kurzman Capital, LLC1

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1001 

LanzaTech, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2131, 2475 

Lenahan EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2551 

Lignol Innovations, Inc. 

Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association LCSFA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2310 

LyondellBasell Industries EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

vii
0161-2312 

Macquarie University (Australia) 

Graduate School of Management 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1048 

Magellan Midstream Partners EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2025, 2420 

MAIZAR, Argentine Corn and Sorghum 

Association 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1719 

Malaysian Palm Oil Board MPOB EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2356 

Manufacturers of Emission Controls 

Association 

MECA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2412 

Marathon Petroleum Company MPC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2233 

Mascoma Corporation EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2171 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2354 

Mercedes Benz EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2125, 2398 

Methanol Institute MI EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2397, 2482 

Metropolitan Washington Air Quality 

Committee 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2375 

Midwestern Legislative Conference of 

the Council of State Governments 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2008 

Minnesota Coalition for Ethanol EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2152 

Minnesota Corn Growers Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2372 

Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2446 

Minnesota Petroleum Retailers 

Association 

MPRA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2301 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2534 

Minnesota Soybean Processors MnSP EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2172 

Missouri Corn Growers Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2372 

Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources 

MnDNR EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2515 

Murphy Oil USA, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2400 

Musket Corporation EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2464, 2537 

National Alliance of Forest Owners EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

viii
0161-2173 

National Association of Clean Air 

Agencies 

NACAA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2089 

National Association of Convenience 

Stores 

NACS EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2358 

National Association of State Foresters EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2517 

National Biodiesel Board NBB EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2232, 2249, 2299 

National Chicken Council EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2138, 2402 

National Corn Growers Association NCGA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2122, 23172331 

National Council for Air and Stream 

Improvement, Inc. 

NCASI EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1045 

National Council of Chain Restaurants EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2309 

National Farmers Union NFU EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2368, 2463 (dup) 

National Grain and Feed Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2529 

National Marine Manufacturers 

Association 

NMMA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2394 

National Petrochemical and Refiners 

Association 

NPRA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2124 

National Renderers Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-0988 

National Solid Waste Management 

Association 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2377 

National Sorghum Producers EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2119 

National Turkey Federation EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2138, 2402 

National Wildlife Federation NWF EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2129, 2414, 2538 

Natural Resources Defense Council NRDC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2129, 2414, 2538 

NGVAmerica EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2370 

Nebraska Corn Board EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2098 

New England Fuel Institute NEFI EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2314, 2327 

New Fuels Alliance NFA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2367 

New Generation Biofuels NGBF EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

ix
0161-2355, 2369 

New Planet Energy EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2095 

New York Biomass Energy Alliance EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2023, 2352 

New York State Department of 

Agriculture and Markets 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2144, 2531 

New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2143 

New York University School of Law EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2117 

Neste Oil Holding Inc. Neste EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2365, 2391 

Noble Americas EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2341 

North American Affairs Committee of 

the International DME Association 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2422 

North American Carbon Capture and 

Storage Association 

NACCSA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2097 

North Atlantic Refining Ltd. NARL EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2498 

North Carolina Department of 

Transportation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2474 

Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use 

Management 

NESCAUM EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2466 

Novogy, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2081 

Novozymes North America, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2002 

NxENRG EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2004 

Oglethorpe Power EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2388 

Osage Bio Energy EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2343 

Outdoor Power Equipment Institute OPEI EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2241 

The Pacific Forest Trust EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2424 

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2547 

Pennsylvania Energy Resources Group ERG EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1052, 1977 

Pennsylvania State Senate EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2333 

Pennsylvania State University EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

x
0161-2086 

PetroAlgae EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2425 

Petro-Diamond Incorporated EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2217 

Petroleum Marketers Association of 

America 

PMAA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2328 

Petroleum Marketers and Convenience 

Stores of Iowa 

PMCI EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2155, 2328 

Pew Center on Global Climate Change EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2114 

Poet Ethanol Products EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1033, 2477, 2639 

Prairie Pride, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1049, 2616 

Primafuel, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2486, 2520 

The ProExporter Network EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2116 

Renewable Energy Group REG EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1015, 1750, 2123 

Renewable Fuels Association RFA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-0952, 0970, 1042, 

2329, 2315, 2329, 2489 

RENTECH, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2102 

R.W. Heiden Associates LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2435 

Sapphire Energy EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2490 

SeQuential Pacific Biodiesel EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1969, 2027 

SG Biofuels EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2336 

Shell Oil Products US SOPUS EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2505 

Sierra Club EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2129, 2414, 2538 

Sierra Research, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2204 

Small Business Association, Office of 

Advocacy 

SBA- Advocacy EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2105 

Snack Food Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2309 

The Soap and Detergent Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2305 

xi
Society of Independent Gasoline 

Marketers of America 

SIGMA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2358, 2632 

Society for Range Management EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2120 

South Dakota State University EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2524 

SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC (NBB) EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1966, 2010 

StateLine Cooperative EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2348 

Sustainable Oils, LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2075 

Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2471 

Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2153 

Syntroleum EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2324 

Targeted Growth, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2071, 2093 

Tennessee Department of Agriculture EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2409 

Terrabon EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2047, 2084 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality 

TCEQ EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1032, 1035 

Triton Energy LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2549 

Tyson Foods, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2364, 2410 

Union of Concerned Scientists UCS EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1338, 2091, 2129, 

2414, 2501, 2538, 2134 

United Refining Company EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1397 

US Canola Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2104 

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2528 

United States EnviroFuels, LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2445 

University of California- Berkeley, 

Energy and Resources Group 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-0904, 2234, 2313 

University of California- Berkeley, 

Energy Biosciences Institute 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2302 

University of Georgia Engineering EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

xii
Outreach Service1 0161-1043 

University of Illinois at Chicago EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2003, 2203 

University of Minnesota- Institute on the 

Environment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2316, 2371 

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 

Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences 

Research, Department of Agronomy and 

Horticulture 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-0981 

Valero Energy EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2072, 2472 

Verenium Corporation EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2502 

Vermont Fuel Dealers Association VFDA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1952 

Virginia Poultry Federation EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2522 

Vision FL I, LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1036, 1404 

Waste Management WA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1995 

Western Dubuque Biodiesel (NBB) EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-1976, 2011 

Weyerhauser EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2109, 2418 

The Wilderness Society EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2129, 2414, 2538 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2497 

World Energy Alternatives, LLC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2157, 2159, 2170, 

2226, 2227, 2293, 2295, 

2296, 2297, 2298, 2340 

World Organization of Resource 

Councils 

WORC EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2088, 2514 

World Resources Institute EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2129, 2414, 2538, 

2414, 2538 

Wyoming Refining EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2311, 2411 

Xebec Adsorption Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2412 

Xyleco, Inc. (submitted by Mercator 

XXI, LLC) 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2548 

Zeachem Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2478 

xiii
ZeroPoint Clean Tech, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2413 

1- Note the same standardized comment was submitted by multiple commenters, including those comments 

denoted in this index. See the rulemaking docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161, for these comments. 

xiv
Acronyms and Abbreviations

AEO Annual Energy Outlook 

AFOLU (2006 IPCC) Agricultural Forest and Other Land Use Guidelines 

AFV Alternative Fuel Vehicle 

ARMS (USDA) Agricultural Resource Management Survey 

ASTM American Society for Testing Materials 

B Billion 

BESS Biofuel Energy Systems Simulator 

BG, Bg Billion Gallon 

Bgal Billion Gallon 

BLUM Brazil Land Use Model 

BOB Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending 

BTL Biomass-to-Liquid 

Btu British Thermal Unit 

bpcd Barrels per Calendar Day 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBOB California Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending 

CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

CAMx Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions 

CARB (or ARB) California Air Resources Board 

CARD Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (at Iowa State 

University) 

CASAC Clean Air Science Advisory Committee 

CBE Cellulosic Biomass Ethanol 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CBI Caribbean Basin Initiative 

CCS Carbon Capture and Sequestration 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CET Constant Elasticity of Transformation 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CG Conventional Gasoline 

CGE Computable General Equilibrium 

CHP Combined Heat Processes 

CMAQ Community Multi-scale Air Quality Model 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

CRC Coordinating Research Council 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CWPPs Community Wildfire Protection Plans 

DDG Dried Distiller Grain 

DG Distiller Grain 

DoE, DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DME Dimethyl Ether 

DRIA Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis 

xv
E10 10% Ethanol 

E15 15% Ethanol 

E85 85% Ethanol 

EBAMM ERG Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model 

ECA Emission Control Area 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

EMTS EPA Moderated Trading System 

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPAct Energy Policy Act of 2005 

ERG Energy Resources Group (at the University of California Berkeley) 

ETBE Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 

ETRAE1 Elasticity of Transformation 

EU European Union 

EV Equivalence Value 

FADS Fatty Acid Distillate Streams 

FAME Fatty Acid Methyl Ester 

FAO (United Nations) Food and Agricultural Organization 

FAPRI Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (Model) 

FASOM Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model 

FFV Flex-Fuel Vehicle 

FR Federal Register 

FRAR Fuel Registration and Reporting 

FRM Final Rulemaking 

FT Fischer-Tropsch 

FWP Fuel Warming Potential 

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

GE General Equilibrium 

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

GREET Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in 

Transportation (Model) 

GTAB Gasoline Treated as Blendstock 

GTAP Global Trade Analysis Project (Model) 

GWP Global Warming Potential 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HC Hydrocarbon 

HWP Harvested Wood Products 

HR House Report 

ILUC Indirect Land Use Change 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

ISO Independent System Operator 

ISO International Standards Organization 

IT Information Technology 

LCA Lifecycle Analysis 

xvi
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard 

LEM Lifecycle Emissions Model 

LEV Low Emission Vehicle 

LHV Lower Heating Value 

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas 

MCF Methane Correction Factor 

MM5 (Pennsylvania State University/National Center for Atmospheric 

Research) Fifth-generation Mesoscale Model 

MODIS (NASA’s) Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer 

MPG Miles Per Gallon 

MSAT EPA’s Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule 

MSW Municipal Solid Waste 

MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 

MY Model Year 

N Nitrogen 

N2O Nitrous Oxide 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment 

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory 

NGV Natural Gas Vehicle 

NHTSA National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 

NLEV National Low Emission Vehicle 

NMHC Non-methane Hydrocarbon 

NMIM National Mobile Inventory Model 

NMOG Non-methane Organic Gas 

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPEC Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries 

OPIS Oil Price Information Service 

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

OTAQ Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

PADD Petroleum Administration District for Defense 

PE Partial Equilibrium 

P.E. Professional Engineer 

PET, PETE Polyethylene Terephthalate 

PM Particulate Matter 

ppb Parts Per Billion 

ppm Parts Per Million 

psi Pound-force per Square Inch 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

PTD Product Transfer Document 

xvii
R&D Research and Development 

RBOB Reformulated Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending 

RD Renewable Diesel 

REC Renewable Electricity Credits 

REDD (United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions 

from) Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

RFG Reformulated Gasoline 

RFS Renewable Fuel Standard 

RFS1 First Renewable Fuel Standard Program (finalized on May 1, 2007) 

RFS2 New Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RIN Renewable Identification Number 

RSM Response Surface Model 

RSPO Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil 

RVO Renewable Volume Obligation 

RVP Reid Vapor Pressure 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SBAR Panel Small Business Advocacy Review Panel 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

SCC Social Cost of Carbon 

SEC U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

STEO Short-term Energy Outlook 

THC Total Hydrocarbon 

TRS Total Recoverable Sugars 

ULSD Ultra-low Sulfur Diesel 

USC United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

xviii
xix

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1 General 

Chapter 2 Effective Date of the RFS2 Program 

Chapter 3 Major Elements of the Program Required Under EISA 

Chapter 4 Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

Chapter 5 Program Changes and Flexibilities 

Chapter 6 Assessment of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

Chapter 7 Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Chapter 8 Impacts on Criteria (NAAQS) and Toxic Pollutants 

Chapter 9 Costs 

Chapter 10 Economic Impacts and Benefits of the Rule 

Chapter 11 Impacts on Water 

Chapter 12 Administrative Requirements and Legal Authority 

Chapter 13 Other 
EPA-420-R-10-003

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Summary and Analysis of 

Comments

Chapter 1

General
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

1 GENERAL

1.1 Supports Rule 1-1 

1.2 Opposes Rule 1-2 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

1 GENERAL

What We Proposed: 

 The following comments relate in general to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM). The comments in this chapter are not on any specific aspect of the proposed 

rule; rather, they are directed to the general substance of the proposal. More detailed 

comments on specific provisions of the proposal can be found in later chapters of this 

Summary and Analysis of Comments. 

 For more information on the proposed rule, see the Federal Register at 74 FR 

24904, published on May 26, 2009. The public comments submitted on this rule can be 

viewed online at www.regulations.gov (the public docket for this rulemaking is docket 

number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161). 

1.1 Supports Rule 

What Commenters Said:

We received many comments supporting the proposed rule, which generally 

stated that they support the rule itself and/or efforts to reduce dependence on nonrenewable resources and foreign petroleum supplies to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) and 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Commenters additionally expressed support for 

various potential positive aspects on the development and use of biofuels, including: 

technology and economic growth, job development, support of the agricultural sector, 

and energy security. 

However, many of these commenters also stated that, although they support the 

rule, they believe that additional work should be done before the rule is finalized. 

Commenters offered various suggestions on how they believe that the rule could be 

improved, and those specific comments can be found throughout this Summary and 

Analysis of Comments document. 

Our Response: 

We appreciate the support we have received from these commenters and well as 

many other parties during the development of the final rule to implement the RFS2 

standards as mandated by EISA. As our analysis in support of the rulemaking 

demonstrates, we believe that the increase use of renewable fuels in place of petroleum 

fuels will provide both greenhouse gas and energy benefits to our nation, as well as 

significant economic benefits to our agricultural sector. 

1-1
Chapter 1: General 

We have conducted extensive analysis in support of the rulemaking on the 

greenhouse gas, air quality and water quality impacts of increased use of renewable fuels 

as summarized in the preamble and detailed in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA). In addition, EPA is required by section 204 of EISA to assess the environmental 

and resource conservation impacts on an ongoing basis. 

1.2 Opposes Rule 

What Commenters Said:

 We also received comments expressing opposition to the proposed rule. These 

comments listed various aspects such as flawed analyses with respect to land use and fuel 

use assumptions, negative experiences with ethanol and other biofuels, regulatory and 

compliance requirements, inadequate peer review, and emissions impacts of renewable 

fuels. 

More specifically, one commenter stated that it believes that EPA policy should 

advance the intent of the Congress in workable ways; accordingly, this proposed rule 

should be revisited and made practical. As written, the proposed rule suffers from suspect 

methodology in the science; flawed assumptions regarding land use, petroleum and 

biodiesel use; and complex regulatory burdens which inhibit rather than facilitate 

desperately needed innovation. 

Another commenter stated that the congressional intent clearly aims to encourage 

an environmentally sound, innovative, and an economically viable renewable fuels 

industry, but the proposed rule will stifle innovation. The proposed rules would 

effectively deny important economic incentives to their energy crop innovations. 

Some commenters stated that they are opposed to the EPA changes in RFS2. 

They noted that the very intent of the original legislation, growing the US renewable 

fuels industry, will be irreparably harmed if the EPA proposal is allowed to stand. Some 

of these commenters further stated that there is more than sufficient testimony and sound 

science refuting many of the EPA interpretations of the 2007 Energy Bill. The 

commenters believe that the negative economic impact of the EPA proposal to America’s 

farmers, consumers, and businesses is further cause for discussion and revision to 

develop fair and sensible rules. 

Our Response:

We have in fact taken the comments we received on the proposal into account and 

made significant changes in the lifecycle and other analyses for the rulemaking, as well 

as to modify some of the programmatic requirements which should ease implementation 

(e.g., new renewable biomass provisions and EMTS system). We believe that the final 

rule faithfully implements the requirements of EISA in a manner consistent with our legal 

1-2
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

1-3

obligations, with sound science, and with sound environmental, energy, and economic 

policy. 
EPA-420-R-10-003

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Summary and Analysis of 

Comments

Chapter 2

Effective Date of the RFS2 Program
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

2-1

2. EFFECTIVE DATE

What We Proposed: 

 The comments in this section correspond to Section II.A.5 of the preamble to the 

proposed rule and pertain to the date when the RFS2 requirements start to apply to refiners and 

importers of gasoline and diesel and producers and importers of renewable fuel, as well as the 

volumes of renewable fuel that are required during calendar year 2010. The comments we 

received and our response to those comments are summarized below. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2110 

Organization: Chevron 

Comment:

The commenter (2110.1) believes that reporting of RIN transactions should shift from RFS1 

formats to RFS2 formats only once. The commenter believes that EPA should not begin RFS2 

reporting until EMTS is ready to accept RIN transactions. (2110.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2548 

Organization: Xyleco, Inc. 

Comment:

EPA should ensure sufficient time for the entry-into-force of RFS2, and that transitional 

regulatory arrangements support the overarching legislative objective of promoting development 

of renewable fuels. That is, RFS2 should enter into force on January 1, 2011, with RFS1 

continuing to apply in the meantime. This delayed implementation date would have the added 

advantage that the EPA would have another year to analyze historical data on renewable fuels 

production before determining whether to grant waivers, and, if so, to what level mandates 

should be adjusted. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) supports implementing the RFS2 amendments quickly, but believes 

that EPA’s revised lifecycle analysis is not likely to be completed in time for a January 1, 2010 

effective date. The commenter believes much work still needs to be done with respect to EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, particularly with respect to the sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. (2329.1, 

p.15) 

The commenter believes that EPA can rely on the current RFS program to meet the revised 

requirements pending issuance of final regulations. The commenter noted that the RFS1 
Chapter 2: Effective Date 

2-2 

regulations currently in place are sufficient to implement the EISA requirements. (2329.1, p.16) 

[[See Docket Number 2329.1 pp.16-19 for a detailed discussion of this issue]]. 

The commenter agrees that January 1, 2011 is the “most straightforward” alternative effective 

date and EPA should not implement the program in the middle of the year. (2329.1, p.18) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0988 

Organization: National Renderers Association 

Comment:

The commenter requests that EPA not delay implementation of the proposed RFS2 beyond 2009 

so that the RFS2 program applies to “all renewable fuel produced on or after January 1, 2010...” 

as set forth in proposed 40 CFR 80.1400. (P.1) 

The commenter believes that a January 1, 2010 start date for RFS2 implementation is essential to 

meet the Congressional mandate to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of petroleum by 

increasing domestic sources of renewable fuels. The commenter also believes the final rule must 

be promulgated in 2009 to encourage the production and use of renewable fuels, especially 

biomass based diesel, which will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with 

petroleum fuels. (P.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter (0994.1) noted that the Biodiesel industry needs to have the RFS2 program 

launched as soon as practical in order to preserve its current infrastructure. Due to current 

economic conditions, the Biodiesel industry needs this defined market to survive and continue 

producing the proposed volume of biomass-based diesel products. (0994.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0999 

Organization: Darling International Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (0999) urges EPA to promulgate the RFS2 final rule in 2009 so that the RFS2 

program applies to “all renewable fuel produced on or after January 1, 2010...” as set forth in 

proposed 40 CFR 80.1400. The commenter believes that a January 1, 2010 start date for RFS2 

implementation is essential to meet the Congressional mandate to reduce U.S. dependence on 

foreign sources of petroleum by increasing domestic sources of renewable fuels. The commenter 

also believes the final rule must be promulgated in 2009 to encourage the production and use of 

renewable fuels, especially biomass based diesel, which will significantly reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions associated with petroleum fuels. (P.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1015 

Organization: Renewable Energy Group 

Comment:
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

2-3

The commenter (1015) believes the U.S. biodiesel industry is ready today to meet the volumetric 

demands required by the RFS2. The industry will suffer if the program is delayed. EPA should 

enact a January 1, 2010 implementation date for the RFS2. (1015, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1044) believes that efforts should be made to implement the non-contentious 

elements of the proposed rule as fast as possible and further work regarding the LCA and GHG 

should be developed. [[Docket number 1044.1, p. 10]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

The commenter (2101.1) recommends that EPA move forward to enforce the volumetric 

requirements as soon as practicable but do so in a way that does not rush the premature 

application of the controversial ILUC. (2101.1, p.16) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1969 

Organization: SeQuential-Pacific Biodiesel 

Comment: 

The commenter states that they have weathered the turbulent markets by utilizing every resource 

available including capitalizing on the value of our RINs. This revenue stream has been vital the 

past year. The commenter urges EPA to consider the effect a delay in implementing RFS2 will 

have on the renewable fuel industry. The commenter strongly supports the RFS2 regulatory 

program beginning on January 1, 2010. Postponing implementation will continue to devalue 

RINs currently being traded and delay the recovery for renewable fuel producers. [[Docket 

number 2027, p. 1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1975 

Organization: Canadian Bioenergy Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter believes that EPA should implement RFS2 volume requirements for Jan. 1, 

2010. Delaying the effective date is not consistent to the stated goal to reduce U.S. dependence 

of foreign sources of petroleum by increasing domestic sources of energy. Recognizing the 

complexity of this task and that never before has a regulatory program assessed greenhouse gas 

emissions of fuels, the industry stands ready to bring low carbon fuel to market. [[Docket 

number 1975, p. 1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2017 

Organization: Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. 

Comment:
Chapter 2: Effective Date 

2-4 

The commenter (2017.1) believes that the start date should be January 1, 2011. A start date any 

time during calendar year 2010 would create a great deal of confusion in the marketplace 

because not all participants in the program would have adequate time to fully prepare. (2017.1, 

p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2102 

Organization: RENTECH, INC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2102.1) strongly supports EPA’s proposed effectiveness date of January 1, 

2010, as opposed to an alternative date of January 1, 2011. Any delay in implementation of the 

RFS2 program will negatively affect the ability of fuel producers to deliver volumes in future 

years by complicating their pathway to financing. (2102.1, p.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2106 

Organization: Endicott Biofuels II, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2106) suggests that EPA begin implementation of the RFS2 regulatory program 

on January 1, 2010 or as soon as possible thereafter but much sooner than January 1, 2011. The 

mechanisms for RIN generation and compliance are already in place for a substantial portion of 

the transportation fuels marketplace. While there have been some inevitable challenges, the 

system is up and operating and therefore these refinements are incremental to a working system 

to achieve the EISA goals. Any further delay has the effect of sending the wrong signals to the 

renewable fuels marketplace where investments are necessary to achieve the EISA goals. 

Additional, EPA has confirmed in this NPRM that it will be revisiting these rules on an annual 

basis to correct any deficiencies in the rules that may occur with an aggressive implementation 

date. [[Docket number 2106.1, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2110 

Organization: Chevron 

Comment:

The commenter supports the comments of API and NPRA. 

The commenter (2110.1) thinks a year after final rule promulgation should be reasonable but 

EPA should survey producers, including foreign, to confirm this view. Part of the year needs to 

be devoted to logistics (purchase, transport, deployment) so that qualifying renewable fuels can 

be available for compliance purposes on the program start date. Given the complex and unique 

nature of the issues associated with this rulemaking, there will not be enough time for EPA to 

promulgate final rules and for affected industries to make adequate preparations to comply with a 

January 1, 2010 implementation date. The commenter believes that the earliest feasible option is 

a January 1, 2011 start date, assuming that the final rule can be promulgated by the end of this 

year. (2110.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2118 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

2-5

Organization: CountryMark Cooperative, LLP 

Comment:

The commenter (2118.1) believes that the RFS2 program should begin on January 1, 2011. The 

January 1, 2010 implementation date would be infeasible. Due to the delay in promulgating the 

RFS2 proposed changes, implementation of the program should be delayed to January 2011. 

This would provide time to address record keeping requirements and other issues in the proposed 

changes. (2118.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) believes that the RFS2 program should begin on January 1, 2011. A 

January 1, 2010 implementation date is infeasible. The commenter believes that the affected 

industries need adequate lead time to implement these complicated new rules. There simply is 

not time between now and January 1, 2010 to implement these rules. (2124.1, p.8) 

The commenter believes that the only option is for implementation of the program is January 1, 

2011 or later. (2124.1, p. 9). 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130) states that the delay in OMB approval of the draft RFS2 proposal make it 

highly unlikely that EPA can respond to comment and finalize the RFS2 rulemaking by the end 

of October 2009 so that it can take effect on January 1, 2010. If EPA is unable to complete the 

rulemaking on that schedule, the commenter urges EPA to delay implementation until January 1, 

2011 and rely on the current RFS1 regulation for 2010. [[Docket number 2130.1, pp. 3 and 16]] 

The commenter does not support a partial year 2010 implementation due to the complexity for 

those who transact RINs, nor does the commenter believe EPA has the authority to impose EISA 

total renewable volume until RFS2 rules are implemented.[[Docket number 2130.1, pp. 8 and 

16]] 

The commenter urges EPA to avoid the use of “advisories” regarding how it intends to 

promulgate RFS2 requirements, particularly if EPA cannot meet its own schedule for 

promulgating such requirements. [[Docket number 2130.1, pp. 8-9]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) noted that there are concerns regarding the rulemaking delay and 

questioned the availability of cellulosic ethanol volumes next year. However, the commenter has 

concluded that EPA should continue with the January 1, 2010, start date as proposed. If EPA 
Chapter 2: Effective Date 

2-6 

does delay the start date, however, it will need to provide clear direction to obligated parties 

regarding the continuation of RFS1, and the commenter recommends applying a single standard 

for the total renewable fuel under RFS1 regulations. (2132.1, p.17) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2136 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFS) 

Comment:

The commenter (2136) urges the Agency to put in place interim rules for the RFS2 schedule 

while taking more time to develop a strong scientific consensus on international ILUC, its 

models and its assumptions. In addition, the commenter urges the Agency to finalize an interim 

rule, and especially the biomass based diesel carve-out within the overall RFS2 schedule, 

beginning on or before January 1, 2010. Such a rule needs to make clear that obligated parties 

must meet the combined 2009 and 2010 biomass based diesel requirement in 2010. [[Docket 

number 2136.1, p. 4]] [[See docket number 2136.1, p. 4 for additional discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2137 

Organization: Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2137.1) urges EPA to complete the RFS2 rulemaking at the earliest 

opportunity, specifically so that the RFS2 mandate may be implemented starting on January 1, 

2011. The commenter notes that the deadline by which Congress ordered EPA to revise the RFS 

regulations already has passed. [[Docket number 2137.1, p. 10]] 

While the commenter has some specific concerns, they believe that it is imperative to avoid any 

further delay. The thoroughness of the analysis and conclusions in the proposed rule 

demonstrate the extent to which the RFS2 can be finalized without delay. The commenter states 

that EPA must reject requests for further delay and comply with the nondiscretionary mandate 

specified in the EISA. [[Docket number 2137.1, pp. 11-12, 17]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2145 

Organization: Flint Hills Resources 

Comment:

The commenter (2145.1) supports implementation of the RFS2 program on January 1, 2011. 

The January 1, 2010 start date is unrealistic because it does not provide affected parties with 

enough time to prepare for implementation of the new requirements. The commenter agrees 

with EPA that the second option considered, starting the program sometime during the 2010 

calendar year, carries the many disadvantages described in the preamble. (2145.1, p.5) 

The commenter also believes the requirements for the additional categories (advanced biofuels, 

cellulosic biofuels and biomass-based diesel) should start contemporaneously with the rule in 

2011. Prior requirements for 2009 and 2010 (which would likely have been modified) should 

not be included. (2145.1, p.5) 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

2-7

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) suggests that the RFS2 program effective date be delayed until January 

1, 2011, to allow additional time for refinement and to give regulated parties an opportunity to 

prepare adequately. The commenter would expect the current RFS1 program rules to remain in 

effect in the interim. (2146.1, p.7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2148 

Organization: Hornbeck Agricultural 

Comment: 

The commenter (2148) encourages EPA to defer the proposed regulations until such time as they 

can be reformulated by applying the results of long-term research, accepted scientific principles, 

and to be made consistent with the statutory mandates. (2148, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2149 

Organization: Dynamic Fuels, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2149.1) supports EPA’s proposal that the RFS2 regulatory program start on 

January 1, 2010. Holding firm on a January 1, 2010, start date would help to ensure that 

renewable fuel producers and obligated parties are progressing on a timeline consistent with 

EISA’s intent. (2149.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment:

The commenter (2154.1) believes that there is not sufficient time to accomplish implementation 

by January 1, 2010. It is possible that EPA will not even have the rule finalized and issued by 

January 1, 2010. The commenter believes that the only feasible option is an implementation date 

of January 1, 2011. This timeframe would allow the necessary time for the renewable fuel 

producers to register and verify their processes and associated “D” codes for RIN generation. It 

would also provide alignment with the projected availability of the EMTS, a significant tool that 

will aid in facilitating the implementation of the program. (2154.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2155 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) 

Comment:

The commenter (2155.1) believes that the effective date for the RFS2 should remain as January 

1, 2010. If reasonable arguments can be made for the further assessment of indirect land use 

formulas, then EPA should proceed with RFS2 without that component if for no other reason 

than to preserve and better facilitate our renewable fuels production industry. (2155.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 
Chapter 2: Effective Date 

2-8 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) believes the RFS2 programs should begin on January 1, 2011 because it 

is extremely complex and the first of its kind. The commenter also believes that creating two 

partial year compliance programs would create a degree of complexity and uncertainty that 

might prevent the RFS2 from delivering its intended benefits. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2249) urges EPA to implement a workable program by January 1, 2010, which 

should include volume requirements from both 2009 and 2010 in calendar year 2010. To ensure 

continued investment and realization of the environmental and economic benefits derived from a 

vibrant biodiesel industry, the commenter supports timely implementation. [[Docket number 

2249.1, pp. 1-2]] 

The commenter states that until EPA can finalize the RFS2 regulations, the current RFS 

regulation can be used to implement the volume requirements for advanced biofuels and 

biomass-based Diesel. Even if portions of the RFS2 program must be delayed as EPA continues 

to work on the final rule, EPA must ensure an interim program is in place so that the annual 

mandated volumes are met for 2009 and 2010, as required by the statute—this is a nondiscretionary duty of EPA. [[Docket number 2249.1, p. 3]] 

[[Also see docket number 2249.2, pp. iv-v and pp. 3-9 for additional discussion of program 

implementation and an interim program.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2310) supports EPA’s proposed effective date of January 1, 2010, as opposed to 

an alternative date of January 1, 2011. We believe that any delay in implementation of the RFSII program could affect the ability of fuel producers to deliver volumes in future years by 

negatively impacting their ability to obtain financing. [[Docket number 2310.1, p. 4]] [[See 

docket number 2310.1, pp. 4-5 for further discussion of the effective date.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2317 

Organization: National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2317) believes that EPA should apply the renewable fuel volumes of EISA in 

2010 and defer the remainder of the program to at least 2011, so as to ensure a new calendar 

year, rather than a mid-year start date in 2010. [[Docket number 2317.1, p. 43]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2345 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

2-9

Organization: Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2345) believes that a January 1, 2010 implementation date is unworkable and 

does not support an implementation date in the middle of 2010. The commenter suggests 

January 1, 2011 as this date will allow EPA sufficient time to formulate a workable rule and 

provide the regulated community time to comply with the programs complex rules. [[Docket 

number 2345.1, pp. 7-8]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2358 

Organization: Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the 

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) 

Comment:

The commenter (2358) does not support a January 1, 2010 implementation date and believes the 

effective date should coincide with the start of the EMTS so that parties will not have to develop 

and abandon procedures, and then develop new requirements mandated by EMTS. [[Docket 

number 2358.1, p. 3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2364 

Organization: Tyson Foods, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2364.1) supports EPA’s proposal that the RFS2 regulatory program start on 

January 1, 2010. Holding firm on a January 1, 2010, start date would help to ensure that 

renewable fuel producers and obligated parties are progressing on a timeline consistent with 

EISA’s intent. In addition, while there will of course be uncertainties associated with any 

program, it is unclear that the benefits of delaying the start beyond January 1, 2010, outweigh the 

costs. (2364.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2383) believes EPA should publish regulations to implement the basic 

volumetric requirements for renewable fuels established by Congress without further delay. This 

is critical to the continued viability of the current ethanol industry. [[Docket number 2383.1, p. 

ES-1]] 

 

The commenter adds that EPA should implement EISA’s volume requirements beginning 

January 1, 2010, but should defer implementation of the LCA GHG performance standard until 

such standard is appropriately developed. [[Docket number 2383.1, p. ES-3, docket number 

1959.1, p. 3, and docket number 2380, p. 3]] 

The commenter urges EPA to immediately implement the RFS2 volume requirements while 

continuing to examine the proper approaches to implementing other features of the 2007 Energy 

Act. [[Docket number 2383.1, pp. 57-58]] 
Chapter 2: Effective Date 

2-10 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

The commenter (2384) recommends that the RFS2 commence on January 1, 2011. Compliance 

with the final RFS2 requirements will take considerable time for biofuel producers and obligated 

parties to implement. In addition the systems needed for the industry to comply are complex and 

will take time for programming. The commenter believes the most workable solution would be 

to continue the RFS1 program through 2010 and then transition into RFS2 in 2011. [[Docket 

number 2384.1, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) states that the extremely complex and first-of-a-kind nature of the issues 

associated with this rulemaking, the length of time needed by EPA to promulgate final 

regulations, and for impacted industries to prepare to comply, rule out a 1/1/2010 program start 

date. It is critically important that obligated parties and all other parties involved in the RFS, 

such as biofuel producers and distributors, have adequate time to prepare for implementation of 

the complex four-tier RFS2 mandate. Also, the complexity of the compliance issues associated 

with a partial year program should rule-out that possibility as essentially infeasible. The 

commenter supports a 1/1/2011 start date, but adds that companies that followed EPA advice to 

acquire bio-based diesel renewable identification numbers (RINs) in 2009 should not be 

penalized. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 2 and 2523.1, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2400 

Organization: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2400.1) supports the effective date of 1/1/2011 for the RFS2 program. The later 

start date will ensure more accurate positions for Refiners, Feedstock Producers, and even 

Obligated Parties. Starting the program mid-year may affect its success. (2400.1, p.1 and 

2400.2, p.9) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment: The commenter (2408.1) supports EPA’s proposed effectiveness date of January 1, 

2010 as opposed to the alternative date of January 1, 2011. Further delay in the implementation 

of the RFS2 program will continue to negatively affect the ability of fuel producers to seek 

funding and develop many of the new technologies which arc now in the pilot and demonstration 

phases of development. (2408.1, pp.5-6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

2-11

Comment:

The commenter (2511.1) noted that if the agency is unable to complete the necessary refinements 

to the rule due to the massive amount of review required and complexity of the proposed rule for 

the industry, the commenter would not oppose a start date of 1/1/2011. The commenter does not 

agree with a mid-year start date of the program. (2511.1, p.7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2423 

Organization: Green Earth Fuels, LLC 

Comment: 

While regulators debate how to calculate complex new sciences such as international indirect 

land use, the commenter (2423) states that countless biodiesel producers are going out of 

business. People are losing their jobs, their savings, and their investments. Experienced 

alternative fuels entrepreneurs are being driven from the industry. The commenter believes EPA 

has the authority to stop this loss and proposes that EPA issue an immediate emergency rule for 

obligated parties to meet the 2009 and 2010 obligations in the RFS2. This would qualify any 

biodiesel purchases in 2009 and 2010, regardless of pending GHG calculation, until such time as 

final rules are completed and published. This emergency rule is consistent with what EPA has 

wisely included in its proposed rules; however, it would eliminate the regulatory uncertainty of 

this obligation by making the obligation final, not “proposed.” This strategy would also give the 

agency time to adequately debate complex issues such as indirect land use change without 

jeopardizing the industry the RFS is design to develop. [[Docket number 2423, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2465 

Organization: Ford Motor Company 

Comment:

The commenter (2465.1) supports the proposed implementation date of January 1, 2010 for the 

Renewable Fuel Standard and the 36 billion gallons scheduled for 2022. The deadline of January 

1, 2010 to initiate the RFS2 program should be maintained in support of the renewable fuel 

industry. (2465.1, p.2) 

 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment:

The commenter (2471.1) urges EPA to allow for adequate lead-up time prior to implementation 

after the final rule is issued. The issues involved in RFS2 are considerably more complex and 

many key areas require additional time and effort to resolve. EPA should also provide notice as 

early as possible, but at least by November 30, 2009, to clearly explain how the 2010 mandates 

will be implemented both before and after the RFS2 effective date (assuming a mid-year 2010 

start date). Stakeholders, including Obligated Parties and renewable fuel producers, need to 

prepare accordingly; thus, EPA should take advantage of its statutory duty to set the 2010 

renewable fuel standard in November to notify parties about the entirety of 2010 compliance. 

The commenter also recommends that EPA set the RFS2 start date at the beginning of a new 
Chapter 2: Effective Date 

2-12 

compliance quarter. This will ease the reporting process and allow for a “clean break” between 

RFS1 and RFS2 compliance. (2471.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2472) believes the only workable option for implementation of the program is 

January 1, 2011 or later. Even if EPA is able to promulgate a final rule before January 2010, it 

will take until 2011 to accomplish the registrations that are required and to put in place the 

systems and plans that are necessary for compliance. [[Docket number 2472.1, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2474 

Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2474) believes that EPA must act now with an interim final rule to ensure that 

2009 and 2010 volumes are met as required by law. (2474, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2486 

Organization: Primafuel, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2486) strongly supports expeditious implementation of RFS2. Any further 

delay in implementation of the policies is unacceptable from a political, economic, and 

environmental perspective. The commenter views the RFS2 as a dynamic regulation which, with 

proper implementation, should generate clear and actionable price signals through RIN trading, 

to motivate the development and uptake of lower carbon fuels and the technologies that produce 

them. The commenter urges EPA to act immediately with an interim final rule to ensure that 

2009 and 2010 volumetric mandates are met as required by law. “Congressional risk” threatens 

sufficient levels of investment in low-carbon renewable fuels R&D and commercialization. 

[[Docket number 2486.1, p. 1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) believes that EPA should provide the affected industries adequate lead 

time to implement these complicated new rules. There simply is not enough time between now 

and January 1, 2010 for implementation. The commenter also believes that EPA should delay the 

start of the program to January 1, 2012 if the rules cannot be promulgated by the end of 2010. If 

EPA delays the implementation of RFS2 but is intent on increasing the required renewable fuel 

volumes to implement EISA during 2010, EPA should use the existing RFS rules with the EISA 

renewable fuel volumes (adjusted down for biomass-based diesel and cellulosic), similar to the 

way that EPA implemented the RFS2 requirements in 2009. (2505.2, pp.1-3) (See Docket 

Number 2505.2, pp.1-3 for a detailed discussion of this issue) 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

2-13

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2508 

Organization: Environmental Working Group (EWG) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2508) strongly urges EPA, in the case that the rule is not approved in time to set 

the mandate for 2010, to freeze the mandate at current levels until the rule is approved. (2508, 

p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2537 

Organization: Musket Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2537) requests EPA issue an interim version of RFS2 in time to enforce the 

2009 volumes in the EISA no later than January 1, 2010 unless a final version can be issued at 

that time. [[Docket number 2537, p. 2]] 

 

The commenter notes that EPA is proposing to combine the mandated 2009 volume of biomassbased diesel with the 2010 volume, enforcing a two year total beginning no earlier than January 

1, 2010. The commenter states that many investments in biomass-based diesel are currently 

standing idle in the frustrated anticipation of supporting the congressionally-mandated 2009 

volumes. Despite the recommendations that EPA published in 11/08 recommending that 

obligated parties should behave in 2009 as if the final rule had been enacted, EPA in May 2009 

is requesting ideas on how to delay even further adding doubt as to the value of 2009 efforts. 

This has the effect of penalizing forward-thinking companies who invested in 2009 compliance. 

[[Docket number 2537, pp. 1-2]] 

EPA requests comment on the challenges that will be faced by the fuel distribution system and 

the steps that will be necessary to facilitate the volumes of renewable fuels required under EISA. 

The renewable fuel distribution system stepped up to the challenge in 2007 and 2008, led 

completely by market forces, and far exceeded Congress‘ expanded renewable fuel targets for 

those years. For the new 2009 requirement for biomass-based diesel we believe that the biggest 

challenge that the distribution system currently faces is the uncertainty caused by the ongoing 

delay in the issuance of final RFS2 rules. The distribution system for biomass-based diesel is, in 

many cases, independent of the feedstock used to produce the renewable fuel. The investment in 

these important distribution facilities, therefore, should not be confounded with the also 

important debate surrounding virgin versus waste biomass feedstocks which may take 

considerably more time to complete. [[Docket number 2537, p. 2]] 

Our Response: 

 Under CAA section 211(o)(2)(A) as modified by EISA, EPA was required to adopt 

regulations to implement the new requirements of EISA within one year of enactment, or 

December 19, 2008, with the expectation by Congress that all of the RFS2 program requirements 

and applicable volumes would apply starting with calendar year 2009. However, as described in 

the NPRM, we were not able to promulgate final RFS2 program requirements by December 19, 
Chapter 2: Effective Date 

2-14 

2008. EPA published the proposed rulemaking on May 26, 2009. Since the NPRM was not 

published until after 2009 had started, EPA sought comment on various options for starting the 

requirements of the RFS2 program (e.g., 1/1/2010, 1/1/2011, or a mid-2010 start date) depending 

on the timing of the final rule. This includes inviting comment on what volumes of renewable 

fuels should be required for calendar year 2010. 

As evidenced above, we received a wide range of comments on these issues from a broad 

array of stakeholders expressing either their support for and/or concerns with these various 

options. A number of commenters also suggested that EPA should issue interim standards 

particularly for biomass-based diesel applicable until such time as the final rulemaking could be 

promulgated. Our response to the comments regarding an interim rulemaking can be found in 

Section 3.6.2. 

 Some of the concerns expressed with regard to starting the RFS2 program on January 1, 

2010 related to the time needed to complete the lifecycle analyses, including the analysis of 

uncertainty. As described more fully in Section 7, we have completed the revised lifecycle 

analyses for this final rule and used them as the basis for assigning various renewable fuel 

production pathways to the four categories defined by EISA. The time needed to finish our 

lifecycle analysis is therefore not a reason to delay implementation of the RFS2 requirements any 

further. 

 EPA is issuing this final rule in January 2010. The issue regarding the effective date that 

is before the agency is twofold: (1) what date should regulated parties – refiners and importers 

of gasoline and diesel, and producers and importers of renewable fuel – have to start complying 

with the new requirements in the RFS2 regulations, and (2) for refiners and importers of gasoline 

and diesel (obligated parties), what volumes of renewable fuel should they have to meet during 

calendar year 2010. In addressing these two issues, EPA was guided by two goals. One goal 

was to maximize compliance with the requirements Congress set out for calendar year 2010. 

That means implementing as expeditiously as practicable the transition to the requirements of the 

RFS2 regulations, such as the implementation of the new definitions of renewable fuel and the 

renewable biomass from which they are produced. It also means requiring the use of the four 

renewable fuel volumes expected by Congress for calendar year 2010. In effect this goal calls 

for transitioning as expeditiously as practicable to the RFS2 program, and doing it in a way that 

maximizes the ability to meet the volume requirements Congress set for calendar year 2010. 

EPA also had another goal – to provide the regulated parties with adequate lead-time to 

transition to the new requirements of the RFS2 regulations and to establish renewable fuel 

volume requirements that provide adequate lead-time for the obligated parties. In considering 

the lead time needed by the regulated parties, EPA recognized that the RFS2 program and the 

required volumes would require parties to make changes in their behavior, however in most if 

not all cases, the changes build on a preexisting program and call for updating and revising 

current practices, as discussed in more detail below. 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

2-15

 As discussed in Section I.A.2. of the preamble, EPA has determined that the appropriate 

balance of these two goals calls for the transition from using the RFS1 regulatory provisions 

regarding registration, RIN generation, reporting, and recordkeeping to using comparable 

provisions in this RFS2 rule to occur on July 1, 2010. This is the start of the 1st quarter 

following completion of the statutorily required 60-day Congressional Review period for such a 

rulemaking as this. This will provide adequate lead time for all parties to transition to the new 

regulatory requirements, including additional time to prepare for RFS2 implementation for those 

entities who may find it helpful, especially those covered by the RFS program for the first time. 

In addition, making the transition at the end of the quarter will help simplify the recordkeeping 

and reporting transition to RFS2. 

In addition, we are applying the RFS2 renewable fuel volume obligations on a calendar 

year basis for 2010. That is, EPA used a full year’s volume of the four renewable fuel categories 

to establish the volume obligation for refiners and importers. In determining the applicable 

percentages used by obligated parties, EPA used the entire 2010 calendar year projected volumes 

for gasoline and diesel, and the entire 2010 calendar year volumes for renewable fuel given in 

section 211(o), with certain exceptions. EPA set the applicable percentages using a volume of 

12.95 B gallons of renewable fuel, and 0.95 B gallons of advanced biofuel. EPA used less than 

the entire 0.1 B gallons of cellulosic biofuel, based on our projection of the total volume of 

cellulosic biofuel for 2010, under section 211(o)(7)(D). For biomass-based diesel, EPA used a 

combined volume of 1.15 B gallons covering both the 2009 and 2010 volumes of 0.5 B gallons 

and 0.65 B gallons. Using these volumes, EPA determined the applicable percentages that 

obligated parties will use to determine their renewable volume obligations (RVOs) at the end of 

a calendar year. Obligated parties are required to apply the annual percentages to the volume of 

gasoline or diesel fuel they produce during the full calendar year. Obligated parties must 

demonstrate compliance with their RVOs in an annual report that is due two months after the end 

of the calendar year. For 2010, the four RFS2 RVOs for each obligated party will be calculated 

on the basis of all gasoline and diesel produced or imported on and after January 1, 2010, 

through December 31, 2010. Obligated parties will be required to demonstrate by February 28 

of 2011 that they obtained sufficient RINs to satisfy their four 2010 RVOs. 

As discussed below, regulated parties have adequate lead-time to comply with these 

requirements. The transition described above will ensure that the regulations will comply in 

large part with the results Congress intended for 2010, even if the time needed for this 

rulemaking means the results Congress desired for 2010 cannot be fully achieved. 

In discussing the adequacy of the lead time to meet these requirements, there are two 

distinct groups of regulated parties that should be considered separately, as the regulatory 

requirements and related lead time concerns differ. These two groups are obligated parties and 

renewable fuel producers and importers. 

Obligated parties – refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel. 
Chapter 2: Effective Date 

2-16 

 These parties are required to register with EPA and satisfy various record keeping and 

reporting requirements. In general all of these parties are already registered with EPA for 

various fuel programs, and gasoline refiners and importers are already registered under the RFS1 

regulations. Any new or updated registrations must be submitted by July 1, 2010, but the 

information required is straightforward to develop and submit. Obligated parties already 

registered under RFS1 need not re-register under RFS2. Parties who are not already registered 

under RFS1, such as the limited number of parties who refine or import diesel but not gasoline, 

will need to submit initial registrations. In most if not all cases these parties are already 

registered with EPA under other fuel programs. The time provided for registration is adequate to 

meet this straightforward requirement. 

 Recordkeeping will call for ensuring that adequate records are kept, which in most cases 

will mean updating the current RFS1 record systems. For diesel only refiners or importers not 

already covered by RFS1, there is a need to ensure an adequate record keeping system is in 

place, however the information called for is the kind of information that will normally be 

generated in producing or importing diesel fuel and in obtaining and tracking the purchase of 

RINs to demonstrate compliance. These parties have been on notice since EISA was passed and 

since the proposal was issued of the need to develop such recordkeeping systems. The lead-time 

provided by this rule should be adequate for what is a relatively straightforward recordkeeping 

requirement. The first reports to EPA are not required until several months after the rule is 

issued, providing adequate time to comply with the reporting requirements 

 Obligated parties will need to satisfy their volume obligation by the end of February 

2011, which is when they submit their annual report to EPA. In that annual report they will need 

to demonstrate that they have adequate RINs to satisfy their renewable volume obligations. 

These volume obligations are calculated as a percentage of the entire volume of gasoline and 

diesel produced or imported during colander year 2010, so it is expected that obligated parties 

will obtain RINs from renewable fuel producers throughout the year. In determining the 

adequacy of lead time to meet this 2010 volume obligation, one needs to consider whether there 

will be an adequate supply of RINs generated by renewable fuel producers for obligated parties 

to comply, and whether there is adequate lead time for the obligated parties to implement 

commercial relationships to obtain these RINs. 

On the first issue, two kinds of RINs can generally be used to meet the 2010 volume 

obligation – (1) 2010 RFS1 RINs, generated on January 1, 2010 through June 30 31, 2010, and 

up to 20% of 2009 RFS1 RINs, to the extent there are credits from over compliance with the 

2009 volume obligation, and (2) 2010 RFS2 RINs generated from July 1, 2010 through the 

remainder of 2010. (In addition, certain 2008 RINs can be used for compliance with the 2010 

biomass-based diesel standard. See Section 3.6.3.) In effect the entire production of renewable 

fuel for 2010 plus a certain amount of the renewable fuel production of 2009 may be used to 

satisfy the parties’ volume obligations. RFS1 RINs have been produced throughout 2009 and 

continue to be produced since the beginning of 2010. There has been and will be no gap or lag 

in the production of RINs, as the RFS1 regulations continue in effect and require that renewable 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

2-17

 

fuel producers generate RINs for the renewable fuel they produce. These 2009 and 2010 RFS1 

RINs will be available and can be used towards the RFS2 volume requirements of obligated 

parties for 2010. As discussed in Section IV of the preamble EPA projects that an adequate 

supply of renewable fuel will be produced or imported in 2010 with corresponding RINs to meet 

the all of the volume obligations that must be met for 20101. This projected volume of 2010 

renewable fuel, combined with the ability to use a certain percentage of 2009 RFS1 RINs, means 

that there will be an adequate supply of RINs for obligated parties to use in demonstrating 

compliance with the 2010 volume obligation established in this rule. 

On the second issue, compliance requires obligated parties to develop a commercial 

relationship with generators or owners of RINs so that the obligated party purchases or otherwise 

obtains enough RINs to demonstrate compliance. Obligated parties do not need lead time for 

construction or investment purposes, as they are not changing the way they produce gasoline or 

diesel. They do not need time to design or install new equipment, nor take other actions that 

require longer lead time. Obtaining the appropriate amount of RINs involves contractual or 

other arrangements with renewable fuel producers or other holders of RINs. Obligated parties 

now have significant experience implementing RFS1, and the actions needed to comply under 

the RFS2 regulations are a continuation of these kinds of RFS1 activities. In addition, the 

renewable fuel producers have an economic incentive to sell RINs they generate, as compared to 

having them expire before they are sold. It is clear that there is an incentive for RIN generators 

to enter into the kind of commercial relationships that obligated parties need to enter to be able to 

demonstrate compliance. Based on the significant experience already developed under RFS1, 

and the ongoing generation of RINs, there is clearly adequate lead-time for obligated parties to 

develop the commercial relationships needed so they can obtain enough RINs by the end of 

February 2011 to demonstrate compliance with their 2010 volume obligation. 

EPA has also considered whether the required volumes of renewable fuel can in practice 

be produced or imported, transferred, transported and blended or otherwise used. This is 

discussed in Section IV of the preamble and Chapter 1 of the RIA. As discussed there, it is 

feasible to produce or import, transport and blend or otherwise use the volumes of renewable 

fuels called for in 2010 under the RFS2 program. 

Renewable fuel producers and importers 

As discussed in Section IV of the preamble, EPA projects that the 2010 volume 

requirements for renewable fuel, biomass-based diesel, and advanced biofuel will be met in large 

part by ethanol produced from corn, ethanol produced from sugarcane, and biodiesel produced 

from soybean and renewable biodiesel, and a limited volume of cellulosic biofuel that will be 

produced. There may be a limited volume of renewable fuels from other sources, but they are 

not projected. For the vast majority of this volume of projected renewable fuel, the producers or 

1

 For discussion of the adequacy of the volume of biomass-based diesel from 2009 and 2010, see Section IV.B.4 of 

the preamble. 
Chapter 2: Effective Date 

2-18 

importers involved are already registered with EPA for RFS1 and have recordkeeping and 

reporting systems designed to implement the RFS1 requirements. 

 

 For RFS2 there are also new restrictions on the biomass that can be used to produce 

renewable fuel, and renewable fuel producers and importers who generate RINs are subject to 

new requirements designed to implement these biomass restrictions. The biomass restrictions 

are described in more detail in Section II.B.4 of the preamble. For ethanol and diesel produced 

from crops and crop residue, the “aggregate” approach adopted by EPA means there should be 

no lead time concerns with addressing the new requirements. For other renewable fuel producers 

not covered by the aggregate approach, the producer and/or importer will need to have adequate 

records to demonstrate that the renewable fuel was produced from renewable biomass that met 

the requirements of the regulations. These recordkeeping requirements are new, but they call for 

the producer and/or importer to obtain information that should already be available to them in the 

normal course of their business – the source of the feedstock used to produce the renewable fuel. 

If not kept already, then it is information that can reasonably be obtained in the normal course of 

business. The time provided to meet this requirement should be adequate, given the nature of the 

information and business records that must be kept. 

 Producers or importers of renewable fuel will generate RINs when they produce or 

import the renewable fuel, and there are limited changes to the codes within RINs from RFS1. 

These changes have been made to implement the new categories of renewable fuels, and will call 

for RIN generators to determine the fuel’s specific pathway prior to generating the RINs. In 

most cases this is just a variation on practices already occurring under RFS1, using basic 

information that is developed in the normal course of the business. In some cases, a party will 

need to register with EPA as a fuel producer, if they have not already done so. Only a limited 

number of new entrants to the renewable fuel market will be in this situation, and the information 

required for this is generally straightforward for the current renewable fuels and kept in the 

normal course of business. 

 Producers of renewable fuel in other countries may decide to be the RIN generator for the 

fuel they produce that is exported to the U.S. In that case they need to follow all of the same 

requirements applicable to domestic renewable fuel producers. As noted above, the information 

needed to do this is all information they have or can obtain in the normal course of their 

business. In addition, there are additional compliance related provisions that must be met, 

however they are also matters that are straightforward to address. 

 The discussion above makes it clear that generators of RINs will have to submit 

additional information to EPA and keep additional records to support that the RINs they generate 

are valid, compared to RFS1. However this information is all information that should be 

available in the normal course of business, and in many cases is similar to or an update to 

information already kept under RFS1. The vast majority of RIN generators in 2010 are expected 

to be parties already implementing the RFS1 regulations, either now or in the recent past. In 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

2-19

these circumstances the lead time for the start of the RFS2 regulations for producers and 

importers of renewable fuel should be adequate. 

In addition, obligated parties and other regulated parties have received adequate notice of 

these obligations and generally are well on their way to preparing for compliance. Since 

December of 2007 when EISA was signed, the basic obligation of both gasoline and diesel 

producers to meet the EISA volume requirements has been clear. The proposed rule called for 

obligated parties to meet the full volume mandates for all four volume mandates, and to base 

their volume obligation on the volume of gasoline and diesel produced starting January 1, 2010. 

It also provided EPA’s position on other changes called for by EISA, including the new 

renewable biomass definition. The final RFS2 regulations are largely similar to the proposal as 

far as the requirements that parties must meet. Changes from the proposal to the final in many 

instances reduce the burden and the lead time needed for compliance. Based on discussions 

with a wide variety of stakeholders, the requirements in EISA itself and EPA’s proposal have led 

regulated parties to take many actions preparatory to implementation of the RFS2 requirements. 

Across the regulated industries, therefore, parties generally now need to finish those 

preparations, as compared to starting from scratch upon issuance of the final rule. This provides 

additional support for EPA’s view that, as discussed above, there is adequate time for regulated 

parties to meet the requirements of the RFS2 regulations, including for obligated parties to meet 

their 2010 volume obligations by February 28, 2011. 

This approach for volume requirements in 2010 does not impose any retroactive 

requirements. The obligation that is imposed under the RFS2 regulations is forward looking – by 

February 28, 2011, when compliance is determined, obligated parties must satisfy certain volume 

obligations. These future requirements are calculated in part based on volumes of gasoline and 

diesel produced prior to the effective date of the RFS2 regulations, but this does not make the 

RFS2 requirement retroactive in nature. The RFS2 regulations do not change in any way the 

legal obligations or requirements that apply prior to the effective date of the RFS2 regulations. 

Instead, the RFS2 requirements impose new requirements that must be met in the future. There 

is adequate lead time to comply with these RFS2 requirements, and they achieve a result that is 

more consistent with Congress’ goals in establishing four volume mandates for calendar year 

2010, and for these reasons EPA is adopting this approach for calendar year 2010. 

Some commenters expressed concern over the lead-time to develop electronic 

recordkeeping and reporting programs, including the desire to transition from RFS1 to the new 

EMTS program without an additional interim change. We also received numerous comments 

indicating that EMTS should align with implementation of the RFS2 program, and that other 

transition options such as monthly reporting were less desirable. We appreciate commenters’ 

concerns over having sufficient time to implement the new systems and/or make changes to 

existing systems. EPA has throughout the development of EMTS utilized an open process for 

sharing information with stakeholders. Since EMTS was first introduced in the NPRM, we have 

conducted and continue to conduct workshops and webinars to inform stakeholders (providing 

recordings of events on our website for on-demand replay) and to solicit stakeholder 
Chapter 2: Effective Date 

2-20 

participation in EMTS evaluation and testing. Additionally, EPA has stressed to the regulated 

community that they should prepare and make plans for changing requirements associated with 

new RFS2 requirements. As a result of our interactions with stakeholders, we are providing 

three options for regulated parties to implement EMTS. Parties may interact with EMTS 1) via 

an interactive web interface, 2) through a batch file uploading routine where batch files are 

similar to RFS1 reporting, and 3) through direct node-to-node computer connections. Parties are 

not limited to any one method and may change at anytime. All methods differ in the level of 

technical sophistication required for implementation as well as time intensity for user 

involvement. For example, parties planning to implement the node-to-node method may 

experience technical issues or development constraints, and may utilize one of the other methods 

until such issues can be resolved. In addition, EPA has created an XML conversion tool and 

various outreach materials, including step by step tutorials, which will aid and educate EMTS 

users. EPA pledges to continue to work with the regulated community, as a group and 

individually, to ensure EMTS is successfully implemented. EPA anticipates that with this level 

of assistance, regulated parties will not experience significant difficulties in transitioning to the 

new system, and EPA believes that the many benefits of EMTS warrant its immediate use. 

EPA did consider a range of other options on the effective date. In addition to a January 

1, 2011 start date, we also took comment on imposing a mid-year start to the renewable fuel 

volume obligations, despite the negative comments received on such an approach. For example, 

EPA considered a more complicated option – (1) determine an RFS1 applicable percentage 

based on just the total renewable fuel volume mandate, using the same total volume for 

renewable fuel as used in the first approach, and require obligated parties to apply that 

percentage to the gasoline produced from January 1, 2010 until the effective date of the RFS2 

regulations, and (2) determine the four RFS2 applicable percentages as discussed above, but 

require obligated parties to apply them to only the gasoline and diesel in 2010 after the effective 

date of the RFS2 regulations. This approach would fail to ensure that the total volumes for three 

of the volume mandates are met for 2010. In effect EPA would be requiring that obligated 

parties use enough cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and advanced biofuel to meet 

approximately 50% of the total volumes required for these fuels under EISA, assuming that the 

RFS2 standards went into effect on July 1, 2010. While the total volume mandate under EISA 

for renewable fuel would likely be met, the other three volumes mandates would only be met in 

part. This failure to maximize compliance with the requirements of EISA makes it appropriate to 

reject this option, given there is adequate lead time to ensure the use of the entire annual volumes 

as called for by these final rules. 

In addition, this option would have introduced significant new complications into the 

program for both standard setting and compliance. For instance: 

(1) We would have been required to determine an RFS1 applicable percentage 

standard based on just the total renewable fuel volume mandate, using the same 

total volume for renewable fuel as used in our final action, and require obligated 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

2-21

parties to apply that percentage to the gasoline produced from January 1, 2010 

until the effective date of the RFS2 regulations 

(2) We would have been required to determine the four RFS2 applicable percentage 

standards as discussed above, but require obligated parties to apply them to only 

the gasoline and diesel in 2010 after the effective date of the RFS2 regulations. 

Another option would have delayed all of the RFS2 requirements until January 1, 2011, 

which would avoid the complexity of the above alternative, but would be even less consistent 

with EISA’s volumes requirements. Again, given the adequate lead-time to implement the 

requirements imposed in this final rule, it is appropriate for EPA to reject this option. 
EPA-420-R-10-003

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Summary and Analysis of 

Comments

Chapter 3

Major Elements of the Program 

Required Under EISA
3. MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE PROGRAM AS REQUIRED BY EISA 

3.1 Changes to RINs 3-1 

3.1.1 Valid Life of RINs 3-1 

3.1.2 Designation of D Codes Differently for RFS2 3-2 

3.1.3 D-Code for Cellulosic Diesel Fuel 3-4 

3.2 Changes in Renewable Fuel Definitions 3-5 

3.2.1 Renewable Fuel 3-8 

3.2.2 Treatment of MSW 3-9 

3.2.3 Advanced Biofuel 3-23 

3.2.4 Cellulosic Biofuel 3-25 

3.2.5 Biomass-Based Diesel 3-27 

3.2.5.1 Definition of Co-processed 3-31 

3.2.5.2 Algae 3-34 

3.2.6 Additional Renewable Fuel 3-36 

3.2.7 Biogas Used as Process Heat 3-42 

3.3 Renewable Biomass 3-44 

3.3.1 Alternative Legislative Definitions of “Renewable Biomass” 3-44 

3.3.2 Definitions of Terms 3-45 

3.3.2.1 Planted Crops 3-45 

3.3.2.2 Crop Residue 3-47 

3.3.2.3 Agricultural Land 3-48 

3.3.2.4 Cleared or Cultivated and Actively Managed Agricultural Land 3-54 

3.3.2.5 Fallow 3-56 

3.3.2.6 Planted Trees 3-58 

3.3.2.7 Tree Residue 3-61 

3.3.2.8 Tree Plantations 3-62 

3.3.2.9 Cleared and Actively Managed Tree Plantations 3-64 

3.3.2.10 Slash 3-67 

3.3.2.11 Pre-Commercial Thinnings 3-68 

3.3.2.12 Forestland and Nonforested Land 3-72 

3.3.2.13 Ecologically Sensitive Forestland 3-75 

3.3.2.14 Old-Growth Forest 3-77 

3.3.2.15 Areas at Risk of Wildfire 3-79 

3.3.2.16 Animal Wastes and Byproducts 3-81 

3.3.2.17 Other Comments on Definitions 3-82 

3.3.3 Requiring a Demonstration that Feedstocks Meet the Renewable Biomass 

Definition Prior to Generating RINs 3-84 

3.3.3.1 General Comments 3-84 

3.3.3.2 Direct Regulation of Feedstock Producers/Suppliers 3-86 

3.3.3.3 Agricultural Land 3-87 

3.3.3.4 Tree Plantations and Forestland 3-96 

3.3.3.5 Verification Requirements for Non-Cultivated Feedstocks 3-97 

3.3.3.6 Alternative Compliance Approaches 3-98 

3.3.4 Requiring a Demonstration that Feedstocks Do Not Meet the Renewable 

Biomass Definition Prior to Producing Renewable Fuel Without RINs 3-104 
3.3.5 Use of Data from USDA Programs 3-106 

3.3.6 Third-Party Programs 3-109 

3.3.7 Treatment of Foreign Renewable Fuel 3-113 

3.3.8 Effect of “Renewable Biomass” Proposal on Achieving RFS Goals 3-120 

3.3.9 Sustainability and Renewable Biomass Production 3-123 

3.4 Renewable Fuel Exempt from 20 Percent GHG Threshold (Grandfathering) 3-126 

3.4.1 Definition of Commence Construction 3-128 

3.4.2 Basic Approach: Grandfathering Limited to Baseline Volumes 3-131 

3.4.2.1 Limitation on Baseline Volumes 3-131 

3.4.2.2 Changes at Facilities that Increase GHG Emissions 3-140 

3.4.2.3 Comments on Allowing Tolerance Limit on Baseline Volume 3-141 

3.4.2.4 Restriction of Deemed Compliant Facilities to Produce Only Ethanol 3-143 

3.4.3 Alternative Options 3-144 

3.5 Generation of RINs 3-150 

3.5.1 Equivalence Values 3-151 

3.5.1.1 Supports Energy-based Approach to Equivalence Values 3-151 

3.5.1.2 Supports Straight Volume Approach to Equivalence Values 3-152 

3.5.1.3 Other Aspects of Equivalence Values 3-159 

3.5.2 RIN Generation for Domestic Producers 3-161 

3.5.3 RIN Generation for Foreign Producers and Importers 3-163 

3.5.3.1 Party that Generates RINs 3-163 

3.5.3.2 Different Requirements for Foreign Versus Domestic Producers 3-165 

3.5.4 Facilities with Multiple Applicable Pathways 3-167 

3.5.5 Facilities that Co-process Renewable Biomass and Fossil Fuels 3-168 

3.5.6 Fuels Without an Applicable D Code 3-169 

3.5.7 RINs Generated for Electricity, Natural Gas, and Propane 3-172 

3.6 Applicable Standards 3-173 

3.6.1 Calculation of Standards 3-178 

3.6.2 Treatment of Biomass-based Diesel in 2009 and 2010 3-180 

3.6.2.1 Supports the Proposed Treatment of Biomass-based Diesel 3-184 

3.6.2.2 Opposes the Proposed Treatment of Biomass-based Diesel 3-185 

3.6.2.3 Request for Interim Rulemaking 3-189 

3.6.2.4 Treatment of 2008 and 2009 Biodiesel RINs 3-193 

3.7 Fuels that are Subject to the Standards 3-196 

3.7.1 Coverage Expanded to Transportation Fuels 3-196 

3.7.2 Treatment of Heating Oil and Jet Fuel 3-198 

3.7.3 Treatment of Fuels for Use in Ocean-Going Vessels 3-198 

3.8 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) 3-200 

3.8.1 Treatment of RFS1 RINs under RFS2 3-202 

3.8.2 RINs Eligible to Meet Each RVO 3-205 

3.8.3 Deficit Carryovers 3-205 

3.8.4 Obligated Volumes 3-206 

3.8.5 Exported Renewable Fuel 3-207 

3.9 Designation of Obligated Parties 3-209 

3.9.1 Supports Existing Approach 3-209 

3.9.2 Blenders or Other Downstream Parties Become Obligated Parties 3-213 
3.9.3 Expired RINs Used to Reduce Nationwide Obligation for the Following 

Year 3-217 

3.9.4 Other 3-217 

3.10 Separation of RINs 3-219 

3.10.1 Nonroad Diesel Fuel, Heating Oil, and Jet Fuel 3-219 

3.10.2 Exporters 3-222 

3.10.3 Neat Renewable Fuels 3-222 

3.10.4 Biodiesel 3-225 

3.10.5 Other 3-226 

3.11 Alternative Approaches to RIN Transfers 3-227 

3.11.1 Opposes Allowing Producers and Importers to Separate RINs 3-227 

3.11.2 Supports Allowing Producers and Importers to Separate RINs 3-232 

3.11.3 Direct Transfer Approach 3-237 

3.11.4 Other 3-238 

3.12 Treatment of Cellulosic Biofuel 3-242 

3.12.1 Approach to Cellulosic Biofuel Credits 3-243 

3.12.2 Adjustments to Other Standards in the Event of a Cellulosic Waiver 3-251 

3.13 Production Outlook Reports 3-255
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

3. MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE PROGRAM AS REQUIRED BY EISA 

What We Proposed: 

The comments in this section correspond to Section III of the preamble to the proposed 

rule and address elements of the program required by the Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (EISA). A summary of the comments received and our response to those comments are 

located below (and in Section II of the preamble to the final rule). 

3.1 Changes to RINs 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter states that EPA should require a cellulosic ethanol RIN generator to apply the 

narrowest possible RIN type definition and allow the obligated party to choose if the fuel is used 

to meet the cellulosic, advanced or total renewable fuel mandate. This approach should reduce 

the risk of market manipulation to favor one product over another and enhance the available 

information regarding each renewable fuel. [[Docket number 2393.1, pp. 8-9]] 

Our Response:

 Cellulosic ethanol that meets the definitional requirements of cellulosic biofuel will be 

assigned a D code of 3. As described in the regulations at §80.1427(a)(2), a RIN with a D code 

of 3 can be used to meet an obligated party's RVO for cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and 

total renewable fuel. However, there is no requirement that an obligated party apply a RIN to all 

the RVOs for which it is valid. Thus, an obligated party could apply a RIN with a D code of 3 to 

its advanced biofuel RVO, but not its cellulosic biofuel or total renewable fuel RVO. 

3.1.1 Valid Life of RINs 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2329.1) believes EPA can take actions to ensure RINs are available to all 

obligated parties, including implementing the 12-month limit on the life of RINs and eliminating 

the use of equivalence values. Limiting the amount of excess RINs that may be available 

ensures that RINs move through the system, and are available to obligated parties. (2329.1, p.88-

89) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp.88-89 for a more detailed discussion of the 12-month 

limit]] 

3-1
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Our Response:

 As described in the final rulemaking for the RFS1 program [72 FR 23933], we have 

implemented the 12-month limit on the life of “credits” under the statute by allowing RINs to be 

valid for 12 months following the year in which they are generated. Thus, the valid life of RINs 

will span two annual compliance periods, and RINs can be used for compliance purposes in the 

year generated and the following year. The rollover cap (see Section 5.4) limits the amount of 

excess previous-year RINs that can be used for compliance purposes and ensures that the valid 

life of RINs is real. Further limits on the number of RINs that could be used for compliance 

purposes, and the elimination of Equivalence Values, are not necessary to implement the credit 

provisions under the Act and would make RINs less available for compliance purposes in the 

marketplace. EPA’s decision to retain energy-based equivalence values is discussed in Section 

II.D.1 of the preamble and Section 3.5.1 of this S & A document. 

3.1.2 Designation of D Codes Differently for RFS2 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment: 

The commenter (0994.1) supports the alternative of the six D codes to distinguish the difference 

between 2009 RINs and 2010 RINs. (0994.1, p.3) 

Upon examination of the proposed regulations §80.1425(g), the commenter notes that EPA has 

not utilized the six D codes. The commenter recommends that the regulations be changed as 

such. The commenter also recommends that Table 1 for §80.1426 be revised to utilize the six D 

codes, recognizing that the D=1 and D=2 apply to 2009 biofuels and their RIN numbers. Tables 

2 and 3 of this section also need to be changed to reflect use of the six D codes. (0994.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2014 

Organization: Clean Fuels Clearinghouse 

Comment: 

The commenter (2083.1) recommends that EPA modify the proposed regulations to utilize a 

sequence of codes as 3, 4, 5, and 6 for RFS2. In this way there will be no dual intra-year 

representation for the use of codes 1 and 2, and the same effect will be achieved. (2083.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2249.2) agrees with EPA’s proposal to use four D codes numbered 1, 2, 3 and 

4, and to only allow RINs with a D code of “2” to be able to be used to meet the RVO for 

Biomass-based Diesel. 

3-2
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) supports EPA’s proposal, which makes minimal changes to the current 

RIN. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) generally supports EPA’s approach of maintaining the existing RIN 

structure, but modifying the D code to identify the categories of renewable fuels. The 

commenter is concerned, however, about the possibility of this system growing in complexity if 

EPA attempts to implement the RFS2 program mid-year, or if obligated parties become 

responsible for averaging various biodiesel fuels to meet the Act’s GHG threshold. EPA should 

avoid these complexities by making the biodiesel producers or importers responsible for meeting 

the GHG reduction thresholds. (2505.2, p.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter (2471.1) noted that if in finalizing the rule EPA changes a particular biofuel’s 

qualification in a manner that in essence “demotes“ its “D-code” assignment, EPA should 

provide notice and allow an opportunity to comment before finalizing. The commenter believes 

that EPA should also allow for notice and comment before finalizing a new pathway assessment 

or revised assessment that demotes the previously-assigned “D” code for a fuel. (2471.1, p.11) 

Our Response:

 We agree in concept with the need for a minimum of four separate D codes under RFS2. As 

discussed in section II of the preamble, we believe that the best way to do this to allow for a 

smooth transition from RFS1 to RFS2 is to maintain the use of D codes 1 and 2 for RFS1 RINs, 

since RINs will be generated under RFS1 regulations for the first part of 2010. Subsequent DCodes in the final regulations are then assigned to RFS2 RINs. These D-codes effectively allow 

renewable fuel producers to distinguish their product as meeting the 4 different renewable fuel 

categories under RFS2, and allow obligated parties to demonstrate compliance with the 4 

different RFS2 standards. 

 As described in preamble Section V.C, there is no longer a need to allow for averaging of 

various types of biodiesel in order to meet the GHG threshold associated with the biomass-based 

diesel standard. Therefore, the D code structure that we have finalized will not create additional 

complexities in this context. 

 The final D codes assigned to individual renewable fuel pathways as shown in the lookup 

table in §80.1426(f) are based on the updated lifecycle analysis completed for this final rule. 

Stakeholders were given an opportunity to provide comments on the draft versions of those 

lifecycle analyses in the NPRM, and EPA reviewed those comments as part of the process of 

3-3
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

updating those analyses. If additional pathways are added to the lookup table in the future, or 

changes made to the D codes assigned to existing pathways, stakeholders will be given an 

opportunity to provide comment on draft versions in a notice-and-comment process. 

3.1.3 D-Code for Cellulosic Diesel Fuel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter opposes the alternative approach to create 5 D codes to give obligated parties the 

choice to apply RINs for cellulosic biodiesel to either its cellulosic biofuel or biomass-based 

diesel obligation, but not both. (2329.1, p.91) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter opposes EPA’s proposed alternative treatment of cellulosic-based diesel, which 

would create five D codes and give the obligated party the choice to apply that RIN to either its 

Cellulosic Biofuel or Biomass-based Diesel obligation, but not both. Congress clearly intended 

to treat Biomass-based Diesel separately from Cellulosic Biofuel, by creating two distinct RVOs 

and a higher volume mandate for Cellulosic Biofuel than Biomass-based Diesel. The definition 

of Cellulosic Biofuel and Biomass-based Diesel do not coincide, and EPA should require 

cellulosic diesel to be applied toward the Cellulosic Biofuel requirement. [[docket number 

2249.2, p. 12]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter supports the alternative D code definitions in Table III.D.2.a-1 but does not 

agree that the producer should be allowed to choose whether to categorize his product as either 

cellulosic biofuel or biomass-based diesel. The commenter suggests that EPA create a flexible D 

code that would denote a fuel that can be counted as either, and that the obligated parties have 

the ability to choose whether to apply such a RIN to cellulosic or biomass-based diesel. (2124.1, 

p.32) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2145 

Organization: Flint Hills Resources 

Comment:

The commenter (2145.1) recommends that a separate D code be established for cellulosic diesel. 

Cellulosic diesel has the unique ability to qualify as “Biomass-based Diesel” or as “Cellulosic 

Biofuel”. The commenter believes the obligated party should have the decision rights to use 

these RINs in either category depending on its needs. This can be accomplished by assigning a 

unique D code to this type of renewable fuel (e.g., D code “5”). Under this process, a producer 

3-4
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

would assign a D code of 5 to the fuel and the obligated party could use the RIN to satisfy the 

obligation under biomass-based diesel or cellulosic biofuel. The RIN could still only be used in 

one of these categories (2145.1, p.7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) supports EPA’s alternative D code approach to accommodate cellulosic 

diesel. This approach would enable the obligated party to choose if the fuel is used to meet the 

cellulosic, advanced or renewable fuel mandate. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

In addition, the commenter supports EPA’s alternative approach where an additional D code is 

created to accommodate cellulosic diesel. This approach reduces the risk of market manipulation 

to favor one product over another. It is also more appropriate to allow the obligated party to 

determine the RINs ultimate use and is consistent with the “nested requirements” methodology. 

[[Docket number 2393.1, pp. 8-9]] 

Our Response:

 We disagree with the comment that the definition of cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based 

diesel do not coincide. As described in the proposal and the final rule, a renewable diesel made 

from cellulosic feedstocks would meet the definition of both categories. As such, the D-code 

must allow for cellulosic biofuel qualify for either the cellulosic biofuel standard or the biomassbased diesel standard. As discussed in Section II.A of the preamble, we believe that the best way 

of implementing this for the smooth implementation of the program is to have the cellulosic 

diesel producer identify their product in a way that allows it to be used to qualify for either 

standard. Therefore, we have created a separate D code of 7 for cellulosic diesel, and producers 

are required to use this D code for any renewable diesel fuel that they produce from cellulosic 

feedstocks. 

3.2 Changes in Renewable Fuel Definitions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment: 

The commenter (0994.1) noted that Table II.A.1-1 should be revised to list all four categories 

and their required volumes as well as the total renewable requirement so that it matches the 

categories listed in all tables such as Table II.A-2. Table II.A.1-1 does not support the statement: 

“As shown in the table, the volume requirements are not exclusive, and generally result in nested 

3-5
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

requirements.” If the volumes are to be nested, then the regulations need to say so directly and 

the direction of the nesting. (0994.1, p.2) 

Our Response:

 Table II.A.1-1 in the NPRM reflects the four fuel volume requirements as stipulated in 

EISA. The nested nature of these standards is made clear in the definitions of these four fuel 

standards. We have attempted to clarify the text in the FRM to better explain the nested nature 

of these volume requirements. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment: 

The commenter noted that the fourth category should have its own name such as “Other 

Renewable Biofuels” and should be used throughout these regulations. Then regulated parties 

will know when the term “Renewable Fuel” is used, the regulations are referring to all four 

categories of biofuel and not just the fourth category. Section II.A.2 and other like sections 

should be revised and consistently use the term “categories”. In Section II.A.2 there are 

definitions of three of the biofuel categories; there also needs to be a definition for the fourth 

category under its specific name. (0994.1, p.2) 

Our Response:

 There is not a separate standard for “Other Renewable Fuels”. Given the nested nature of 

the RFS2 standards, the total renewable fuel standard is made up of fuels required to meet the 

advanced biofuel standard and any other renewable fuels meeting the renewable fuel definition. 

The advanced biofuel standard in turn is made up of fuels required to meet the cellulosic biofuel 

standard and the biomass-based diesel definition, and any other fuels meeting the advanced 

biofuel definition. We appreciate that this matter may be confusing, and in the final rule and 

preamble have tried to make the requirements clear. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2118 

Organization: CountryMark Cooperative, LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter (2118.1) requests clarification on the definitions of advanced biofuels; biomassbased diesel; and non-ester renewable diesel. Table 1 to §80.1426 provides the applicable D 

codes for each pathway for generating RINs. The commenter believes that this table is 

inconsistent with the above definitions. For advanced biofuels, there are only two pathways 

identified that qualify: Ethanol from Sugarcane and Non-ester renewable diesel produced from 

waste grease, waste oils, tallow, chicken fat, or non-food grade corn oil that is hydrotreated and 

3-6
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

co-processed in a facility that also processes petroleum feedstock. This is inconsistent with the 

discussion of advanced biofuels in the preamble. Other feed stocks and pathways should qualify 

for a D code of 2 or 3 such as waste grease, etc. hydrotreated in a dedicated process; 

hydrotreating of non-edible plant oils such as camelina, jatropha, algae, or pennycress in a 

dedicated process; etc. Section 80.1426 does not provide a method to qualify other fuel 

pathways for applicability. (2118.1, p.3) 

The commenter also noted that Table 1 to 80.1426 also provides three pathways for non-ester 

renewable diesel each having different D codes of 2, 3, or 4. This is inconsistent with the 

definition of non-ester renewable diesel. The commenter contends that non-ester renewable 

diesel definition should include D codes of at least 2 or 3. The commenter believes that other 

virgin plant oils that are non-edible such as camelina, jatropha, algae, or pennycress should 

qualify for a D code 2 or 3. In addition, a dedicated facility that processes waste grease, etc. 

should qualify as a D code of either 2 or 3. (2118.1, p.4) 

Our Response:

 The table in §80.1426 of the regulations has been substantially modified since the NPRM 

to reflect the fuel pathways for which lifecycle assessments have been completed for the final 

rule. Fuel pathways that have not yet been modeled, such as some of those listed by the 

commenter, may still qualify in the future depending the results of future lifecycle GHG 

assessments. The process by which future pathways are assessed and will be added to the table 

in section 80.1426 is described in Section V.C. of the preamble. 

However, the commenter appears to be confusing generation of RINs with use of RINs. 

The table in §80.1426 is the table used by renewable fuel producers for the generation of RINs, 

and identifies the specific RIN that should be generated for each qualifying renewable fuel. 

Section 80.1427 describes the provisions for the appropriate use of RINs for compliance. RINs 

may often be used for multiple standards. For example, any RIN with a D-Code of 3, 4, 5, or 7 

may be used for compliance with an obligated party’s total renewable fuel obligation. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2310) supports EPA’s proposal to allow generation of RINs for renewable fuels 

used as jet fuel, home heating oil, and locomotive and marine diesel. EPA should also allow 

RIN credits to be generated for the sale of renewable fuels in the broadest possible applications. 

[[Docket number 2310.1, p. 14]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2425 

Organization: PetroAlgae 

Comment: 

3-7
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter (2425) does not agree with the exclusion of ocean vessels from the definition of 

eligible transportation fuels. Ocean going vessels are a very large consumer of diesel fuel and a 

major emitter of CO2. By excluding ocean vessels, EPA will omit a significant sector and will 

limit the demand of renewable fuels thus making it more difficult to reach the aggressive 

consumption goals. [[Docket number 2425.1, p. 7]] 

Our Response: 

 In keeping with the revisions to section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act in EISA, we are 

finalizing these provisions as proposed. EISA explicitly excludes fuel used in ocean-going 

vessels from the definition of transportation fuel, so EPA does not have the discretion to adopt 

the commenter’s suggestion. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2486 

Organization: Primafuel, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2486.1) believes that oils recovered from biomass streams post primary 

processing should be considered waste greases. This should include materials like corn oil 

recovered from dry-mill ethanol plants post-fermentation. [[Refer to Docket Number 2486.1, p. 1 

for additional details of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

 We are allowing all waste greases, fats and oils that meet the definition of renewable 

biomass to be valid for generating renewable fuels under RFS2. Any oils present in post-primary 

processing that would otherwise be discarded would be considered waste oils. We have included 

non-food grade corn oil in the lookup table in regulation section 80.1426(f) as a valid feedstock 

for the production of biodiesel and renewable diesel. 

3.2.1 Renewable Fuel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment: 

The commenter believes that the proposed definition for “renewable fuel” in §80.1401 clearly 

states that ethanol shall be denatured. This should be repeated in other places, such as 

§§80.1426, 80.1428, 80.1460, and 80.1466. (2124.1, p.42) 

Our Response: 

3-8
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

 We have specified in §80.1401 that ethanol must be denatured before RINs can be 

generated for it. We also reiterate this requirement in §80.1415 in the context of specifying its 

Equivalence Value. However, §80.1401 is preceded by the following statement: “The 

definitions of §80.2 and of this section apply for the purposes of this Subpart M.” Therefore, 

there is no need to repeat any part of the definitions in other sections of Subpart M. 

3.2.2 Treatment of MSW 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2021 

Organization: Fulcrum Energy 

Comment:

The commenter (2021.1) believes that the text of EISA is ambiguous with regard to the 

definition of Renewable Biomass and it is well within EPA’s discretion to find that urban waste 

qualifies as Renewable Biomass, especially post-recycled urban waste. Renewable Biomass 

includes urban waste because the definition of Renewable Biomass lists the primary constituents 

of urban waste that can be converted to biofuel: biomass gathered from areas of human 

habitation, separated yard waste, and food waste. A careful textual reading shows that these 

wastes need not be separated to qualify but, regardless, urban waste is sorted several times before 

being converted to biofuel, which satisfies any reasonable requirement for sorting and separation 

of the eligible components of urban waste. The commenter believes that EPA’s final RFS2 rule 

should clarify that such urban waste qualifies as Renewable Biomass, leaving no question that 

fuels derived from urban waste can qualify as Renewable Fuel and Cellulosic Biofuel. (2021.1, 

p.26) (See Docket Number 2021.1, pp.15-26 for a detailed discussion of this issue.) 

The commenter also believes that if EPA concludes that urban waste must be sorted to remove 

recyclable materials in order to be an eligible feedstock for some or all types of renewable fuels, 

the commenter recommends that EPA define a new term, “post-recycled urban waste,” to 

describe the waste materials that would be allowable as biofuel feedstock. The commenter 

recommends that Post-Recycled Urban Waste be expressly included in the RFS2 regulations as a 

form of “Renewable Biomass” and defined as “solid waste derived from residential or 

commercial waste streams that have been subjected to separation through a recycling process.” 

(2021.1, p.32) (See Docket Number 2021.1, pp.32-33 for a detailed discussion of this issue) 

The commenter also believes that EPA must allow Advanced Biofuel to be derived from urban 

waste because the definition of Advanced Biofuel in EISA leaves no question that urban waste is 

an eligible feedstock. Congress clearly intended for the RFS2 program to allow the use of urban 

waste to produce Advanced Biofuel, regardless of EPA’s interpretation of the definition of 

Renewable Biomass. Advanced Biofuel need not be derived from Renewable Biomass if it is 

one of the five types of eligible fuels derived from a broader category of feedstocks. The ethanol 

generated from urban waste fits at least two of those broader categories since it would be derived 

principally from “cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin,” and “waste material.” Urban wastederived ethanol is therefore eligible to be Advanced Biofuel under a careful textual reading of 

EISA, so long as it meets the lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction requirements for Advanced 

3-9
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Biofuel. (2021.1, p.8 & pp.13-14) (See Docket Number 2021.1, pp.8-14 for a detailed discussion 

of this issue). 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2021 

Organization: Fulcrum Energy 

Comment:

The commenter (2021.1) noted that EPA requested comment on its plan to assign Renewable 

Identification Numbers (RINs) in situations where a facility co-processes a renewable feedstock 

simultaneously with a fossil fuel feedstock. The commenter believes that most or all waste 

plastics are either direct “food wastes” (e.g., packaging, utensils), become contaminated with 

food residues after entering the waste stream, or are collected from the “vicinity of buildings and 

other areas regularly occupied by people” which qualifies them as Renewable Biomass as 

discussed above. The commenter recommends that EPA’s final rule explicitly classify postrecycled urban waste as a renewable feedstock and not consider it to be a mixed feedstock. 

(2021.1, p.37) (See Docket Number 2021.1, pp.37-42 for a detailed discussion of this issue.) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2401 

Organization: Clean Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2401) urges EPA to include, not exclude, MSW as a qualifying feedstock for 

renewable biomass under the RFS2. [[Docket number 2401.1, p. 3]] [[See docket number 

2401.1, pp. 2-4 for extensive discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1044) supports changes to the renewable fuel definitions that include Municipal 

Solid Wastes (MSW) in its original un-segregated (neat) form. (1044.1, p. 1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2130) believes that municipal solid waste (MSW) should not be considered 

renewable biomass. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 15]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2233) believes that the fact that Congress included MSW in EPAct 05, but not 

later EISA 07 and limited EISA 07 to food and yard waste that is often contained in MSW 

suggests Congressional intent to exclude MSW and provides an incentive for separation of those 

renewable biomass components of MSW. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment: 

3-10
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2393) believes that the fact that Congress included municipal solid waste 

(MSW) in EPACT05, but not later in EISA07 and limited EISA07 to food and yard waste that is 

often contained in MSW suggests Congressional intent to exclude MSW and provides an 

incentive for separation of those renewable biomass components of MSW. [[Docket number 

2393.1, p. 78]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2416 

Organization: Enerkem 

Comment: 

The commenter (2416) urges EPA to include MSW as an eligible feedstock and notes that this is 

within EPA’s Authority and consistent with broad public policy goals. The definition of 

“renewable biomass” in EISA includes materials that ordinarily comprise MSW - food waste, 

yard waste, biomass removed from the vicinity of occupied structures, and wood waste. 

Additionally, the definition of “advanced biofuel” includes “ethanol derived from waste material, 

including crop residue, other vegetative waste material, animal waste, and food waste and yard 

waste.” As with renewable biomass, the listed materials are among those generally within the 

scope of MSW. [[Docket number 2416.1, p. 3]] 

The commenter believes that because the definitions in EISA reflect the composition of MSW, 

the inclusion of MSW as a single category is consistent with the statute. Requiring biofuels 

producers to separate waste streams into smaller component parts creates a significant cost and 

compliance burden, without a corresponding benefit and is not necessary to comply with the 

statutory language of EISA. [[Docket number 2416.1, p. 3]] 

Additionally, the greenhouse gas profile of fuels derived from MSW is well within the most 

aggressive greenhouse gas targets of the statute. EISA requires “advanced biofuels” to 

demonstrate a 50 percent GHG reduction, while “cellulosic biofuel” must demonstrate a 60 

percent reduction. A 2007 joint study between Michigan State University and the University of 

Toronto indicated that MSW reduces GHG emissions by at least 65% percent compared to 

gasoline, based on a GREET model analysis of lifecycle emissions. In addition, using EPA’s 

WARM model, the study showed significant GHG reductions for MSW-to-ethanol as compared 

to landfilling MSW. The commenter states that if EPA included the reduction in landfill 

emissions as a part of the lifecycle analysis of MSW, the emissions reduction profile of MSW 

would be even stronger. [[Docket number 2416.1, p. 3]] 

Regarding EPA’s request for comments on the inclusion of certain non-fossil portions of MSW, 

such as non-recyclable plastics, the commenter recommends that EPA allow non-recyclable 

plastics to be included in the waste stream used to process fuels. Plastics represented 12% of 

MSW in 2007 (EPA Waste Statistics). Overall recovery of plastics is small: only 7%. Of the 30 

million tons of plastics generated in 2007, only 2.1 million tons of plastics were recycled. The 

rest was discarded in landfills. Plastic trash bags, plastic packaging and plastics in non-durable 

goods are virtually all discarded while recovery of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) soft drink 

bottles is significant with a rate of more than 36%. 

[[See docket number 2416.1, pp 3-6 for extensive discussion of this issue.] 

3-11
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2472) urges EPA to interpret the definition of renewable biomass to include 

MSW that contains, but isn’t limited to yard and/or food waste. As EPA notes in the preamble of 

the proposed rule (pg. 24922), the statutory definition of renewable biomass does not include a 

reference to MSW as did the definition of “cellulosic biomass ethanol” but instead references 

“separated yard waste and food waste.” However, as EPA also observes, ethanol derived from 

waste material and biogas including landfill gas are specifically identified as eligible for 

consideration under the definition of advanced biofuel (pg. 24922). The commenter believes that 

at a minimum, EPA should define all biogenic materials in MSW as renewable biomass and 

consider them qualifying feedstock for renewable fuels. The commenter concludes that failure to 

define, at a minimum, all biogenic materials in MSW as renewable biomass would be 

counterproductive and contrary to Congress’ inclusion of landfill gas as an eligible biofuel 

feedstock, due to the fact that landfill gas is the result of the decomposition of the entire biogenic 

portion of MSW. [[Docket number 2472.1, pp 10-11]] [[See Docket number 2472.1, pp 10-11 

for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2491 

Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2491) suggests that all components of MSW that are biogenic (derived from 

plants and animals) in origin such as paper, yard trimmings, food waste, etc. should qualify as 

renewable biomass. Therefore, an important criterion for classifying the components of MSW as 

renewable or nonrenewable should be how it is produced. Although fuels can be made from 

fossil derived waste such as plastics, they should not be characterized as renewable biomass. 

However, there should not be any restrictions on fuel production from non-renewable portions of 

MSW. [[Docket number 2491.1, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2095 

Organization: New Planet Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2095) states that urban waste is an expressly permitted feedstock for advanced 

biofuel. The commenter adds that carbon-based wastes represent the nation’s most promising 

and virtually untapped renewable energy source. Advanced conversion technologies, which will 

be commercially proven and a recognized factor in the nation’s energy mix within the next three 

years, could produce enough ethanol from these resources to not only satisfy the requirement for 

Advanced Biofuel in EISA but to completely eliminate U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Since 

one of Congress’ objectives in passing EISA was to promote the use of advanced biofuels with 

reduced land-use impact, and urban waste is the only currently viable feedstock with no indirect 

land-use impact, the commenter believes that it is especially important that urban waste be a part 

of the RFS2 program. [[Docket number 2095.1, pp. 1-2]] [[See docket number 2095.1, pp. 3-5 

for background information on advanced conversion technologies]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2532 

Organization: BioEnergy Producers Association 

3-12
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment: 

The commenter (2532) points out that the text of EISA unambiguously requires ethanol derived 

from urban waste to be considered advanced biofuel. Statutory context affirms that ethanol 

derived from urban waste can be “advanced biofuel.” The Obama administration, by its actions 

and key appointments, has affirmed its commitment to advanced biofuels as an essential element 

in America’s quest for energy independence. The President has stated his intention to double 

within three years the amount of energy that could be produced from renewable resources. 

[[Docket number 2532, pp. 3-4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2376 

Organization: County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 

Comment: 

Sanitation Districts strongly believe that as long as there is no attempt to “spike” the waste with 

plastics beyond what is considered normal disposal for a community, the entire MSW waste 

stream should be defined as a “renewable biomass.” EPA can ensure that plastics and other 

components of concern are present at the lowest levels possible. One approach could require that 

in order for a community’s MSW to qualify as renewable biomass, that community shall have a 

recycling program that achieves diversion rates at least as great as the national average for the 

year of qualification. [[2376.1 p.3] 

The commenter states that waste-to-fuel advanced technologies have potential to produce 

significant volume of renewable fuels that could help EPA achieve the RFS2 volume mandates 

of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. However, the emerging waste-to-fuel industry 

needs additional incentives to improve the economic feasibility of such projects. Credit trading 

systems for renewable fuels such as the trading system in RFS will help the emerging waste tofuel industry gain economic stability and promulgate long-term investments. Therefore, we 

again request that waste-derived renewable fuels be included in RFS2 in order to participate in 

the credit trading system. [[2376.1 p.6]] 

The commenter cites evidence on pages 5-7. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2023 

Organization: New York Biomass Energy Alliance 

Comment: 

The commenter (2023) supports the inclusion MSW as renewable biomass. The commenter also 

believes that yard waste and food waste should be considered renewable biomass. The 

commenter suggests categorizing landfill gas as an advanced biofuel, will make RFS2 serve as a 

stimulant to improved waste handling and development of waste-to-energy technologies, while 

contributing the overall EISA goal of reducing fossil fuel consumption. (2023.1.pdf, p6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2466) recommends that EPA include MSW that contains yard and/or food 

waste within the definition of renewable biomass. (2466.1.pdf, p.8) 

3-13
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1995 

Organization: Waste Management (WA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (1995.1) recommends that EPA interpret the definition of renewable biomass to 

include MSW that contains, but isn’t limited to, yard and/or food waste. The commenter 

believes that at a minimum, EPA should define all biogenic materials in MSW as renewable 

biomass and consider them qualifying feedstock for renewable fuels. Exclusion of MSW as a 

qualifying feedstock would exclude unprocessed MSW from any role in the development of 

renewable fuel under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), and would also likely 

severely limit the amount of yard and food waste available as feedstock for EISA-qualifying 

fuel, since large quantities of these materials are disposed of as un-separated MSW. (1995.1, 

pp.1-2) (See Docket Number 1995.1, p.2 for more discussion on this issue) 

The commenter also believes that the inclusion of MSW in the definition of renewable biomass 

should not reduce paper recycling. To ensure that the inclusion of MSW as renewable biomass 

does not divert recyclable paper materials from recycling, EPA could define all MSW as 

qualifying feedstock for renewable fuels as long as the producer can certify that the MSW came 

from communities that provide recycling services for their residents, or comes from commercial, 

industrial or institutional sources that operate or have access to a recycling program. (1995.1, 

pp.2-3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2004 

Organization: NxENRG 

Comment: 

The commenter (2004.1) is concerned that the proposed definition of renewable biomass does 

not expressly include Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in all forms. The exclusion of MSW will 

severely limit the available feedstocks under both the advanced biofuels and cellulosic biofuels 

categories. Not only does the exclusion of MSW reduce available feedstocks and thereby make 

compliance more difficult, it undermines the opportunity to reduce the amount of materials in 

our nation’s landfills. The commenter believes that MSW should include all items that are 

routinely placed in landfills including construction waste, demolition waste and used tires. The 

commenter also believes that: 

(1) All MSW should qualify as renewable biomass including plastics and used tires that are 

derived in whole or in part from petroleum. 

(2) There is no sound policy reason and no Congressional directive requiring that fossil portions 

be treated differently than other components of MSW. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2047 

Organization: Terrabon 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2071]] states that by interpreting “separated yard and food waste” to include 

MSW, the EPA will encourage the use of MSW as a feedstock and provide an environmentally 

desirable alternative for disposing of MSW by allowing the repurposing of waste that would 

otherwise be placed into costly, polluted landfills. 

3-14
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter [[2071]] also states that yard and food waste should be interpreted to include 

MSW because it will facilitate the economics of the domestic fuel industry and fulfill the 

objectives of the EISA in encouraging domestic fuel production using domestic feedstocks. 

[[#2071.1 p.3]] 

The commenter [[2071]] states the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, amended 

the definition of renewable biomass to include MSW. HR 2454 states that renewable biomass 

includes “the non-fossil biogenic pollution of municipal solid waste and construction, 

demolition, and disaster debris.” The House’s amendment would definitively make clear that 

MSW will be considered renewable biomass. EPA should follow the House’s lead and include 

MSW within the definition of renewable biomass. [[#2071.1 p.6]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2095 

Organization: New Planet Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2095) states that EPA can and should interpret “renewable biomass” to include 

urban waste. The commenter adds that carbon-based wastes represent the nation’s most 

promising and virtually untapped renewable energy source. Advanced conversion technologies, 

which will be commercially proven and a recognized factor in the nation’s energy mix within the 

next three years, could produce enough ethanol from these resources to not only satisfy the 

requirement for Advanced Biofuel in EISA but to completely eliminate U.S. dependence on 

foreign oil. Since one of Congress’ objectives in passing EISA was to promote the use of 

advanced biofuels with reduced land-use impact, and urban waste is the only currently viable 

feedstock with no indirect land-use impact, the commenter believes that it is especially important 

that urban waste be a part of the RFS2 program. [[Docket number 2095.1, pp. 1-2]] [[See docket 

number 2095.1, pp. 3-5 for background information on advanced conversion technologies]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2102 

Organization: RENTECH, INC 

Comment:

The commenter (2102.1) believes that the definition of renewable biomass should not be limiting 

and therefore should explicitly include waste streams found in Municipal Solid Waste. Every 

effort should be made to allow and encourage the use of renewable wastes that are collected as 

part of rural and municipal waste and recyclable collection programs, or as part of conventional 

municipal waste collection. These materials, tree and yard trimmings from various sources, 

waste from food production and processing (including table scraps) are truly zero carbon 

feedstocks as they are gathered in the normal course of municipal waste collection. The 

definition should also seek to sweep in other materials that are currently not economic to recycle 

but could be used in fuels production. (2102.1, pp.3-4) (See Docket Number 2102.1, p.4 for more 

discussion of this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2112.1) believes that not including MSW in the RFS2 standards eliminates 

some 140 million tons of biogenic and non-biogenic MSW materials annually. As we pursue 

3-15
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

energy independence the U.S. can not afford to turn our backs on this significant source of 

renewable energy. The commenter noted that of the roughly 56 cellulosic biofuel technologies 

currently being developed, 20 percent (nearly 160 million gallons total capacity) of these planned 

projects utilize MSW as a feedstock. (2112.1, p.5) 

The commenter also believes that the neglect of biomass from federal lands in the proposed 

RFS2 rule adds significant restrictions to the success of energy independence. Without the 

inclusion of biomass from federal lands in the RFS2 standards, the incentive to remove this 

undervalued resource from federal lands goes away. (2112.1, p.5) 

The commenter noted that most of EPA’s assumptions on advanced biofuel production are based 

on the brief history of using corn for ethanol which the regulation is moving away from. This 

rule is written for land-centric biomass (ag and forestry). It nearly ignores all the human-centric 

biomass (wastes). (2112.1, p.13) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment:

Renewable Biomass from Waste

The commenters would like EPA to consider making post-recycling residues such as the biomass 

portion of the waste material left over at material recovery facilities eligible as renewable 

biomass feedstocks. The commenters believe that these residues from recycling programs, 

separated out in the recycling process, fit within the letter and spirit of the definition of 

renewable biomass. (2129.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) recommends that EPA interpret the term “renewable biomass” as 

broadly as is reasonable, so that it includes both MSW and C&D streams as eligible feedstocks 

under the RFS2. (2132.1, p.10). 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2302 

Organization: UC Berkeley - Energy Biosciences Institute 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2302]] states that they strongly urge EPA to modify the category of renewable 

biomass, “Separated food and yard waste” to include all forms of organic municipal sold waste, 

including demolition and construction residues and food processing waste. Also they strongly 

urge EPA to add a new category of renewable biomass, “8. Plant material, including invasive 

species, removed for habitat restoration, fire mitigation, or as a result of natural disaster”. They 

further suggest that this new category be excluded from predictive assessments. Also that they 

encourage EPA to include the possibility that new forms of renewable biomass may emerge that 

3-16
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

are not specifically designated in the rule, and that they support EPA’s inclusion of CRP land as 

agricultural. 

The commenter [[2302]] also states that they encourage EPA to include rangeland as agricultural 

land, and that they encourage that EPA not set limits on fallow periods, and that abandoned 

agricultural land be included in the allowance for renewable biomass production. [[#2302 p.1-2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment: 

The commenter also states that regulated entities for several years have planned facilities based 

upon the settled expectation that biomass portions of MSW would be acceptable feedstocks 

under the RFS2 program. Indeed, much of EPA’s modeling analysis in the draft RFS2 assumes 

inclusion of some MSW within the definition of renewable biomass. We urge EPA to not upset 

these settled expectations and allow biomass portions of MSW as renewable fuel feedstock. 

[[Docket number 2310.1, p. 7] [[See docket number 2310.1, p. 6 for further discussion of this 

issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2370 

Organization: NGVAmerica 

Comment: 

The commenter (2370.1) believes that MSW, while not specifically identified under the 

definition of renewable biomass, should be counted as renewable biomass for purposes of the 

RFS Program. Even if renewable biomass does not include MSW, it is important to note that the 

definition of advanced biofuel specifically includes “biogas (including landfill gas and sewage 

waste treatment gas).” Even if MSW is somehow excluded from the general definition of 

renewable biomass, the more specific definition of advanced biofuel expressly includes 

biomethane produced from landfill gas and does not require the separation of yard waste and 

food waste at the landfill in order to qualify. (2370.1, p.7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

2. MSW: There is no policy or scientific reason why material that is renewable and biogenic in 

nature and may otherwise be discarded, should not be available as feedstock for the production 

of renewable fuels. [[Docket number 2383.1, p. 14]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2408.1) believes that EPA should clearly include the use of municipal solid 

waste (“MSW”) and industrial waste gases in its definition for biomass. By including MSW in 

its definition of renewable biomass, the EPA will maintain feedstock neutrality and enhance a 

number of various participants who otherwise would be excluded from participation. The 

commenter also urges EPA to consider defining MSW as it is defined in the Solid Waste 

3-17
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Disposal Act of 2002. This approach would harmonize the EPA’s approach with the approach 

under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. (2408.1, pp.3-4) 

The commenter also supports the inclusion of all non-recyclable waste streams found in MSW as 

well as construction and demolition and disaster debris destined for landfills. Specifically, after 

the last several natural disasters, significant amounts of refuse was available for use to produce 

biofuels at affordable cost. The commenter believes this will significantly reduce the amount of 

landfill waste, decrease total landfill methane emissions, reduce GHG impacts and extend the life 

of the existing landfills. (2408.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2475 

Organization: LanzaTech, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter urges EPA to include MSW in the definition of renewable biomass. Defining 

renewable biomass to include MSW will capitalize on the opportunity to tap into what Congress 

has identified as a valuable energy source. Additionally, by including MSW in the definition of 

renewable biomass, EPA will maintain feedstock neutrality. In short, a broad definition of 

renewable biomass which includes both MSW and industrial waste gases will further EPA’s 

goals of minimizing GHG emissions and reducing the carbon footprint. Finally, including MSW 

in the definition of renewable biomass is consistent with similar definitions in existing federal 

programs. [[Docket number 2475, p. 3]] 

The commenter also believes that EPA should define MSW as it is defined in the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act of 2002, adding that the definition of renewable biomass should explicitly include 

all non-recyclable waste streams found in MSW destined for landfills. Currently, the anaerobic 

decomposition of these wastes in landfills releases methane, a potent GHG with a global 

warming potential 21 times that of carbon dioxide. Methane emissions from landfills constitute 

34 percent of U.S. methane emissions. Even with advanced mechanisms to recover landfill gas, 

approximately 30 percent of the landfill methane emissions will still reach the atmosphere. 

Recognizing these waste streams in the definition of renewable biomass will reduce the amount 

of landfill waste, decrease total landfill methane emissions, reduce GHG emissions, and 

ultimately extend the life of existing landfills. [[Docket number 2475, pp. 3-4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2526 

Organization: Coskata 

Comment: 

The commenter (2526) urges the EPA to adopt an inclusive and attainable approach towards the 

Renewable Biomass Definition and recordkeeping requirements. This will allow the cellulosic 

biofuels industry to fully achieve its potential for reducing greenhouse gases. The commenter 

makes the following points: 

- Waste streams should specifically include MSW and C&D waste. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2532 

Organization: BioEnergy Producers Association 

Comment: 

3-18
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2532) notes that the implied requirement that only source separated food waste 

or green waste will qualify for RINs and RFS2, which they believe is based upon a flawed 

interpretation of the intent of federal statute, will place feedstock source separation and 

regulatory reporting responsibilities on the shoulders of this industry that will meaningfully stifle 

its development—whereas it is beneficial to the nation, both from an environmental and energy 

recovery point of view, to encourage the production of advanced biofuels from the complete 

range of carbonaceous materials that are now being placed in landfills. [[Docket number 2532, p. 

2 and 2539, p. 1]] [[See docket numbers 2532, pp. 3-4 and 2539, p. 1 for discussion of food 

waste, nonrecycleable paper, construction and demolition lumber, methane, urban waste, and 

conversion technologies.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2534 

Organization: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

Comment: 

The commenter (2534) believes that the final rule should specifically allow MSW that contains 

yard waste or food waste to qualify as renewable biomass. Although additional analysis is 

needed, it is likely that the conversion of MSW to biofuel provides significant Greenhouse Gas 

(GHG) benefit compared to landfilling. (2534, p.1) 

The commenter also believes that the final rule should not require that both yard waste aid food 

waste be present in the MSW for it to qualify. By replacing “and” with “or” the rule will fully 

facilitate the use of MSW for biofuel. This clarification is also supported by the EISA definition, 

which uses “separated yard waste or food waste” rather than separated yard waste and food 

waste, as listed in the proposed rule. (2534, p.2) 

 

The commenter noted that the processing of MSW into a biofuel involves technology, which can 

utilize both the fossil and nonfossil portions of the MSW. The rule should clarify that both 

portions will qualify as renewable biomass because of the significant potential for GHG benefits 

from using all of the feedstock. By allowing the fossil portions of the MSW to be counted as 

renewable biomass, the EPA will provide an incentive to use MSW in a way that could achieve 

greater GHG benefits and reduce future landfill disposal. In the event that EPA chooses not to 

include both fossil and non-fossil portions of MSW in the final definition of renewable biomass, 

the commenter suggests that the final rule include, at a minimum, the nonfossil portion. The 

commenter also believes that the final rule should not require the non-fossil portion to be 

separated from the remaining MSW prior to processing, but rather acknowledge that the 

separation requirement of the statute can be accounted for through the testing of the final fuel 

product in accordance with recognized scientific methods such as ASTM test method D-6866. 

(2534, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2047 

Organization: Terrabon 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2071]] states that with the expected number of facilities Terrabon expects to 

build, the commenter believes the reduction in GHG emissions will be 4.5 million tons by 2015 

and 8.0 million tons by 2022. These GHG emission reductions would be even greater as other 

companies use different technologies to convert MSW to biofuels. [[#2071.1 p.6]] 

3-19
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2549 

Organization: Triton Energy LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2549.1) noted that the definition of “fallow land” may be in line with 

terminology used within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), however 

marginal lands, lands that are not suitable for agriculture represent potential areas for growing 

energy crops. Given the large volumes of biofuel that will be required to fulfill RFS2, all land 

and resources possible, including MSW, will be required unless or until there are major 

advancements with algae oils or cellulosic biofuels. (2549.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2156 

Organization: Georgia Forestry Commission 

Comment:

The commenter (2156) recommends that demolition wood waste, construction wood wastes and 

wood product manufacturing wood wastes in addition to backyard waste should be included in 

the definition of renewable biomass. (2156.1 p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA should promote the use of landfill gas, which may be 

transported through common carrier pipelines. EPA should include the use of methane from 

animal wastes and landfill gas, including methane transported through common carrier pipelines, 

as part of the pathways in the final rule implementing the RFS2 program. (2329.1, p. 99-100) 

Our Response: 

 The majority of commenters stated that MSW should be considered as renewable 

biomass. American Petroleum Institute and Marathon Petroleum Company felt it should not be. 

They argued that since EPAct of 2005 included MSW and EISA specifically did not, renewable 

biomass is limited only to the separated yard and food waste portion of MSW. 

Generally, commenters supporting the use of MSW in producing qualifying fuels under 

EISA, favored either 1) a determination that unsorted MSW can be used as a feedstock for 

advanced biofuel even if it does not meet the definition of renewable biomass, 2) that the Act be 

interpreted to include MSW as renewable biomass, or 3) that MSW from which varying amounts 

of recyclable materials have been removed could qualify as renewable biomass. Clean Air Task 

Force et al. said that for EISA volume mandates to be met, it is important to take advantage of 

biomass resources from urban wastes that would otherwise be landfilled. They urged that postrecycling residues would fit within the letter and spirit of the definition of renewable biomass. 

Fulcrum Energy, New Planet Energy, Enerkem and Bioenergy Producers Association 

argued that the statute can be reasonably interpreted to allow advanced biofuel to be made from 

material that does not meet the definition of renewable biomass. We do not agree with the 

argument because the definition of advanced biofuel specifies that it is a form of “renewable 

fuel,” and renewable fuel is defined in the statute as fuel that is made from renewable biomass. 

3-20
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

While the definition of advanced biofuel includes a list of materials that “may” be “eligible for 

consideration” as advanced biofuel, and that list includes “ethanol derived from waste materials” 

and biogas “including landfill gas,” the fact that the specified items are “eligible for 

consideration” indicates that they do not necessarily qualify but must meet the definitional 

requirements – being “renewable fuel” made from renewable biomass and having life cycle 

greenhouse gas emissions that are at least 50% less than baseline fuel. There is nothing in the 

statute to suggest that Congress used the term “renewable fuel” in the definition of “advanced 

biofuel” to have a different meaning than the definition provided in the statute. The result of the 

commenter’s approach would be that general renewable fuel and cellulosic biofuel would be 

required to be made from renewable biomass because the definitions of those terms specifically 

refer to renewable biomass, whereas advanced biofuel and biomass-based diesel would not, 

because their definitions refer to “renewable fuel” rather than “renewable biomass.” EPA can 

discern no basis for such a distinction. EPA believes that the Act as a whole is best interpreted 

as requiring all types of qualifying renewable fuels under EISA to be made from renewable 

biomass. In this manner the land and feedstock restrictions that Congress deemed important in 

the context of biofuel production apply to all types of renewable fuels. 

EPA also does not agree with Fulcrum Energy’s argument that the listing in the 

definition of renewable biomass of “biomass obtained from the immediate vicinity of buildings 

and other areas regularly occupied by people, or of public infrastructure, at risk from wildfire” 

should be interpreted to include MSW. It is clear that the term “at risk of wildfire” modifies the 

entire sentence, and the purpose of the listing is to make the biomass that is removed in wildfire 

minimization efforts, such as brush and dead woody material, available for renewable fuel 

production. Such material does not typically include MSW. Had Congress intended to include 

MSW in the definition of renewable biomass, EPA believes it would have clearly done so, in a 

manner similar to the approach taken in EPAct, as Marathon Petroleum and API both argue. 

EPA also does not believe that it would be reasonable to interpret the reference to “separated 

yard or food waste” to include unsorted MSW. Although MSW contains yard and food waste, 

such an approach would not give meaning to the word “separated.” 

 The Clean Air Task Force et al stated that residues from recycling programs, separated 

out in the recycling process, fit within the letter and spirit of the statutory definition of renewable 

biomass. Also, the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County argued that EPA could 

ensure that plastics and other non-biogenic and fossil components of MSW are minimized. The 

commenter suggested that waste collected in municipalities that had curbside recycling or other 

comparable programs be considered separated for purposes of the definition of “separated yard 

and food waste.” Such an approach would leave to municipalities and waste handlers a 

determination of how much waste should be recycled before the residue was used as a feedstock 

for renewable fuel production. EPA believes that such an approach would not guarantee 

sufficient “separation” from MSW of materials that are not yard waste or food waste to give 

meaning to the statutory text. Nevertheless, the suggestion that the non-biogenic and fossil 

components of MSW be minimized has merit. We believe it is reasonable to interpret the word 

“separated” in the term “separated yard or food waste” to refer to the degree of separation that is 

practicable. Material recovered from waste streams is typically sold to companies that will 

recycle the material. EPA believes that the MSW-derived residue remaining after reasonably 

practicable efforts to separate out recyclable materials should be considered separated yard and 

food waste and, therefore, renewable biomass. The final rule adopts this approach. This MSW3-21
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

derived residue would include some amount of residual non-recyclable plastic and rubber of 

fossil fuel origin, much of it being wrapping and packaging material for food. Since this material 

cannot be practicably separated from the remaining food and yard waste, EPA believes it is 

appropriate to include it in the category of separated food and yard waste. In sum, EPA believes 

that the residue remaining after paper, cardboard, plastic, textiles, metal and glass have been 

removed for recycling should qualify as renewable biomass. This interpretation is consistent 

with the text of the statute, and will promote the productive use of materials that would otherwise 

be landfilled. It will also further the goals of EISA in promoting energy independence and the 

reduction of GHG emissions from transportation fuels. 

Producers using this second option, will need to determine what RINs to assign to a fuel 

that is derived from a variety of materials, including yard waste (largely cellulosic) and food 

waste (largely starches and sugar), as well as incidental materials remaining after reasonably 

practical separation efforts such as plastic and rubber of fossil origin. EPA has not yet evaluated 

the lifecycle greenhouse gas performance of fuel made from such mixed sources, so is unable at 

this time to assign a D code for such fuel. The final rule, however, requires ASTM test method 

D-6866 to be applied to the fuel made from MSW-derived feedstock. Through this method, 

producers can determine what portion of the fuel is of biogenic origin. That biogenic portion of 

the fuel will likely be largely derived from cellulosic materials (yard waste, textiles and 

construction materials), and to a much smaller extent starch-based materials (non-cellulosic food 

wastes). (See Tables 1 and 3 in EPA's "Municipal Solid Wastes in the United States, 2007 Facts 

and Figures.) Unfortunately, EPA is not aware of a test method that is able to distinguish 

between cellulosic- and starch-derived renewable fuel. Under these circumstances, EPA believes 

that it is appropriate for producers to base RIN assignment on the predominant component and, 

therefore, to assume that the biogenic portion of their fuel is entirely of cellulosic origin. The, 

non-biogenic portion of the fuel, however, would not qualify for RINs at this time Thus, we are 

providing via the ASTM testing method an opportunity for producers using a MSW-derived 

feedstock to generate RINs only for the biogenic portion of their renewable fuel, and to assign a 

D code of 3 (cellulosic biofuel) to such portion. There is no D code for the remaining fossilderived fraction of the fuel in the final rule. There is also no D code applicable to the entire 

volume of renewable fuel produced when using MSW-derived residue as a feedstock. The 

petition process for assigning such codes in the final rule can be used for such purpose. 

NGV America suggested that biogas from landfills should be treated in the same manner 

as renewable fuel produced from MSW. EPA agrees with the commenter to a certain extent. The 

definition of “advanced biofuels” in EISA identifies “Biogas (including landfill gas and sewage 

waste treatment gas) produced through the conversion of organic matter from renewable 

biomass” as “eligible for consideration” as an advanced biofuel. However, as with MSW, the 

statute requires that advanced biofuel be a “renewable fuel” and that such fuel be made from 

“renewable biomass.” The closest reference within the definition of renewable biomass to 

landfill material is “separated yard or food waste.” However, in applying the interpretation of 

“separated” described above for MSW to landfill material, we come to a different result. 

Landfill material has by design been put out of practical human reach. It has been disposed of in 

locations, and in a manner, that is designed to be permanent. For example, modern landfills are 

placed over impermeable liners and sealed with a permanent cap. In addition, the food and yard 

waste present in a landfill has over time become intermingled to an extraordinary extent. This 

occurs in the process of waste collection, shipment, and disposal, and subsequently through 

3-22
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

waste decay, leaching and movement within the landfill. Additionally, we note that the process 

of biogas formation in a landfill provides some element of separation, in that it is formed only 

from the biogenic components of landfill material, including but not strictly limited to food and 

yard waste. Thus, food and yard wastes are effected a significant degree of separation from other 

landfill materials through the process of biogas formation. As a result of the intermixing of 

wastes, the fact that biogas is formed only from the biogenic portion of landfill material, and the 

fact that landfill material is as a practical matter inaccessible for further separation, EPA believes 

that biogas should be considered as produced from separated yard and food waste for purposes of 

EISA. Therefore, we agree with the commenter that all biogas from landfills is eligible for RIN 

generation 

A number of commenters asked that additional waste streams be considered renewable 

biomass, including construction and demolition wastes industrial waste gases, and invasive 

species removed from lands for various beneficial purposes. However, EISA lists materials that 

are eligible for consideration as renewable biomass, and EPA does not believe that these waste 

categories fit within the statutory structure. 

Comments regarding the lands from which renewable biomass may be obtained are 

addressed in Section 3.3 of this document. 

3.2.3 Advanced Biofuel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2303 

Organization: American Bakers Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2303.1) believes that EPA should restructure the RFS2 to accelerate the 

development of advanced biofuels. Modifying the food-to-fuel mandates and restructuring the 

RFS2 to give priority to advanced biofuels would limit the diversion of food to fuel. The 

commenter encourages EPA to freeze mandates for conventional biofuels, and establish an “offramp” that would automatically reduce the RFS2 for corn based ethanol in years when too much 

food will be diverted to fuel. The commenter does not support efforts to fill the deficit created 

by an inadequate supply of advanced biofuels with conventional biofuels. (2303.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2504 

Organization: American Frozen Food Institute 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2504]] states that EPA should restructure the RFS to accelerate the 

development of advanced biofuels. Modifying the food-to-fuel mandates and restructuring the 

RFS2 to give priority to advanced biofuels would limit the diversion of food to fuel. And that 

implementing the RFS2 proposal would pose economic harm by significantly increasing the cost 

of food. [[see #2504.1 p.1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2309 

3-23
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Organization: Grocery Manufacturers Association, National Council of Chain 

Restaurants, and Snack Food Association 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2309]] urges EPA to restructure the RFS to give priority to advanced biofuels 

and to limit the diversion of food and feed to fuel. The Clean Air Act provides EPA with the 

power to waive the requirements of the RFS, in whole or in part, if implementation of the RFS 

would severely harm the economy or the environment. [[#2309.1.p.1]] 

Our Response: 

 These comments are really comments on the CAA provisions in EISA and not on our 

implementing regulations. EISA establishes the required volumes of each type of renewable 

fuel, and EPA regulations are designed to create a program to implement and enforce those 

volume requirements. As the commenters note, however, EPA is granted authority to waive 

volume mandates specified in the statute under certain conditions. EPA intends to monitor the 

effect of EISA implementation on the economy and will consider waiving volume requirements 

if circumstances warrant. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2422 

Organization: North American Affairs Committee of the International DME Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2422) petitions EPA to specifically include DME as motor fuel in its 

rulemaking. Many scientific tests have proven the merits of DME as motor fuel. DME is a 

clean, colorless gas, with high ignition quality, which is easy to liquefy and transport which 

makes it an ideal diesel fuel replacement, suitable for passenger cars, trucks and buses. The 

commenter believes it offers great potential as a fuel for diesel vehicles due to its high cetane 

number and environmental benefits (no soot, particulates or sulfur emissions). When made from 

coal, natural gas or biomass, DME lowers CO and NOx emissions slowing global warming. 

Moreover only modest engine modifications are required to use DME and such equipment is 

available today. Extensive testing of advanced transportation fuels including DME has been 

funded by government agencies. The results have proven the benefits of DME and methanol as 

excellent low-carbon motor fuels. [[Docket number 2422.1, pp. 2-3]] 

The commenter adds that various academic institutions that specialize in biofuels have confirmed 

the merits of DME as a superior transportation fuel. Their testing confirms that these fuels have 

low-carbon footprint and among the lowest green house gas emissions. 

Leading global vehicle manufacturers have studied the performance of various renewable fuels 

and find DME to be among the best biofuels in terms of performance, climate impact and energy 

efficiency. [[Docket number 2422.1, p. 4]] 

Our Response: 

3-24
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

This rulemaking is not approving fuels for use as motor vehicle fuels. Rather, those fuels 

that meet all the other requisite requirements under the CAA and also meet the requirements 

under 211(o) for renewable fuels as implemented through the final RFS2 regulations are allowed 

to generate RINs under the RFS2 program. 

3.2.4 Cellulosic Biofuel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0953 

Organization: Great River Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (0953) believes that the proposed new Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS2) 

definition and criteria has eliminated “other waste materials...and...otherwise used to displace 

90% or more of the fossil fuel normally used in the production of ethanol” from the definition of 

Cellulosic biofuel. The commenter feels that this change deals a serious financial blow to 

owners and operators of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants and their renewable fuel 

partners. (P.1) 

The commenter notes that the new definition would shift some of the current “Cellulosic biofuel” 

volumes into the conventional biofuel category, making it more difficult to achieve future 

volumetric requirements. Eliminating the incremental RINs for each gallon produced from steam 

fired conventional ethanol plants that no longer qualify under the proposed “Cellulosic biofuel” 

definition, impedes the ability of power plants and other combined heat and power (CHP) 

operations to attract new renewable fuel partners to utilize excess thermal energy and steam 

rather than relying on the incremental combustion of primary fuel to drive the conversion process 

to biofuels. (P.1) 

The commenter strongly advocates adding a simple steam fired CHP provision to the qualifying 

definition of Cellulosic biofuel. This additional provision would make a meaningful contribution 

toward improving energy independence and domestic security by promoting co-location of 

renewable, advanced and cellulosic biofuels with new or existing combined heat and power 

(CHP) plants without increasing the combustion of primary fuels. (P.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2362 

Organization: Canopy Prospecting, Inc. and Trinidad Dehydration Company, Limited 

Comment: 

The commenter (2362) believes that EPA should consider a waiver of the Cellulosic Biofuel 

mandated description of a renewable fuel from any cellulosic, hemicellulosic, or lignin source so 

as to include cane ethanol especially since its bagasse by-product is usually used in power 

generation as well as for a new source of cane derived ethanol. Such a waiver would reduce the 

proposed 60% reduction to 50% in the case of cellulosic ethanol for baseline lifecycle GHG 

emissions. With such a modification any current projected shortfall for mandated volumes of 

cellulosic ethanol would be replaced with superior advanced biofuels that meet the 50% 

reduction goal. [[Docket number 2362.1, p. 2]] 

3-25
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Our Response: 

 These comments are really comments on the CAA provisions in EISA and not on our 

implementing regulations. In EISA, Congress eliminated the provision in EPAct that allowed 

ethanol to be considered cellulosic biomass ethanol if produced in plants that use waste materials 

to displace 90 percent or more of the fossil fuel normally used in the production of ethanol. 

Thus, there is no such provision under the new definition of cellulosic biofuel, and the statute 

does not provide EPA with the authority to modify the new definition. The statute also does not 

allow EPA to provide other mechanisms for starch- or sugar-derived ethanol to be considered 

cellulosic. However, the final rule does recognize that ethanol made from “cellulosic biomass 

from agricultural residues” achieves the 60% GHG reduction threshold required of cellulosic 

biofuel. Therefore, if the agricultural residues are renewable biomass, such fuel would be 

eligible for cellulosic biofuel RINs. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2549 

Organization: Triton Energy LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2549.1) noted that while the new statute more accurately defines cellulosic 

biofuel, not providing incentives to existing ethanol producers to have a lower environmental 

impact ensures that the industry will remain status quo given that it has been grandfathered. 

While 2.5 RINs may be too high under the new program, the commenter believes that there 

should be some incentives to the ethanol industry to improve its environmental footprint. 

(2549.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2369 

Organization: New Generation Biofuels (NGBF) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2369) states that while the new statute more accurately defines cellulosic 

biofuel, not providing incentives to existing ethanol producers to have a lower environmental 

impact ensures that the industry will remain status quo given that it has been grandfathered. 

While 2.5 RINs may be too high under the new program, the commenter believes that there 

should be some incentives to the ethanol industry to improve its environmental footprint. 

[[Docket number 2369.1, p. 1]] 

Our Response: 

 As discussed in response to the comments above, EPA does not have the authority to 

amend the statutory definition of cellulosic biofuel in EISA. Nevertheless, we believe that 

incentives will still exist to improve the lifecycle GHG performance of grandfathered renewable 

fuel volumes. An incentive continues in the marketplace to reduce energy related costs in 

producing fuels, which would also tend to improve GHG performance. In addition, any facility 

3-26
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

expansions beyond the baseline volume will require that the expanded volume meet the lifecycle 

thresholds. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2502 

Organization: Verenium Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2502.1) believes that EPA should modify its definition of eligible feedstocks for 

cellulosic biofuels production. To ensure consistent treatment and avoid undue discrimination 

among these various types of biomass, a different definition along the following lines would be 

more suitable: 

”Cellulose and hemicellulose from agricultural residues (for example, including but not 

limited to corn stover, wheat straw, rice straw, and sugarcane bagasse); planted grasses; planted 

trees, slash and pre-commercial thinnings; and yard waste.” (2502.1, p.5) 

Our Response: 

 We do not believe that a new definition is needed. The statutory definition specifies that 

cellulosic biofuel be renewable fuel derived from any cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin that is 

derived from renewable biomass. It is clear from the reference to “any” cellulose, hemicellulose 

or lignin that the sources of cellulose and hemicellulose that the commenter cites are included. 

3.2.5 Biomass-Based Diesel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment: 

The commenter (0994.1) believes that Renewable Jet Fuel needs to be included in the discussion 

on Advanced Biofuels, and should state that for Renewable Jet Fuel to qualify as Advanced 

Biofuel it must use animal fats or waste greases as the feedstock. The discussion should also 

specify that Renewable Jet Fuel produced from vegetable oils (and palm oils) are not classified 

as Advanced Biofuel but are classified as Other Renewable Biofuel. The same discussion in 

Biomass-based Diesel on co-processing in section III.B.1.d should be repeated in the Advanced 

Biofuel section for Renewable Jet Fuel. (0994.1, p.4) 

Our Response: 

 Renewable fuel that is used for jet fuel may fall into multiple renewable fuel categories 

depending on its feedstock and lifecycle performance. Several pathways have been specified in 

the regulations in §80.1426, while others will need to be added at a later date. However, the 

3-27
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

restrictions suggested by the commenters on what can qualify or not qualify as advanced would 

be inconsistent with the requirements under the Act, and as such we do not have authority to 

impose such restrictions. Renewable jet fuel does not have to be produced from animal fats or 

waste greases for it to be considered an advanced biofuel, especially given the lifecycle results 

now developed for the final rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1044) believes the definitions at §80.1401 are incomplete and offers the 

following recommendation: 

Non-Ester Renewable Diesel—the commenter proposes the definition of Non-Ester Renewable 

Diesel to include the federally defined standards of both ASTM 975, as amended for 

transportation fuel, and ASTM 396 for heating oil applications. In addition, the standard for 

aviation (jet fuel) should be included. The commenter proposes the language change to state (3) 

intended for use as transportation fuel, home heating oil or jet fuel and (4) to read &derived from 

renewable biomass sources. 

Their recommendation is based upon the fact the EISA changed the definition of the fuels and 

the current definition does not codify the change. The language for item (5) does not correlate 

with reference to §80.1426 and conflicts with §80.1426 table 1. 

The commenter also feels the D code qualifier is inaccurate because renewable diesels can be 

made with advance techniques other than hydro-cracking and thermal depolymerization. This is 

supported by other companies being approved by the agency with technologies other than those 

mentioned this year. The commenter believes these changes are warranted to accurately reflect 

the intent of the EISA to capture transportation and alternate fuels as defined. [[Docket number 

1044.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2099 

Organization: Honeywell International, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2099.1) believes that EPA should include green diesel meeting ASTM D975 

fuel specifications in its definition of biomass-based diesel. (2099.1, p.13) (See Docket Number 

2099.1, pp.13-14 for more discussion on this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2377 

Organization: National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) 

Comment: 

NSWMA is concerned about the impact of these new biofuels on engine performance. We urge 

EPA to mandate that cellulosic biofuels conform with ASTM’s specification D-975 for diesel 

fuels. 

3-28
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response: 

 We do not believe that the definition of renewable diesel or cellulosic diesel should 

include the ASTM specifications in D-975 for diesel fuel. There may be renewable fuels or fuel 

additives that are or will be approved for use in diesel engines, but which nevertheless do not 

meet all specifications in ASTM D-975. In addition, heating oil and jet fuel are already defined 

in §80.2. The definition of renewable fuel in §80.1401 requires such fuel to be made from 

renewable biomass, and be used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a 

transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel. Thus, §80.1401 codifies the changes in definitions 

required by EISA, and these definitions apply to all RFS2 provisions in Subpart M. 

 The final lookup table in §80.1426(f) is more general that the one proposed in the NPRM 

with respect to required elements of the renewable diesel production process. Moreover, insofar 

as the lookup table does not specify a D code for a particular production pathway, a party can 

petition the Agency for assignment of a D code through the provisions of §80.1416. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2147 

Organization: Engine Manufacturers Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2147.1) suggests that the final rule provide that any “neat” biodiesel used for 

biodiesel/petroleum diesel blends be blended at a rate consistent with applicable industry 

standards and manufacturers’ guidelines. (Page 11) 

Our Response: 

 The Agency would prefer that these issues be handled and addressed by industry outside 

of EPA rulemaking to the extent possible, particularly if they relate more to vehicle performance 

issues rather than to emission performance. The final RFS2 regulations allow biodiesel to be 

blended at any level and still be valid for RFS2 compliance purposes so long as it is used as 

transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel. If necessary, we may address these issues through 

future rulemaking efforts. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment: 

While the commenter (2249.2) generally supports the definition of biomass-based diesel, they 

urge consistency for purposes of complying with multiple federal agencies and recommends 

EPA utilize the most updated version of the ASTM standard, which would make the definition 

consistent with IRS tax guidance. (Docket number 2249.2, p. 10) 

3-29
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Our Response: 

We have included the most recent version of ASTM D-6751 in the definition of biodiesel 

in §80.1401. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment: 

With regards to the “Biomass-based Diesel and Non-ester Renewable Diesel” definitions, the 

commenter (2132.1) recommends allowing “non-ester renewable diesel” to retain its chemically 

natural interpretation as being something other than biodiesel and moving the code qualification 

from this definition to Biomass-based Diesel, for a parallel construction of the two types of 

biomass-based diesel. This change will make both definitions internally consistent and less 

confusing, and it will improve flexibility in the event of future policy changes. (2132.1, p.9) 

The commenter urges EPA to clarify that renewable fuels in general and non-ester renewable 

diesel fuel in particular exclude non-hydrogenated vegetable oils. This change is needed to 

ensure that only hydrogenated vegetable oils which undergo processing to remove oxygen and 

thus are fully compatible with typical diesel fuel vehicles may be used to produce non-ester 

renewable diesel. (2132.1, p.9) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2099 

Organization: Honeywell International, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2099.1) believes that EPA should revise the definitions of renewable fuel 

categories to include categories of advanced biofuels able to meet EISA objectives and provide 

certainty regarding appropriate RIN credits. (2099.1, p.12) (The commenter’s proposed 

definition revisions can be found in Docket Number 2099.1, p.29) 

The commenter believes that the definition of non-ester renewable diesel should be revised to 

include fuel that qualifies for a D code of 2 or higher. (2099.1, p.14) (See Docket Number 

2099.1, pp.14-15 for more discussion on this issue) 

Our Response: 

 We agree that the definitions of biodiesel, non-ester renewable diesel, and biomass-based 

diesel were not clear in the NPRM. They have been revised for this final rule to clarify that 

biodiesel and non-ester renewable diesel are two different types of fuel that both meet the 

requirements for biomass-based diesel. EPA, however, does not have authority under EISA to 

revise the definition of advanced biofuels to include additional categories of fuel beyond those 

specified in the Act. Moreover, we do not believe it would be appropriate to specify that 

advanced biofuels include "green gasoline" as that term is not defined elsewhere in the 

3-30
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

regulations, and regardless the lookup table in §80.1426(f) identifies the specific types of fuels 

that qualify as advanced biofuel. We do not believe that the definition of renewable diesel 

should include ASTM D-975, as some renewable diesels or diesel additives are or may be 

approved for use in diesel engines even though they do not meet all aspects of D-975. Finally, 

we do not believe that non-ester renewable diesel should be allowed to be assigned a D code of 2 

“or higher” as this would provide producers with inappropriate market power. 

 The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers suggests that renewable fuels in general and 

non-ester renewable diesel fuel in particular exclude non-hydrogenated vegetable oils. We are 

not authorized to make such a change because the Clean Air Act (CAA) allows credit under 

211(o) for any qualifying renewable fuel. Accordingly, our RFS2 regulations must as well. It is 

important to note, however, that qualifying as renewable under RFS2 does not constitute 

qualification as a fuel under the CAA. To be a fuel, it must still satisfy any other applicable 

requirements under the CAA, including 211(f). Under present EPA policy, we will allow for the 

use of vegetable oil as an additive at up to 5% in petroleum diesel fuel for use in motor vehicles. 

3.2.5.1 Definition of Co-processed 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2124.1) supports EPA’s proposal for defining renewable diesel as co-processed 

or not co-processed. The commenter also supports EPA’s proposed definition of co-processed. 

This definition enables manufacturers of non-ester renewable diesel to categorize their product as 

biomass-based diesel by choosing to operate existing or modified equipment in a blocked out or 

sequential operation rather than processing the renewable feedstock simultaneously with 

petroleum feedstock. The definition also provides additional flexibility to meet the biomassbased diesel requirement in the most cost effective manner. (2124.1, p.21) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment: 

The commenter (2154.1) supports EPA’s proposed definition of co-processed renewable diesel. 

The proposed definition would allow producers of non-ester renewable diesel to categorize their 

product as biomass-based diesel by choosing to operate existing or modified equipment in a 

blocked out or sequential operation rather than processing the renewable feedstock 

simultaneously with petroleum feedstock. (2154.1, p.8) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment: 

3-31
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter (0994.1) supports EPA’s definition of co-processing and agrees that the end 

product classification, Advanced Biofuel or Other Renewable Biofuel, must depend on the GHG 

reduction of the biomass feedstock. (0994.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0999 

Organization: Darling International Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2151.1) believes that co-processing of biomass feedstock and petroleum 

products in the same unit (“Co-mingling”) is not the proper scenario to decrease our nation’s 

dependence on imported sources of petroleum or meet Congressional renewable fuel mandates. 

Simply utilizing existing hydro-treating capacity available for processing crude oil does not 

increase our nation’s “refining” capacity and in no way lessens our dependence on foreign oil. If 

the EPA were to allow this as an option, further development of the industry would be “on hold” 

as potential investors of new units designed to convert biomass feedstock into renewable diesel 

would have to wait to see if the difficult technical issues associated with Co-mingling could be 

overcome. (2151.1, p.2) 

The commenter does support the definition for “Co-processed” in the NPRM because it allows 

an alternative to the traditional uses of a petroleum hydrotreater, reduces the risk profile for the 

construction of new renewable diesel capacity and encourages investment in renewable fuel 

development and production. At the same time, the definition does not promote or encourage 

“Co-mingling” as a solution to meeting RFS2's biomass-based diesel volume mandates. (2151.1, 

p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2106 

Organization: Endicott Biofuels II, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2106) recommends that EPA choose option 2 whereby only processing in 

dedicated hydrotreating equipment can be considered as valid for compliance with production of 

biomass-based diesel. This is the most practical option in our opinion since it is unlikely that the 

same equipment would be able to readily switch from renewable feedstocks to petroleum without 

change out of catalysts and/or other critical processing equipment. It is also recommended for 

compliance purposes that the renewable portion of the fuel be held in a separate storage vessel 

until such time as it can be certified and not be blended with petroleum diesel until final 

certification. This should also be the case where further processing such as isomerization or 

other pre or post hydrotreating steps occur. These criteria should also be strongly considered 

where the finished product is renewable aviation fuels. [[Docket number 2106.1, p. 3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment: 

The commenter (2132.1) believes that the “co-processed” definition will help those newer 

biofuels that can be produced at refineries, blended interchangeably with diesel fuel and are 

compatible with vehicle technologies and existing infrastructure. (2132.1, p.9) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2127 

3-32
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: Caterpillar Inc. 

Comment: 

 The commenter (2127) encourages the EPA to reconsider the co-processing position. 

Processing virgin plant oils, used oils and greases in refineries results in a renewable fuel that is a 

drop-in replacement in the engines and that reduces, or eliminates, the risks of engine 

incompatibility. The commenter believes the exclusion of co-processed fuel from consideration 

as a renewable fuel can result in undue production burden and discourages the production of this 

fuel by refining pathway. Table V.B4-3 of the NPRM shows the significant volume currently 

co-processed with petroleum and shows a projected decrease in volume from new facilities due 

to the current Proposed Rule. [[Docket number 2127.1, p. 10]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2249.2) recommends that the statutory definition of Biomass-based Diesel 

expressly exclude biomass co-processed with petroleum feedstock. EPA seeks comments on two 

options to deal with this exclusion. The commenter (2249.2) supports the second option because 

it fulfills the intent of Congress. The 1 billion gallon requirement for Biomass-based Diesel was 

based on estimates of biodiesel capacity in the United States, which is currently 2.69 billion 

gallons. By excluding co-processing in the definition, Congress clearly did not intend for coprocessed renewable diesel produced by conventional petroleum refiners to qualify as Biomassbased Diesel under the RFS2 program. There is no principled reason for EPA to treat refineries 

that happen to separate the feedstocks and then mix the fuels later to allow the fuel to be 

considered Biomass-based Diesel. Thus, EPA should exclude any renewable diesel coproduced 

at refineries from the definition of Biomass-based Diesel, and implement the second option. 

(docket number 2249.2, pp. 10-11) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2310) believes that in order to more clearly demonstrate that only certain types 

of co-processed fuels do not qualify as biomass-based diesel, EPA should alter the biomass 

based diesel definition to read “renewable fuel that is simultaneously processed with petroleum 

feedstock in the same unit or units is not biomass-based diesel.” EPA could then eliminate the 

definition of “co-processed,” which the commenter believes is confusing in its own right as it is 

limited to petroleum co-processing. [[Docket number 2310.1, p. 15]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2425 

Organization: PetroAlgae 

Comment: 

The commenter (2425) strongly disagrees with the definition of co-processing and the exclusion 

of biomass-based diesel if co-processing occurs. The definition as included in RFS2 will remove 

any possibility of manufacturing biomass-based diesel at refineries. This must seriously be 

evaluated and reconsidered. The commenter believes that the definition of co-processing must 

be changed, because it is not feasible as written and will limit biomass-based diesel processed 

3-33
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

through oil refineries. [[Docket number 2425.1, pp. 4 and 8]] [[See docket number 2425.1, pp. 4-

5 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response:

Commenters were split between allowing biomass-based diesel to be processed in the 

same equipment at a refinery provided that fossil fuel was not processed at the same time, and 

allowing processing only in dedicated equipment. Darling International, Endicott Biofuels, and 

the National Biodiesel Board favored the second option. We note that changes in refinery 

capacity are not a requirement or goal in EISA as it relates to the production of biomass-based 

diesel under RFS2. Nevertheless, our country is currently shutting down refining capacity. 

Allowing petroleum refining equipment to instead produce renewable fuels would be both 

financially and environmentally responsible and in keeping with the intent of EISA to reduce 

dependence on foreign supplies of fuel. 

 The National Biodiesel Board states that “There is no principled reason for EPA to treat 

refineries that happen to separate the feedstocks and then mix the fuels later to allow the fuel to 

be considered Biomass-based Diesel.” EISA is clear that co-processing of renewable biomass 

and petroleum precludes the product from being categorized as biomass-based diesel, but says 

nothing about mixtures of renewable fuels and petroleum-based fuels after processing. Our final 

regulations implement the requirements of statute. 

We selected the first option to be used in the final rule. We believe this is the most 

straightforward approach and an appropriate one, given that it would allow RINs to be generated 

for volumes of fuel meeting the 50% GHG reduction threshold that is derived from renewable 

biomass, while not providing any credit for fuel derived from petroleum sources. In addition, 

this approach avoids the need for potentially complex provisions addressing how fuel should be 

treated when existing or even mothballed petroleum hydrotreating equipment is retrofitted and 

placed into new service for renewable fuel production or vice versa. 

 

 Under the final rule, any fuel that does not satisfy the definition of biomass-based diesel 

only because it is co-processed with petroleum will still meet the definition of “Advanced 

Biofuel” provided it meets the 50% GHG threshold and other criteria for the D code of 5. 

Similarly it will meet the definition of renewable fuel if it meets a GHG emission reduction 

threshold of 20%. In neither case, however, will it meet the definition of biomass-based diesel. 

 This restriction is only really an issue for renewable diesel and biodiesel produced via the 

fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) process. For other forms of biodiesel, it is never made through 

any sort of co-processing with petroleum. Producers of renewable diesel must therefore specify 

whether or not they use “co-processing” to produce the fuel in order to determine the correct D 

code for the RIN. 

3.2.5.2 Algae 

What Commenters Said: 

3-34
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2425 

Organization: PetroAlgae 

Comment: 

The commenter (2425) states that although the definition of biomass diesel includes micro-algae, 

it does not specifically include the more broad definition of micro-crops. Limiting the definition 

will limit advancement in biofuel. [[Docket number 2425.1, pp. 3 and 8]] [[See docket number 

2425.1, pp 3-4 for further discussion of algae and micro-crops.]] 

Our Response: 

 As discussed in Section II.B.4 of the preamble, we have modified the definition of 

“planted crops” to specifically reference duckweed and, more broadly, any crop intentionally 

applied to a tank, pond or other growth medium. Thus, these micro-crops can qualify as 

renewable biomass under the same conditions as other planted crops such as corn or soy. Algae 

are separately listed in the definition of renewable biomass. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2490 

Organization: Sapphire Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2490) notes that the current version of the RFS, including the amendments 

made by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, does not provide parity for algaebased fuels. This lack of parity, which must be addressed through changes to EISA itself and is 

beyond the scope of the present rulemaking proceeding, limits the ability of the current RFS 

program to fully encourage the development of algae-based fuel. [[Docket number 2490.1, pp. 1-

2]] 

The commenter adds that algae-based fuels are also presumptively excluded from the remaining 

portion of the RFS. While the law does not specify that the first 15 billion gallons of the RFS 

must be comprised of corn-based ethanol, existing market conditions are such that conventional 

ethanol will likely comprise all of it. Furthermore, Congress has grandfathered corn ethanol 

production facilities built prior to 2009 that meet a requisite 20 percent GHG reduction 

threshold, further ensuring that corn ethanol will survive environmental scrutiny. Therefore, as a 

practical matter, the RFS will start with 15 billion gallons of conventional, corn-based ethanol, 

and the remaining 21 billion gallons will be comprised of advanced biofuels nearly 80 percent of 

which will exclude algae-based biofuels. [[Docket number 2490.1, pp. 2-3]] [[See docket number 

2490.1, pp. 1-4 for a discussion of this issue]] 

Our Response: 

 This comment includes certain comments on the CAA provisions in EISA that EPA is 

unable to remedy through its implementing regulations. In setting the volume requirements 

under EISA for RFS2, Congress divided the total renewable fuel standard into four separate 

3-35
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

mandates. Biomass-based diesels, of which algal oil based diesel fuels would qualify, have their 

own separate mandate. However, algal oil based fuels could also qualify for the advanced 

biofuel and total renewable fuel standards. By virtue of the Act’s restriction that cellulosic 

biofuels be produced from cellulose, hemicellulose or lignin, only the cellulosic biofuel standard 

would not be applicable for algal oil derived biofuels. 

3.2.6 Additional Renewable Fuel 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter (2471.1) noted that EISA defines “additional renewable fuel” as fuel produced 

from renewable biomass that is used to replace or reduce fossil fuels used in home heating oil or 

jet fuel, and indicates that EPA may allow for the generation of credits for the production of such 

additional renewable fuel. The commenter supports EPA’s proposal to effectuate these 

provisions and allow RINs attached to qualifying renewable fuel used as heating oil or jet fuel to 

remain viable. The commenter believes that this change from RFS1 should help both biodiesel 

producers and Obligated Parties. (2471.1, p.15)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that marine use of blended biodiesel should not be excluded from 

additional renewable fuel credit. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 17]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment: 

The commenter (0994.1) believes that the discussion in Sections II.A.2 and III.B.1.e needs to 

clarify the concept that any qualified biofuel from one of the four biofuel categories, not some 

other category called “additional renewable fuel” can now have RINs attached and used for 

compliance when used as described for home heating oil or jet fuel. Biofuels used in these 

applications are not “new” renewable fuels, but existing renewable fuels that are now qualified 

for compliance purposes when used in these applications. (0994.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2408.1) supports EPA’s intention to allow for RINs to be generated for 

renewable fuels that displace fossil fuels used in jet fuel, home heating oil, locomotive and 

marine diesels. The overarching goal of the statute was to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil 

and lower the overall greenhouse gas footprint of fuels. Limiting renewable fuels only to those 

used in ground vehicles is not consistent with those goals. EPA should assign RINs based on 

3-36
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

equivalency value of the energy contained in the fuel to each gallon of renewable jet fuel that 

meets the ASTM specifications or other nonroad fuels. (2408.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that EPA’s interpretation of Congressional intent with the inclusion of 

“home heating oil” as an additional renewable fuel is overly restrictive. The term “home heating 

oil” is a generic reference. Congress did not intend to limit the crediting of biofuel use in heating 

oil to only residential uses. This overly restrictive interpretation should be changed so as to 

encourage the use of biofuels in stationary source and industrial applications. The commenter 

points out that several states have either already imposed requirements or are considering such 

requirements for blending biofuel into heating oil. It would be ineffective if biofuel mandated 

for use in heating oil in state laws were not allowed to be credited under the RFS, particularly 

given the limited amount of diesel-type biofuel qualified under the RFS2 thresholds. [[Docket 

number 2393.1, p. 11]] 

The commenter also supports allowing all renewable fuels to be counted towards RVO 

compliance, including fuels used in ocean going vessels. Regarding the EISA-defined 

Additional Renewable Fuel “home heating oil”, the difficulty in ascertaining that fuels which can 

be used for home heating are actually used for home heating suggests that any fuel that can be 

used as home heating oil should qualify. The commenter believes this is the correct 

interpretation of the intent of EISA and EPA should clarify in the final rule and preamble. If 

EPA does not allow such an interpretation, this Additional Renewable Fuel, created by EISA, is 

meaningless due to the inability of obligated parties to track home heating oil use to the 

consumer. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 10]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2314 

Organization: The New England Fuel Institute 

Comment:

The commenter (2134.1) strongly supports the proposal in the NPRM that would allow RINs to 

be generated and traded when biodiesel is blended with heating oil. The commenter believes that 

RINs generation will greatly assist the recent and ongoing efforts by the heating oil industry to 

promote and market a product blended with renewable fuel. (2134.1, p.1) 

The commenter also believes that allowing marketable RINs to be generated for renewable fuel 

volumes blended with heating oil would significantly advance the transformation of this vital 

product into a new generation “bioheat”. (2134.1, p.2)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2328 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2328.1) strongly supports the proposal that would allow renewable fuels used in 

heating oil and jet fuel to generate RINs. The commenter believes that the RINs generation will 

greatly assist the recent and ongoing efforts by the heating oil industry to promote and market a 

greener product blended with renewable fuel. (2328.1, p.4) 

3-37
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter opposes any effort to subject these fuels to the RVO mandate. The problem with 

calculating the RVO for heating oil obligated parties is that it is difficult to predict with any 

reliability the volumes used for a particular year due to fluctuating winter weather conditions. 

The commenter understands that neither EISA nor the NPRM calls for assigning RVOs to 

heating oil refiners, importers or blenders but wishes to point out the logistical problems that 

such a requirement would create for both the agency and the heating oil industry. (2328.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2345 

Organization: Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2345) strongly supports the reinstatement of RINs for heating oil and jet fuel. It 

is consistent with statutory intent to encourage as much use of renewable fuels as possible to 

reduce petroleum usage and to reduce GHG emissions. [[Docket number 2345.1, p. 5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter seeks clarification to ensure that biodiesel used in heating oil applications 

meeting the latter definition in EISA is applicable for the renewable fuel category under RFS2. 

The commenter also seeks clarification on D code applicability for biodiesel used in jet fuel or 

home heating applications. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 36]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2099 

Organization: Honeywell International, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2099.1) supports EPA’s proposed inclusion of jet fuel as additional renewable 

fuel eligible to generate RINs. (2099.1, p.21) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2102 

Organization: RENTECH, INC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2102.1) supports EPA’s intention to allow for RINs to be generated for 

renewable fuels that displace fossil fuels used in jet fuel, home heating oil, locomotive and 

marine diesels. By including additional fuels, EPA will promote the development and use of 

renewable fuels by a broader spectrum of industries. The commenter believes that EPA should 

assign RINs, based on Equivalency Value of energy contained in the fuel, to each gallon of 

renewable jet fuel that meets the ASTM specification (ASTM 7566) or the specifications for 

other nonroad fuels. This will allow fuel marketers and consumers greater flexibility in meeting 

their obligations under the law, as well as encourage the development of renewable jet fuel 

production. (2102.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2110 

Organization: Chevron 

Comment:

3-38
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2110.1) believes that EPA should apply a broad interpretation of the definition 

of home heating oil. The commenter urges EPA to view the term “home heating oil” as it appears 

in Section 211l(o)(I)(A) as a generic reference to heating oil not intended to limit the crediting of 

biofuel use in heating oil to only residential uses. This overly restrictive interpretation should be 

changed so as to encourage the use of biofuels in such stationary source applications. Providing 

credit for blending biofuel in heating oil under RFS2 would not only be consistent with RFS2 

program goals of increasing renewable fuel use but also with existing mandates for use of biofuel 

in heating oil in several of the states. (2110.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that EPA’s interpretation of Congressional intent with the inclusion of 

“home heating oil” as an additional renewable fuel is overly restrictive. Home heating oil is a 

generic reference to heating oil not intended by Congress to limit the crediting of biofuel use in 

heating oil to only residential uses. [[Docket number 2130.1, pp. 11-12]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter supports allowing all renewable fuels to be counted in the program, including 

fuels used in ocean going vessels. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 8-9]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2358 

Organization: Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the 

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) 

Comment:

The commenter (2358) suggests that RINs should be created when neat renewable fuel is 

designated as transportation fuel, home heating oil or jet fuel. This approach simplifies the 

tracking and trading system by limiting the possible number of transactions and advances the 

programs goal. [[Docket number 2358.1, pp. 10-11]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (1044) recommends the following change to §80.1401: 

Home Heating Oil—the use of the phrases Home Heating Oil and Heating Oil are ambiguous. 40 

CFR 80.2 clearly identifies the legal definition of heating oil. In this instance a new definition 

for Home Heating Oil is needed as directed by the EISA. In addition, all references to heating 

oil should be changed to home heating oil (HHO) as a consistent use of the term throughout 

RFS2. [[Docket number 1044.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2135 

Organization: Ad Hoc Coalition of Small Business Refiners (SBR) 

Comment: 

3-39
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter (2135) agrees with the proposal that petroleum based heating oil should not be 

included in requirement calculation for renewable volume obligation. If, however, renewable 

fuels are used in boiler and heating or off-road applications, the commenter believes that their 

associated RINs should not have to be retired. Thus, renewable fuels, such as biodiesel, that are 

blended into non-motor vehicle fuels should not void the RINs associated with those fuels. 

[[Docket number 2135.1, pp. 20-21]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2124.1) believes that the reference to “home heating oil” in the proposed 

definition of Additional Renewable Fuel should be clarified. The commenter recommends that 

RINs associated with any renewable fuel blended into diesel, heating oil or other distillates be 

allowed to be separated and used for compliance purposes without regard to ultimate end use of 

that fuel. Distillate usage in stationary sources and ocean-going vessels is minor compared with 

other uses. Allowing RINs associated with such usage to be used for compliance rather than 

being retired will not change an obligated party’s RVO, will not result in less renewable fuel 

being used and will only contribute to meeting the renewable fuel volume mandates in EISA. 

(2124.1, p.29) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2023 

Organization: New York Biomass Energy Alliance 

Comment:

The commenter (2023) argues that the draft regulation considers biodiesel to be the only 

available substitute for home heating oil. In the Northeastern United States, where most of the 

country’s home heating oil is consumed, liquid renewable fuel alternatives to number 2 heating 

oil are quite limited. On the other hand, wood pellets, which meet the definition of an advanced 

biofuel for cellulosic fuels (i.e., 40-44% GHG reduction), presents a viable alternative to home 

heating oil throughout the region. The commenter (2023) strongly urges EPA to work with the 

rapidly expanding wood pellet industry to include a workable system by which pellet fuel 

manufacturers (whether using wood or cropped biomass as a feedstock) can generate RINs under 

RFSII. (2023.1.pdf, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2466) supports allowing RINs for use of renewable fuels in heating oil and jet 

fuel. (2466.1.pdf, p-9) 

Note - These are additional comments are from the State of New Jersey to the commenter. 

Our Response: 

 The majority of commenters believed that renewable fuel blended into heating oil and jet 

fuel should be allowed to be used for compliance purposes without regard to the ultimate end use 

of the fuel. We believe that this is an appropriate approach. Thus, under our final regulations, 

3-40
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

there is no difference between renewable fuels blended into fuels used for transportation 

purposes, versus fuels used for heating oil and jet fuel purposes. 

EISA uses the term “home heating oil” in the definition of “additional renewable fuel.” 

The statute does not clarify whether the term should be interpreted to refer only to heating oil 

actually used in homes, or to all fuel of a type that can be used in homes. We note that the term 

“home heating oil” is typically used in industry in the latter manner, to refer to a type of fuel, 

rather than a particular use of it, and the term is typically used interchangeably in industry with 

heating oil, heating fuel, home heating fuel, and other terms depending on the region and market. 

We believe this broad interpretation based on typical industry usage best serves the goals and 

purposes of the statute. If EPA interpreted the term to apply only to heating oil actually used in 

homes, we would necessarily require tracking of individual gallons from production through 

ultimate use in use in homes in order to determine eligibility of the fuel for RINs. Given the 

fungible nature of the oil delivery market, this would likely be sufficiently difficult and 

potentially expensive so as to discourage the generation of RINs for renewable fuels used as 

home heating oil. This problem would be similar to that which arose under RFS1 for certain 

renewable fuels (in particular biodiesel) that were produced for the highway diesel market but 

were also suitable for other markets such as heating oil and non-road applications where it was 

unclear at the time of fuel production (when RINs are typically generated under the RFS 

program) whether the fuel would ultimately be eligible to generate RINs. Congress eliminated 

the complexity with respect to non-road applications in RFS2 by eliminating the Epact restriction 

that renewable fuel was a type of “motor vehicle fuel,” and instead providing that renewable fuel 

must be used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in “transportation fuel.” That 

term is broadly defined to include nonroad fuel. We believe it best to interpret the Act so as to 

also avoid this type of complexity in the heating oil context. Thus, under today’s regulations, 

RINs may be generated for renewable fuel used as or blended into “heating oil,” as defined in 

existing EPA regulations at §80.2(ccc). In addition to simplifying implementation and 

administration of the Act, this interpretation will best realize the intent of EISA to reduce or 

replace the use of fossil fuels. 

 New York Biomass Energy Alliance stated that wood pellets should qualify as a 

renewable fuel. We believe this would be an inappropriate interpretation and expansion beyond 

the statutory language. EISA specifically defines additional renewable fuel as that which “is 

used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in (emphasis added) home heating 

oil or jet fuel.” By this we believe a qualifying renewable fuel must be actually blended in 

heating oil or jet fuel, or is a fungible fuel with them in the marketplace and capable of being 

used in similar equipment. For example, in the case of home heating oil, it must be a fuel that 

meets the marketplace requirements for the type of fuel referred to as heating oil. Thus, other 

types of fuel, such as wood, wood pellets, and biogas that are today used to heat homes and 

provide energy to businesses but which are not capable of blending into heating oil or replacing 

it in similar equipment would not get credit under the RFS2 program for those heating 

applications. 

What Commenters Said:

3-41
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2115 

Organization: Corn Plus 

Comment: 

We would propose that EPA define home heating oil to include qualifying Renewable Fuels 

utilized to displace #2 Fuel Oil at Renewable Fuel production facilities in boiler applications. In 

addition, because we utilize a production process that reduces GHG emissions in additional 

respects, we request that EPA also consider these components and establish a fuel pathway for 

DDS Fuel in Table 1 to §80.1426 that recognizes the benefits of our process. The proposed fuel 

type we propose is “Dewatered Distiller Solubles.” We believe that under the definitions above, 

DDS Fuel generated at the Corn Plus facility that is blended into #2 Fuel Oil and is combusted in 

our facility’s fluidized bed boiler to produce steam for the production facility qualifies as a 

Renewable Fuel and therefore generates RIN credits. Our reasoning for this is as follows. 

Our Response: 

As described above, we have determined that any fuel product commercially known as 

heating oil may be valid for the generation of RINs if the fuel is made from renewable biomass. 

However, we have not conducted a lifecycle analysis of a pathway in which coproducts of a corn 

ethanol process, such as dewatered distillers solubles, are used to displace heating oil for the 

generation of process heat in the ethanol production facility. Therefore, the lookup table in 

§80.1426(f) does not include a pathway in which a D code is designated for such a renewable 

fuel. The petition process described in §80.1416 may be used for this purpose. However, based 

on the commenter's description of dewatered distillers solubles, we do not believe that this 

product could be sold commercially as heating oil, and thus may not be valid for the generation 

of RINs. 

3.2.7 Biogas Used as Process Heat 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2081 

Organization: Novogy, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2081) recommends that in the case where finished cellulosic biogas is injected 

into a pipeline network or sold directly to an industrial user on a pipeline network that serves 

intended users under RFS2, that the volume sold then be allowed to qualify for RINs. This 

recommendation is made on the basis that direct displacement of fossil derived natural gas with 

cellulosic biogas can be verified within a network serving intended transportation (and 

potentially home heating) users. The intended use is not in question when displacement can be 

verified against an offsetting PTD compliant sales contract. This is a unique opportunity 

available only to the most fungible forms of renewable fuels, such as cellulosic biogas where the 

methane molecule produced legitimately carries unique renewable characteristics. In summary, 

the commenter recommends suppliers of cellulosic gas be allowed to demonstrate the fuel has 

been irrevocably committed to its final use once it has been sold. [[Docket number 2081.1, p. 

11]] [[Also see docket number 2081.1, p. 12 for suggested modification to 80.1429(b)(4).]] 

3-42
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter also recommends that in the case where finished cellulosic biogas can be 

verified as being used as a direct displacement of fossil derived natural gas within a network 

serving intended transportation (and potentially home heating) users, that the volume sold then 

be allowed to qualify for RINs. [[Docket number 2081.1, p. 11]] [[Also see docket number 

2081.1, p. 12 for suggested modification to 80.1429(b)(4).]] 

Our Response: 

The commenter suggests that biogas injected into a pipeline network or sold directly to an 

industrial user (such as a renewable fuel facility) on a commercial pipeline network should 

generate RINs provided that the fuel has been “irrevocably committed to its final use once it has 

been sold”. We believe that portions of the suggested approach have merit. We agree that it 

does not make any difference in terms of the beneficial environmental attributes associated with 

the use of landfill gas whether the displacement of fossil fuel occurs in a fungible natural gas 

pipeline, or in a specific facility that draws gas volume from that pipeline. In fact, a similar 

approach is widely used with respect to electricity generated by renewable biomass that is placed 

into a commercial electricity grid. A party buying the renewable power is credited with doing so 

in state renewable portfolio programs even though the power from these sources is placed in the 

fungible grid and the electrons produced by a renewable source may never actually be used by 

the party purchasing it. In essence these programs assume that the renewable power purchased 

and introduced into the grid is in fact used by the purchaser, even though all parties acknowledge 

that use of the actual renewable-derived electrons can never be verified once placed in the 

fungible grid. We believe that adopting a similar approach in RFS2, with appropriate limitations 

related to the statutory scheme, will ultimately further the GHG reduction and energy security 

goals of EISA. 

 The final rule allows producers of biogas that meets the definition of renewable fuel and 

is introduced into a fungible pipeline as a result of a contract with a user of gas for transportation 

purposes to generate RINs for that fuel under specified conditions. There must be a contractual 

pathway that provides evidence that specific quantities of the renewable was purchased and 

contracted to be delivered to a specific transportation fueling facility.1

 In the final rule, we 

specify that the pipeline must ultimately serve the subject facility. We are also providing for 

those situations in which biogas is provided directly to the transportation facility, rather than 

using a commercial distribution system such as pipelines. For both cases—dedicated use and 

commercial distribution—producers must provide contractual evidence of the production and 

sale of such fuel, and there are also reporting and recordkeeping requirements to be followed as 

well. The final rule establishes similar procedures for renewable electricity ultimately used for 

transportation purposes that is introduced into a fungible grid. The final rule also allows 

renewable fuel facilities causing landfill gas to be introduced into a fungible gas pipeline to be 

allowed to claim those volumes in establishing the fuel pathway and appropriate D code for 

generation of RINs. 

The final rule includes biogas as a potential renewable fuel type that qualifies as 

advanced biofuel with a D code of 5 when derived from landfills, sewage and waste treatment 

 

1

 Note that biogas used for transportation fuel includes propane made from renewable biomass. 

3-43
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

plants, and manure digesters. Produces who believe that their biogas should qualify as cellulosic 

biofuel can petition us to have it classified as such. 

 

 We do not agree with the commenter that RINs can be generated if the gas is ultimately 

used for home heating, as discussed above in section 3.2.6. 

3.3 Renewable Biomass 

3.3.1 Alternative Legislative Definitions of “Renewable Biomass” 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2140 

Organization: John Deere Agriculture & Turf Division 

Comment:

The commenter (2140.1) believes that EISA’s definition of “renewable biomass” is unduly 

constraining and could result in delays in development of alternative feedstock utilization for 

production of advanced biofuels. The commenter advocates a uniform and inclusive definition 

of renewable biomass that will enable achieving the RFS2 targets for advanced biofuels with a 

broad array of biomass feedstocks. (2140.1, pp.4-5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2139 

Organization: EnerTech Environmental, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2139) requests that the RFS2 classify biosolids or sewerage sludge as an 

alternative fuel and that Section 211(o) of the CAA be amended to include biosolids as a 

renewable biomass. [[Docket number 2139.1, p. 2]] [[See docket number 2139.1, pp 1-2 for 

further discussion of this request.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2374 

Organization: Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc. (Amyris) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2374) believes that in the interest of maximizing the opportunity for production 

of renewable fuels, EPA should exercise its discretion in allowing biomass that is sustainably 

produced for conversion into fuels. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 2008 farm bill contains 

a definition of renewable biomass that may serve as a broader example. [[Docket number 2374.1, 

p. 3]] 

Our Response: 

We have made every effort to interpret EISA’s definition of “renewable biomass” as 

broadly as possible without undermining the environmental protections the definition is meant to 

confer. The commenters correctly note that revised legislative definitions for “renewable 

biomass” have been considered – and, in the case of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008 (2008 Farm Bill), enacted -- by Congress. However, these definitions do not change the 

3-44
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EISA definition, and EPA is required to promulgate regulations based on the EISA definition. 

Therefore we are finalizing our regulations to implement the EISA definition of “renewable 

biomass.” 

3.3.2 Definitions of Terms 

3.3.2.1 Planted Crops 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment: 

The commenters support EPA’s proposed definition of “planted crops,” which makes eligible 

long-standing mixed natives, eliminating a perverse incentive for land-owners to rip up mixed 

grasslands to grow specific crops, such as on restored grasslands and expired CRP property. The 

commenters also support including as eligible renewable biomass plant materials removed for 

the purposes of invasive species control or fire management as long as they are harvested under 

terms of a conservation plan designed to protect natural resources and the environment. (2129.1, 

p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment:

The commenter supports EPA’s proposal to define “renewable biomass” to include all annual or 

perennial crops and supports the proposal that this definition would include all crops 

intentionally applied to the ground by humans or through “intentional natural seeding by mature 

plants left undisturbed for that purpose.” 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2144 

Organization: New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets 

Comment:

The commenter disagrees with the EPA proposal to exclude planted trees from the definition of 

planted crops and crop residue, also contained in the above referenced section. While this 

distinction may be appropriate for the establishment of some types of tree plantations, the 

commenter feels that Short-Rotation Woody Crops (SRWC) such as willow should be included 

under Planted Crops and Crop Residues. (2144.1, p.3) (See Docket Number 2144.1, p.3 for more 

discussion on this issue)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment:

3-45
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

With regard to the dedicated perennial energy grasses for use in the production of renewable 

biofuels, the commenter (2408.1) believes that EPA should recognize the wide variety of these 

types of feedstocks. To the extent possible, EPA should be as flexible and broad in its definition 

of these new types of feedstocks. Where appropriate, EPA should consider the inclusion of the 

term “other energy grasses” to qualify as a feedstock for use in the production of RFS2 fuels. 

[[See Docket Number 2408.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2508 

Organization: Environmental Working Group (EWG) 

Comment:

The commenter thinks EPA should exclude row or close-grown annually planted feed stock 

planted on land that was pastureland at the date of enactment from the definition of renewable 

biomass. 

Our Response:

EPA believes that its final definition of “planted crops” is sufficiently broad to 

encompass energy grasses. The final definition of “planted crops” includes all annual or 

perennial agricultural crops from existing agricultural land that may be used as feedstock for 

renewable fuel, such as grains, oilseeds, and sugarcane, as well as energy crops, such as 

switchgrass, prairie grass, duckweed and other species (but not including algae species or planted 

trees), providing that they were intentionally applied by humans to the ground, a growth 

medium, or a pond or tank, either by direct application as seed or plant, or through intentional 

natural seeding or vegetative propagation by mature plants introduced or left undisturbed for 

that purpose. Because EISA contains specific provisions for planted trees and tree residue from 

tree plantations, separate from those provisions concerning planted crops, our final definition of 

planted crops in EISA excludes planted trees, even if they may be considered planted crops 

under some circumstances as noted by one of the commenters. 

We do not agree that row or close-grown annual crops planted on land that was actively 

managed as pastureland at the date of enactment should be excluded from the definition of 

renewable biomass. EISA provides that planted crops and crop residues must come from certain 

“agricultural land.” EPA believes that pastureland is appropriately and traditionally considered 

within the scope of “agricultural land.” Had Congress intended that planted crops only be 

considered renewable biomass if harvested from land that was managed as cropland as of the 

date of EISA enactment, as the commenter appears to suggest, then Congress would likely have 

used that term rather than the broader reference to “agricultural land” in the definition of 

renewable biomass. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2137 

Organization: Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) 

Comment:

3-46
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2137) states that there is no question that Brazilian sugarcane meets the EISA’s 

statutory definition of a renewable biomass feedstock, as it is a “planted crop “that has been 

“harvested from agricultural land” that was under cultivation prior to December 2007 and 

remains “actively managed.” [[Docket number 2137.1, p. 4]] [[See docket number 2137, pp. 4-6 

for further information.]] 

Our Response:

 Even if it is clear that a planted crop used by a foreign producer meets the definition of 

renewable biomass, the foreign producer is still subject to requirements verifying that. As 

described in the preamble, we are finalizing an “aggregate approach” for renewable biomass 

verification for domestic producers using planted crops as feedstock, but are unable to adopt 

comparable measures for foreign producers at this time. Therefore foreign producers of planted 

crops and crop residue must provide the verification required of domestic producers for every 

other type of renewable biomass. EPA will consider expanding the aggregate approach to other 

countries if sufficient information and documentation becomes available. 

Foreign producers of renewable fuel that is imported into the U.S., if they are generating 

RINs for that volume of fuel, must designate renewable fuel intended for export to the U.S. as 

such, segregate the volume until it reaches the U.S., post a bond to ensure that penalties can be 

assessed in the event of a violation, and comply with other requirements designed to facilitate 

enforcement, as discussed in Section II.D.2.b of the preamble. Similarly to domestic producers 

of renewable fuel other than planted crops and crop residue subject to the aggregate compliance 

approach, foreign producers must obtain and maintain written documentation from their 

feedstock providers that can serve as evidence that their feedstocks meet the definition of 

renewable biomass. For each feedstock purchase, producers must maintain documents that 

identify the type and amount of feedstocks and where the feedstock was produced, as well as 

documents that are sufficient to verify that the feedstock qualifies as renewable biomass. 

Specifically, renewable fuel producers must maintain maps and/or electronic data identifying the 

boundaries of the land where the feedstock was produced, product transfer documents (PTDs) or 

bills of lading tracing the feedstock from that land to the renewable fuel production facility, and 

other written records that serve as evidence that the feedstock qualifies as renewable biomass. 

Furthermore, foreign producers must report to EPA quarterly a summary of the types and 

volumes of feedstocks used throughout the quarter, as well as electronic data or maps identifying 

the land from which those feedstocks were harvested. Foreign producers may also develop a 

quality assurance program for their renewable fuel production supply chain, as described in 

Section II.4.c of the preamble. 

 If the importer is generating the RINs for the foreign-produced fuel (if the foreign 

producer has not already done so), then importers must obtain from the foreign producer and 

maintain in their records written documentation, as described above, that serves as evidence that 

the renewable fuel for which they are generating RINs was made from feedstocks meeting the 

definition of renewable biomass. 

3.3.2.2 Crop Residue 

3-47
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment:

The commenter supports that “crop residue” should be defined to include biomass removed for 

purposes of invasive species control or fire management. EPA’s definition also should make 

clear that crop residue is defined to include biomass from crops or crop residue that is a coproduct from industrial, commercial, or agricultural operations. “Renewable biomass” should be 

defined to include any biomass removed from agricultural land that facilitates crop management, 

whether or not the crop is part of the residue. [[Docket number 2383.1, pp. 14-15]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2150 

Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation 

Comment:

The commenter (2150.1) disagrees with EPA’s definition of crop residue as the residue left over 

from the harvesting of planted crops. They feel that it severely limits the types of feedstocks that 

may be used under the RFS. Crop residue such as husks, seeds, bagasse, and roots can be used 

as feedstock for cellulosic ethanol. 

Our Response:

We agree that biomass removed from agricultural land for purposes of invasive species 

control and/or fire management could be considered a form of biomass residue related to crop 

production, whether or not derived from a crop itself, and therefore have modified the proposed 

definition of “crop residue” to include it. We believe that such biomass is typically removed 

from agricultural land for the purpose of preserving or enhancing its value in agricultural crop 

production. It may be removed at the time crops are harvested, post harvest, periodically (e.g., 

for pastureland) or during extended fallow periods. We also agree with the comments 

encouraging us to expand the definition of crop residue to include materials left over after the 

processing of the crop into a useable resource, such as husks, seeds, bagasse and roots, and we 

have altered the final definition to cover such materials. Thus our final definition of “crop 

residue” is the biomass left over from the harvesting or processing of planted crops from existing 

agricultural land and any biomass removed from existing agricultural land that facilitates crop 

management (including biomass collected from such lands in relation to invasive species control 

or fire management), whether or not the biomass includes any portion of a crop or crop plant. 

3.3.2.3 Agricultural Land 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2515 

Organization: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) 

Comment:

3-48
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter supports EPA’s proposal to include CRP lands as “agricultural” lands. The 

commenter noted that management of these lands can be enhanced through periodic managed 

mowing and removal of biomass in-lieu of or in addition to prescribed burning. Biomass 

produced from these sites should be eligible under the RFS. Individual program rules will 

protect the conservation values of the lands enrolled. (2515.1, p.2) 

The commenter noted that farmers and grazers that have maintained native grazing lands should 

be rewarded for good stewardship. Preservation of healthy grasslands will require expanding 

markets for grass based agriculture - rather than reducing economic opportunities. The 

commenter believes that the standards should include biomass harvested from rangelands that 

does not impair the ecological integrity of these sites. Disqualifying all “range land” is not 

appropriate and EPA should coordinate with USDA and its biomass programs to facilitate 

incentives and rewards for sustainable management of the nation’s grasslands in the context of 

cellulosic biomass production. (2515.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment: 

The commenters strongly support EPA’s exclusion of rangeland from its definition of 

agricultural land. (2129.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2508 

Organization: Environmental Working Group (EWG) 

Comment:

The commenter (2508) supports EPA’s exclusion of rangeland from its definition of agricultural 

land. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2446 

Organization: Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation 

Comment:

The commenter states that rangeland should be specified as agricultural land under the RFS2. 

The Agency’s assertion that it is questionable whether any rangeland should qualify as actively 

managed under EISA is misguided. Ranchers vigorously manage rangeland for multiple 

agricultural purposes. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2463 

Organization: National Farmers Union 

Comment:

The commenter believes rangeland should be included in the definition of existing agricultural 

land. Rangeland fits within the definition of renewable biomass in the RFS2 statute. As long as 

it can be established that the land was cleared and/or cultivated prior to 2007 and has been 

managed as a natural ecosystem since that point, it meets the letter of the law and should be 

eligible under the rule. 

3-49
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2502 

Organization: Verenium Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2502.1) believes that EPA should delete the proposed rule’s proposed 

restrictions on the use of “rangeland.” The commenter believes that EPA should favor a 

presumption that rangeland is considered an eligible category of land for the production of 

biomass, unless specific types of such land are excluded for valid and specified reasons. (2502.1, 

p.4) (See Docket Number 2502.1, p.4 for a detailed discussion of this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment:

Supports EPA’s interpretation that crop land, pastureland and Conservation Reserve Program 

land all meet this definition. Rangeland also should be included within the broad definition of 

“agricultural land.” Rangeland is subject to active management in terms of controlled access 

through fencing and oversight and control of invasive species and grazing rates. [[Docket 

number 2383.1, p. 15]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2374 

Organization: Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc. (Amyris) 

Comment: 

The commenter also believes that EPA should include rangeland as agricultural land. The 

proposal to rule rangelands ineligible is inconsistent with the congressional intent and would 

likely intensify competition for lands better suited for food crop production. While there is no 

commonly accepted definition of rangeland, the USDA has published estimates for U.S. 

“grassland and range” to be as much as 600 million acres, which equates to approximately 66 

billion gallons of corn derived ethanol. Hence this rangeland prohibition could have astonishing 

affects. [[Docket number 2374.1, p. 3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2150 

Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation 

Comment:

The commenter (2150.1) does not believe sales and purchasing receipts are readily available to 

prove the management of rangeland. (Page 2) 

The commenter (2150.1) asserts that rangeland should be specified as agricultural land under the 

RFS2. They note that ranchers vigorously manage rangeland for multiple agricultural purposes. 

Additionally, USDA’s definition of agricultural land includes rangeland. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2302 

Organization: UC Berkeley - Energy Biosciences Institute 

Comment: 

The commenter supports EPA’s inclusion of CRP land as agricultural. They also encourage 

EPA to include rangeland as agricultural land, and to include abandoned agricultural land in the 

allowance for renewable biomass production. [[#2302 p.1-2]] 

3-50
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2144 

Organization: New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets 

Comment: 

While the commenter (2144.1) recognizes the need to include certain provisions to safeguard this 

specific land type, EPA by developing proposed rules around rangelands has effectively ruled 

out, by making ineligible, significant areas of land that could be used for the establishment and 

sustainable production of advanced biofuel feedstock in New York State, the Northeast and 

much of the lands east of the Mississippi River. (2144.1, p.1) (See Docket Number 2144.1, pp.1-

2 for more discussion on this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2023 

Organization: New York Biomass Energy Alliance 

Comment: 

The commenter (2023) discusses the definition of renewable biomass, with particular reference 

to biomass produced on agricultural land. The commenter strongly disagrees with the 

interpretation that abandoned farmland should be excluded from producing renewable biomass. 

(2023.1.pdf, p1-5) 

For additional data on agricultural land, see addendum on page 7-8 COMPARISON OF LAND 

AREA DATA FROM THE CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE AND THE NATIONAL 

RESOURCES INVENTORY (2023.1.pdf, p7-8) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2156 

Organization: Georgia Forestry Commission 

Comment:

The commenter (2156) comments that CRP lands include millions of acres of planted native tree 

species in the South and much of these forests are over 20 years old and will eventually be 

forests of saw timber size. The commenter raises question of whether this land should be 

considered agricultural, as implied by the EPA proposed rules (2156.1.docx, p.3). 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter supports EPA’s efforts to make the land restriction provisions on renewable fuel 

producers as consistent as possible with current industry practice and USDA interpretation. The 

commenter does not object to Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land being included as 

“agricultural” land, but does not think rangeland should be considered agricultural land since, 

generally, it has never been under till. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 42]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130) supports EPA’s efforts to make the land restriction provision on 

renewable fuel producers as consistent as possible with current industry practice and USDA 

interpretation. The commenter does not object to Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land 

3-51
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

being included as “agricultural” land, but does not think rangeland should be considered 

agricultural land since, generally, it has never been under till. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 6-7 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2369 

Organization: New Generation Biofuels (NGBF) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2369) states that the definition of “fallow land” may be in line with terminology 

used within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), however marginal lands, lands 

that are not suitable for agriculture, represent potential areas for growing energy crops. The 

commenter encourages EPA to include marginal and rangelands as lands where renewable 

biomass may be grown and the subsequent carbon offsets or sequestration should be included in 

the GHG models. [[Docket number 2369.1, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter believes EPA improperly excluded rangeland. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2425 

Organization: PetroAlgae 

Comment: 

The commenter (2425) believes it is critical EPA allow existing rangeland to quality as 

agricultural land under RFS2 which will make millions of acres of non-cropland, non-forested 

land qualify for renewable feedstock production. The commenter believes this is essential to 

support the rigorous renewable fuel production goals. As EPA references in the proposal, the 

inclusion of a land restrictions omitting existing rangeland may drive renewable fuel producers 

to use rangeland and simply forgo the benefits of qualifying for RINs. This would result in an 

undersupply of RINs which would drive RINs prices upward do to the supply/demand curve. 

[[Docket number 2425.1, p. 7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2120 

Organization: Society for Range Management 

Comment:

The commenter [[2120]] states that under the EISA language, biomass feedstocks may only be 

considered “renewable” if they were grown on agricultural land. EPA interprets agricultural land 

to include cropland and pastureland, but not rangeland. The Society for Range Management 

feels that this is a mistake. 

The commenter states rangelands hold great potential for biofuels production. A number of 

important studies are exploring the feasibility and impact of production of cellulosic ethanol 

from switchgrass and other native grasses on the rangelands of the Great Plains. While 

environmental interests rightly point out that many of these prairie lands have large subsoil GHG 

deposits that would be released through conversion to cropland, switchgrass also sequesters 

significant amounts of carbon in the soil. A study by Frank et al. shows that in soil planted with 

switchgrass (which has a perennial root system) carbon increased at a rate of 1.01 kg C m-2 

y(1.2 Another study by Lee et al. reported that switchgrass grown in the South Dakota 

3-52
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Conservation Reserve Program stored carbon at a rate of 2.4 to 4.0 Mg ha-1 y(l at the 0 to 90 cm 

depth-relatively deep soil. [[#2120.1 p.2]] 

The commenter [[2120]] states that EPA has expressed concern about the difficulty of 

determining the boundaries of rangeland. The Chicago Climate Exchange, for example, uses the 

USDA Land Resource Regions selecting counties that qualify on the basis of precipitation levels 

and other factors. Satellite imaging technology, similar to those used by EPA in its attempts to 

project the indirect GHG effects of land use change, can also determine vegetation types with a 

high degree of accuracy, including those typical of rangeland. Much of the uncertainty revolves 

around the question of active management. To put it simply, where there is no evidence that 

forest cover grew on rangeland in the past, it is by definition “clear” and hence should qualify as 

“cleared.” It should be a relatively simple exercise to verify, through third parties, that the land 

was clear of trees on December 19, 2007, based on plant growth and other evidence. [[#2120.1 

p.4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2244 

Organization: Altrius Group. LLC 

Comment: 

Regarding the inclusion of rangeland as qualifying agricultural land, the commenter notes that 

EPA interprets agricultural land to include cropland and pastureland, but not rangeland. The 

commenter feels that this is a mistake. [[Docket number 2244.1, p. 2]] [[See docket number 

2244, pp. 2-4 for detailed discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response:

As proposed, and as generally supported by the comments, EPA is including lands 

enrolled in the CRP program in the definition of “agricultural land.” However, as discussed in 

detail in Section II.4.a.i.of the preamble, EPA is not including rangeland in the final definition of 

existing agricultural land for a number of reasons. Under EISA, renewable biomass includes 

crops and crop residue from agricultural land cleared or cultivated at any time prior to the 

enactment of EISA that is either “actively managed of fallow” and nonforested. EPA believes 

that in interpreting the phrase “actively managed” in this definition, it is appropriate to consider 

the degree and type of management that is typically applied to planted crops and crop residue. 

Although EPA appreciates the comments suggesting that some degree of management does take 

place on rangeland, EPA believes that the level of “active management” that is typically 

associated with land dedicated to growing planted crops is far more intensive than the types of 

management associated with rangeland. Furthermore, since rangeland encompasses a wide 

variety of ecosystems, including native grasslands or shrublands, savannas, wetlands, deserts and 

tundra, including it in the definition of agricultural land would increase the risk that these 

sensitive ecosystems would become available under EISA for conversion into intensively 

managed mono-culture cropland. Finally, the conversion of relatively undisturbed rangeland to 

the production of annual crops could in some cases lead to large releases of GHGs stored in the 

soil which would be contrary to a principal EISA goal. Plowing up well-established grasslands, 

for example, would be expected to release a large pulse of stored CO2. It is likely correct as 

suggested by one commenter, that soil CO2 levels would then rise again if the area were planted 

with a perennial crop such as switchgrass and not re-cultivated. However, by including 

3-53
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

rangeland as a type of “agricultural land” from which planted crops and crop residue may be 

harvested, EPA would be allowing any type of planted crop (including annuals) to be grown on 

the land, with the possibility of annual CO2 releases from the soil. 

For reasons similar to those articulated above with respect to rangeland, EPA has decided 

not to include “marginal lands” or “abandoned agricultural lands” that do not meet the definition 

of “fallow” within the definition of “agricultural land” for purposes of the renewable biomass 

definition. 

One commenter asked whether CRP land that has been forested for twenty years should 

be included in the definition of “agricultural land” from which planted crops and plant residue 

may be obtained and qualify as renewable biomass. EPA has included CRP land in the 

definition of “agricultural land.” However, for planted crops and crop residue from CRP land (or 

any other agricultural land) to be considered renewable biomass, the land must also have been 

nonforested as of the date of enactment of EISA. Therefore, the specific land referenced by the 

commenter would not appear to be eligible for the growth of planted crops or crop residue that 

would be considered renewable biomass under the final RFS2 rule. 

3.3.2.4 Cleared or Cultivated and Actively Managed Agricultural Land 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2150 

Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation 

Comment:

The commenter (2150.1) believes EPA has erroneously expanded on the EISA’s existing 

cropland requirement by interpreting the phrase “that is actively managed or fallow, and 

nonforested” as meaning that land must have been actively managed or fallow, and nonforested, 

on December 19, 2007, and continuously thereafter in order to qualify for renewable biomass 

production. While the EISA defines existing cropland requirement from an historical 

perspective, EPA’s definition is future oriented and will impede American agriculture’s 

participation and our biofuels industry. The commenter states that the definition of renewable 

biomass contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) states that land 

used to grow biomass must be agricultural land cleared or cultivated at any time prior to 

December 19, 2007 that is either actively managed or fallow and nonforested. (Page 1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2446 

Organization: Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation 

Comment:

The commenter states that contrary to congressional intent, EPA has expanded on the EISA’s 

existing cropland requirement; while EISA defines existing cropland requirement from an 

historical perspective, EPA’s definition is future oriented and will impede American agricultures 

participation and our biofuels industry. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2463 

3-54
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: National Farmers Union 

Comment:

The commenter states that the term “continuously” is not found in the statute. Imposing this 

standard requires that land not only have been in production on December 19, 2007, but that it 

has continued to be so. The plain language of the statute does not drive to this interpretation; 

instead setting a static baseline of what lands would be eligible as of December 19, 2007. The 

final rule should eliminate the concept of continuously managed as farmers were not given fair 

notice that this would be the potential requirement. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2317 

Organization: National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2317) urges EPA to revise the proposed definition of “Renewable Biomass” to 

eliminate the “continuously” managed requirement. [[Docket number 2317.1, pp. 34-35]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2244 

Organization: Altrius Group. LLC 

Comment:

Regarding EPA’s proposed requirement of documentation verifying that land was continuously 

managed since December 19, 2007, the commenter (2244) points out that the term 

“continuously” is not found in the statute and believes that imposing this standard requires that 

land not only have been in production on December 19, 2007, but that it has continued to be so. 

The plain language of the statute does not drive to this interpretation; instead setting a static 

baseline of what lands would be eligible as of December 19, 2007. The commenter believes 

final rule should eliminate the concept of continuously managed as farmers were not given fair 

notice that this would be the potential requirement. [[Docket number 2244.1, p. 5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment: 

The commenters recommend that agricultural land should be defined as “cleared or cultivated at 

any time” prior to December 19, 2007, if it was actively managed as agricultural land or fallow 

(and non-forested) during the 5 years prior to December 19, 2007 and has, since December 19, 

2007, been actively managed as agricultural land or fallow (and non-forested). 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2508 

Organization: Environmental Working Group (EWG) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that agricultural land should be defined as “cleared or cultivated at any 

time” prior to December 19, 2007, was continuously actively managed as agricultural land or 

fallow (and nonforested) during the 5 years prior to December 19, 2007 and has, since December 

19, 2007, been continuously actively managed as agricultural land or fallow (and nonforested). 

(2508, p.2) 

3-55
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2119 

Organization: National Sorghum Producers 

Comment:

The commenter feels that an ethanol facility producing advanced (sweet sorghum) or cellulosic 

(energy sorghum) biofuel produced from feedstock grown on land that was brought into 

production after December 19, 2007 should not be penalized on all produced gallons. (2119.1, 

p.4) 

Our Response:

EPA has modified the definition of existing agricultural land so that the “active 

management” requirement is satisfied for those lands that were cleared or cultivated and actively 

managed or fallow, and non-forested on December 19, 2007. EPA believes that the goal of the 

EISA and RFS program, to increase the presence of renewable fuels in transportation fuel, will 

be better served by interpreting the “actively managed or fallow” requirement in the renewable 

biomass definition as applying to land actively managed or fallow on December 19, 2007, rather 

than interpreting this requirement as applying beginning on December 19, 2007 and continuously 

thereafter. This approach will also greatly ease compliance burdens, since parties will need only 

demonstrate active management as of one date (the date of EISA enactment) to satisfy the active 

management component of the requirements related to planted crops and crop residue, rather 

than having to demonstrate active management as of that date and continuously thereafter. This 

approach will also parties to suspend active management of qualifying lands for a period of time 

without fear of losing qualifying status under RFS2, which could have many benefits in terms of 

resource protection and wildlife management. 

EISA, however, limits the eligibility of crops to those coming from agricultural land 

(cropland, pastureland, and CRP land) that was cleared or cultivated prior to December 19, 2007. 

Any crops coming from lands cleared after that date are not considered renewable biomass under 

EISA, and, therefore, under the RFS2 program, a producer may not generate RINs for any fuel 

made from those crops. 

3.3.2.5 Fallow 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2144 

Organization: New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets 

Comment:

The commenter is concerned with the manner in which the term ”fallow“ is proposed to be 

defined under Section III(4)(a)(I) of the NPRM. Since the RFS2 only has purview over lands 

used for the production of biofuel feedstock crops, the decision to use a very narrow definition 

for fallow land could have significant unintended consequences. (2144.1, p.2) (See Docket 

Number 2144.1, p.2 for more discussion on this issue) 

3-56
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2150 

Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation 

Comment:

The commenter (2150.1) does not believe it is plausible to require proof that land has been or is 

currently intentionally fallow. Further, the EPA should not specify a time period after which 

land that is not actively managed for agricultural purposes should be considered to have been 

abandoned for agriculture. (Page 2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment: 

The commenters believe that EPA should revise the definition of fallow land to include land that 

has been planted to cover crops for the purpose of erosion control or soil improvement, in 

accordance with USDA definitions of idle cropland. EPA should also set a time limit for land to 

qualify as fallow. EPA should expand the definition of actively-managed existing agricultural 

land to include land that has recently come out of a contract for the Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP), rather than placing CRP in the definition of fallow as they have done. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2302 

Organization: UC Berkeley - Energy Biosciences Institute 

Comment: 

The commenter encourages EPA not to set limits on fallow periods [[#2302 p.1-2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2244 

Organization: Altrius Group. LLC 

Comment: 

EPA has suggested that, for fallow land, “the decision to let land lie fallow is made deliberately 

and intentionally by a land owner or farmer such that there should be documentation of such 

intent.” The commenter (2244) respectfully disagrees on this point. Quite often, farmers do not 

intend to leave fields fallow at all, but are forced to do so for economic, regulatory, climatic or 

water-related reasons. In addition, the commenter urges the EPA not to require farmers to 

produce documentation of the decision to leave fields fallow, as in many cases it does not exist 

and would disqualify a great deal of agricultural land that can and should contribute to the goals 

of the RFS2 program. Alternatively, if such proof were to be required, the commenter suggests 

that it would be far more reasonable for EPA to accept various alternative forms of evidence, 

including affidavits or other substantiating evidence. [[Docket number 2244.1, pp. 1-2]] 

Regarding EPA’s request for a time period for land management, the commenter believes that 

EPA’s presumption is unreasonable and contravenes congressional intent. If the purpose of the 

statute is to use on land that was previously cultivated, an arbitrary time limit would unfairly 

exclude many farmers and ranchers from the program. Many farmers may be forced to leave 

land fallow against their will or may simply choose not to cultivate farmland for a period of time 

for economic or other reasons. Such a period of time absent substantial other evidence, should 

3-57
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

not be sufficient basis to presume “abandonment” for purposes of the statute. It should not be the 

role of the statute or EPA to penalize farmers further by setting an arbitrary time limit after 

which their land is considered to be “abandoned.” [[Docket number 2244.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response:

 We have decided not to include a time limit for land to qualify as “fallow” because we 

understand that agricultural land may be left fallow for many different purposes and for varying 

amounts of time. Any particular timeframe that EPA might choose for this purpose would be 

somewhat arbitrary. Further, EISA does not indicate a period of time that qualifying land could 

be fallow, so EPA does not believe that it would be appropriate to do so in its regulations. 

Therefore, EPA is finalizing its proposed definition of “fallow.” Also, EPA believes that 

feedstock producers will be able to provide some written proof of their land being left fallow on 

December 19, 2007, such as a farm management plan, evidence of participation in CRP, or other 

such documentation. 

While the decision to let land lie fallow may not always be the feedstock producer’s first 

choice, even when it is in response to economic, regulatory or other stimuli, EPA believes is still 

a deliberate and intentional decision on behalf of the farmer not to plant crops on his land and to 

leave that land fallow. EPA believes that the documentation required to show that land is 

actively managed or fallow is sufficiently flexible to cover such situations, for example, one in 

which a feedstock producer decides that the economic circumstances are such that he must leave 

his land fallow for a period of time. 

The definition of “fallow” specifies that for RFS2 purposes, fallow land must be 

cropland, pastureland or CRP land. These are the three land types that are also included in the 

definition of “existing agricultural land,” and from which planted crops and crop residue may be 

harvested providing that other definitional criteria are satisfied. [[Although EPA believes that 

presence of land in the CRP program demonstrates “active management,” such that there is no 

additional reason to qualify CRP land as “fallow,”]] EPA has retained the reference to CRP land 

in the definition of “fallow” to avoid the possible confusion that might arise if EPA were to list 

other qualifying agricultural land types but not CRP land. 

 

 Clean Air Task Force comments that the definition of fallow land should include land 

planted with cover crops. EPA believes that agricultural land planted with cover crops would be 

considered actively managed rather than fallow, as the farmer is actively managing the land for a 

specific purpose by planting cover crops for various reasons, including to reduce runoff or 

replenish soil nutrients, among others. 

3.3.2.6 Planted Trees 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

3-58
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment:

The commenters encourage EPA to modify the definition of “planted trees” to ensure that this 

definition does not encourage the conversion of natural forests to plantations. The commenters 

urge EPA to limit the definition of “planted trees” to those that were established by human 

intervention. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2173.1 

Organization: National Association of Forest Owners (NAFO) 

Comment: 

The commenter supports EPA’s inclusion of trees established by seeding by mature trees in the 

definition of planted trees. Also, the commenter recommends that EPA include other methods of 

tree regeneration, such as coppice or root suckers. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2308 

Organization: Environmental Defense Fund 

Comment:

The commenter (2308.1) urges EPA to reconsider the breadth of the definition of “planted trees” 

as the currently drafted definition, which allows naturally regenerated trees to be harvested as a 

“plantation”, could bypass the restrictions on harvests in ecologically sensitive forestland. (Page 

2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2156 

Organization: Georgia Forestry Commission 

Comment:

The commenter recommends for the definition of “planted trees” that EPA provide exclusion in 

the definition of planted trees for trees that are not indigenous to the region (planted trees must 

be native) and provide that any non-native trees to be included as an agricultural crop. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2349 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Forestry 

Comment: 

The commenter (2349) support the interpretation of planted trees and recommends rewording the 

definition to “trees from stands established by planting, artificial or natural seeding or coppice” 

to include other methods of regeneration. (2349.pdf, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2494 

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter suggests rewording the definition for the term Planted Trees to “trees from 

stands established by planting, artificial or natural seeding, or coppice.” 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

3-59
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment:

The commenter supports EPA’s definition of “planted trees” and agrees with EPA that planted 

trees should include not only trees established by human intervention, but also trees established 

from natural seeding by mature trees left undisturbed for such a purpose. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment:

The commenter supports EPA’s proposal to include in the definition of planted trees naturally 

regenerating trees left undisturbed from natural seeding by mature trees left undisturbed for such 

purpose. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2517 

Organization: National Association of State Foresters 

Comment: 

NASF supports EPA’s interpretation that “planted trees” include more than those planted by 

humans using nursery stock or artificial seeding. Forest management includes a variety of 

artificial and natural regeneration approaches. All of these techniques are necessary to 

successfully and sustainably manage the wide-variety of forest types in the United States. In 

addition to including trees established by natural seeding, NASF recommends the definition be 

broadened to include other applied methods of direct and natural regeneration including 

coppicing and sucker roots. We suggest rewording the definition to: “trees from stands 

established by planting, artificial or natural seeding, or coppice.” 

Our Response:

EPA agrees that the inclusion of natural reseeding in the definition of “planted trees” 

would make distinguishing between tree plantations and forests difficult or impossible, thus 

negating the separate restrictions that Congress placed on the two types of land, as noted by 

some of the commenters. On the other hand, EPA believes that trees that are naturally seeded 

and grown together with hand- or machine-planted trees in a tree plantation should not 

categorically be excluded from qualifying as renewable biomass. Such natural reseeding may 

occur after planting the majority of trees in a tree plantation, and may be consistent with the 

management plan for a tree plantation. EPA has decided, therefore, to modify its proposed 

definition of “planted tree” to be trees harvested from a tree plantation. The term “tree 

plantation” is defined as a stand of no less than 1 acre composed primarily of trees established by 

hand- or machine-planting of a seed or sapling, or by coppice growth from the stump or root of a 

tree that was hand- or machine-planted.” The net effect is that as long as a tree plantation 

consists “primarily” of trees that were hand- or machine planted (or derived therefrom, as 

described below), then all trees from the tree plantation, including those established from natural 

seeding by mature trees left undisturbed for such a purpose, will qualify as renewable biomass. 

EPA does not understand planted trees to be limited to native species. Furthermore, EPA 

disagrees that non-native tree species on tree plantations should be considered crops. Under 

EISA, planted crops and crop residue are only considered renewable biomass if they are 

3-60
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

harvested from existing agricultural land. EPA’s final definition of “tree plantation” is an area 

predominantly composed of planted trees. 

3.3.2.7 Tree Residue 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2156 

Organization: Georgia Forestry Commission 

Comment:

The commenter (2156) recommends that demolition wood waste, construction wood wastes and 

wood product manufacturing wood wastes in addition to backyard waste should be included in 

the definition of renewable biomass. (2156.1.docx, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2515 

Organization: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) 

Comment:

The commenter disagrees with EPA’s proposal to subsume the definition of tree residue into 

“slash”. The commenter believes that mill residues such as sawdust, bark, and black liquor 

should be considered residue as they are residual after processing (2515.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2494 

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter agrees with EPA that the term “slash” is more descriptive than “tree residue,” 

and yet in practice means the same thing. Using the term “slash” rather than “tree residue” makes 

sense and will be less confusing. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that EPA may have overlooked several issues in proposing to simplify 

its regulations by including tree residues within its definition of slash and suggests that EPA 

either include unmerchantable trees within the definition of slash, or explicitly include them 

within the definition of planted trees. The commenter also states that merging the definition of 

tree residue into the definition of slash leaves mill residue outside of the definition of biomass 

and believes that this omission is a major oversight with significant unintended consequences. 

The commenter states that Congress clearly intended for tree wastes to be included, as 

demonstrated by its inclusion of separated yard waste, and that black liquor should also be 

included within the definition of tree residue. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2081 

Organization: Novogy, Inc. 

Comment: 

3-61
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter (2081) recommends that cellulosic biogas produced from waste sludge which is 

a residual of the pulp & paper and recycled paper making process, be allowed to generate RINs 

under RFS2. Like woodchips, saw dust and other derivatives qualifying as renewable biomass 

under §80.1401, the commenter believes residual waste sludge from renewable biomass 

materials should be allowed to generate RINs. Given the emphasis within EISA to focus on the 

full utilization of waste cellulosic feedstocks for renewable fuels production, the commenter 

would like to interpret the intent of the legislation to include waste paper sludge as a renewable 

biomass feedstock. An alternative to allowing all paper sludge would be to allow only those that 

can be shown to have been derived from eligible renewable biomass contained as defined in the 

current regulation. [[Docket number 2081.1, p. 14]] [[See docket number 2081.1, p. 14-16 for 

basis for this recommendation and suggested modification to 80.1401.]] 

Our Response:

EPA has considered these comments and has expanded the definition of tree residue to 

include some wood product manufacturing wastes, including residues from processing planted 

trees at lumber and paper mills, but is limiting it to the biogenically derived portion of the 

residues that can be traced back to feedstocks meeting the definition of renewable biomass (i.e., 

planted trees and tree residue from actively managed tree plantations on non-federal land cleared 

at any time prior to December 19, 2007). RINs may only be generated for the fraction of fuel 

produced that represents the biogenic portion of the tree residue, using the procedures described 

in ASTM test method D-6866. Thus, if the tree residues are mixed with chemicals or other 

materials during processing at the lumber or paper mills, producers may only generate RINs for 

the portion of the mixture that is actually derived from planted trees. 

For a discussion of demolition wood waste and construction wood wastes, see discussion 

of MSW and separated yard and food wastes in section 3.2 of this document. 

3.3.2.8 Tree Plantations 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment:

The commenter notes that EPA proposed to define a tree plantation as a stand of no fewer than 

100 planted trees of similar age and comprising one or two tree species, or an area managed for 

growth of such trees covering a minimum of 1 acre, and states that both the number of trees and 

minimum acreage are difficult to quantify without incurring a large expense. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2173.1 

Organization: National Association of Forest Owners (NAFO) 

Comment: 

The commenter states that EPA should expand the definition of “tree plantation,” by adopting 

the Dictionary of Forestry definition, which is “a stand of trees composed primarily of trees 

3-62
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

established by planted or artificial seeding.” The definition should allow for a mixture of tree 

species, should allow for purposeful, “natural” regeneration, and should not require a minimum 

number of trees per acre. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2417 

Organization: Forest Landowners Association 

Comment: 

The commenter notes that tree plantations are typically stands of trees established by planting. 

However plantations may also include tree stands resulting from natural regeneration. 

Plantations can also be pure or mixed species with uniform or diverse structures and age classes 

and can be grown on rotations of varying length including an indefinite length for some values. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2515 

Organization: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that the proposed EPA definition of tree plantation is overly restrictive 

and will undermine the formation of a cellulosic ethanol industry based on woody biomass. 

Excluding sustainably produced wood and discouraging ecological management of forest 

resources is not consistent with Congress’ intent. The commenter suggests that EPA not narrow 

the definition established within the Dictionary of Forestry. (2515.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2156 

Organization: Georgia Forestry Commission 

Comment:

The commenter (2156) comments that a stand of less than 100 trees per acre is common in 

managed hardwood stands and raises question that will this disqualify the forest stand for 

biomass harvest for next rotation? (2156.1.docx, p.2). The commenter also recommends that 

EPA either define tree plantations as areas where planted trees exist or simply not define tree 

plantations. (2156.1.docx, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2517 

Organization: National Association of State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter states that tree plantations are established by planting or artificial seeding and--

depending on the management objectives—often include mixed species and understory 

components. EPA’s definition of “Tree Plantation” should not arbitrarily be limited to one or 

two tree species, rather should allow for a mixture of tree species. NASF recommends EPA 

broaden their definition to include stands with trees or understory components that have resulted 

from natural regeneration. We suggest changing the definition to “A stand of no less than one 

acre in an area with trees of similar age.” 

The commenter strongly encourages EPA to recognize trees planted on surface-mined lands after 

Dec. 19, 2007 as eligible for RINs under EISA. Replanting surface-mined lands will enhance 

their management and reduce biomass harvest pressures from other natural systems. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2494 

3-63
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter comments that the term Tree Plantation should not be restricted to 1 or 2 species. 

The expected climate change impacts on forests require that we plant trees with a consideration 

for climate change, which may suggest planting multiple species rather than monocultures. The 

commenter suggests changing the definition to “A stand of no less than one acre in area with 

trees of a similar age.” 

Our Response:

In the final rule, EPA is not requiring a minimum number of trees per acre as part of the 

definition of tree plantation, or specifying that a tree plantation be restricted to a set number of 

species. We agree with those commenters who stated that such these proposed limitations were 

too restrictive. However, EPA is maintaining the minimum 1 acre designation because EPA 

believes that the statutory references to “plantation” indicate a commercial enterprise of 

significant size, and that one acre is a reasonable measure of such an enterprise. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2361 

Organization: Indonesian Palm Oil Commission 

Comment: 

The commenter (2361) is not sure if the definition of non-forested land includes oil palm 

plantations. The commenter believes that the IPCC had an agreed-upon definition of forested 

land and therefore oil palm should be considered as tree plantation and not forest, so that biofuel 

feedstock may be legitimately obtained from it after December 19, 2007. (2361.1.pdf, p.2) 

Our Response: 

With respect to the categorization of oil palm plantations, we believe such plantations are 

more similar to orchards than to tree plantations referred to within the definition of renewable 

biomass in that they are planted and managed for the purpose of harvesting palm kernels and not 

for harvesting the trees themselves, in the same way that a fruit orchard is planted and managed 

to yield fruit and not woody biomass per se. Our final definition of forestland purposefully 

includes tree plantations but excludes orchards, as we believe orchards are more appropriately 

considered a type of agricultural land (cropland, specifically), and orchard fruits planted crops. 

With this reasoning, palm kernels would also qualify as planted crops under the EISA definition 

of renewable biomass, and oil palm plantations would have to meet the criteria for existing 

agricultural land in order for their kernels and residue to qualify as renewable biomass under 

RFS2. 

3.3.2.9 Cleared and Actively Managed Tree Plantations 

What Commenters Said:

3-64
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment: 

The commenters recommend that EPA verify forests as being “continuously actively managed” 

using the mechanisms listed in the proposed rule, and in addition consider income tax treatment 

of revenue from the property or enrollment in use value property tax programs. (2129.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2173.1 

Organization: National Association of Forest Owners (NAFO) 

Comment: 

The commenter recommends that EPA expand the types of documents that demonstrate active 

management of a tree plantation. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2417 

Organization: Forest Landowners Association 

Comment: 

The commenter states that active management is a broad concept usually embodied in some kind 

of plan. A management plan is a “predetermined course of action and direction to achieve a set 

of results.” Management plans are usually memorialized in writing, but a plan can take many 

forms. The commenter also recommends that EPA expand the documentation that shows 

evidence of active management. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2507 

Organization: Forest Landowners Association 

Comment:

The commenter [[2507]] believes the following definition is appropriate from a forestry 

standpoint: “Actively managed tree plantations are forests managed for a predetermined outcome 

as evidenced by: 1) A written Management Plan; 2) Participation in or management in 

accordance with a certification program; 3) Harvest conducted by a logging professional that has, 

or is in the process of completing, a state approved Master Logger Program; 4) An agreement 

with a consulting forester; 5) Enrollment in a Landowner Assistance Program such as Forest 

Map or (spell out what CMP is) CMP; 6) Participation in a silvicultural, conservation, 

stewardship or other natural resource management program sponsored by a Federal, state or local 

government (e.g., FIP, SIP FLEP, CRP, EQIP); or 7) Any agreement or action requiring or 

implying active forest management, including harvest agreements, conservation easements, 

silvicultural expenditures or other similar agreements or actions. [[2507 p.2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2156 

Organization: Georgia Forestry Commission 

Comment:

The commenter (2156) comments that the requirement of documentation for tree plantations to 

meet the “actively managed” definition will not be the same as agricultural lands, stating that the 

3-65
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

consideration of tree plantations as the same as agricultural lands is inappropriate, and noting 

that planted forests grow one, two, or three decades without a significant treatment to document. 

(2156.1.docx, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2349 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Forestry 

Comment:

The commenter (2349) recommends expanding the definition of “actively managed” land to 

include 1) harvest conducted by logging professionals 2) agreement with consulting forester 3) 

enrollment in landowner program 4) agreement implying active forest management 5) existence 

of road system with evidence of ongoing maintenance 6) evidence of skid trails indicating 

thinning with in the standard rotation period. (2349.pdf, p.1-2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2517 

Organization: National Association of State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter believes the evidence list included in the “actively managed” definition is too 

narrow. Nationally, there are 10.4 million family forest owners in the U.S. who own an average 

of 25 acres. Many of these landowners actively manage their forests, but are not required (by 

state law or otherwise) to do so under a management plan. Further, many of these family forest 

owners may not have ready access to sales or purchase records from past management activities 

that can date back as many as 30-80 years. To avoid eliminating many family forest owners 

from participating, NASF recommends the list of management evidence be expanded to include: 

- Harvests conducted by a logging professional that has, or is in the process of completing, a 

state approved Master Logger Program; 

- An agreement with a consulting forester; 

- Enrollment in a Landowner Assistance Program (e.g., ForestMap); 

- An agreement or action requiring or implying active forest management, including a harvest 

agreement, conservation easement, a silvicultural expenditure or any other similar agreement or 

action; 

- The existence of a road system or other physical infrastructure with evidence of ongoing 

maintenance; or 

- Stumps, slash, or evidence of skid trails indicating thinning or other logging within the length 

of a standard rotation for the region. 

The commenter also recognizes there may be other options available for demonstrating active 

management (e.g., evidence of fire breaks, boundary line maintenance) and encourage EPA to 

build in flexibility within the program to consider actual circumstances on the ground. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that any number of records, including sales records, tax records, and 

insurance records, in conjunction with verification from a professional forester, would be 

appropriate for verifying that land was actively managed prior to December 19, 2007. 

3-66
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response:

EPA has expanded the types of documents that can be used by a renewable fuel producer 

to show that the tree plantation from which their feedstocks were harvested was actively 

managed on December 19, 2007. Active management is evidenced by any of the following 

document that can be traced to the land in question: sales records for planted trees or slash; 

purchasing records for seeds, seedlings, or other nursery stock together with other written 

documentation connecting the land in question to these purchases; a written management plan 

for silvicultural purposes; documentation of participation in a silvicultural program sponsored by 

a Federal, state or local government agency; documentation of land management in accordance 

with an agricultural or silvicultural product certification program; an agreement for land 

management consultation with a professional forester that identifies the land in question; or 

evidence of the existence and ongoing maintenance of a road system or other physical 

infrastructure designed and maintained for logging use, together with one of the abovementioned documents. 

LFSA and the Clean Air Task Force comment that tax records should be considered 

sufficient evidence of active management of a tree plantation. We considered these comments 

and believe that the information these documents provide, income from sales of planted trees or 

tree residue, should be reflected in sales invoices or revenue receipts. 

In response to the comment that in light of the duration of tree growth, that records 

evidencing management may be spaced decades or more apart, EPA notes that the regulations do 

not specify a particular date for the documentation in question. Thus, although the objective of 

the evidence should be to show that the plantation was actively managed as of the date of EISA, 

in many instances documents prepared well before or after the date of EISA enactment may 

accomplish this objective. For example, a management plan prepared in 2000 that calls for tree 

growth over a twenty year period would be evidence that a tee plantation was actively managed 

in 2007. 

3.3.2.10 Slash 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment:

EPA’s definitions should broadly interpret slash and pre-commercial thinnings to allow use of 

biomass materials that may be otherwise wasted for production of renewable fuels. Renewable 

biomass and slash should be defined to include tree bark and trees that are damaged and 

destroyed by natural disasters including floods. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2349 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Forestry 

Comment: 

3-67
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter (2349) suggests the definition of slash to also include “materials from stands that 

have been rendered unmerchantable for logging due to degradation from natural and manmade 

disturbances resulting in loss of merchantability” (2349.pdf, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2156 

Organization: Georgia Forestry Commission 

Comment:

The commenter (2156) recommends that the proposed definition of slash needs to include the 

understory trees and cull material. (2156.1.docx, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2517 

Organization: National Association of State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter states that according to the Dictionary of Forestry (1998, pp. 168), slash is “the 

residue, e.g., treetops and branches, left on the ground after logging or accumulating as a result 

of a storm, fire, girdling, or delimbing. NASF supports EPA’s proposal to use the Dictionary of 

Forestry definition of “slash” in place of the term “residue” in an effort to simplify the RFS 

regulations and use a silvicultural term that is widely-used in the industry. We also support 

clarifying that slash can include tree bark and can be the result of any natural disasters, including 

(but not limited to) flooding. Nothing in the definition of slash should preclude the use of 

material from stands that have been rendered unmerchantable for logging due to degradation 

from natural and manmade disturbances resulting in loss of merchantability. Further, mill 

residues such as sawdust, bark and black liquor should not be excluded as an eligible source of 

renewable biomass for RIN credits. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2494 

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter believes the definition of slash should clarify that slash can include tree bark and 

can be the result of any natural disaster, including flooding. 

Our Response:

 We proposed to define slash according to the Dictionary of Forestry (1998, pp. 168), as 

“the residue, e.g., treetops and branches, left on the ground after logging or accumulating as a 

result of a storm, fire, girdling, or delimbing.” We also proposed to clarify that slash can include 

tree bark and can be the result of any natural disaster, including flooding. In response to these 

comments in support of this additional inclusion, we are expanding the definition of “slash” to 

include tree bark and residue resulting from natural disaster, including flooding. EPA believes 

understory trees and cull are best considered “pre-commercial thinnings” under the renewable 

biomass definition. 

3.3.2.11 Pre-Commercial Thinnings 

What Commenters Said:

3-68
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment:

With regard to pre-commercial thinnings, the commenters recommend that EPA should not use 

maximum tree diameter as a basis to define pre-commercial thinning, as this maximum tree 

diameter would need to vary greatly between forest type and location and thus one maximum 

diameter would not be accurate for all locations. Instead, the commenters recommend that EPA 

modify its definition of pre-commercial thinnings to include criteria which require biomass 

facilities to meet minimum on-site retention of a basal area along with maximum tree diameters 

appropriate to the forest type as determined by the United States Forest Service (USFS) 

silvicultural stock guidelines. EPA should work with the USFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) to establish basal area retention rates for different forest types and regions and 

develop Memorandums of Understanding as appropriate with states that have developed rigorous 

biomass harvesting standards or forest management practices. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment:

The commenter states that pre-commercial thinnings should include trees that are cut to 

concentrate growth of more desirable trees. Regarding EPA’s requested comment on whether 

the agency should include a maximum diameter beyond which pre-commercial thinnings would 

no longer qualify as renewable biomass, the commenter notes that appropriate thinning and 

forest management practices will vary by geography and species, and states that any limitation 

on the diameter of a tree to qualify as biomass will be arbitrary, cumbersome to enforce, and 

provide no appreciable GHG or environmental benefit and therefore is not supported. [[Docket 

number 2383.1, p. 15]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2515 

Organization: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) 

Comment: 

The commenter agrees that financial returns should not be included in the determination of the 

category of pre-commercial thinnings. The commenter concurs with EPA’s proposal to include 

removal of diseased trees as a component of thinning. This provision could be extended to forest 

health prescriptions that are designed to contain pest and disease outbreaks and infestations. The 

commenter further urges EPA to consider biomass generated by other silvicultural practices that 

broadly fall within the category of stand improvement as renewable. (2515.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2156 

Organization: Georgia Forestry Commission 

Comment:

The commenter (2156) suggests the need to include insect infested trees to the definition of precommercial thinning. (2156.1.docx, p.3) 

3-69
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment:

The commenter (2143) mentions that the term “pre-commercial” is used inappropriately in the 

discussion of the eligibility of forest biomass derived renewable fuels for inclusion in RFS. 

(2143.2, p.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2349 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Forestry 

Comment: 

The commenter (2349) does not agree with providing the maximum diameter for pre-commercial 

thinning but does support the proposed definition of pre-commercial. (2349.pdf, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2517 

Organization: National Association of State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter commends EPA’s decision to remove any reference to “financial return” found 

in the definition of pre-commercial thinning. Further, state foresters support EPA’s decision to 

include diseased or insect-infested trees, and recommend the agency include trees killed by other 

natural events such as by fire, flood, wind, hurricanes and other extreme events. In many cases, 

pre-commercial thinnings involve removing trees of different species, crown sizes, sizes and 

condition classes including the removal of diseased or infested trees to improve forest health. 

The commenter also strongly recommends that EPA remove any reference to establishing 

arbitrary diameter limits as this would almost certainly complicate implementation. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2494 

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter agrees with EPA that reference to “having no commercial value” should be 

removed from the definition of pre-commercial thinning. The commenter recommends not 

having a diameter limit for this definition because the market situation needs to evolve to allow 

material to move between markets depending on local economic conditions. The commenter 

supports including diseased or insect-infested trees, trees killed by fire, flood, wind and other 

extreme events in the definition of pre-commercial thinning for the reasons contained in the 

proposed rules. They do not support a maximum diameter, as this would necessarily be an 

arbitrary limit and would unnecessarily complicate implementation. Pre-commercial thinning is 

conducted for numerous purposes and can target vegetation of different species, crown sizes, 

condition, stand position etc. Placing a diameter limit would not only be arbitrary, but could 

work at cross-purposes for the thinning itself, including removal of diseased or infested trees to 

maintain stand health. The commenter suggests the following definition for the term precommercial thinnings: “Removal of trees from a stand of trees in order to reduce stocking to 

improve overall stand vigor, concentrate future growth on more desirable trees, and in fire prone 

ecosystems, reduce the potential of stand loss to fire.” 

3-70
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2171 

Organization: Mascoma Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter believes that it is critical that EPA define “pre-commercial thinnings” and 

“slash” appropriately so that the rule does not unjustifiably limit the types and quantities of wood 

products–including whole trees and pulpwood–that can be harvested in a sustainable manner and 

used in the production of advanced biofuels. The commenter explains that generally, pulpwood 

is derived from trees that do not make good sawlogs such as heavily branched trees, diseased 

trees, and tops of trees harvested for sawlogs and should be included within the definition of 

“pre-commercial thinnings” and “slash.” The commenter believes that pulpwood should be 

specifically included as an eligible feedstock in the final rule. The House of Representatives has 

passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 which clarifies the definition of 

renewable biomass including eligibility of woody biomass from both private and federal 

forestlands and the commenter urges EPA to consider these modifications as it finalizes the 

RFS2 rule. [[Docket number 2171.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response:

EPA agrees with the assessment that tree diameter varies greatly by forest type and 

location, making any diameter limitation EPA might set as a basis for defining pre-commercial 

thinnings arbitrary. We have therefore defined pre-commercial thinnings based on the 

Dictionary of Forestry, which contains commonly understood definitions of forestry 

terminology, as “the removal of trees not for immediate financial return but to reduce stocking to 

concentrate growth on the more desirable trees or other vegetative material that is removed to 

promote tree growth.” EPA is not establishing basal area retention rates for different forest types 

and regions as one commenter suggests, as a case-by-case assessment of each forest type by a 

professional forester would be necessary, and such an assessment is impractical for purposes of 

RFS2. 

Finally, EPA notes, EISA specifically prevents slash and pre-commercial thinnings from 

qualifying as renewable biomass if it is collected from federal forestlands. However, there is no 

such restriction regarding biomass from federal lands if it is taken from the immediate vicinity 

off buildings and other areas regularly occupied by people, or public infrastructure, at risk of 

wildfire. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2173.1 

Organization: National Association of Forest Owners (NAFO) 

Comment: 

The commenter suggests that in issuing regulations to effectuate the EISA’s definition of 

“renewable biomass,” EPA should not overlook any important sources of forest biomass. For 

example, the commenter is concerned that EPA has overlooked intercropping as a potential 

source of renewable biomass. Intercropping is an innovative concept that forest landowners are 

exploring, whereby foresters are planting perennial plants (such as switchgrass) between rows of 

3-71
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

young trees. These landowners hope to achieve annual harvests for at least ten years after 

establishment, before the crops are shaded out by adjacent trees. 

The commenter notes that another important source of forest biomass is understory vegetation, 

including shrubs, brush, and other plants. Such vegetation is often removed to maintain 

desirable forest conditions and improve tree growth. The resulting biomass can and should be 

eligible for use as a fuel source along with eligible biomass from trees. Although not specifically 

identified in the definition of renewable biomass, the commenter believes it is reasonable to 

assume that Congress intended such material to qualify as eligible biomass, as it is a byproduct 

of ordinary forest operations producing brush, slash, and other types of forest residues. The 

commenter urges that EPA’s regulations be drafted broadly so that the greatest array of forest 

vegetation, including crops produced through intercropping and understory plants, are eligible as 

renewable biomass. 

Our Response: 

 Under EISA, renewable biomass may include “slash and pre-commercial thinnings” from 

non-federal forestlands, and “planted trees and tree residue” from actively managed tree 

plantations on non-federal land. EPA is including tree plantations as a subset of forestland in the 

final RFS2 regulations since it is commonly understood as such throughout the forestry industry, 

which will effectively allow pre-commercial thinnings and slash, in addition to planted trees and 

tree residue, harvested from tree plantations to serve as qualifying feedstocks for renewable fuel 

production. Thus because we have defined “pre-commercial thinnings” in the final regulations 

as “trees, including unhealthy or diseased trees, primarily removed to reduce stocking to 

concentrate growth on more desirable, healthy trees, or other vegetative material that is removed 

to promote tree growth,” understory vegetation as described by the commenter would qualify as 

renewable biomass under RFS2. 

However, although intercropping can help to diversify the types of feedstocks harvested 

from tree plantations as noted by the commenter, we do not believe that perennial plants or other 

planted crops can reasonably be considered planted trees, tree residue, slash, or pre-commercial 

thinnings, and therefore intercropped plants from tree plantations would not qualify as renewable 

biomass under RFS2. 

 

3.3.2.12 Forestland and Nonforested Land 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2143) recommends that EPA should define forest land the same as the USDA 

Forest Service, Forest Inventory & Assessment (FIA). (2143.2, p.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2173.1 

3-72
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: National Association of Forest Owners (NAFO) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2173) recommends EPA amend its proposed definition of “forestland” to 

include tree plantations consistent with the use of the term among forestry professionals. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2144 

Organization: New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets 

Comment:

The commenter has considerable concern regarding language regarding the proposed definition 

of “nonforested.” The commenter noted that the intent of the last line in the definition is unclear. 

(2144.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2515 

Organization: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that EPA’s proposal which defines forestland as any parcel of one acre 

or more with predominately tree cover will create eligibility problems. Restoring these sites to 

grass cover types and allowing those lands to supply renewable biomass will provide biomass 

and enhance the ecological value and function of the sites. The commenter believes it to be more 

appropriate to look at the landscape context to determine forest land status. Tools such as the 

Ecological Classification System can be employed to determine forest status. (2515.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2349 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Forestry 

Comment: 

The commenter (2349) suggests that the term Forestland should be defined according to U.S 

Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) definition. (2349.pdf, p.1) The commenter 

(2349) also recommends that the EPA should adopt one of the two definitions of non-forest lands 

as described by: 1) RPA assessment definition of non-forest land 2) FIA definition of non-forest 

land. (2349.pdf, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2156 

Organization: Georgia Forestry Commission 

Comment:

The commenter (2156) suggests that the definition of forestland seems appropriate, with the very 

obvious exception of the proposal to not include tree plantations as forestland. This is 

inappropriate and serves no purpose within the language. It could also result in unintended 

effects beyond the scope of this legislation. (2156.1.docx, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2517 

Organization: National Association of State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter comments that EPA’s definition of forestland does not include plantations, 

which are a commonly-accepted type of forest land throughout the forest industry. Planted 

forests may differ from those of natural origin. In practice, however, there is no clear dichotomy 

between a tree plantation and a natural forest. In place of the proposed RFS2 definition, NASF 

3-73
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

strongly recommends EPA defer to the commonly understood, widely used forest land definition 

developed by the U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. 

Similarly, the commenter notes that the FIA definition of non-forest land is commonlyunderstood in the forestry community and should be applied in EPA’s RFS2 regulations. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2494 

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter suggests using the definition for non-forested land used by the US FS Forest 

Inventory and Analysis program and RPA Assessment. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2361 

Organization: Indonesian Palm Oil Commission 

Comment: 

The commenter (2361) is not sure if the definition of non-forested land includes oil palm 

plantations. The commenter believes that IPCC had an agreed definition of forested land 

therefore oil palm should be considered as tree plantation and not forest so that biofuel feedstock 

may be legitimately obtained from it after December 19, 2007. (2361.1.pdf, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2016 

Organization: Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2016.1) would like to confirm that the definition of “nonforested” land (page 

249330) includes oil palm plantations. This means that oil palm is to be considered “tree 

plantation” and not “forest” so that biofuel feedstock may be legitimately obtained from it after 

December 19, 2007. (2016, p.2) 

Our Response:

In response to many of these comments, EPA’s final definition of forestland is similar to 

the FIA definition of forest, that is “generally undeveloped land covering a minimum of 1 acre 

upon which the primary vegetative species is trees, including land that formerly had such tree 

cover and that will be regenerated and tree plantations. Tree covered areas in intensive 

agricultural crop production settings, such as fruit orchards, or tree-covered areas in urban 

settings such as city parks, are not considered forestland.” 

In response to comments to broaden the definition of “forestland” to include tree 

plantations, we are including tree plantations as a subset of forestland since they are commonly 

understood as such throughout the forestry industry. 

With respect to the categorization of oil palm plantations, we believe such plantations are 

more similar to fruit orchards than to tree plantations referred to within the definition of 

renewable biomass in that they are planted and managed for the purpose of harvesting palm 

kernels and not for harvesting the trees themselves, in the same way that a fruit orchard is 

planted and managed to yield fruit and not woody biomass per se. Our final definition of 

3-74
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

forestland purposefully includes tree plantations but excludes orchards, as we believe orchards 

are more appropriately considered a type of agricultural land (cropland, specifically), and 

orchard fruits planted crops. With this reasoning, we believe that palm kernels would also 

qualify as planted crops under the EISA definition of renewable biomass, and oil palm 

plantations would have to meet the criteria for existing agricultural land in order for their kernels 

and residue to qualify as renewable biomass under RFS2. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment:

The commenter (2143) states the proposal is not clear regarding the status of land that is 

currently not actively used for agriculture or forest. These lands, that might be "idle" well into 

the future and not used for activities that would interfere with the establishment of trees and 

forests for biomass production, should be recognized for their ability to contribute to the 

production of renewable biomass if and when action may be taken to establish forest growth. 

 (2143.2, p.6) 

Our Response:

 EISA specifies not only the types of feedstocks that may be used to produce renewable 

fuel but also the types of land and status of the land from which many types of feedstocks may 

come. Tree plantations must have been cleared and actively managed as of December 19, 2007 

in order for biomass taken from such lands to qualify as renewable biomass. Thus land that was 

“idle” on that date, unless intentionally so as a result of management decision, cannot be 

considered a tree plantation under the final RFS2 regulations. 

However, if at any point in the future such idle land meets the definition of forestland, is 

non-federal land, and is not ecologically-sensitive land, then slash and pre-commercial thinnings 

taken from such land could qualify as renewable biomass under RFS2. In addition, land that was 

idle on December 19, 2007 could also potentially qualify for renewable biomass production if it 

includes buildings and other areas regularly occupied by people or public infrastructure at risk of 

wildfire or is used for production of non-cultivated feedstocks such as algae and animal wastes. 

3.3.2.13 Ecologically Sensitive Forestland 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment:

The commenter (2143) suggests that the state forester should be responsible for defining 

“ecologically sensitive forest land” as it varies by state and the entire country does not fit into 

this definition. (2143.2. P.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2349 

3-75
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Forestry 

Comment: 

The commenter (2349) proposes that EPA should install a state-preferred method - in 

consultation by the state forester to define & delineate ecologically sensitive forest land state by 

state. (2349.pdf, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2156 

Organization: Georgia Forestry Commission 

Comment:

The commenter (2156) suggests that more clarity is needed concerning the State Natural 

Heritage Program areas and globally ranked ecological community database. (2156.1.docx, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2517 

Organization: National Association of State Foresters 

Comment: 

EPA proposes to use data compiled by NatureServe to publish a special report to identify 

“ecologically sensitive forestland.” The report would list all forest ecological communities in the 

U.S. with a global ranking of G1, G2, or G3, or with a State ranking of S1, S2, or S3, and would 

include descriptions of the key geographic and biologic attributes of the referenced ecological 

community. It is our understanding the report would identify those ecological communities from 

which slash and pre-commercial thinnings could not be used as feedstock and would be 

ineligible for RINs. 

Ecological communities identified as critically imperiled, imperiled or rare by the Natural 

Heritage Program in one state may not mean the same ecological community has the same status 

in another state. EPA must be clear as they promulgate the final rule that designations as to the 

status of ecological communities is restricted to the state in which it resides. Blanket, nationwide designations are not defensible and will further restrict the ability of meeting the goals set 

forth in EISA. Rather than publishing a special report, NASF recommends EPA install a statedeferred process whereby the State Natural Heritage Program—in consultation with the State 

Forester—delineate where ecologically sensitive forest lands reside. These decisions— 

alongside determinations for making information regarding the location of sensitive sites 

publicly available—best reside at the state level. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2173.1 

Organization: National Association of Forest Owners (NAFO) 

Comment: 

The commenter believes EPA’s inclusion of G3 forests in the list of ecologically sensitive forests 

is flawed because the NatureServe rankings do not include a “rare” designation. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2494 

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter notes that NatureServe and State Natural Heritage databases are proposed by 

EPA for using these designations to identify “ecologically sensitive lands” where slash and precommercial thinnings could not be used as feedstock for production of renewable fuel. The 

3-76
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

CWSF are concerned about land use restrictions for state and private lands included in the draft 

regulations that could put further restrictions on utilization of biomass from legal forest 

management activities conducted by private landowners and state forest managers. Furthermore, 

biomass removal may be fully consistent and appropriate for addressing conservation threats and 

restoration needs for some of the identified “ecologically sensitive” forest lands, especially 

where returning the system to a more traditional fire regime is part of the system’s ecology and 

where fire suppression has contributed to the current condition. New bioenergy markets could 

help make restoration efforts on these lands more economical. The commenter recommends not 

automatically excluding Nature Serve areas from potentially contributing to renewable biomass. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment:

The commenters recommend that EPA should not rely solely on state natural heritage programs 

to identify ecologically sensitive lands. Databases of sensitive lands maintained by non-profit 

organizations, such as NatureServe, should also be consulted in determining what ecologicallysensitive lands should not be eligible to provide biomass. 

Our Response:

EISA explicitly excludes from its definition of renewable biomass slash and precommercial thinnings taken from forestland ecological communities ranked as critically 

imperiled, imperiled, or rare pursuant to a State Natural Heritage Program. Therefore we have 

finalized our regulations to exclude biomass from such areas, specifically those with Natural 

Heritage Programs global ranking of G1 or G2, or with a State ranking of S1, S2, or S3, and we 

are including in the docket lists of ecological communities fitting these descriptions. The lists 

consist of data compiled by NatureServe and are published in special reports to identify 

“ecologically sensitive forestland.” These lists are specified on a state-by-state basis. 

3.3.2.14 Old-Growth Forest 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment:

The commenters recommend that EPA should not use a single age of 200 years to define old 

growth and late-successional forests as this would not be appropriate for all locations and 

ecosystems. Rather, research funding should be provided to accomplish nation-wide mapping of 

3-77
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

these ecosystems in order to exclude old growth and late-successional forest harvests from the 

definition of renewable biomass. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2349 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Forestry 

Comment: 

The commenter (2349) suggests that the definition of Old-Growth trees should be based on 

various characters as described in the Dictionary of Forestry (1998, p.127) published by 

American Society of Foresters and not based on absolute measure of 200 years of age. (2349.pdf, 

p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment:

EPA proposes that ecologically sensitive forestland, which is excluded from the EISA definition 

of renewable biomass, be defined to include forest that is characterized by trees at least two 

hundred years old. This definition requires greater refinement due to its regional applications. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2156 

Organization: Georgia Forestry Commission 

Comment:

The commenter (2156) recommends that older trees must be predominant in a forest to trigger 

the old-growth and late successional forests classification. (2156.1.docx, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2517 

Organization: National Association of State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter holds that old growth, late-successional and many of the forest communities 

ranked by NatureServe are the same forests at greatest risk to insect, disease and catastrophic 

wildfire threats. In fact, NatureServe often calls for the active management of these areas. We 

strongly recommend EPA avoid further restricting the type and amount of biomass that can be 

removed from these areas as they are the same forests that can benefit most from forest health 

treatments and are already protected by federal requirements for threatened and endangered 

(T&E) species. Access to new biomass markets—such as those likely to be created by a RFS—

can help cover the costs associated with restoring these areas. A narrowly interpreted EISA 

biomass definition will preclude these markets from developing in many areas. 

NASF disagrees with EPA’s proposition to characterize old-growth and late-successional forests 

as including trees at least 200 years old. As indicated in the dictionary of forestry, old-growth 

forests are characterized more by structural characteristics (e.g., live trees, canopy conditions, 

snags, down logs, etc.) and less by the age of the trees found in the stand. Old-growth conditions 

vary by forest type, climate, site conditions and disturbance regime. Using an age-related 

definition disregards other structural characteristics that more accurately identify old growth 

conditions. NASF recommends EPA adopt the following definition of old-growth developed by 

the US Forest Service: “Old growth encompasses the later stages of stand development that 

typically differ from earlier stages in a variety of characteristics which may include tree size, 

3-78
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

accumulations of large dead woody material, number of canopy layers, species composition, and 

ecosystem function.” 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2494 

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter comments that EPA should use the US Forest Service definition of old-growth 

(see below) and provide for biomass removal that helps achieve ecological restoration or that 

helps maintain ecological integrity of these forests. The definition should not include reference 

to tree age (200 year old) or “virgin” forests. 

Our Response:

While EPA understands that there are a number of criteria that professional foresters may 

use in determining whether a forest is old growth and that the criteria differ depending on the 

type of forest, for purposes of the RFS2 rule, EPA seeks to use definitive criteria that can be 

applied by non-professionals. We have therefore finalized the proposed definition of “old 

growth” as characterized by trees at least 200 years old. 

3.3.2.15 Areas at Risk of Wildfire 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment: 

The commenters would like EPA to use Community Wildfire Protection Plans and Wildland 

Urban Interfaces in order to decide which materials should be removed and used to reduce 

wildfire instead of assessing distance to vegetated land to determine eligible areas. (2129.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2515 

Organization: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) 

Comment:

The commenter recommends all fuel wood within 200 ft of a given structure be eligible for 

biomass (the maximum distance for eligible wood). Limiting material eligible for fuels 

reduction to 100 ft is unnecessarily restrictive. Additionally, the commenter believes eligible 

biomass from fuel wood reduction should not be limited to communities with Community 

Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs). (2515.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2349 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Forestry 

Comment: 

3-79
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter (2349) does not support the definition of biomass obtained from communities at 

risk being within 100 feet; however they do support immediate vicinity within 200 ft of 

buildings, campgrounds, public infrastructure to be eligible for RIN. Also, the commenter 

(2349) recommends that EPA use the existing definition of wildland urban interface as defined in 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to be eligible for RIN credits. (2349.pdf, p4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2517 

Organization: National Association of State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter notes that the EISA definition of renewable biomass includes biomass obtained 

from the immediate vicinity of buildings and other areas regularly occupied by people, or of 

public infrastructure, at risk from wildfire. EPA proposes that under RFS2, the term “immediate 

vicinity” would mean within 200 feet of a given structure or area. NASF supports EPA’s 

proposition to allow biomass within 200 feet of buildings, campgrounds, and other areas 

regularly occupied by people, or of public infrastructure to be eligible for RINs. 

EPA has called for comments on two implementation alternatives for identifying “areas at risk of 

wildfire” including the use of biomass from priority areas identified in Community Wildfire 

Protection Plans (CWPPs) and any area within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). NASF 

recommends these should not be considered “implementation alternatives” rather biomass from 

both the WUI and from priority areas identified in CWPPs should be eligible for RIN credits. 

We recommend EPA use existing definitions of WUI already defined in statute under the 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (PL 108-148 and HR1904). 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2494 

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter states that woody material removed to reduce fire risk to communities must be 

included in the definition of “renewable biomass”. The definition should be consistent with the 

definition of WUI and areas at risk of wildfire that are currently in legislation, specifically the 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that EPA’s alternative approach for identifying biomass from areas at 

risk of wildfire would ease recordkeeping requirements and would be more readily verifiable. 

[[Docket number 2310.1, pp. 7-10]] 

Our Response:

 EPA believes that the statutory definition of WUI from the Healthy Forests Restoration 

Act (Pub. L. 108-148) is too vague to use directly in implementing the RFS2 program. If EPA 

used this WUI definition, individual plots of land would have to be assessed by a professional 

forester on a case-by-case basis in order to determine if they meet the WUI definition, creating 

an expensive burden for landowners seeking to sell biomass from their lands as renewable fuel 

3-80
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

feedstocks. In light of these comments and the need for a relatively simple way for landowners 

and renewable fuel producers to track the status of particular plots of land, for the final rule we 

are defining “areas at risk of wildfire” as those areas in the “wildland-urban interface," where 

humans and their development meet or intermix with wildland fuel. The SILVIS laboratory at 

the University of Wisconsin maintains a website that provides a detailed map of areas that meet 

this criteria at: http://www.silvis.forest.wisc.edu/projects/US_WUI_2000.asp. The electronic 

WUI map is a readily accessible reference tool that was prepared by experts in the field of 

identifying areas at risk of wildfire, and is thus an ideal reference for purposes of implementing 

RFS2. 

3.3.2.16 Animal Wastes and Byproducts 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter (0994.1) noted that the definition of renewable biomass is not clear as to whether 

animal byproducts include all the rendered fats and oils, and believes that this section should 

expand the definition of animal byproducts or reference that these include animal tallows, pork 

fat, chicken grease, fish oil, etc. The commenter also believes that the list of renewable biomass 

should include an eighth category called waste greases that includes waste cooking oil (called 

yellow grease) and brown grease. (0994.1, p.3), stating that these greases are significant 

renewable biomass feedstocks and are not identified by any of the other seven items listed. 

(0994.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2305 

Organization: The Soap and Detergent Association 

Comment:

The commenters [[2305]] expressed concern with the inclusion of animal waste material and 

animal byproducts within the definition of renewable biomass, noting that tallow and other 

byproducts have many uses and that the price per barrel for tallow is similar to and at times 

higher priced than a barrel of crude oil. SDA believes that they should not to be included in the 

definition of renewable biomass. [[#2305.1 p.4]] 

Our Response:

In the definition of renewable biomass, EISA and our final RFS2 regulations specifically 

list separated food waste, “including recycled cooking and trap grease” and “animal waste 

material and animal byproducts.” EPA believes these listings cover the materials specified by 

the first commenter. Because the category “animal wastes and animal byproducts” is included in 

the statutory definition of renewable biomass, EPA cannot exclude this category from its 

regulatory definition as the second commenter suggests. 

3-81
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

3.3.2.17 Other Comments on Definitions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA’s definition of “Existing Agricultural Land” is 

inconsistent with the statute and could leave land out of the program that would meet the 

definition established by Congress. (2329.1, p.74) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp. 74-77 for a 

detailed discussion on this issue]] 

 

The commenter supports the definitions used by EPA to define cropland and forested land to the 

extent those definitions are consistent with USDA and generally used definitions. The 

commenter also believes that EPA’s definitions of fallow, planted crops and crop residues, and 

forestland are too limiting. The commenter believes that EPA should use USDA definitions that 

are well-known and understood by the agricultural community, rather than create new definitions 

that are likely to raise confusion and that may restrict the lands Congress sought to allow for 

biofuel feedstock production. (2329.1, pp.77-79) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp.77-79 for a 

detailed discussion of this issue]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2517 

Organization: National Association of State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter holds that EISA overly restricts the ability of the nation’s forests to contribute 

biomass, and that a narrow interpretation from EPA will further inhibit the ability to meet the 

RFS2 goals. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2383) states that EPA’s definitions and requirements for feedstocks and energy 

sources must maximize the availability of renewable fuel consistent with the text and purpose of 

EISA. In implementing the RFS2 program, EPA should adopt definitions of key terms that are 

consistent with terms defined by Congress, support the purpose of the RFS2 program to increase 

the production and use of renewable fuels, and avoid creation of unnecessary burdens, 

restrictions, or costs that impede the use of renewable feedstocks or fuels. [[Docket number 

2383.1, p. 12 and 2380.1, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2342 

Organization: Burack Environmental Law Offices 

Comment: 

The commenter (2342) believes that “Biomass” is broadly defined in RFS2 (within the definition 

of “Renewable Biomass”) as “organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis” 

and that biomass is already listed as a feedstock for process heat in conjunction with one of the 

corn ethanol pathways. The commenter also notes that “cellulosic biomass” does not appear to 

3-82
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

be specifically defined in RFS2, but has a reasonably clearly understood meaning within the 

agency and regulated community. (2342, p.2) 

Our Response:

EISA’s renewable biomass definition includes a number of terms that require definition. 

We have made every attempt to define these terms as consistently with other federal statutory 

and regulatory definitions as well as industry standards as possible, while keeping them workable 

for purposes of program implementation. We have also attempted, within the statutory confines 

of EISA, to interpret them broadly in order to further the goal of the EISA and RFS program, to 

increase the presence of renewable fuels in transportation fuel, without at the same time 

compromising the environmental protections Congress intended through adopting the renewable 

biomass restrictions. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment:

The commenter (2143) suggests that the definition of renewable biomass should include material 

that is available from actively managed native or natural forests as well as from plantations. The 

commenter (2143) suggests that participation in a federal, state or locally sponsored 

“conservation” program, including the USDA Forest Service Forest Stewardship Program (as 

well as the certification programs mentioned on page 24934 of the preamble) be incorporated in 

the definition. (2143.2, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2302 

Organization: UC Berkeley - Energy Biosciences Institute 

Comment: 

The commenter strongly urges EPA to add a new category of renewable biomass, “8. Plant 

material, including invasive species, removed for habitat restoration, fire mitigation, or as a 

result of natural disaster”. They further suggest that this new category be excluded from 

predictive assessments. They also encourage EPA to include the possibility that new forms of 

renewable biomass may emerge that are not specifically designated in the rule. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2349 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Forestry 

Comment:

The commenter (2349) encourages the establishment of biomass plantations on surfaced mined 

lands and including them regardless of the time of establishment. (2349.pdf, p.1) 

Our Response:

EISA restricts the materials that can be considered renewable biomass under RFS2, so 

EPA cannot add additional categories of biomass. However, where possible without 

3-83
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

undermining the environmental objectives of the statute, EPA has broadly defined EISA’s terms 

related to renewable biomass. For example, EPA has included biomass from agricultural land 

removed for purposes of invasive species control or fire management in the definition of crop 

residue. Additionally, the definition of slash has been clarified to include biomass resulting from 

natural disaster, including flooding. 

 

In response to the last comment, we emphasize that EISA specifically limits the land that 

renewable fuel feedstocks may come from. We have interpreted the “cleared or cultivated” 

requirement in the renewable biomass definition as requiring that agricultural lands and tree 

plantations be cleared prior to EISA’s enactment on December 19, 2007 and actively managed 

on that date. EPA cannot allow for clearing of additional lands after December 19, 2007 for 

purposes of RFS2 and cannot include lands as tree plantations that were not actively managed 

tree plantations as of the date of EISA enactment. 

3.3.3 Requiring a Demonstration that Feedstocks Meet the Renewable Biomass Definition 

Prior to Generating RINs 

3.3.3.1 General Comments 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2510 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2510) states that they have found no data source that will tell how to determine 

the value of land (all types) that may be used for renewable fuels, regardless of the feedstock 

type. The commenter believes that without this data, it is without merit to expect small business 

to spend fortunes to chase numbers that have not been determined to be relevant to the process. 

[[Docket number 2510.1, p. 3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1015 

Organization: Renewable Energy Group 

Comment: 

The commenter (1015) asks for a delay in the certification for feedstock land restrictions 

regulation until a cost benefit analysis is conducted on behalf of the biofuel producer and 

feedstock producer to implement this section. As EPA correctly concludes, no current data is 

collected from agricultural land owners, producers, and forest owners for assessing the status of 

agricultural land, forest land, and other types of land that could be used for renewable fuel 

feedstock production. The commenter has not identified any federal or state agency or third 

party that collects such data in a timely and meaningful way. [[Docket number 2123.1, p. 5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2010 

Organization: SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC 

Comment: 

3-84
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2010) asks for a delay in the certification for feedstock land restrictions 

regulation until a cost benefit analysis is conducted on behalf of the biofuel producer and 

feedstock producer to implement this section. As EPA correctly concludes, no current data is 

collected from agricultural land owners, producers, and forest owners for assessing the status of 

agricultural land, forest land, and other types of land that could be used for renewable fuel 

feedstock production. The commenter has not identified any federal or state agency or third 

party that collects such data in a timely and meaningful way. [[Docket number 2010.1, p. 5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2011 

Organization: Western Dubuque Biodiesel LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2011) asks for a delay in the certification for feedstock land restrictions 

regulation until a cost benefit analysis is conducted on behalf of the biofuel producer and 

feedstock producer to implement this section. As EPA correctly concludes, no current data is 

collected from agricultural land owners, producers, and forest owners for assessing the status of 

agricultural land, forest land, and other types of land that could be used for renewable fuel 

feedstock production. The commenter has not identified any federal or state agency or third 

party that collects such data in a timely and meaningful way. [[Docket number 2011.1, p. 5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2013 

Organization: Central Iowa Energy, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2013) asks for a delay in the certification for feedstock land restrictions 

regulation until a cost benefit analysis is conducted on behalf of the biofuel producer and 

feedstock producer to implement this section. As EPA correctly concludes, no current data is 

collected from agricultural land owners, producers, and forest owners for assessing the status of 

agricultural land, forest land, and other types of land that could be used for renewable fuel 

feedstock production. The commenter has not identified any federal or state agency or third 

party that collects such data in a timely and meaningful way. [[Docket number 2013.1, p. 5]] 

Our Response: 

EPA is required by law to promulgate regulations to implement the language contained in 

EISA, including the definition of renewable biomass which restricts renewable fuel feedstocks 

and the land from which they may come. We believe that there is sufficient data, as well as 

documentation on historic and current use of land, for all renewable fuel producers to be able to 

meet the renewable biomass provisions contained in the final RFS2 regulations. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2354 

Organization: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment: 

The commenter (2354) encourages EPA to develop a system by which feedstocks used for 

biofuels production are tracked with some specificity at the facility level. Lifecycle emissions 

3-85
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

depend on the location and method of feedstock production, collection so this information would 

be helpful in program evaluation. 

Our Response: 

 In the final RFS2 regulations we are requiring renewable fuel producers to report the 

types and volumes of feedstocks used in each batch of renewable fuel for which RINs are 

generated. We are also requiring producers who are not subject to the aggregate compliance 

approach for renewable biomass to submit on a quarterly basis documentation that links their 

feedstocks to their source. This information will be at the facility level. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2014 

Organization: Clean Fuels Clearinghouse 

Comment:

The commenter (2243.1) recommends that EPA be more prescriptive in defining renewable 

biomass and modify the regulations as proposed under §80.14151 (b)(6)(I) to include the 

following language “must show title evidence of ownership or lawful right of use of lands upon 

which the biomass was produced.” This qualifying criteria builds upon established land title 

practices and will assure that EPA can administer the program as proposed. (2243.1, p.2) 

Our Response: 

 EPA does not believe that it is necessary to adopt the specific recommendation of the 

commenter. EPA believes that implementation of the renewable biomass provisions requires 

some traceability of the feedstock to the land from which it was harvested. Therefore, our final 

regulations contain a requirement that feedstock verification documents be traceable to the land 

in question. EPA believes it is unlikely that producers will collect biomass unlawfully when 

required to report to EPA the location of such collection. In addition, EPA has no reason to 

believe that these or other producers would obtain feedstocks illegally, and existing state and 

local laws and procedures are in place to rectify such activities if they do occur. 

3.3.3.2 Direct Regulation of Feedstock Producers/Suppliers

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment:

The commenter (2383) is concerned about EPA’s proposed requirements that renewable fuel 

producers must obtain and keep records and documents demonstrating that feedstock meets the 

definition of “renewable biomass,” and must certify that all biomass used meets this definition, 

3-86
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

are unnecessarily burdensome. The feedstock producers will have greater knowledge of the 

historical use of land where feedstock is produced, the production of feedstocks, and will hold 

the primary records necessary to support such certification. The feedstock producers, rather than 

the renewable fuel producers, should be the entities that are required to maintain primary records 

regarding whether biomass meets the definition of “renewable biomass” and to certify that such 

biomass meets this definition.. [[Docket number 2383.1, p. 59]] 

Our Response:

 We understand that in many, if not most, cases, feedstock producers will have a better 

knowledge of the historical and current use of land used for growing renewable fuel feedstocks 

than a renewable fuel producer will. RIN generation responsibilities, however, remain with 

renewable fuel producers. For this reason, our approach for implementing the renewable 

biomass provision of EISA requires renewable fuel producers to obtain documentation from the 

feedstock producer (in the case of planted crops and crop residue and planted trees and tree 

residue). In order for EPA to be able to properly enforce against invalid RIN generation, the 

burden of proof for demonstrating that feedstocks do or do not meet the definition of “renewable 

biomass” must also reside with the renewable fuel producer. 

3.3.3.3 Agricultural Land 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2488 

Organization: Kansas Corn Growers Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2488) believes that by requiring proof that feedstocks used for ethanol 

production came from cropland which was in production prior to 2007, the proposed rule has the 

potential to place a great burden on corn growers. (2488, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2189 

Organization: Technical Consultant for Enzyme Development Corporation and 

Genencor International 

Comment: 

The commenter believes that the EPA proposal would put a heavy and unwarranted burden on 

feedstock providers. EPA’s proposal requires proof that croplands used to create biofuel 

feedstock were in existence prior to EISA becoming law in 2007. But there’s no risk that new 

lands will be cleared for feedstock for biofuel production —and the rule would mean extra costs 

and inconveniences for feedstock providers. (2189, p.2-3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2120 

Organization: Society for Range Management 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2120]] feels that the evidence EPA requires of producers in order to verify that 

their feedstock is eligible for RINs should be kept to a minimum. This is particularly true in the 

3-87
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

case of rangelands, where most landowners have been documenting their land management 

activities for a much shorter time than is generally the case for America’s farmers. EPA should 

cite examples of forms of evidence that would be acceptable, but not limit its approval to those 

kinds of records, in order to grant maximum flexibility to producers to demonstrate their claims. 

[[#2120.1 p.4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2446 

Organization: Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation 

Comment: 

The commenter believes that EPA’s definition of existing cropland creates onerous land use 

rules and record-keeping requirements that would bar many farmers from growing crops used for 

biofuel production and in so doing would reduce the value of a great deal of American farmland. 

The commenter also states that EPA makes several assumptions about the management of 

agricultural land that are not borne out by commonly accepted practices. For instance, the 

agency asserts that sales and purchasing receipts should be available to indicate that pastureland 

is being managed. Many farmers maintain their pastures even when the land is not actively 

being grazed. This maintenance may include mowing to reduce noxious weeds or fire hazards. 

There are not normally sales receipts or records for these routine practices. 

The commenter states that a farmer may leave land fallow for a myriad of reasons. These 

decisions are rarely documented. It is also unreasonable to expect that records such as sales 

receipts will be transferred when land is sold to new owners. For example, following a 

landowners’ death land may lie fallow while estate issues are resolved. These issues can often 

take years to resolve. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2549 

Organization: Triton Energy LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2549.1) is concerned with the unnecessary and unworkable feedstock 

certification requirements that EPA has proposed. This would create a whole new trading group 

on the Chicago Board of Trades and other world markets for beans and oils before the 

implementation date and those after the date. Those crops and oils raised and sold before the 

date would be more valuable because of the duel use of food or fuel and those after the date 

would only be used for food. It will be impossible for the farmer, grain elevator, bean crusher, 

storage facilities, oil transporters etc. to keep this product from getting mixed without billions of 

dollars of new storage capacity which will have a negative effect on what we are trying to do. 

The amount of tracking and paperwork to keep records and proof will be a nightmare for both 

producers, sellers, storage facilities, traders and consumers. (2549.1, pp.1-2). 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2300 

Organization: Dow AgroSciences 

Comment: 

The commenter is concerned with the unnecessary and unworkable feedstock certification 

requirement that EPA has proposed. (2300, p.1) 

3-88
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2150 

Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation 

Comment:

The commenter (2150.1) believes that EPA’s requirements (records of sales, written 

management plans, participation in state, local or federal management agency, or certified 

program) for proving cropland has been “continuously actively managed as agricultural land or 

fallow” as are unnecessarily burdensome and unclear. (Page 2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2353 

Organization: Iowa Soybean Association 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2353]] states that most Iowa farmers have extensive on-farm grain storage 

facilities. Overflow grain is usually trucked to local grain elevators for temporary storage before 

being commingled with grain from other farms and shipped by rail or truck to processing or 

export facilities. It would be very difficult to identify (and maintain the identity of) the 

originating land of any amount of production. USDA programs are in place to identify farm 

acreages, provide cropping histories and monitor environmental practices, and almost all Iowa 

farmers participate in these programs. Iowa soybean producers believe EPA should eliminate the 

impractical and nearly impossible burden of certification of production from existing and eligible 

cropland. [[#2353 p.3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2119 

Organization: National Sorghum Producers 

Comment: 

The commenter (2119.1) believes that the tracking requirements associated with existing 

agricultural land as proposed by EPA are unrealistic and unenforceable. The commenter 

believes that a system that exempts grain sorghum and other grain feedstocks is reasonable and 

enforceable. The new system, however, should track other feedstocks, including sweet sorghum 

and energy sorghum, since these other advanced and cellulosic feedstocks will be grown in much 

closer proximity to the ethanol producing facility and will not be traded via arbitrage. (2119.1, 

p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment: 

The commenter (2511.1) noted that EPA is proposing an overly burdensome administrative 

requirement for traceability that will have little, if any, benefit. EPA’s proposed feedstock 

certification provisions effectively require renewable fuel producers to segregate or identify 

preserve commodity crops. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA improperly placed a substantial and undue burden of 

proving renewable biomass requirement on renewable fuel producers. The statute does not 

impose an affirmative duty on renewable fuel producers to use renewable biomass. The 

3-89
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

commenter noted that RINs are not a statutory requirement, and no where in the statute does 

Congress indicate an intent to impose such stringent regulations on renewable fuel producers. 

Renewable fuel producers do not have access to the type of information needed to determine 

compliance with the existing cropland definition. Renewable fuel producers will need to rely on 

the feedstock providers, who are either likely to impose substantial costs to obtain and provide 

the information or are not likely to provide the information at all, unless EPA requires them to do 

so. (2329.1, p.79) 

The commenter also noted that the majority of feedstock is obtained from grain elevators or 

other centralized locations. These terminals receive feedstock from numerous sources, which are 

mixed together, and sell the feedstock to numerous sources. A recent study showed that 62 

percent of corn from Iowa farms went to a grain elevator. Tun-Hsiang (Edward) Yu and Chad 

Hart, Impact of Biofuel Industry 

 

Expansion on Grain Utilization and Distribution: Preliminary Results of Iowa Grain and Biofuel 

Survey, at 5 (2009), available at 

ttp://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/46847/2/Impact%20of%20Ethanol%20Industry%20Expan

sion%20on%20Corn%20Utilization%20and%20Distribution-Final.pdf. The commenter believes 

that EPA’s proposal does not address the crucial fact that would make it virtually impossible for 

renewable fuel producers to seek and obtain the required documentation. The commenter 

believes that EPA has failed to consider this important aspect of the problem, which renders the 

proposal arbitrary and capricious. (2329.1, p.79) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp.79-81 for a 

detailed discussion of this issue]] 

The commenter believes that EPA cannot impose such substantial regulatory requirements on 

these producers. RFS does not give EPA broad authority to regulate renewable fuel producers, 

just to implement the requirements for the fuels under the program. EPA must justify its 

regulation under other Clean Air Act authority, but EPA has no such authority under the Clean 

Air Act. (2329.1, pp.81-82) 

The commenter believes that the proposal unfairly treats crop-based renewable fuel. EPA needs 

to apply a similar presumption as it did for other types of renewable fuel. While the RFS 

mandates place sufficient incentives on renewable fuel producers to ensure that the feedstock 

used meets the definition of renewable biomass, the feedstock suppliers are the only ones in a 

position to confirm that their feedstock meets the Act’s requirements, and renewable fuel 

producers should be able to rely on their representations. Except for an incorrect reading of the 

statute, EPA provides no explanation as to why renewable fuel producers should not be allowed 

to rely on certifications by feedstock producers for the existing cropland and planted tree 

requirements, as with other feedstocks. At a minimum, the commenter believes that EPA should 

provide a good faith defense for ethanol producers. (2329.1, p.83) 

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA should provide a presumption that domestic crops 

used as biofuel feedstock in the Final Rule, focusing its enforcement actions against those with 

knowledge that they are using feedstock that does not meet the definition. (2329.1, p.84) [[See 

Docket Number 2329.1, pp.84-85 for a detailed discussion of this issue]] 

3-90
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment:

The commenter (2154.1) noted that the recordkeeping requirements concerning demonstration 

that feedstocks meet the definition of renewable biomass appear to be very onerous. The sheer 

volume of documentation that would have to be passed from feedstock producers to renewable 

fuel producers is staggering. EPA should give serious consideration to ways to simplify this 

requirement, particularly for domestic feedstocks. (2154.1, p.8) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2529 

Organization: National Grain and Feed Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2529) is not aware that the proposed record keeping system presently exists and 

believes that any requirement mandated by EPA to create such a system is unjustifiable and 

would place an unreasonable administrative burden on renewable fuel feedstock suppliers. 

The commenter particularly emphasizes that due to RIN and supplier recordkeeping 

requirements, grain elevators simply could choose not to participate in the renewable biomass 

program, denying the use of these stocks to the renewable fuels market. This is because such 

facilities receive feedstock from numerous sources, which are commingled together, and then 

sell the feedstock to numerous sources. Such segregation would be extremely costly and 

burdensome because it would require identity preserved storage, and would be necessary to 

ensure that the grain elevator could lawfully sell its commingled feedstock as a renewable 

biomass to a fuel ethanol producer. 

Instead of imposing costly and burdensome inefficiencies on biofuels producers and their 

suppliers, the NGFA urges EPA to work with USDA to ensure that substantial amounts of new 

land are not being cleared to comply with the EISA requirements. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (Docket number 2249.2) believes that the proposal related to the EISA 

renewable biomass definition is arbitrary and capricious and should be eliminated. The 

commenter does not support EPA’s proposal to address the “existing cropland” requirement nor 

is EPA’s definition of “existing agricultural land” consistent with the statute. In addition, EPA’s 

approach ignores important aspects of the problem and therefore is arbitrary and capricious and 

the proposal also creates unnecessary and overly burdensome administrative requirements. The 

Agency’s approach essentially seeks to “identify preserve” crops and should be rejected. The 

commenter suggests alternative proposals to address “existing agricultural land” including 

establishing baseline production of eligible. [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 17-26]] 

[[See docket number 2249.2, pp. 17-26 for the commenters” comprehensive discussion of EPA’s 

proposal related to definitions of “existing cropland.” Also see docket number 2249.1, pp. 3-4 

and docket number 2232.1, Attachment 3 for additional discussion.]] 

3-91
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter also believes that EPA should allow renewable fuel producers to rely on 

certifications by feedstock providers for all renewable biomass, including planted crops and crop 

residues and planted trees and tree residues. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 28]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) believes that the recordkeeping requirements concerning demonstration 

that feedstocks meet the definition of renewable biomass are very onerous. Some simplifying 

assumptions should be made and applied that would significantly reduce the recordkeeping 

burden. The commenter noted that there are certain types of feedstocks that could be declared 

renewable by list. These would include those that clearly come from agricultural lands such as 

corn and soybeans. The burden of having every farmer provide documentation that then must 

get passed along to the renewable fuel producer seems great when essentially all of certain types 

of crops would fall into the renewable biomass category. The commenter encourages EPA to 

consider ways to reduce the burden associated with demonstrating feedstock classification. 

(2124.1, p.32) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that Section 80.1451 contains onerous documentation requirements for 

renewable fuel producers. For each batch of renewable fuel produced, the renewable fuel 

producer would be required to maintain records to establish that the feedstock used meets the 

definition of renewable biomass as that term is defined in section 80.1401. [[Docket number 

2393.1, p. 42]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2472) strongly encourages EPA to consider ways to reduce the burden 

associated with demonstrating feedstock classification. The proposed recordkeeping 

requirements concerning demonstration that feedstocks meet the definition of renewable biomass 

are very onerous. Some simplifying assumptions should be made and applied that would 

significantly reduce the recordkeeping burden. For example, certain types of feedstocks should 

be declared renewable by list. The burden of having every farmer provide documentation that 

then must get passed along to a grain elevator or the renewable fuel producer seems great when 

essentially all of certain types of crops would fall into the renewable biomass category. [[Docket 

number 3472.1, p. 7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2343 

Organization: Osage Bio Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2343) states that the proposed rule requiring producers to certify feedstock as 

renewable biomass is cumbersome, at best, and will create a difficult administrative burden. The 

commenter believes that EPA should consider revising the rule to either eliminate or simplify the 

3-92
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

requirement to certify feedstock as renewable biomass, or; establish an exemption for biofuels 

produced from winter grain crops. [[Docket number 2343, pp. 5 and 7]] [[See docket number 

2343, pp. 5-7 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2363 

Organization: Ag Processing Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2363) recommends that instead of requiring mass amounts of paperwork, audits 

and segregation for the 99% of the biomass produced for renewable fuel production in 

compliance with the “non-native” and “actively managed” standards, EPA should instead focus 

on the 1% that might not be in compliance. The commenter states that renewable fuel producers 

and grain handlers could be supplied an inventory of land in their region/or nationwide that has 

been determined to not be in compliance or at risk. EPA can use satellite information and 

presently available maps to identify virgin lands in the United States. Owners of such land are 

also easily identified and could be notified. Similarly, renewable fuel producers could be given 

such maps and ownership records. The commenter believes that such information would be 

sufficient to warn the system not to take biomass from the operator of such land unless he or she 

verifies that they have segregated the harvest from such non-compliant land. [[Docket number 

2363.1, p. 10]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2487 

Organization: Abengoa Bioenergy Corporation 

Comment:

The commenter (2487) believes that the proposal puts a heavy and unwarranted burden on 

feedstock providers by requiring proof that croplands used to create biofuel feedstock were in 

existence prior to EISA becoming law in 2007. But there’s no risk that new lands will be cleared 

for feedstock for biofuel production and the rule would mean extra costs and inconveniences for 

feedstock providers. [[Docket number 2487, p. 1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1975 

Organization: Canadian Bioenergy Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (1975) believes that EPA should delay the “chain of supply” certification until a 

less burdensome tracking program is available. Allowing a delay in this chain of supply 

certification for feedstock land restrictions regulation until a cost benefit analysis is conducted on 

behalf of the biofuel producer to implement this section. The primary feedstock used for 

biodiesel production has been a fungible commodity. According to EPA’s proposed rule, 

feedstock would suddenly be required to be containerized and not blended or mixed with the 

same grain from different fields from, perhaps, the same farm as part of the tracking program. 

This cost burden is prohibitive to the entire supply chain and is a regulatory structure that would 

stifle production agriculture. [[Docket number 1975, p. 1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2526 

Organization: Coskata 

Comment: 

3-93
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter (2526) urges the EPA to adopt an inclusive and attainable approach towards the 

Renewable Biomass Definition and recordkeeping requirements. This will allow the cellulosic 

biofuels industry to fully achieve its potential for reducing greenhouse gases. The commenter 

makes the following points: 

- EPA should opt for the least onerous approach towards enforcement of the land-use 

requirement - voluntary certification combined with satellite surveillance. 

- Land use should allow innovations that enhance land’s carbon sequestration. [[Docket 

number 2526.1, pp. 1-2]] [[Also see docket number 2526.1, pp. 9-11 for further discussion of 

this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2244 

Organization: Altrius Group. LLC 

Comment:

Regarding verification of eligible renewable biomass, the commenter (2244) is concerned that by 

limiting the options for verification to a small set of accepted records, farmers in some sectors 

will benefit, while others may be unable to qualify because they do not have the right types of 

evidence. This is particularly true in the case of rangelands, which have fewer formal 

management practices in place and, therefore, fewer and different forms of evidence than 

cultivated lands. Furthermore, the types of documents EPA specifies may not be commonly used 

overseas, which would unfairly disadvantage producers in foreign countries who should receive 

equal treatment with respect to verification. The commenter supports the alternative approach 

EPA raises in its Proposed Rule, in which producers certify on their production reports that their 

feedstocks meet (or do not meet) the definition of renewable biomass and are required to 

maintain records to support their claims, but without specifying what those records would have 

to include, in order to grant maximum flexibility to producers to demonstrate their claims. 

[[Docket number 2244.1, pp. 4-5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2612 

Organization: Citizen (sample of 478 comment letters received from mass comment 

campaign sponsored by American Soybean Association) 

Comment: 

The commenter believes the proposed feedstock certification requirements are unnecessary and 

onerous. 

Our Response: 

In light of the comments received on the proposed renewable biomass recordkeeping 

requirements and implementation options, EPA sought assistance from USDA in determining 

whether existing data and data sources might suggest an alternative method for verifying 

compliance with renewable biomass requirements associated with the use of domestic crops and 

crop residue for renewable fuel production. Taking into consideration extensive publicly 

available data on agricultural land available from USDA and USGS as well as expected 

economic incentives for feedstock producers, EPA has determined that an aggregate compliance 

approach is appropriate for planted crops and crop residue from the United States. 

3-94
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Under the “aggregate compliance approach,” EPA is determining for this rule the total 

“existing agricultural land” in the U.S. at the enactment date of EISA. EPA will monitor total 

agricultural land annually to determine if national agricultural land acreage increases above this 

2007 national aggregate baseline Feedstocks derived from planted crops and crop residues will 

be considered to be consistent with the definition of renewable biomass and renewable fuel 

producers using these feedstocks will not be required to maintain specific renewable biomass 

records as described above unless and until EPA determines that the 2007 national aggregate 

baseline is exceeded. If EPA finds that the national aggregate baseline is exceeded, individual 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements as described below will be triggered for renewable 

fuel producers using crops and crop residue. We are confident that the aggregate approach will 

effectively implement the EISA renewable biomass provisions related to crops and crop residue, 

while also easing the burden for certain renewable fuel producers and their feedstock suppliers 

vis a vis verification that their feedstock qualifies as renewable biomass. 

There are four main factors supporting the aggregate compliance approach we are taking 

for planted crops and crop residue. First, EPA is using data sets that allow us to obtain an 

appropriately representative estimate of the agricultural lands in the U.S. that are available under 

EISA for the production of crops and crop residue as feedstock for renewable fuel production. 

Second, USDA data indicate an overall trend of agricultural land contraction. These data, 

together with EPA economic modeling, suggest that 2007 aggregate baseline acreage should be 

sufficient to support EISA renewable fuel obligations and other foreseeable demands for crop 

products, at least in the near term, without clearing and cultivating additional land. Third, EPA 

believes that existing economic factors for feedstock producers favor more efficient utilization 

practices and bringing existing agricultural land into crop production rather than converting nonagricultural lands to crop production. Fourth, if, at any point, EPA finds that the total amount of 

land in use for the production of crops including crops for grazing and forage is equal or greater 

than 397 acres (i.e., within 5 million acres of EPA’s established 402 million acre baseline), EPA 

will conduct further investigations to evaluate whether the presumption built into the aggregate 

compliance approach remains valid. Lastly, EPA has set up a trigger mechanism such that in the 

event that EPA finds in the future that there are more than the baseline amount of acres of 

cropland, pastureland and CRP land, then renewable fuel producers will be required to meet the 

same individual or consortium-based recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to 

other feedstocks used in the RFS2 program. Taken together, these factors give EPA high 

confidence that the aggregate compliance approach for domestically grown crops and crop 

residue will effectively implement the statutory obligation that feedstock volumes used to meet 

the renewable fuel requirements also comply with the definition of renewable biomass. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2360 

Organization: Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2360.1) noted that EPA stated in the proposed rule the possibility of requiring a 

certification program for feedstocks that are used in renewable fuel production. However, EPA 

3-95
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

did not provide a clear method to implement this certification despite the significant challenges it 

would present. (2360.1, p.6) 

Our Response:

EPA agrees that the proposal lacked specificity regarding certain elements of the 

proposed feedstock verification requirements. In response to comments, and upon further 

deliberation within EPA, EPA has modified the proposed requirements considerably for the final 

rule, and has established detailed regulations explaining the types of documents and 

certifications to be obtained, the parties who must generate them, how and when reports related 

to feedstock verification are provided to EPA, as well as associated recordkeeping requirements. 

3.3.3.4 Tree Plantations and Forestland 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2156 

Organization: Georgia Forestry Commission 

Comment:

The commenter (2156) is most concerned about the proposed idea of certifying renewable 

biomass. The commenter disagrees that documentation of tree plantations already exist on the 

many forestland tracts involved in the supply chain, as suggested by EPA and recommends that 

monitoring land use at regional/state level on yearly/biannually may provide the best quality 

assurance. The commenter (2156) also recommends additional thought, research, and discussion 

on this topic. (2156.1.docx, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2173.1 

Organization: National Association of Forest Owners (NAFO) 

Comment: 

The commenter believes that a true chain-of-custody tracking system is an overly burdensome 

verification option for forest-derived biomass. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2349 

Organization: Kentucky Division of Forestry 

Comment:

The commenter (2349) does not believe that chain-of-custody tracking system would be 

efficient. The commenter suggests EPA to engage forest industry to develop a flexible tracking 

system based on state approved management plan to track use of slash associated with logging 

residues. (2349.pdf, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2517 

Organization: National Association of State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter feels responsibility of verifying biomass should reside with the renewable fuel 

producer and should include flexibility for producers and suppliers to choose among different 

3-96
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

verification tools. The system should take into consideration that most forest land ownership in 

the U.S. is fragmented and held in small, private ownerships, and that brokers will aggregate 

supply from multiple sources, often in the form of chipped material, making a chain-of-custody 

system difficult to implement. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment:

Regarding EPA’s proposed tracking requirements for renewable biomass the commenter does 

not believe that renewable fuel producers should be required to track and document the origin of 

woody biomass and whether a particular tree plantation has been “actively managed.” EPA 

should consider the use of satellite imagery to verify that current tree plantation land has been 

actively managed since December 19, 2007, and that renewable fuel is indeed produced using 

“renewable biomass” as defined by EPA (planted trees and slash from tree plantations located on 

non-federal land that have been actively managed since December 19, 2007). Alternatively, if 

EPA requires renewable fuel producers to verify qualified renewable biomass from planted trees, 

the commenter agrees with EPA’s proposal to allow substantiation of “active management.” 

[[Docket number 2472.1, pp. 11-12]] 

Our Response: 

EPA does not believe that the use of satellite imagery would effectively implement 

EISA’s renewable biomass requirements with respect to woody biomass. Satellite imagery 

cannot identify the location from which a particular load of feedstock is derived. Although the 

final rule establishes an aggregate compliance approach for domestic planted crops and crop 

residues, EPA was not able to identify a comparable approach that would provide assurance 

regarding compliance with renewable biomass requirements for woody biomass that does not 

require tracking and documentation of the type that the comments disapprove of. However, the 

final rule does provide an option for renewable fuel producers to utilize an alternative tracking 

system involving the use of an independent third party to conduct comprehensive annual 

compliance surveys. EPA believes that this alternative approach could facilitate compliance for 

some producers, and is prepared to assist interested parties in developing a plan for such an 

alternative approach. 

3.3.3.5 Verification Requirements for Non-Cultivated Feedstocks 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2149 

Organization: Dynamic Fuels, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2149.1) believes that any approach EPA settles on to ensure that RINs are 

properly generated should only be applied for feedstocks directly cultivated from land. The four 

approaches described by EPA for ensuring that RINs are properly generated are discussed in the 

context of the land restrictions. However, there are feedstocks that qualify as renewable biomass 

3-97
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

that are not cultivated from land, such as animal fats and waste yellow grease. The commenter 

believes that EPA should make it clear that these feedstocks and others not directly cultivated 

from land are not subject to the requirements under the verification program. (2149.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2364 

Organization: Tyson Foods, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2364.1) believes that any approach EPA settles on to ensure that RINs are 

properly generated should only be applied for feedstocks directly cultivated from land. The 

commenter noted that the four approaches described by EPA for ensuring that RINs are properly 

generated are discussed in the context of the land restrictions. However, there are feedstocks that 

qualify as renewable biomass that are not cultivated from land, such as animal fats and waste 

yellow grease. The commenter believes that EPA should make it clear that these feedstocks and 

others not directly cultivated from land are not subject to the requirements under the verification 

program. (2364.1, p.4) 

Our Response: 

While EISA is more explicit about the origins of feedstocks cultivated from land than it is 

about non-cultivated feedstocks, it nonetheless limits renewable fuel feedstocks to those listed 

under the definition of “renewable biomass.” For this reason, both the final RFS2 regulations 

require renewable fuel producers to obtain certifying documentation from their feedstock 

suppliers for any non-cultivated feedstocks, including animal fats and waste grease, that they 

claim qualifies as renewable biomass. This approach will help to ensure that RINs are properly 

generated for renewable fuel produced from all types of feedstocks, not just those cultivated 

from land. 

3.3.3.6 Alternative Compliance Approaches 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2549 

Organization: Triton Energy LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2549.1) supports the proposal whereby the chain of custody requirement is 

eliminated by creating instead a baseline of land use. The commenter noted that the record 

keeping requirements outlined under §80.1451(6) will either eliminate most small biofuel 

producers or prevent any biofuel producer that uses an agriculture crop product that is widely 

traded in the market to be able to meet the recording requirements. The commenter believes that 

the Recordkeeping Requirements must be modified or few to no biofuel producers will be able to 

meet the requirements. (2549.1, p.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2172 

Organization: Minnesota Soybean Processors 

Comment:

3-98
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter states that EPA should recognize that soybeans produced inside the U.S. by U.S. 

soybean growers are being grown on land cultivated for over 100 years. It is unreasonable to 

believe that land under cultivation for well over 100 years will cause new land use change. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2100 

Organization: American Soybean Association 

Comment: 

The commenter believes data from USDA should demonstrate that no new acres are being 

planted in the United States. There are laws and regulations already in place that prevent farmers 

from breaking new land if they participate in the federal crop programs administered by USDA. 

These conservation compliance and enforcement mechanisms already exist at USDA. The 

existing USDA rules, and the information collected by USDA in their administration of those 

rules, should be sufficient for EPA to ensure that the domestic feedstock being used in biodiesel 

production is from existing and eligible cropland. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2463 

Organization: National Farmers Union 

Comment:

NFU does not believe that this level of burden is required to ensure new lands are not being 

converted to crop production. Farmers already have to report planted acres to USDA’s Farm 

Service Agency. EPA should use existing USDA data to establish a baseline level of production 

that can be compared against the eligible lands established on December 19, 2007. On a yearly 

basis, EPA can compare actual feedstock usage for ethanol, as reported by renewable fuels 

producers against USDA data of feedstock production. This will validate that new domestic 

lands are not being cleared to produce feedstocks such as corn for fuel production. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2516 

Organization: Imperium Renewables 

Comment:

The commenter believes the EPA requirements to comply with the existing cropland requirement 

is overly burdensome. Given U.S. land use requirements, increasing yields and production 

efficiencies, and the availability of existing cropland, it is highly unlikely that new lands in the 

U.S. will be cleared for purposes of RFS. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter views the enforceability of land restrictions as particularly problematic and 

states that considerable flexibility must be afforded renewable producers to keep such restrictions 

from preventing the production of renewable fuels with RINs. The commenter suggests that the 

agricultural community and renewable fuel producers may want to consider something akin to 

the RFG Association Survey approach to demonstrate to EPA that such restrictions are being 

followed. A representative survey of feedstock deliveries could be audited on a periodic basis to 

confirm general adherence to the land restrictions without having to require the pedigree of each 

and every feedstock delivery to a renewable producer to be proved. The commenter believes the 

latter approach to be unworkable and likely to result in the production of significant amounts of 

3-99
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

renewable fuel that will not be able to generate RINs simply due to a lack of documentation on 

feedstock pedigree. This will frustrate not only renewable producers, but also obligated parties 

and EPA in terms of having a workable RFS2 program. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 43]] 

The commenter suggests that EPA provide a phase-in period of several years where-in current 

renewable feedstock sources are deemed to be compliant with the feedstock land restrictions. 

This period will provide the agricultural community and renewable producers with adequate time 

to design and implement a survey program that meets the land restriction requirement to EPA’s 

satisfaction. Without such a phase-in period, EPA may be forced to disqualify RINs and 

renewable fuels that were purchased in good faith. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 43]] 

[[See docket number 2393.1, pp. 42-44 for detailed discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2173.1 

Organization: National Association of Forest Owners (NAFO) 

Comment: 

The commenter supports the alternative of bringing together renewable fuel producers and 

feedstock suppliers to develop a reliable and efficient quality assurance program. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2472) believes that renewable fuel producers should not be required to track 

renewable biomass. The commenter strongly supports shifting the responsibility for land use and 

“renewable biomass” verification from renewable fuel producers to the regulating agency (EPA). 

The commenter suggests that EPA consider the use of satellite imagery to verify that current land 

use has not changed substantially from December 19, 2007, and that today’s renewable fuel is 

indeed produced using “renewable biomass” as defined by EPA (biomass produced from land 

cultivated before December 19, 2007). [[Docket number 2472.1, p. 6]] 

The commenter explains that currently in the U.S., very little land that was not previously 

cultivated is being used. Or is likely to be used in the future, to generate feedstock for renewable 

fuels. The majority of deforestation in the U.S. is due to the expansion of urban areas into 

uncultivated or forested areas. Moreover, the majority of new land being farmed is land coming 

out of the CRP program. The commenter finds it nearly impossible to envision a case where the 

vast majority of renewable fuel produced in the U.S. would not be produced from renewable 

biomass. Furthermore, EPA fails to take into account com growers’ ability to continually 

produce a larger supply of com, even on shrinking acreage, through increased yields. The 

commenter adds that alternatively, if this is not acceptable to EPA, then EPA should consider 

other options to facilitate the ability of renewable fuel producers to demonstrate that the fuels 

that they produce meet the definition of ”renewable biomass.” [[Docket number 2472.1, p. 6]] 

[[See docket number 2472.1, pp 6-7 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2136 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFS) 

Comment:

3-100
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2136) supports Congressional intent that biofuels feedstock should not come 

from virgin prairie and similar lands; however, a workable and cost-effective system to ensure 

this requirement is met must be incorporated into the final rule. The commenter urges the 

Agency to work with the USDA to use an acreage baseline in which feedstock verification is 

only required if the baseline acreage is exceeded. Even in that case, the Agency should take a 

state-by-state or regional approach so that only the area realistically impacted would have to 

verify the lineage of its feedstocks. [[Docket number 2136.1, pp. 8-9]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter (2471.1) believes that EPA should provide clear guidance to producers that 

propose certain documentation or records to demonstrate that their fuel meets the qualifying 

criteria. There are likely various existing forms of documentation upon which EPA can rely and, 

thus, limit the potential documentation burden created by EISA and the proposed RFS2 

regulations. (2471.1, p.13) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2369 

Organization: New Generation Biofuels (NGBF) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2369) supports the proposal whereby the chain of custody requirement is 

eliminated by creating instead a baseline of land use. Marginal and strip mine lands should be 

taken into consideration in the baseline. The commenter adds that record keeping requirements 

outlined under §80.1451(6) will either eliminate most small biofuel producers or prevent any 

biofuel producer that uses an agriculture crop product that is widely traded in the market to be 

able to meet the recording requirements. The commenter believes that creating such a 

requirement is untenable and it will be overly expensive to create multiple crushing and 

processing facilities. Alternatively, the chain of custody requirement will most likely cause the 

price of feedstocks to increase, thereby having the effect of creating higher energy costs. The 

commenter contends that the requirement is tantamount to a closed loop biomass system of 

which very few have ever been successfully and economically or sustainably maintained. 

[[Docket number 2369.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1015 

Organization: Renewable Energy Group 

Comment: 

The commenter (1015) states that the primary feedstock used for biodiesel production has always 

been a fungible commodity. To overlay an extensive certification process for purposes of 

EISA’s definition of “renewable biomass”, will necessitate a procedure that may require 

feedstock to be containerized and not blended or mixed with the same grain from different fields 

from perhaps the same farm. The increased cost will rule out market competitiveness and 

facilitate a regulatory structure that would stifle production agriculture. [[Docket number 2123.1, 

p. 5]] 

The commenter adds that a second approach that would simplify and yet ensure compliance is to 

construct new data points between known data points, interpolation. In this case, the known data 

3-101
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

points are the total production acreage by feedstock and the RFS2 gallon requirements. The 

number of acres needed for fuel feedstock production, taking into account waste oils, can then be 

calculated. Measures can then be taken if the number of fuel feedstock acres exceeds land 

restriction criteria. [[Docket number 2123.1, pp. 5-6]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2010 

Organization: SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2010) states that the primary feedstock used for biodiesel production has always 

been a fungible commodity. To overlay an extensive certification process for purposes of EISA’s 

definition of “renewable biomass”, will necessitate a procedure that may require feedstock to be 

containerized and not blended or mixed with the same grain from different fields from perhaps 

the same farm. The increased cost will rule out market competitiveness and facilitate a 

regulatory structure that would stifle production agriculture. [[Docket number 2010.1, p. 5]] 

The commenter adds that a second approach that would simplify and yet ensure compliance is to 

construct new data points between known data points, interpolation. In this case, the known data 

points are the total production acreage by feedstock and the RFS2 gallon requirements. The 

number of acres needed for fuel feedstock production, taking into account waste oils, can then be 

calculated. Measures can then be taken if the number of fuel feedstock acres exceeds land 

restriction criteria. [[Docket number 2010.1, p. 5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2011 

Organization: Western Dubuque Biodiesel LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2011) states that the primary feedstock used for biodiesel production has always 

been a fungible commodity. To overlay an extensive certification process for purposes of 

EISA’s definition of “renewable biomass”, will necessitate a procedure that may require 

feedstock to be containerized and not blended or mixed with the same grain from different fields 

from perhaps the same farm. The increased cost will rule out market competitiveness and 

facilitate a regulatory structure that would stifle production agriculture. [[Docket number 2010.1, 

p. 5]] 

 

The commenter adds that a second approach that would simplify and yet ensure compliance is to 

construct new data points between known data points, interpolation. In this case, the known data 

points are the total production acreage by feedstock and the RFS2 gallon requirements. The 

number of acres needed for fuel feedstock production, taking into account waste oils, can then be 

calculated. Measures can then be taken if the number of fuel feedstock acres exceeds land 

restriction criteria. [[Docket number 2011.1, pp. 5-6]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2013 

Organization: Central Iowa Energy, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2013) states that the primary feedstock used for biodiesel production has always 

been a fungible commodity. To overlay an extensive certification process for purposes of 

EISA’s definition of “renewable biomass”, will necessitate a procedure that may require 

3-102
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

feedstock to be containerized and not blended or mixed with the same grain from different fields 

from perhaps the same farm. The increased cost will rule out market competitiveness and 

facilitate a regulatory structure that would stifle production agriculture. [[Docket number 2010.1, 

p. 5]] The commenter adds that a second approach that would simplify and yet ensure 

compliance is to construct new data points between known data points, interpolation. In this 

case, the known data points are the total production acreage by feedstock and the RFS2 gallon 

requirements. The number of acres needed for fuel feedstock production, taking into account 

waste oils, can then be calculated. Measures can then be taken if the number of fuel feedstock 

acres exceeds land restriction criteria. [[Docket number 2013.1, pp. 5-6]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2016 

Organization: Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2016.1) requests that any certification system must not be administratively 

burdensome. The suggestion to have a baseline level is worth further consideration if it can 

reduce the administrative burden. (2016.1, pp.2-3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2361 

Organization: Indonesian Palm Oil Commission 

Comment: 

The commenter (2361) suggests having a baseline if it reduces the burden and suggests that the 

requirements imposed on foreign producers should not be more onerous than those imposed on 

local producers. Foreign producers whose raw material is not for generating RINs must have an 

option not to provide documentary evidence of compliance or certification. Similarly, local 

renewable fuel producers should not be compelled to demonstrate origin of feedstocks if such 

biofuels are not intended to generate RINs. (2361.1.pdf, p.2, 3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1033 

Organization: Poet Ethanol Products 

Comment: 

The commenter (1033.1) proposes that EPA set a Renewable Biomass Allowance for Renewable 

Fuel Producers prior to the start of each calendar year in much the same way that they set a 

Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO) for Obligated Parties. Since each Renewable Fuel 

Producer is expected to submit a Production Forecast on an annual basis to assist EPA in 

determining the RVO for each category of renewable fuel, the volume and type of Renewable 

Biomass expected to be used in the production of the fuel would be known to EPA prior to the 

beginning of each calendar year. (1033.1, p.1) 

The commenter believes that for situations where the volume of Renewable Biomass forecasted 

to be consumed is greater than the amount that could be reasonably produced on Existing 

Agricultural Lands, then a rationing or allocation of the allowances would have to be 

implemented and any purchase of feedstock in excess of the Renewable Biomass Allowance 

would be subject to the documentation procedures identified by EPA at that time. (1033.1, p.2) 

Our Response: 

3-103
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

After considering these comments and engaging in extensive dialogue with USDA, we 

are finalizing reporting and recordkeeping requirements comparable to those in the approach we 

discussed in the proposed rule for all categories of renewable biomass with the exception of 

planted crops and crop residue from agricultural land in the United States, which will be covered 

by the aggregate compliance approach discussed in Section II.B.4.c.iii of the preamble. Under 

the aggregate compliance approach, EPA has determined the total amount of “existing 

agricultural land” in the U.S. at the enactment date of EISA, which is 402 million acres. EPA 

will monitor total agricultural land annually to determine if national agricultural land acreage 

increases above this 2007 national aggregate baseline. Feedstocks derived from planted crops 

and crop residues will be considered to be consistent with the definition of renewable biomass 

and renewable fuel producers using these feedstocks will not be required to maintain specific 

renewable biomass records as described below unless and until EPA determines that the 2007 

national aggregate baseline is exceeded. If EPA finds that the national aggregate baseline is 

exceeded, individual recordkeeping and reporting requirements will be triggered for renewable 

fuel producers using crops and crop residue. EPA believes that the aggregate approach, though 

different in details than some other alternatives suggested by commenters, will address the 

commenters’ primary concerns that verification procedures for domestic planted crops should be 

substantially simplified from those that EPA proposed. 

 EPA has not identified similar simplified mechanisms that would be applicable to 

feedstocks other than domestic crops and crop residues, and is therefore finalizing an individual 

verification process that is similar in many respects to that proposed. However, EPA is also 

finalizing as an option an alternative approach in which EPA allows renewable fuel producers 

and renewable fuel feedstock producers and suppliers to develop a quality assurance program for 

the renewable fuel production supply chain, similar to the model of the Reformulated Gasoline 

Survey Association. While individual renewable fuel producers may still choose to comply with 

the individual renewable biomass recordkeeping and reporting requirements rather than 

participate in a quality assurance program, we believe that this preferred alternative could be less 

costly than an individual compliance demonstration, and it would add a quality assurance 

element to RFS2. 

3.3.4 Requiring a Demonstration that Feedstocks Do Not Meet the Renewable Biomass 

Definition Prior to Producing Renewable Fuel Without RINs 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) believes that the regulations should limit the ability of producers and 

importers to produce or import renewable fuel that does not have RINs. The RFS2 regulations 

should also take into account the existence of “RIN-less” renewable fuel in the RFS2 program. 

The commenter understands that the EPA is considering removing the requirement that 

renewable fuel producers and importers demonstrate that renewable fuel was not made from 

renewable biomass. If this is done, demonstrating that renewable fuel was made from renewable 

3-104
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

biomass will in effect be optional and there will be renewable fuel with no associated RINs or 

“RIN-less” renewable fuel in the RFS2 program. (2124.1, p.36) [See Docket Number 2124.1, 

pp.36-37 for a more detailed discussion of this issue] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2173.1 

Organization: National Association of Forest Owners (NAFO) 

Comment: 

The commenter believes the proposed requirement for the renewable fuel producer to trace the 

source of their feedstock even if they do not generate RINs for that fuel is unnecessarily 

burdensome and impossible to satisfy. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment: 

EPA proposes to require that all renewable fuel producers document the origin of their 

feedstocks regardless of whether they plan to generate RINs, reasoning that all eligible fuel will 

be needed to meet RFS2 mandates. While the commenter (2310) agrees that all producers that 

want to generate RINs for their fuel should be required to document the origin of their 

feedstocks, they believe that the market price for RINs should be a sufficient inducement to 

encourage all fuel producers that produced their fuel with eligible feedstocks to generate RINs 

for those volumes. [[Docket number 2310.1, p. 17]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2317 

Organization: National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2317) urges EPA to streamline the requirements for verification of renewable 

biomass feedstock and the requirements that apply to feedstocks used to generate non-RIN fuel. 

[[Docket number 2317.1, p. 36]] [[See docket number 2317.1, pp. 36-43 for extensive discussion 

of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

EPA realizes that the implication of these proposed requirements is that renewable fuel 

producers would be caught in the untenable position of being forced to participate in the RFS2 

program (register, keep records, etc.) even if they are unable to generate RINS because their 

feedstocks do not meet the definition of renewable biomass. After considering the comments 

received, EPA has determined that this requirement would be overly burdensome and 

unreasonable for producers. The burden stems from the requirement that producers prove that 

their feedstocks do not qualify if they are not generating RINs. If the data did not exist or could 

not be obtained, producers could not produce the fuel, even if no RINs would be generated. 

Thus, for the final rule, EPA is requiring only that producers that do generate RINs have the 

requisite records (as discussed in section II.B.4.c.i. of this preamble) documenting that their fuel 

is produced from feedstocks meeting the definition of renewable biomass. Non-RIN generating 

producers need not maintain any paperwork related to their feedstocks and their origins. 

3-105
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

3.3.5 Use of Data from USDA Programs 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2302 

Organization: UC Berkeley - Energy Biosciences Institute 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2302]] states they strongly encourage EPA to allow USDA to certify 

renewable biomass feedstocks. [[#2302 p.3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment: 

The commenter believes that certification of land that has been cleared or cultivated prior to 

enactment should be documented by USDA or other governmental agencies such that individual 

producers should not be required to have a document for every load of grain that is received into 

the facility. (2511.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2087 

Organization: Ag Partners 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2087]] states that EPA already knows that 99 percent or more of the biomass 

produced for renewable fuel production will meet the “non-native” and “actively managed” 

standards of the law. EPA states that the onerous feedstock verification regimes proposed could 

be streamlined and simplified if they had access to USDA information already collected from 

producers. Surely the various bureaucracies of government can find a way to share what they 

already know. [[see docket#2087 p. 1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2000 

Organization: Galva Holstein Ag, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2000]] states that EPA already knows that 99 percent or more of the biomass 

produced for renewable fuel production will meet the “non-native” and “actively managed” 

standards of the law. EPA states that the onerous feedstock verification regimes proposed could 

be streamlined and simplified if they had access to USDA information already collected from 

producers. Surely the various bureaucracies of government can find a way to share what they 

already know. [[see docket#2000 p. 1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2348 

Organization: StateLine Cooperative 

Comment: 

The commenter (2348) noted that EPA already knows that 99 percent or more of the biomass 

produced for renewable fuel production will meet the “non-native” and “actively managed” 

standards of the law. EPA states that the onerous feedstock verification regimes proposed could 

be streamlined and simplified if they had access to USDA information already collected from 

3-106
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

producers. The commenter believes that surely the various bureaucracies of government can find 

a way to share what they already know. (2348, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2363 

Organization: Ag Processing Inc. 

Comment: 

EPA states that the onerous feedstock verification regimes proposed could be streamlined and 

simplified if they had access to USDA information already collected from producers. The 

commenter (2363) suggests that the government bureaucracies find a way to share what they 

already know. S imilarly, at the renewable fuel level, the IRS already performs audits plant to 

make sure we produced the fuel for which tax incentives are applied. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2515 

Organization: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) 

Comment:

The commenter noted that the intent of the statutory language and supporting proposed rules to 

limit biomass production to existing agricultural lands is good. However, NRCS land use 

categories are not intended for this purpose. A better mechanism would be to build on existing 

farm program mechanisms. If land cover is converted on lands subject to Sodbuster or Swamp 

Buster provisions of the farm program, then these acres should be excluded from the RFS 

market. This strategy would in fact better preserve those lands by creating a new market for the 

forage-type biomass produced on those lands. (2515.1, pp.1-2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment: 

The commenters noted that land use and cropping history data will be needed to verify land 

eligibility. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can verify this land use and cropping 

history for EPA or for the renewable biomass purchaser without violating producer privacy by 

implementing a system similar to the one USDA has proposed to use with IRS to verify producer 

compliance with the adjusted gross income requirements in the Farm Bill. If USDA determines 

that it cannot share the needed information with EPA due to data privacy concerns, then EPA 

must require all landowners who wish to produce renewable biomass to sign a limited data 

privacy release waiver to allow EPA or the renewable biomass purchaser access to only the data 

needed to determine eligibility. (2129.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2104 

Organization: US Canola Association 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2104]] states that EPA does not provide a clear method to implement this 

feedstock certification, and they must recognize the challenge it would present. These 

conservation compliance and enforcement mechanisms already exist at USDA. The existing 

USDA rules, and the information collected by USDA in their administration of those rules, 

3-107
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

should be sufficient for EPA to ensure that the domestic feedstock being used in biodiesel 

production is from eligible cropland. EPA’s proposal on the existing cropland requirement does 

not have practical application and will not work in practice as part of the day-to-day operation of 

producing biodiesel. Additionally, given U.S. land use requirements, increasing yields and 

production efficiencies, and the availability of existing cropland, it is highly unlikely that new 

lands in the U.S. will be cleared for purposes of the RFS. [[#2104.1 p.5-6]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2101.1) acknowledges that Congress inserted a provision into EISA that 

requires renewable fuels to be produced from biomass harvested from agricultural land cleared 

or cultivated at any time prior to EISA’s passage, essentially prohibiting corn or other feedstocks 

from new cultivation to be used in ethanol production. The commenter is concerned about the 

bureaucratic red tape that may be associated with enforcement of this provision for both farmers 

and ethanol producers, in addition to the limits this provision places on land owners. This 

provision, while perhaps a well-intended if imperfect effort to achieve land conservation goals, is 

unworkable and unenforceable. The commenter encourages EPA to rely upon reporting tools 

currently used by USDA instead of creating a new set of regulations and reports to comply with 

this provision. (2101.1, p.15) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2245 

Organization: Illinois Corn Growers Association, et al. 

Contributors to this comment letter include: Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Soybean 

Association, Illinois Soybean Association, Illinois Renewable Fuels Association, Kentucky 

Soybean Association, Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, Missouri Corn Growers 

Association, Missouri Soybean Association, Monsanto, the National Corn to Ethanol Research 

Center, Nebraska Corn Board, Nebraska Soybean Association, Novozymes, Ohio Soybean 

Association, South Dakota Soybean Association, University of Illinois Chicago, Energy 

Resources Center, University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana plant breeding, animal nutrition and 

agronomy, DuPont, Ethanol Technologies, John Deere, and the U.S. Grains Council 

Comment:

The commenters (2245.1) believe that EPA should defer to existing USDA programs for farm 

use verification instead of suggesting new crop identity demonstration systems. The 

recommendation by EPA that a renewable fuel producer must be able to demonstrate that their 

renewable fuel was derived from renewable biomass has the potential to add significant cost to 

the renewable fuels channel. For the EPA to consider any other option for determining whether 

or not non-agricultural land is being utilized outside of existing USDA procedures for farm use 

verification, will add both cost and uncertainty to the channel. (2245.1, pp.29-30) 

 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2360 

Organization: Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2360.1) noted that several agricultural organizations have recommended that 

EPA accept USDA data, regulations and existing laws to demonstrate that no new acres are 

being planted in the U.S. and that further certification requirements are unnecessary. While the 

3-108
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

commenter supports simplifying this requirement, it could have the unintended consequence of 

drawing a distinction between, for example, U.S. and Canadian feedstocks used in similar 

production. (2360.1, p.6) 

The commenter supports using USDA data for meeting feedstock certification requirements in 

the U.S., but is concerned this could lead to significant NAFTA implications. (2360.1, p.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2508 

Organization: Environmental Working Group (EWG) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2508) is concerned about the monitoring and enforcement of land conversion 

prohibitions. The commenter recommends that the USDA certify to EPA those lands that met 

the definition of actively managed agricultural land on the date of enactment using existing 

Common Land Unit and cropping history data. The commenter also recommends that EPA, in 

consultation with USDA, develop a process for renewable fuel feedstock producers who have not 

participated in USDA Farm Service Agency programs to register their land. (2508, p.2) 

Our Response: 

In light of the comments received on the proposed renewable biomass recordkeeping 

requirements and implementation options, EPA sought assistance from USDA in determining 

whether existing data and data sources might suggest an alternative method for verifying 

compliance with renewable biomass requirements associated with the use of crops and crop 

residue for renewable fuel production. Taking into consideration extensive publicly available 

data on agricultural land available from USDA and USGS as well as expected economic 

incentives for feedstock producers, EPA has determined that an aggregate compliance approach 

is appropriate for certain types of renewable biomass, namely planted crops and crop residue 

from the United States. 

3.3.6 Third-Party Programs 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2014 

Organization: Clean Fuels Clearinghouse 

Comment:

The commenter (2243.1) recommends that EPA adopt a qualification approach for the renewable 

biomass whereby a third party certifies the feedstock pathway from the field to the production 

facility through a documented chain of title, similar to the tracking approach utilized for the 

renewable fuel under RFS. (2243.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2361 

Organization: Indonesian Palm Oil Commission 

Comment: 

3-109
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter (2361) agrees that there is no existing third party certification system that 

exactly fits the requirements of RFS 2 and requests that any certification system must not be 

burdensome and other international standard (e.g., EU Directive on renewable energy sources 

and RSPO P&C) should be taken into account and not created double burden. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) believes that EPA should consider other options to facilitate the ability 

of renewable fuel producers to demonstrate that the fuels that they produce meet the definition of 

“renewable biomass.” EPA should require producers to make a one time demonstration to EPA 

during the registration process to establish the typical source of feedstocks and the process at the 

facility. Thereafter, rather than requiring each producer to amass the records that EPA proposes 

for each feedstock for each batch, EPA should recognize certifications from third party 

organizations such as the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil, the Roundtable for Responsible 

Soy, the Better Sugarcane Initiative, and the Roundtable for Sustainable Biofuels, as sufficient. 

(2505.2, p.11) (See Docket Number 2505.2, pp.11-12 for a discussion on the third party 

organizations mentioned above) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2310) states that EPA has presented a number of options for verification of 

feedstock origins and encourages EPA to leverage existing programs in implementing the RFS2 

as both the agricultural and forestry sectors are familiar with existing programs that 

independently verify collection and accounting practices. The commenter believes that an 

industry-run quality assurance program, taking advantage of existing third-party certification 

programs that include inspections of feedstock suppliers, facilities, and accounting practices, 

would be an effective and efficient means of ensuring that feedstocks qualify as renewable 

biomass. [[Docket number 2310.1, p. 7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2348 

Organization: StateLine Cooperative 

Comment: 

The commenter (2348) noted that EPA did not audit or require third party verifications under 

RFS1 and it should not under RFS2. The commenter believes that EPA should do spot audits or 

rely on IRS audits. (2348, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter also believes that renewable fuel producers should not be required to administer 

a Quality Assurance Program. This should administered by EPA. Renewable fuel producers do 

not necessarily have the expertise to set up and administer such a program. In addition, 

feedstock producers are more likely to comply with federal requirements. (2329.1, p.84) 

3-110
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2493 

Organization: American Forest & Paper Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2493) feels that in regards to RINs, the approaches outlined in the Proposal are 

all impractical and ignore, or underplay, the extremely large volumes of very low value biomass 

which will be involved in production of renewable fuels. The commenter states that current pulp 

mill operations give some sense of the scale at which renewable biomass supply operations may 

operate once the technology becomes commercially viable. Pulp mills consume wood generally 

from within a 50 mile radius, on average consuming over 4,100 tons of pulpwood per day. This 

translates to roughly 164 truckloads delivered daily. [[see docket#2493.1 p. 8]] 

The commenter states that Recognized third party certification systems provide a means of 

assuring that wood fiber used to produce pulp, paper, and wood products come from sustainably 

managed forests. Requiring compliance with one of these programs, including use of an 

auditable wood procurement system, can easily be matched up to the proposed rules registration 

(§80.1450) recordkeeping (§80.1451), reporting (§80.1452), and attest agreement (§80.1463) 

requirements to provide an assurance that fiber being converted into renewable fuels meets the 

requirements of the EISA mandates. [[see docket#2493.1 p. 9]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) encourages EPA to recognize certifications of third party organizations 

such as the RSPO, or the RSB, as sufficient to meet EISA’s requirements concerning the 

definition of “renewable fuel.” At a minimum, in lieu of the burdensome recordkeeping and 

certification requirements that EPA proposed, the commenter believes that EPA should provide 

renewable fuel producers the opportunity to establish a third party organization similar to the 

RFG Survey Association to audit compliance with the Act to ensure that biofuels are in fact 

made from ”renewable biomass“ without imposing requirements on individual producers to track 

every kernel of corn, bean of soy, or cane of sugar used to produce biofuels. (2505.2, p.14) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2494 

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2494]] states that chain of custody tracking system, records and documents 

proving that woody feedstocks meet the criteria for renewable biomass will be problematic 

because most of these materials are not part of an existing commodity market. This will be 

particularly challenging because there will be a large portion of available woody material within 

any selected supply shed that is excluded from the definition of renewable biomass. 

The commenter agrees with EPA that there is currently no third-party forest certification system 

that incorporates all of the complexities of the highly restrictive RFS2 renewable biomass 

definition. However, there are forestry certification systems available that represent accepted 

sustainable forestry practices. [[see docket #2492 p.3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

3-111
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) believes that EPA should consider other options to facilitate the ability 

of renewable fuel producers to demonstrate that the feedstocks they use meet the definition of 

“renewable biomass.” The commenter stated that EPA should require producers to make a one 

time demonstration to EPA during the registration process to establish the typical source of 

feedstocks and the process at the facility. Thereafter, rather than requiring each producer to 

amass the records that EPA proposes for each feedstock for each batch, EPA should recognize 

certifications from third party organizations. At a minimum, EPA should provide renewable fuel 

producers the opportunity to establish a 3rd party organization similar to the RFG Survey 

Association to audit compliance with the Act to ensure that biofuels are in fact made from 

“renewable biomass” without imposing requirements on individual producers to track every 

kernel of corn, bean of soy, or cane of sugar used to produce biofuels. (2124.1, p.23) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2517 

Organization: National Association of State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter concurs with EPA’s conclusion that existing third-party certification systems are 

not currently well-suited to verify that biomass from forests qualifies as renewable under the 

EISA definition. However, some certification systems are undergoing reviews of their standards 

to address the removal of biomass from forests, and that certification standards will be available 

once biomass markets have fully matured. 

Our Response:

In the NPRM, we proposed not to solely rely on any existing third-party verification 

program to implement the land restrictions on renewable biomass under RFS2 for several 

reasons. These programs are limited in the scope of products they certify, the acreage of land 

certified through third parties in the U.S. covers only a small portion of the total available land 

estimated to qualify for renewable biomass production under the EISA definition, and none of 

the existing third-party systems had definitions or criteria that perfectly match the land use 

definitions and restrictions contained in the EISA definition of renewable biomass. 

While the requirements of third party programs may not encompass all of the restrictions 

and requirements of EISA’s renewable biomass definition at this time, as noted by some 

commenters, EPA agrees that it is possible that some third-party programs may alter their criteria 

in the future to parallel EISA’s requirements. Therefore in the future we will consider the use of 

these programs in order to simplify compliance with the renewable biomass requirements. We 

encourage fuel producers to work to identify changes to such programs that could allow them to 

be used as a viable compliance option. 

EPA is also finalizing an option to allow renewable fuel producers and renewable fuel 

feedstock producers and suppliers to develop a quality assurance program for the renewable fuel 

production supply chain, similar to the model of the successful Reformulated Gasoline Survey 

Association. While individual renewable fuel producers may still choose to comply with the 

individual renewable biomass recordkeeping and reporting requirements rather than participate 

3-112
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

in a quality assurance program, we believe that this preferred alternative could be less costly than 

an individual compliance demonstration, and it would add a quality assurance element to RFS2. 

Those participating renewable fuel producers would be presumed to be in compliance with the 

renewable biomass requirements unless and until the quality assurance program finds evidence to 

the contrary. Under this rule, renewable fuel producers must choose either to comply with the 

individual renewable biomass recordkeeping and reporting described above, or they must 

participate in the quality assurance program. 

3.3.7 Treatment of Foreign Renewable Fuel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2329 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) supports requiring foreign producers to provide evidence regarding 

land use. Requiring such information can assist EPA in gathering data to further developing its 

lifecycle emissions analysis. (2329.1, p.84) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2361 

Organization: Indonesian Palm Oil Commission 

Comment:

The commenter (2361) suggests having a baseline if it reduces the burden and suggests that the 

requirements imposed on foreign producers should not be more onerous than those imposed on 

local producers. Foreign producers whose raw material is not for generating RINs must have an 

option not to provide documentary evidence of compliance or certification. Similarly, local 

renewable fuel producers should not be compelled to demonstrate origin of feedstocks if such 

biofuels are not intended to generate RINs. (2361.1.pdf, p.2, 3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2012 

Organization: Caribbean Basin Ethanol Producers Group 

Comment: 

The commenter (2012.1) recommends that the traceability requirements be modified to reflect 

the nature of how hydrous alcohol is collected, shipped, discharged, processed and stored. 

(2012.2, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2020 

Organization: European Commission 

Comment:

The commenter (2020) is concerned about the difference in treatment between materials moving 

within and outside U.S. The commenter (2020) argues that the chain of custody requirement for 

foreign fuels is lot more burdensome than the “mass balance” or book and claim” method used 

for U.S. based fuels. (2020.1, p, 2) 

3-113
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter also notes that the proposal excludes the crops from converted grassland that has 

not been previously cultivated. The EC is aware that while the U.S. has a large stock of 

previously cultivated land not currently under cultivation, and good records to enable producers 

to demonstrate compliance with this criterion, the same is not true of all regions of the world. It 

is not clear that such a blanket ban can be justified either in terms of effects on carbon stocks or 

in terms of other environmental, social or economic impacts. The burdensome character of the 

proposed methods of verification of compliance (pp. 84-88) adds to the EC concern. Hence, the 

EC would like the U.S. authorities to clarify if they carried out any impact assessment that 

assessed the merits of this provision against alternatives and if so, if this analysis could be made 

available to the EC. (2020.1, p2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

With regards to the foreign refiner/producer certification, the commenter (2132.1) appreciates 

the approach EPA is proposing to use to assure compliance, including the use of bonds. The 

commenter is concerned that the complexity of the system combined with the distant origins of 

the fuels may lead to a high risk of fraud, given the unproven nature of the proposed safeguards. 

The commenter believes that EPA should consider a more direct and active approach to 

certification to prevent non-uniform standards, misrepresentations and disparate impacts on 

domestic and foreign producers. (2132.1, p.13) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2137 

Organization: Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) 

Comment:

Referring to EISA’s definition of “renewable biomass” and the creation of a requirement for 

biofuel producers to verify that the source of their feedstock meets the requirements, the 

commenter (2137.1) believes that there is no need to establish additional requirements for the 

enforcement of the renewable biomass provision in EISA. The commenter believes that the 

nature in which the sugarcane feedstock must be produced facilitates compliance to identify the 

origin of the feedstock, one needs only to identify the mill, as its feedstock must come from 

nearby areas. [[Docket number 2137.1, p. 37]] 

The commenter is pleased to work on established agreed-upon protocols for verification. In 

Brazil the verification process can be simplified by using remote sensing tools. The proposal 

advocated by Poet on July 21 concerning the establishment of Renewable Biomass Allowance 

for biofuel producers may present a reasonable solution. Alternatively, nearly every mill in 

Brazil must renew its operating license every two years with state authorities; the commenter 

recommends EPA consider using this regulatory process as part of its compliance mechanism. 

[[Docket number 2137.1, pp. 37-38]] 

The commenter states that two areas of the “expanded” facility registration process need 

clarification in the Final Rule. First, EPA should permit the required independent engineering 

review to be conducted by an independent third party who is based in and licensed by foreign 

countries. Second, EPA should facilitate facility registration by allowing the registration of mills 

by holding companies or cooperatives. [[Docket number 2137.1, p. 38]] 

3-114
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Regarding the Proposed Rules prohibition of commingling of similar foreign-produced 

renewable fuel until it enter the U.S. market, the commenter (2137.1) is concerned about possible 

trade law violations and generation of additional costs for exports. The commenter recommends 

that EPA reconsider its approach and follow the example set by the European Union in the 

Renewable Energy Sources Directive by considering a mass balance approach. In addition, the 

U.S. IRS is working with U.S. agencies to harmonize import, production, and distribution codes 

in order to better track fuels; the commenter suggests that EPA explore how this effort might 

serve the Agency’s compliance requirements. [[Docket 2137.1, pp.38-39]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2249.2) believes that because of the substantial risk EPA is imposing on 

renewable fuel producers, they are likely to be unable to seek feedstock from outside the United 

States. EPA should implement a workable program to allow imports of feedstock, particularly in 

the case where there is a drop in U.S. production based on natural causes. [[Docket number 

2249.2, p. 28]] 

The commenter (2249.2) suggests that EPA implement a “baseline” proposal for feedstock 

imported from overseas and provides suggestions for how such a baseline proposal might work. 

The commenter believes that in instances where U.S. biodiesel facilities must import feedstock, 

imposing certification requirements on imported feedstock may unduly restrict the market. 

[[Docket number 2249.2, p. 27]] 

Although the commenter believes that information may be available or can be obtained to 

determine baseline levels for other countries to assess whether imported feedstock meets the 

renewable biomass definition, the commenter recognizes that EPA does not have the same 

authority or ability to conduct oversight over foreign renewable fuel producers. In these cases, 

EPA should require foreign renewable fuel producers to provide additional evidence regarding 

land use. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 28]] 

Similarly the commenter supports EPA’s proposal to require foreign producers to provide the 

location of land from which they will or have acquired feedstocks, along with historical satellite 

or aerial imagery demonstrating that feedstocks from these lands meet the definition of 

renewable biomass. [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 28-29]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2156 

Organization: Georgia Forestry Commission 

Comment:

The commenter comments that a Brazilian landowner can clear land and plant sugarcane for the 

production of ethanol to be exported to the U.S. and the ethanol will qualify for an advanced 

biofuel, yet forestland owners in the U.S. who do not have documented proof of “actively 

managed plantations” cannot plant native species of trees in forestlands to produce cellulose for 

conversion to any category of biofuels proposed by EPA (cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, 

3-115
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

renewable biofuel). The interpretation has provided incentive for land conversion in Brazil and a 

dis-incentive for regenerating forests in the U.S. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2310) believes that the bond requirement should be limited to smaller 

companies without U.S. assets. EPA should look to its bonding requirements under last year’s 

Phase III Nonroad Spark Ignition and Equipment Rule. There, EPA allowed companies that 

meet a U.S. asset test to avoid the increased cost and burden of obtaining a bond. The 

commenter recommends that EPA adopt a similar approach under the RFS2 program. [[Docket 

number 2310.1, p. 17]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2312 

Organization: LyondellBasell Industries 

Comment:

The commenter (2312.1) strongly supports EPA’s proposal for “an alternative that would 

provide foreign renewable fuel producers an option of ... not participating at all in the RFS2 

program.” The commenter’s support is based on the belief that the proposed restrictions on 

imported biofuels will cause more renewable fuels to be used in non-RFS2 markets, thereby 

reducing the supply of RINs available for satisfying RFS2 obligations and likely resulting in 

raising the market price of RINs. Since exported biofuels in various forms are expected to be a 

large non-RFS2 use of biofuels in the near future, the commenter also believes that relief from 

the requirements for “RIN retirement for exported renewable fuels” also needs to be applied to 

the non-certified, foreign biofuels that are imported for non-RFS2 purposes. (2312.1, p.3) 

The commenter believes that these non-qualifying foreign biofuels should not be burdened with 

added RFS2 verification costs. In the U.S. market, the added verification and supply chain 

segregation cost for the renewable fuels required and sold in the RFS2 program will be captured 

and compensated in the associated RIN prices. Since obligated parties under RFS2 are required 

to obtain RINs to meet their Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs), they anticipate absorbing 

the extra costs of the RINs program. The global biofuels market will not compensate or pay for 

any verification costs that are otherwise not required in global markets. (2312.1, pp.3-4) [[See 

Docket Number 2312.1, pp.5-7 for a detailed discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2345 

Organization: Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA) 

Comment:

Based on the preamble, the commenter (2345) states that EPA believes that a significant number 

of foreign producers will become subject to all aspects of the RFS2 program. The commenter 

believes that such action is unlikely and notes as with other fuel programs, foreign 

producers/suppliers typically rely on U.S. importers to comply with EPA regulatory regimes. In 

addition EPA is proposing only to allow U.S. importers to enter foreign-sourced renewable fuels 

and generate RINs if the renewable product comes from a registered foreign producer. The 

commenter believes that there will be few such producers and foreign-produced renewable fuel 

will become scare. The result is greater demand for RINs, more difficult and costly compliance, 

3-116
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

and increased prices for transportation fuels for consumers. The commenter believes the RFS2 

should not be administered in a manner that effectively forecloses foreign-sourced renewable 

fuels and offers recommendations to ensure that foreign-sourced renewable fuels remain 

available to the market. [[Docket number 2345.1, pp. 3-4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter (2471.1) believes that EPA should work with foreign renewable fuel producers 

and their importers to determine how best to meet the requirements related to the Renewable 

Biomass definition. The commenter agrees with EPA that the foreign producer is in the best 

position to verify certain criteria with high accuracy, such as feedstock, land-use and production 

processes. The commenter noted that EPA is working with certain foreign producers and 

stakeholders. The commenter encourages EPA to continue these discussions, and to include 

renewable fuel importers, to determine how best to meet these requirements. The commenter 

also believes that EPA should determine what documentation is currently required by its sister 

agencies and could be utilized under RFS2. (2471.1, pp.13-14) (See Docket Number 2471.1, 

pp.13-14 for more discussion on this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2513 

Organization: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 

Comment:

The commenter (2513) believes imported ethanol and biodiesel should not be allowed to 

contribute toward the RFS2 production mandates, because our dependence upon imported fossil 

fuels would be replaced by a dependence on imports. It is proving difficult to judge the 

environmental merits of our domestically produced biofuels. The U.S. is not ready to evaluate 

the climate and environmental performance of imported biofuels. A clear prohibition on 

imported biofuels in the RFS2 would help reduce direct land use changes abroad, while keeping 

the rural development benefits of biofuels development in the U.S. [[docket #2513.1 p.4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2514 

Organization: Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Comment: 

Conversion [[2514]] of land to agro-fuels crops outside the borders of the U.S. is an issue that 

needs to be dealt with forcefully and directly. The obvious approach is by not permitting imports 

of ethanol and biodiesel. [[#2514.1 p.3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

All requirements for foreign producers of renewable fuels related to “renewable biomass” should 

be comparable to those required of domestic producers, with the caveat that such provisions must 

ensure the same degree of certainty and provide the same opportunity for review and compliance 

assurance as requirements applicable to domestic producers. EPA must make sure that its 

regulations provide additional measures necessary to afford the same degree of enforceability 

3-117
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

and certainty that renewable feedstocks from foreign countries meet the definition of renewable 

biomass as those from American biomass suppliers. [[Docket number 2383.1, p. 16]] 

Our Response:

EPA is not at liberty to prohibit imported biofuels under the RFS2 program, as some 

commenters suggest. Since imported renewable fuels will be included in the program, EPA must 

ensure that the imported fuels conform to the same standards as domestic fuels. With regard to 

renewable biomass requirements, EISA does not distinguish between domestic renewable fuel 

and fuel feedstocks and renewable fuel and fuel and feedstocks that come from abroad. Thus, 

EPA must apply feedstock verification requirements to both domestic and foreign feedstocks. 

EPA believes that the renewable biomass recordkeeping and reporting provisions are necessary 

in order for EPA to ensure that RINs are being generated for fuel that meets EISA’s definition of 

renewable fuel. Just as for domestic producers, foreign producers must maintain evidence that 

the fuel meets the GHG reduction requirements and is made from renewable biomass. 

For the final rule, EPA is requiring that importers may only generate RINs for renewable 

fuel if the foreign producer has not already done so. The foreign producers must be registered 

with EPA under the RFS2 program, and must have conducted an independent engineering 

review. Furthermore, we are requiring that importers obtain from the foreign producer and 

maintain in their records written documentation that serves as evidence that the renewable fuel 

for which they are generating RINs was made from feedstocks meeting the definition of 

renewable biomass. The foreign producer that originally generated the fuel must ensure that 

these feedstock records are transferred with each batch of fuel and ultimately reach the RINgenerating importer. A requirement that importers maintain these renewable biomass records is 

consistent with the renewable biomass recordkeeping requirements imposed on domestic 

producers of renewable fuel. 

Foreign producers that intend to generate RINs would be required to designate renewable 

fuel intended for export to the U.S. as such, segregate the volume until it reaches the U.S., and 

post a bond to ensure that penalties can be assessed in the event of a violation, as discussed in 

Section II.D.2.b. This ensures that the volume of fuel for which the RINs were generated 

ultimately is imported into the U.S. and not used elsewhere. Similarly to domestic producers of 

renewable fuel, foreign producers must obtain and maintain written documentation from their 

feedstock providers that can serve as evidence that their feedstocks meet the definition of 

renewable biomass. Foreign producers may also develop a third-party quality assurance program 

for their renewable fuel production supply chain, as described in the preamble. However, while 

domestic renewable fuel producers using crops or crop residues may rely on the aggregate 

compliance approach described below to ensure that their feedstocks are renewable biomass, this 

approach is not available at this time to foreign renewable fuel producers. EPA does not, at this 

time, have sufficient data to make a finding that non-domestically grown crops and crop residues 

used in renewable fuel production satisfy the definition of renewable biomass. Nevertheless, if, 

in the future, adequate land use data becomes available to make a finding that, in the aggregate, 

crops and crop residues used in renewable fuel production in a particular country satisfy the 

definition of renewable biomass, EPA is willing to consider an aggregate compliance approach 

for renewable biomass on a country by country basis, in lieu of the individual recordkeeping and 

3-118
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

reporting requirements. We note that the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association suggests that 

a simplified feedstock verification system may be possible in Brazil, and we are willing to work 

with them and the Brazilian government to analyze this possibility. 

With regard to the EC’s comment that biomass should not be excluded from converted 

grassland that has not been previously cultivated, we note that the statute specifically imposes 

this limitation and EPA is not authorized to modify it. Accordingly, EPA has not conducted an 

impact assessment comparing the merits of this requirement and any alternatives. In general, 

these restrictions eliminate an incentive for converting native grasslands and other undeveloped 

lands to biofuel production, with the consequent carbon releases, loss of habitat for native 

species, and loss of biodiversity that would follow. EPA has attempted to fashion the feedstock 

verification mechanisms in a workable manner, and in general requires no more of foreign 

producers than of domestic producers. The one significant exception is with respect to planted 

crops and crop residues, for which the aggregate approach has been adopted for domestic 

feedstocks, but not for those grown overseas, for the reasons noted above. 

In response to the comment that EPA’s proposed feedstock certification program would 

make it difficult for producers to import feedstock, EPA notes that in general the same 

requirements apply for imported feedstocks as for domestic feedstocks (with the exception of 

domestic feedstocks qualifying for the aggregate approach.) Thus, parties importing feedstocks 

should develop similar arrangements with foreign feedstock producers for documents verifying 

feedstock origin as will be needed for producers using domestically-grown biomass as feedstock. 

EPA understands that there will be considerable initial effort needed to understand the new 

requirements and to develop standard operating procedures for providing needed documentation, 

but we expect that the process can run smoothly, without significant effort, once established. 

EPA will monitor the process during initial implementation, and is prepared to make 

modifications that prove to be necessary so as to facilitate and promote renewable fuel 

production that complies with statutory requirements. 

With respect to the comment that foreign renewable fuel producers should not be 

required to participate in the RFS2 program, we note that the final rule only allows the 

generation of RINs for domestic or imported renewable fuel if a party demonstrates that the fuel 

is made from renewable biomass. If that demonstration is not made, RINs cannot be generated, 

but the biofuel may still be sold and used in the United States. 

EPA disagrees with the commenter who expects that imports of RIN-generating 

renewable fuel will decrease as a result of implementation of the RFS2 program. EPA believes, 

on the contrary, that RFS2 will provide a level of certainty in renewable fuel demand in the U.S. 

that will stimulate additional renewable fuel imports. 

With respect to UNICA’s comment concerning the registration process and independent 

engineering review for foreign facilities, EPA is allowing them to be conducted by a licensed 

professional engineer or foreign equivalent that works in the chemical engineering field, 

provided the engineer provides EPA with proof of appropriate license. EPA is requiring each 

foreign production facility to be registered in order ensure from the beginning of the RFS2 

program that the correct types of RINs are being generated by facilities. 

3-119
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

 UNICA’s comment expresses concern about the proposed prohibition against 

commingling of similar foreign-produced renewable fuel until it enters the U.S. market. For the 

final rule, EPA is allowing renewable fuel produced at foreign facilities to be comingled prior to 

entry into the U.S. market if the importer is generating the RINs for the fuel, provided the 

importer has documentation that tracks the volume of fuel from the foreign production facility to 

the U.S. port of entry. However, EPA is maintaining the requirement that, in the situation in 

which it is the foreign producer that generates RINs for a batch of renewable fuel, that foreign 

producer must segregate that volume of fuel as it travels to the U.S. This requirement is 

necessary to ensure that the volume of fuel for which the RINs were generated actually makes it 

to the U.S. 

 NBB comments that EPA should use a “baseline” approach for imported feedstocks 

similar to the aggregate compliance approach EPA is applying to biomass from U.S. agricultural 

land. At this time, EPA does not have sufficient data to apply an aggregate compliance approach 

to foreign feedstocks. However, EPA will consider expanding the aggregate compliance 

approach to other countries if sufficient information and documentation becomes available. 

 LCSFA suggests that EPA should limit the bond requirement for foreign facilities to 

smaller companies without U.S. assets. EPA feels that the bond requirement is necessary for all 

foreign producers in order to ensure any judicial judgments against the companies for violations 

of the Clean Air Act can be satisfied. 

3.3.8 Effect of “Renewable Biomass” Proposal on Achieving RFS Goals 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2388 

Organization: Oglethorpe Power 

Comment: 

The commenter (2388.1) is concerned that the proposed rules, which provides for a narrow 

interpretation of the term “renewable biomass,” does not adequately promote the policy goals 

upon which the EISA legislation is based and will not be sufficiently compatible with developing 

technologies aimed at reducing both our dependence on foreign oil and GHG emissions. The 

commenter noted that the term “renewable biomass” incorporates a number of key terms whose 

proposed definitions demonstrate that EPA has given insufficient consideration to the purposes 

of the RFS amendments and the potential impact of the proposed regulations. (2388.1, p.2) (See 

Docket Number 2388.1 pp.2-3 for a detailed discussion of the issues with the renewable biomass 

definition) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2549 

Organization: Triton Energy LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2549.1) noted that the definition of “fallow land” may be in line with 

terminology used within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), however 

3-120
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

marginal lands, lands that are not suitable for agriculture represent potential areas for growing 

energy crops. Given the large volumes of biofuel that will be required to fulfill RFS2, all land 

and resources possible, including MSW, will be required unless or until there are major 

advancements with algae oils or cellulosic biofuels. (2549.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2493 

Organization: American Forest & Paper Association 

Comment: 

The commenter states the definition of renewable biomass is extremely limited and would 

severely restrict the availability of renewable fuel and the ability of the nation to achieve the RFS 

targets in EISA. As just one example, the fuels produced in the Old Town, Maine, cellulosic 

biofuels project included in the Proposal at Table V.B.23 (74 Fed Reg. 24990), might not qualify 

as renewable fuel because the hemicellulose from which the renewable fuel is derived may not 

have come from biomass that meets the statutory definition.[[see docket#2493.1 p. 3]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter supports the concept of sustainability criteria, but they are concerned that the 

regulatory structure that EPA has proposed will be unworkable. EPA’s proposed approach will 

require elaborate new processes for biofuel producers to ensure that the feedstocks that they are 

using meet the definition of “renewable biomass” and it will likely discourage imports of 

biofuels, which could make the advanced biofuel mandate unworkable. (2505.2, p.14) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2515 

Organization: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) 

Comment:

The commenter (2515.1) believes that the proposed definitions exclude many sustainable 

biomass resources from the nation’s biomass mix. This will likely result in one or more of the 

following: 1) the industry fails to achieve Congress’ goal of 16 billion gallons of cellulosic 

biofuel; 2) eligible resources, such as crop residues, are exploited well beyond sustainable limits; 

or 3) landowners will respond to perverse incentives to remove land from environmentally 

beneficial land uses. (2515.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2446 

Organization: Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation 

Comment: 

EPA’s definition of existing cropland creates onerous land use rules and record-keeping 

requirements that would bar many farmers from growing crops used for biofuel production and 

in so doing would reduce the value of a great deal of American farmland. The commenter states 

that contrary to congressional intent, EPA has expanded on the EISA’s existing cropland 

requirement; while EISA defines existing cropland requirement from an historical perspective, 

EPA’s definition is future oriented and will impede American agricultures participation and our 

biofuels industry. 

Our Response: 

3-121
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

We have made every effort to interpret EISA’s definition of “renewable biomass” as 

flexibly as possible and in such a way that will allow the mandated renewable fuel volumes to be 

met without undermining the environmental protections the definition is meant to confer. We 

believe that the final regulations’ requirements for verifying that feedstocks used in the 

production of renewable fuel meet the definition of “renewable biomass” provide sufficient 

flexibility for renewable fuel producers and feedstock producers/suppliers to comply with the 

requirements at minimal cost and administrative burden once the procedures are understood and 

become accepted operating practice in the industry. 

One commenter took issue with EPA’s proposal to require that planted crops and crop 

residue be eligible as renewable biomass only if taken form land actively managed as farmland 

on the date of EISA enactment and consistently thereafter. EPA has modified this provision in 

the final rule, requiring only that the land be actively managed on the date of EISA enactment. 

We understand, as some commenters have noted, that the renewable biomass restrictions 

may effectively preclude some biofuel from participation in the RFS2 program. EPA has no 

discretion under the statute to waive or modify these requirements. 

With respect to the comment that “marginal lands” should qualify for the production of 

renewable biomass, EPA responds that the renewable biomass requirements are specified in the 

statute, and EPA is not at liberty to modify them. EPA considered and rejected the concept of 

including rangeland in the definition of “existing agricultural lands” from which planted crops 

and crop residue may be obtained for renewable fuel production. EPA’s rationale for this 

decision is described in the preamble to the rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2310) states that EPA’s estimates of feedstock availability do not account for 

competitive uses of feedstock for electricity generation under most versions of a Renewable 

Electricity Standard. The commenter is concerned that feedstock constraints may inhibit the 

development of biofuels, and notes that diversion of biomass to energy production is an 

inefficient use of biomass. The commenter believes that EPA should provide an analysis of the 

most efficient use of biomass in the final rulemaking. Such an analysis would inform 

policymakers of the need to prioritize biomass availability among competing policy mandates. 

[[Docket number 2310.1, pp. 5-6]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2493 

Organization: American Forest & Paper Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2493.1) states that utilities and independent power generators are likely to 

increase their use of wood biomass in response to state and national mandates/incentives 

3-122
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

regarding renewable energy and carbon emissions, and that this would present significant 

challenges in terms of woody biomass supply and forest sustainability. [[See Docket Number 

2493.1, p. 6]] 

Our Response: 

 We acknowledge that there could be competing needs for renewable biomass feedstocks 

as other requirements are put in place at the National, State, or local level for renewable 

electricity. However, we believe our projections of cellulosic biomass for producing renewable 

fuels are supportable even with such future competition. Although the idea of studying the most 

efficient uses of biomass has merit, such an undertaking is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

3.3.9 Sustainability and Renewable Biomass Production 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment:

The commenters comment that EPA should include additional safeguards to limit the amount of 

crop residue that can be considered renewable biomass to only that amount that can be removed 

without damage to soil and water resources. The commenters also urge EPA to allow materials 

from stands planted to restore rare or historic native forest types within their historic range, as 

many of these forest types benefit from the incentive for active management created by the 

market for renewable biomass. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2512 

Organization: Conservation International 

Comment: 

The commenter (2512.1) supports the intent to restrict any clearing of natural habitat, and thus 

limit potential GHG emissions, as well as loss of biodiversity habitat and other ecosystem 

services. However, only allowing feedstock production on existing cropland will have the effect 

of placing biofuel feedstocks in direct competition with feed crops, and potentially push food and 

fiber crops onto newly-cleared land. The commenter suggests this risk be mitigated in two ways: 

1) Create incentives to produce feedstocks on degraded or underutilized land without a current 

land-use that would be displaced (i.e., grazing livestock, shifting crops); 

2) Allow limited clearing of new lands, providing an independent assessment of carbon stocks, 

ecosystem service value, biodiversity, and current land use is carried out. (2512.1, pp.1-2) 

The commenter also believes that the issue of monitoring the cut-off date also needs to be 

examined. The commenter questions how compliance will be monitored, especially for 

3-123
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

feedstocks such as corn, soy, and palm oil which are traded in the market, and which may have 

multiple uses beyond biofuels. (2512.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2513 

Organization: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2513) says that based on current scientific assessments of feedstock impacts in 

these areas, the following preferences should be established in determining feedstock eligibility: 

Preferences for perennial feedstocks over annual feedstocks, preferences for non-genetically 

modified feedstocks, required conservation plans for biomass production, similar to the newly 

developed Conservation Measurement Tool, preferences for non-irrigated feedstocks, 

preferences and promotion of locally-owned, locally-supplied production facilities. [[docket # 

2513.1 p.3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2515 

Organization: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) 

Comment:

The commenter does not want to incent the conversion of existing grass-based CRP, pasture, or 

rangeland acres to dedicated woody biomass production within the prairie biome. The 

commenter encourages EPA to explore rules that allow the use of trees in the context of 

ecosystem restoration, but do not contribute to the conversion or degradation of native plant 

communities. (2515.1, pp.2-3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2374 

Organization: Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc. (Amyris) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2374) believes that in the interest of maximizing the opportunity for production 

of renewable fuels, EPA should exercise its discretion in allowing biomass that is sustainably 

produced for conversion into fuels. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 2008 farm bill contains 

a definition of renewable biomass that may serve as a broader example. [[Docket number 2374.1, 

p. 3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2491 

Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) 

Comment:

The commenter (2491) believes that the definition of renewable biomass should not preclude the 

land that would become carbon neutral or a net carbon sink and would not adversely impact 

biodiversity when biomass is grown and harvested. While the commenter recognizes that some 

portion of rangeland should not be used for crop production to maintain biodiversity and prevent 

soil erosion, they believe some portion of rangeland can potentially be used to grow crops while 

improving soil C-sequestration. The rangeland as a whole should not be precluded from the 

definition of renewable biomass. Even if a part of the rangeland that is suitable for growing 

biomass in a sustainable way is available, it should be eligible for biofuel production. Therefore, 

in addition to the land types that are eligible for growing renewable biomass according to the 

standard definition, the commenter believes that other types of land parcels that allow sustainable 

3-124
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

production of biomass should also be included in the definition of renewable biomass. [[Docket 

number 2491.1, p. 3]] 

The commenter (2491) notes that the RFS2 does not explicitly use sustainable criteria to regulate 

biomass production and processing and requests explicit provisions in the RFS2 that ensure that 

biomass is produced and processed in a sustainable way. Sustainable criteria similar to those of 

the UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation can be included in RFS2. [[Docket number 2491.1, 

p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2143) suggests that more emphasis should be placed on the sustainability of 

biofuel feedstock production including environmental quality and land use change concerns. 

The commenter (2143) would like to see a greater emphasis on setting sustainability principles 

(for example, water quality and availability, soil conservation, and biodiversity), evaluation of 

management practices (for example, cropping management practices such as no-till and no-till 

plus cover crops) within the proposed rulemaking. 

The commenter (2143) mentions that the EPA should not provide incentives for increased crop 

production on Conservation Reserve Program lands without sustainability principles in place and 

suggests a tracking method to verify environmental sustainability of all biofuel feedstock 

sources. (2143.2, p,4-5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2497 

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Comment: 

The commenter (2497.1) noted that if rangeland is to be included, harvest of plant materials must 

be according to approved management plan that ensures sustainable harvest and management 

practices. Sustainable management planning should in fact be emphasized throughout the rule. 

Further suggestions for doing this are included below. The commenter also would suggest 

broader consideration of biomass harvesting on all lands (e.g., State and/or Federal lands) and 

management systems. The commenter believes that this should be conditional upon the 

development and use of sustainable harvest guidelines by each state. (2497.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2508 

Organization: Environmental Working Group (EWG) 

Comment:

The commenter would like EPA to include additional safeguards that limit the amount of crop 

residue that can be considered renewable biomass to only that amount of crop residue that can be 

removed without damage to soil and water resources. Renewable fuel producers should be 

required to certify sustainability of harvesting in order to determine whether crops and crop 

residue may be considered renewable biomass. (2508, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2526 

Organization: Coskata 

3-125
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Comment: 

 We commend the EPA in following EISA guidance on defining Renewable Biomass with the 

land use restrictions. However we are concerned that the land use restrictions may be too 

confining to currently known agricultural and forestry management practices. For instance, 

some forestry land owners are experimenting with inter-cropping of energy crops within the 

active forest plantation. 

This type of land management encourages land productivity while also enhancing the carbon 

sequestration potential of the forest land. We are concerned that such innovative land 

management techniques may not be encouraged with the restriction on the type of land on which 

a crop must be grown. We urge the EPA to make a specific allowance for land use and non-food 

biomass production innovations that would enhance the carbon sequestration profile of existing 

land. [Docket number 2526.1, pp. 9-11.] 

Our Response: 

 EPA appreciates the interest expressed by several commenters in incorporating 

requirements or incentives for sustainable feedstock production into RFS2 to protect water and 

soil quality and to promote other environmental considerations. Indeed, EPA is also interested in 

ensuring that increased renewable fuel production spurred by EISA’s volume mandates does not 

lead to degradation in water, soil, or air quality. We also appreciate the comments suggesting 

that in some instances allowing additional biomass collection from certain areas would promote 

good stewardship of those lands and could help alleviate feedstock shortages or shortages of 

farm products that could otherwise be grown on agricultural lands devoted to feedstock 

production. We have made every effort to interpret EISA’s definition of “renewable biomass” in 

such a way that will allow the renewable fuel volumes to be met while maintaining the 

environmental protections the definition is meant to confer. EISA’s lifecycle greenhouse gas 

reduction threshold requirements for different types of renewable fuel will also help ensure that 

increasing renewable fuel production will not lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions. 

However, beyond these provisions, EISA amendments to CAA 211(o) do not constrain 

the production of renewable fuel or its feedstocks, and therefore it would be beyond EPA’s 

current authority to institute additional sustainability criteria, per se, such as those suggested by 

some commenters. Furthermore, EPA is not at liberty to make exceptions to the renewable 

biomass restrictions imposed by statute, even to promote beneficial environmental results. 

Commenters should note that EISA Sec. 204 (Environmental and Resource Conservation 

Impacts) instructs EPA, in consultation with USDA and DOE, to assess and report to Congress 

every three years on the impacts of RFS2 on environmental and conservation issues such as air 

quality, soil conservation, water availability, and ecosystem health, and to make 

recommendations for action to address any identified adverse impacts. 

3.4 Renewable Fuel Exempt from 20 Percent GHG Threshold (Grandfathering) 

What Commenters Said:

3-126
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1044) offers the following remarks related to §80.1403. Which Fuels are not 

subject to the 20% GHG thresholds? The language in this section is exclusive to ethanol and the 

commenter opposes this perspective. The commenter supports the inclusion and replacement of 

the word ethanol with renewable fuel producer. They feel this term would be consistent with the 

proper use of the intended provisions identified by the EISA. [[Docket number 1044.1, p. 6]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter supports EPA’s proposal that GHG grandfathering applies only to the general 

RFS, and not advanced biofuels, biomass-based diesel or cellulosic biofuels. (2124.1, p.26) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) agrees with EPA that any ethanol plant that is fired with natural gas, 

biomass or any combination thereof for calendar years 2008 and 2009 should be considered 

grandfathered and should be treated like grandfathered ethanol facilities for as long as they 

continue to burn natural gas, biomass or any combination thereof. (2124.1, p.25) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) understands EPA’s proposed approach to grandfathering conventional 

biofuels to be that any fuel produced at the grandfathered facilities will qualify as a renewable 

fuel under the RFS2, provided it is within the original facility capacity (plus reasonable 

tolerances as below) and it is used to meet the conventional biofuel target. The commenter 

supports this interpretation as consistent with Congressional intent. Should the indirect land use 

modeling be applied and result in biobutanol not meeting the minimum 50% GHG threshold for 

an advanced biofuel, then biobutanol can only enter the market as a grandfathered conventional 

renewable fuel in the case of these facilities. (2146.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment:

The commenter (2143) urges EPA to apply the 20 percent lifecycle GHG reduction requirement 

to production volumes from existing facilities that exceed that facility’s baseline volume and 

believes that the requirement must ultimately be applied to the baseline volumes of existing 

facilities. 

The commenter (2143) suggests setting a date (such as 15 years from the enactment of EISA) 

that meets the definition of reconstructed in 40 CFR 60.15 on which baseline production 

volumes will be subject to the 20 percent lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction requirements. The 

3-127
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

commenter (2143) supports separate analyses for each process type as there are a few process 

plant types subject to this provision. (2143.2, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2369 

Organization: New Generation Biofuels (NGBF) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2369) believes that while the statute governing the expansion of the renewable 

fuel standard allowed some fuels to be exempt from reducing greenhouse gases compared to 

gasoline or diesel fuel, similar to the original renewable fuel standard program, the changed 

program should still provide incentives for the exempt biofuels and biofuel production facilities 

to improve their environmental footprint. The benchmark appears to be primarily in the form of 

greenhouse gases, however, the commenter believes that improvements in overall emissions 

and/or reducing water consumption and pollution should also be recognized and rewarded, 

possibly by providing a greater number of RINs per gallon of biofuel produced [[Docket number 

2369.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response:

 The exemption from the 20% GHG requirement applies to all renewable fuel – not just 

ethanol—from facilities which commenced construction prior to December 19, 2007 per the 

language in EISA. For those facilities which commenced construction after December 19, 2007 

but prior to December 31, 2009, the language in EISA provides an exemption from the 20% 

GHG for facilities “deemed compliant” with EISA (i.e., they must consume only natural gas 

and/or biofuel). GEN-X commented that the exemption for “deemed compliant” facilities should 

include all renewable fuels, not just ethanol. The language in EISA specifically names ethanol 

rather than “renewable fuel” for “deemed compliant” facilities; therefore, EPA’s regulations 

limit the exemption only to production of ethanol from such facilities. 

 New Generation Biofuels suggests that facilities that are grandfathered should be given 

credit for improving their “environmental footprint”, so that reducing water consumption and 

water pollution, for example are recognized and rewarded, possibly by allowing a greater 

number of RINs per gallon of biofuel produced. The language in EISA provides for the 

exemption from the 20% GHG threshold for renewable fuel, as discussed above. It does not 

provide for awarding additional credits for improving environmental performance. 

3.4.1 Definition of Commence Construction 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) supports using PSD definitions for commence construction. The 

commenter believes that EPA’s addition of language to address multi-phased projects creates 

confusion, and EPA did not adequately explain what it meant by a multi-phase project. The 

3-128
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

commenter also believes that foreign facilities should be required to certify compliance with 

these requirements, including having obtained all necessary permits, and should be required to 

provide documentation to support the certification, such as an affidavit or legal opinion. EPA 

cannot determine whether a foreign entity has obtained all necessary permits under foreign law. 

(2329.1, pp. 70-71) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment:

The commenters (2129.1) recommend that “new facility” for purposes of the RFS be defined as 

any renewable fuel production plant or renewable fuel production unit at any stationary source, 

including any renewable fuel production unit at an existing renewable fuel production plant, for 

which construction or reconstruction commenced after December 19, 2007. A “stationary 

source” is defined at CAA Section 111(a)(3) as “any building, structure, facility, or installation 

which emits or may emit any air pollutant.” (2129.1, p.11) 

 

The commenters recommend that “grandfathered” facilities must have all necessary 

preconstruction approvals completed and begun a continuous program of actual on-site 

construction that goes beyond land-clearing. For multi-phased projects, the commenters suggest 

that the commencement of construction of one phase does not constitute commencement of 

construction of any later phase, unless each phase is “mutually dependent” on the other as a 

technical matter (not just economically). The EPA must also put some limitations on the 

definition of construction. EPA should also establish a concrete obligation to begin or complete 

actual construction within a reasonable time frame, such as five years. Additionally, EPA should 

stipulate that if a proposed facility’s pre-construction approval lapses or is withdrawn, it loses its 

existing source status. (2129.1, p.11) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) suggests that EPA identify “commencement of construction” by 

reference to the start of “beneficial operations”, i.e., first commercial product shipped. (2146.1, 

p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment:

The commenter (2419.1) noted that Table 1.5-15 on page 129 of the DRIA does not include the 

ethanol plant expansion volume for the Blair, NE facility in the under construction column. PSD 

permits from 7/7/05 and 9/8/06 are included that clearly signify that the expansion project meets 

the definition of Commence Construction as outlined in the proposed regulation. [[See Docket 

Numbers 2419.3 & 2419.4]] (2419.1, p.1) 

3-129
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter (2511.1) proposes that the “commence construction” language shall encompass 

expansions at existing grandfathered facilities that commence construction prior to enactment 

provided the expansion is completed by 12/19/2009. These types of expansions should be 

“deemed compliant” if the construction is completed prior to enactment and operations are 

started within the “deemed compliant” period up and until 12/19/2009. (2511.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment: 

The commenter agrees with EPA that the definitions of “commence” and “begin actual 

construction” specified in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) regulations, which 

draw upon definitions in the Clean Air Act, provide a clear designation that is broad enough to 

avoid facility-specific issues. Yet narrow enough to prevent new facilities (post-December 19, 

2007) from being grandfathered. Furthermore, the commenter agrees with EPA’s additional 

proposed language with respect to multi-phase projects. [[Docket number 2472.1, p. 10]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2360 

Organization: Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2360.1) also believes that the grandfathered production levels should be based 

on permitted capacities even in cases where portions of a project may have been slowed or 

temporarily stopped, and even if the stoppage exceeds 18 months and the project cannot be 

completed within 36 months. (2360.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2363 

Organization: Ag Processing Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2363) offers the following recommendations: 

-The definition of commenced construction contained in the PSD regulations is familiar to most 

people and is probably acceptable and should be easily documented through the air construction 

permitting process that facilities are subject to. 

Our Response:

 Commenters generally agreed with EPA’s proposed definition of “commence 

construction”. Renewable Fuels Association stated that the definition of multi-phase 

construction is confusing. The definition of “commence construction” is taken from the PSD 

definition, including the language on multi-phase construction. The definition has been in effect 

since the early 80’s and the language on multi-phase construction is straightforward and has not 

caused confusion. Furthermore, there is sufficient precedent and guidance on the subject of 

“commence construction” to answer any questions that may arise concerning the definition. 

Since qualification for the exemption from the 20% requirement is contingent upon commencing 

construction prior to Dec 19, 2007, (or December 19, 2009 for some ethanol facilities) we do not 

believe it necessary to provide a separate definition of “new facility” as the Clean Air Task Force 

et al suggested. 

3-130
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

 The Clean Air Task Force et all suggests that if air permits lapse or are withdrawn, then 

the facility should no longer be considered an existing facility. The definition of “commence 

construction” requires that owners have all necessary preconstruction permits. In light of this 

comment we have specified in the definition of “commence construction” that the owner did not 

discontinue construction for a period of 18 months or more and completed construction within a 

reasonable time, not to exceed 36 months. Renewable Fuels Association states that the 

requirement for preconstruction permits to have been obtained should also apply to foreign 

facilities. We agree, and are requiring that owners of foreign facilities demonstrate that they 

have all necessary preconstruction permits required by the governmental entities as appropriate. 

 The Clean Air Task Force et al, states that the “reasonable time for completion of 

construction” should be specified in the regulations and they suggest five years. We have added 

a provision in the regulations that specifies that construction should be completed within three 

years of commencement, to qualify for completion of construction within a “reasonable amount 

of time”. We are including the three year requirement in the regulation itself. We believe that 

three years is an adequate period of time to account for economic downturns that may cause 

disruptions in construction schedules. 

 Cargill suggests that for facilities in “deemed compliant” status, construction should be 

completed by December 31, 2009. We are requiring that facilities are “deemed compliant” if 

they commence construction after December 19, 2007 but prior to December 31, 2009, are fired 

by natural gas, biofuel or combination thereof, and produce only ethanol. We do not require that 

construction be completed prior to December 31, 2009, and in fact, we allow the same 36 month 

period as discussed above, as qualifying for a “reasonable period of time” in which construction 

should be completed. Since the regulation has not gone into effect, we believe it would be unfair 

to require facilities in “deemed compliant” status to have completed construction by the end of 

2009. 

 Clean Air Task Force, et al suggested that on multi-phased projects, construction of one 

phase does not constitute commencement of construction of any later phase, unless each phase is 

“mutually dependent” on the other as a technical matter. The definition of “commence 

construction” specifies that “for multi-phased projects, the commencement of construction of one 

phase does not constitute commencement of construction of any later phase, unless each phase is 

mutually dependent for physical and chemical reasons only,” We believe this language satisfies 

the commenter’s concern. 

 Cargill noted that Table 1.5-15 on page 129 of the DRIA does not include the ethanol 

plant expansion volume for the Blair, NE facility in the under construction column and included 

copies of their PSD permits to show that construction commenced prior to December 19, 2007. 

We acknowledge this and have made changes which are reflected in Section IV.B.1.a of the 

preamble as well as Sections 1.5.1.1 and 1.5.1.4 of the RIA. 

3.4.2 Basic Approach: Grandfathering Limited to Baseline Volumes 

3.4.2.1 Limitation on Baseline Volumes 

3-131
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) agrees with the definition of “nameplate capacity.” (2132.1, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) supports EPA’s proposed definition of the baseline volume to be the 

greater of the permitted capacity or annual peak capacity. The commenter believes that the full 

capacity provided for in the permit should be used. EPA should also eliminate its conversion 

factor, and add a tolerance level. A tolerance level allows facilities to become more efficient, 

which would provide additional GHG benefits. Ten percent is a reasonable tolerance value for 

EPA to apply. (2329.1, pp.69-69) 

The commenter opposes using 2006 production as a potential alternative to define the baseline 

volumes. Production in 2006 is not representative of a facility’s potential capacity, but only 

reflective of the demand that particular year. Nor does it recognize the improvements that can be 

made to increase production without expansion of the facility. (2329.1, p.69) 

The commenter also supports EPA’s proposal to treat “deemed compliant” facilities as 

grandfathered facilities. EPA should make clear that other types of facilities existing on the date 

of enactment (e.g., a chemical plant) that may be retrofitted to produce renewable fuel after 

enactment or a refinery that co-process renewable biomass with petroleum would not be eligible 

for deemed compliant status.(2329.1, p..73) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-0161-2383.1 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter states (pp. 4-6) that EISA does not permit EPA to limit participation by facilities 

that were in production or under construction when Congress passed EISA. The 20 percent 

GHG performance standard of section 211(o)(2)(A)(i) applies to only renewable fuel facilities 

that are “new.” The GHG performance standard does not apply to renewable fuel from those 

facilities that are “already existing,” on which construction commenced prior to the enactment of 

EISA. EPA impermissibly tries to cause existing facilities (those that commenced construction 

prior to December 19, 2007) to become subject to the GHG performance standard based on 

either changes to those existing facilities, changes in the volume of production at such facilities, 

or the passage of time. Nowhere does EISA provide that EPA may require facilities to meet the 

GHG performance standard if existing facilities are modified, do not complete construction 

within a certain duration, exceed certain volumes of production, or operate for a specified 

duration. The proposed rule would require any facility, new or existing, to meet the GHG 

performance standard based on increased production volumes, changes at existing facilities, or 

the passage of time. However, the only factor specified by Congress in the RFS 2 as 

3-132
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

determinative of whether the GHG performance standard applies to renewable fuel from a 

facility is whether the facility is “new,” with construction beginning after enactment of the RFS 

2. EPA thus “takes other factors into account” than those to which Congress limited it—the 

proposed rule exceeds statutory authority. EPA cannot change the statute with additional 

limitations not present on the face of the text. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079 

Organization: AE Biofuels, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2079.1) supports the basic option, but they believe further clarification is 

required to determine exactly how the baseline volumes would be calculated, and the ability of a 

company to challenge the revoking of a facility’s “grandfathered” status if the EPA determined 

that the modifications had increased its GHG emissions. (2079.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

The commenter (2101.1) believes it is appropriate that EPA’s RFS2 rule determines that ethanol 

plants that commenced construction before the EISA enactment date are grandfathered into the 

GHG reduction provisions, and that for calendar years 2008 and 2009, any ethanol plant that is 

fired with natural gas, biomass, or any combination thereof is deemed to be in compliance with 

the 20 percent threshold. As a result, there is a strong likelihood that the 15 billion gallons of 

corn ethanol per year called for under the RFS2 program will be deemed to comply with the 

GHG reduction requirement. (2101.1, p.2) 

The commenter also believes that EPA has done a thorough analysis of grandfathering options 

under RFS2 for the 20 percent GHG compliance threshold, and believes the basic, proposed 

approach is workable although the commenter prefers indefinite grandfathering with no 

limitations placed on volume. If EPA proceeds to enforce the proposed approach, which 

provides indefinite grandfathering of the base volume of fuel from the plant, the commenter 

recommends that EPA allow ethanol plants, on a case-by-case basis, be granted permission for 

additional or new ethanol capacity or volume to be grandfathered if the production methods 

enable the plant to maintain its 20 percent GHG reduction threshold. (2101.1, p.17) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1051 

Organization: Aberdeen Development Corp. 

Comment:

The commenter (1051) believes there is ample support for EPA to essentially grandfather 

existing facilities by deeming these facilities to be in compliance with the 50 percent reduction 

requirement. [[Docket number 1051.1, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2012 

Organization: Caribbean Basin Ethanol Producers Group 

Comment:

The commenter 92012.1) recommends that their organization be grandfathered as an eligible 

producer of advanced biofuels. (2012.1, p.3) 

3-133
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2016 

Organization: Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2016.1) believes that the commence construction provision is intended to help 

corn ethanol plants in the U.S. The commenter feels it should also apply to overseas facilities in 

Malaysia producing biodiesel from palm oil. Whatever expiration dates decided for such 

facilities in the U.S. should also be extended to foreign facilities. (2016.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) believes that grandfathering should only apply to originally approved 

baseline volumes. The commenter believes that any new volume production, no matter how 

small, should be required to meet the minimum 20% GHG emissions reduction threshold. The 

commenter does not agree with EPA extending any tolerance to this baseline volume. (2124.1, 

p.25) 

The commenter opposes any effort to apply grandfathering indefinitely or to allow any 

production increases above the approved baseline to be considered to be covered under the 

grandfathering provisions. (2124.1, p.26) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) agrees with EPA’s choice to provide an “indefinite time period for 

grandfathering status but with restrictions to the baseline volume of renewable fuel that is 

grandfathered.” The commenter suggests using the indefinite exemption option. EPA estimated 

the entire 15 billion gallons of Renewable Fuel as corn ethanol that will come from 

“grandfathered” or “deemed compliant” plants, so an indefinite exemption should not raise the 

overall amount of grandfathered fuel. If EPA believes some time limit is needed, the commenter 

recommends allowing 30 years or more; by contrast, we think 15 years is too short and may limit 

investments for improving operations or technologies. (2132.1, p.11) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2140 

Organization: John Deere Agriculture & Turf Division 

Comment:

The commenter (2140.1) believes that it is critical that historical financial investments made 

before enactment of EISA be protected. The commenter believes that EPA should appropriately 

grandfather existing ethanol production in recognition of these significant investments underway. 

The commenter believes that national renewable fuels policy must continue to recognize and 

support investments made under current regulations and technologies and recognize appropriate 

lead times in developing successive generations of regulations to which these facilities may be 

subject. (2140.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

3-134
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) noted that many plants operate with only 10-20 days of downtime, 

therefore the 95% conversion rate would be the preferred choice. The commenter also noted that 

the term “new expansion” should be clarified to mean material spending on new assets which 

directly results in substantial additional output of product volume. (2146.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2168 

Organization: First United Ethanol, LLC 

Comment: 

While the commenter (2168) is encouraged that the proposed RFS2 would grandfather all 

operating plants, they have to wonder about the application of that exception in the near future as 

well as compliance issues that they will ultimately face. (2168, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2249.2) generally supports the proposed grandfathering approach. The 

commenter agrees that EPA’s proposal is a reasonable compromise to the greenfield approach 

(Alternative 5) to address the potential for unlimited expansions of a particular facility, while 

still giving facilities flexibility in their operations to include new feedstocks and to maintain and 

improve their equipment. This approach also is practical and provides a bright line definition that 

makes clear when the 20 percent requirement is triggered. [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 33-34]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2304 

Organization: Gevo Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2304) supports EPA’s basic approach on grandfathering of baseline volume of 

any renewable fuel. This basic approach would provide an indefinite extension of grandfathering 

and deemed compliant status but with a limitation of the exemption from the 20% GHG 

threshold to a baseline volume of renewable fuel. This approach is similar to how EPA has 

treated small refiner flexibilities under other fuel rules. Other proposed approaches create 

significant complexity and administrative burdens to the overall program with little to no benefit. 

The commenter recommends that EPA keep it simple to regulate and administer and thus simple 

to comply. [[Docket number 2304.1, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2337 

Organization: California Air Resources Board 

Comment:

The commenter (2337.1) agrees with the U.S. EPA recommendation that the baseline volume of 

renewable fuel exempt from the 20 percent GHG threshold requirement be the maximum 

volumetric capacity of the facility as allowed in any applicable state air permit or Federal Title V 

operating permit. The production of volumes greater than this amount should be subject to the 

twenty percent GHG reduction requirement. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2363 

3-135
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Organization: Ag Processing Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2363) recommends that the baseline volume should be the greater of the 

nameplate capacity or the permitted capacity of the facility. There may be situations where the 

facility is not permitted for the full nameplate capacity, but the nameplate capacity more fully 

represents the volume to which capital investment has been committed. [[Docket number 2363.1, 

p. 11]] 

In addition, the commenter states that where air permit limitations on capacity are expressed in 

hourly, daily maximums, it is proposed that those numbers are extrapolated to an annual basis 

using only 7884 hours per year (90% of the total 8760 hours available in a year). The total 8760 

hour per year should be used unless the permit limits the total days of operation to some number 

less than 365 days per year. While most facilities take an annual shutdown for some 

maintenance or repairs, the timing of the shutdown usually does not occur on the same days 

every year. Thus a facility may operate 365 days (8760 hours) in a row in between shutdowns. 

There are some situations where the annual peak production of a facility is proposed as the 

avenue for determining the baseline capacity. This may not fully represent the true capacity of 

the facility due to operational constraints such as market conditions or operating capital during 

the early years of operation. [[Docket number 2363.1, p. 11]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

The commenter (2384) is generally supportive of the basic approach to the proposed 

grandfathering provisions. [[Docket number 2384.1, p. 6]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

Regarding the time period that should accompany grandfathering, the commenter (2393) believes 

that without a time limit on grandfathering, there may be little incentive to further reduce GHG 

emissions from existing bio-refineries. The commenter also states that EPA has extended the 

definition of “grandfathering” far beyond what Congress intended. EPA should be using a 12 

month time period after December 19, 2007 instead of a 36 month time period. [[Docket number 

2393.1, pp. 40-41]] 

The commenter agrees with the EPA interpretation of EISA that any ethanol plant that is fired 

with natural gas, biomass or any combination thereof for calendar years 2008 and 2009 should be 

considered grandfathered and should be treated like grandfathered ethanol facilities for as long as 

they continue to burn natural gas, biomass or any combination thereof. However, the commenter 

believes that grandfathering should only apply to originally approved baseline volumes. Any 

new volume production, no matter how small, should be required to meet the 20% GHG 

threshold. The commenter does not agree that EPA should extend grandfathering to any 

volumes above this baseline volume. [[Docket number 2393.1, pp. 40-41]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

3-136
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment:

The commenter (2511.1) supports EPA’s basic approach that would provide an indefinite 

extension of grandfathering and deemed compliant status, but with a limitation of the exemption 

from the 20% GHG threshold to a baseline volume of renewable fuel. The commenter also 

supports uniformly applying the grandfathering provisions to both the existing biodiesel and 

ethanol facilities relative to their individual GHG reduction targets in the EISA. (2511.1, p.4) 

The commenter believes that facilities which are “deemed compliant” should retain their 

grandfathered status for the same length of time as grandfathered facilities. The commenter does 

not support the alternative in which after 2009, “deemed compliant” plants must meet the 20% 

threshold in order to generate RINS for renewable fuel produced. (2511.1, p.4) 

The commenter supports the provision that changes to the renewable fuel production mix would 

remain grandfathered at grandfathered facilities and deemed compliant at deemed compliant 

facilities, including those facilities that have expansions which bridge the 12/19/07 - 12/19/09 

timeframe provided the overall volume produced does not exceed the baseline production 

volume. (2511.1, p.4) 

Finally, the commenter suggests that reporting information regarding process fuel, feedstock use 

and product volumes could be sourced from current reporting requirements including state 

compliance reports, federal Alcohol Tax and Trade Bureau reporting and Energy Information 

Administration reporting. (2511.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2472) supports EPA’s basic approach in the Proposed Rule of providing an 

indefinite extension of grandfathering for facilities that commence construction on or before 

December 19, 2007. This approach is consistent with previous approaches established in the 

CAA and other EPA regulations. [[Docket number 2472.1, p. 8]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1052 

Organization: Pennsylvania Energy Resources Group (ERG) 

Comment:

The commenter (1052) requests that existing biodiesel production plants be grandfathered under 

EPA regulations as in compliance with the 50 percent reduction requirement. Because existing 

feedstock sources are already meeting production levels and capable of increases, there are no 

land use changes involved, and no significant emissions from any changes can be associated with 

existing production. All lifecycle analyses, including EPA’s without international land use 

changes, show well over 50 percent reduction in emissions. The commenter believes there is 

ample support for EPA to grandfather existing facilities by deeming these facilities to be in 

compliance with the 50 percent reduction requirement. [[Docket number 1052.1, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1005 

Organization: Cotner Consulting Services 

3-137
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Comment:

While the commenter supports having the RFS2 regulations enforceable beginning January 1, 

2010 so that the biomass-based diesel requirements are implemented, EPA should use its 

regulatory authority to exempt biodiesel facilities that were placed in service prior to December 

19, 2007. (1005.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2435 

Organization: R.W. Heiden Associates LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter believes that existing production of biodiesel should be deemed to meet the 50 

percent GHG reduction requirement for biomass-based diesel. [[Docket number 2435.1, p. 2]] 

[[See docket number 2435.1, pp. 2-3 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2519 

Organization: Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade 

Comment: 

The commenter (2519) notes that EPA has proposed a grandfathering provision for existing 

biofuels production facilities. Specifically, EPA has proposed that the production from plants 

which commenced construction in 2008 or 2009 and are fired with natural gas or biomass will be 

deemed to be in compliance for a 20% reduction in GHGs. The commenter points out that it is 

currently unclear whether foreign plants are included in this ruling. The commenter requests 

clarification and would like assurance that existing Canadian production and plants that are 

under construction will be granted the same opportunities. [[Docket number 2519.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response: 

Generally, commenters supported the basic approach in which the volume of renewable 

fuel from facilities qualifying for an exemption from the 20% GHG reduction requirement 

was limited to baseline volume. Growth Energy objected to the basic approach and argued that 

the statute's use of the word “new” and the phrase “after December 19, 2007” provided evidence 

that facilities which commenced construction prior to that date would not ever be subject to the 

threshold regardless of the volume produced from such facilities. We note first that the statute 

does not provide a definition of “new facility,” and it is appropriate for EPA to define that term. 

For reasons described in the preamble, we believe that in interpreting this term an appropriate 

balance between providing an incentive to industry to build new facilities, including expansions, 

to modern environmental standards and protecting recent investments from the hardship that 

might be imposed as a result of the new program is to view increases above baseline volume of 

renewable fuel from a facility that qualifies for the exemptions to be deemed produced from a 

new facility that is not subject to the exemption. . 

 

 Growth Energy also states that EPA’s interpretation of EISA is contrary to Congressional 

intent because the “statute induced ethanol manufacturers (and manufacturers of other renewable 

fuels) to invest in plants and equipment designed to meet the renewable fuels mandate. 

Congress, in passing EISA, sought to protect these investments by not making existing plants 

subject to new GHG performance standards that were not in effect when such plants were 

funded, designed, and built.” The commenter argues that our regulations as proposed fail to 

3-138
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

offer such protection by retroactively penalizing early-stage renewable fuel producers. We 

believe that the discussion in the NPRM makes clear that this comment is not correct. We stated 

in the NPRM that a guiding principle in drafting these regulations was to offer protection for 

historical business investments that were made prior to the enactment of EISA. We conducted a 

survey of ethanol plants in operation, as well as those not yet in operation but which commenced 

construction prior to December 19, 2007. The results of our survey indicated that it is likely that 

production capacity of ethanol from all facilities that qualify for this exemption will likely equal 

or exceed 15 billion gallons--the amount of renewable fuel that is not advanced biofuel or 

cellulosic ethanol which is required to be added to transportation fuel per the new RFS 

requirements. Since the baseline volume of the facilities qualifying for the exemption is very 

likely to be 15 billion gallons, we do not agree with the commenter that subjecting increases 

above the baseline volume could retroactively penalize early-stage renewable fuel producers. 

Furthermore, facilities will seek to ensure that the desired and realistically planned capacity of 

their facilities will be reflected in applicable environmental permits. Our final rule provides that 

baseline volume is to be determined by reference to such permits, rather than actual past 

production, unless this is not feasible. Therefore, the regulations do not have any retroactive 

punitive effect, but instead are designed to establish the exemption at a level that will provide 

appropriate protection to past investments. 

Ag Processing stated that the baseline volume should be the greater of the nameplate 

capacity of the permitted capacity of the facility. We had proposed in the NPRM that nameplate 

capacity be defined as permitted capacity, but that if the capacity was not stipulated in any 

federal, state or local air permit, then the actual peak output should be used. We have decided 

that since permitted capacity is the limiting condition, by virtue of it being an enforceable limit 

contained in air permits, that the term “nameplate capacity” is not needed. Thus, baseline 

volume will be based on 105% of the permitted capacity, and in its absence, 105% of the actual 

peak output. The 105% represents a tolerance which is discussed in Section 3.4.3.3. 

We are defining actual peak capacity to be the maximum annual volume produced for 

any of the five calendars prior to 2008 for facilities for which construction commenced prior to 

December 19, 2007. For “deemed compliant” facilities, the actual peak capacity is based on the 

maximum output achieved during the any calendar year during the first three years after startup. 

We had solicited comment on how to convert volume output to annual if the permit 

expresses maximum rated volume output on an hourly basis. Ag Processing commented that 

although there is downtime, it doesn’t always occur on an annual basis, and thus recommended 

using the full 8,760 hours per year. We understand that there may be years that there is 

downtime, but such an approach would not account for those years in which downtime does 

occur. Typically uptimes for ethanol production facilities average 95% per year. Thus, we used a 

5% downtime and will require that the hourly output be multiplied by 8,322 hours per year to 

obtain the annual output, when such is not specified in permits. 

Pennsylvania Energy Resource Group (ERG), R.W. Heiden, and Cotner Consulting 

Services commented that existing biodiesel production plants be exempt under EPA regulations 

from the 50% GHG reduction requirement applicable to biomass-based diesel. We believe that 

the language of the statute is clear that the exemption applies only to the 20% GHG reduction 

3-139
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

requirement. Thus, the final rule does not provide exemptions for the GHG reduction 

requirements specified for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel or advanced biofuel. 

3.4.2.2 Changes at Facilities that Increase GHG Emissions 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) noted that while EPA’s regulation of expansions at existing facilities 

may be reasonable, Congress intended to grandfather entire plants and did not intend to regulate 

modifications to the existing equipment. The Act provides incentives to promote improvements 

and efficiency to reduce GHG emissions, and regulating modifications would create a 

disincentive for facilities to seek to become more efficient or to add equipment that would reduce 

GHG emissions. EPA should not limit a facility’s flexibility to adjust its operations and maintain 

its grandfather status. (2329.1, pp.69-70) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter notes that the only example EPA provides as potentially troublesome from a 

GHG emission perspective is a facility switching from natural gas to coal. This, however, would 

require substantial investment and is not likely to occur. Also, EPA indicated that the opposite 

would occur, noting plants will “transition from conventional boiler fuels to advanced biomassbased feedstocks” and pursue combined heat technology. Thus, the commenter believes EPA 

should not limit a facility’s flexibility to adjust its operations and maintain its grandfather status. 

[[Docket number 2249.2, p. 35]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment:

The commenter recommends that changes or process improvements which improve or decrease 

GHG emissions, whether the changes facilitate achievement of the 20% GHG reduction 

threshold or not, should not cause a revocation of the grandfathered or deemed compliant status 

of a facility. (2511.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2337 

Organization: California Air Resources Board 

Comment:

The commenter recommends that facilities lose their grandfathered status if they modify their 

operations resulting in an increase in GHG emissions. Moreover, “grandfathered” and “deemed 

compliant” status should expire on December 31, 2022. Following this date, all facilities should 

3-140
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

be subject to the 20 percent threshold requirement in order to generate Renewable Identification 

Numbers (RIN). (Page 3) 

Out Response: 

 Generally, commenters did not support a provision that would result in facilities losing 

their exemption status if modifications they made to their operations resulted in an emissions 

increase in GHG emissions. RFA pointed out that this would amount to regulating modifications 

and could result in a disincentive for facilities to increase efficiency or to add equipment that 

would reduce GHG emissions. We believe the comment has merit and also believe there are 

many variations within a plant that cannot be adequately captured in a table of fuel and feedstock 

pathways as we proposed (see 74 FR 24927). Implementing such a provision would create 

questions of accounting and tracking that would need to be evaluated on a time-consuming caseby-case basis. For example, a facility that switched from natural gas to coal, but increased the 

efficiency of operation elsewhere, may argue that that the increased efficiency offset the decrease 

due to the fuel switch. National Biodiesel Board commented out that it is not common for such 

fuel switches to occur. Facilities that fire natural gas will tend to keep using natural gas, rather 

than switching to coal. For the reasons discussed above, we have decided not to implement that 

option. We note, however, one exception to this, in the case of deemed compliant facilities. 

Such facilities are deemed compliant if they burn only natural gas, biomass or a combination of 

both. Switching to coal would terminate their exemption status, because by definition they 

would no longer meet the definition of “deemed compliant”. 

3.4.2.3 Comments on Allowing Tolerance Limit on Baseline Volume 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter would support a tolerance on baseline volume that is the greater of 120% of 

nameplate capacity, demonstrated maximum annualized capacity or annualized volume as 

permitted on current air permit. The commenter also supports the grandfathered status being 

valid for an indefinite time period, for the original volumes plus reasonable tolerances as 

described above. Volume above and beyond the tolerance amounts would be subject to the 20% 

GHG threshold. (2146.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter generally supports the proposed definition of the baseline volume, but believes 

that EPA should include a tolerance value to address improved efficiencies in facility operations. 

A tolerance level also allows facilities to become more efficient, which would provide additional 

GHG benefits. Although EPA suggested 10 percent may be appropriate, the commenter believes 

that 20 percent is a reasonable tolerance value for EPA to apply. Twenty percent also gives 

3-141
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

facilities more incentives to increase their efficiencies, which will result in energy savings. On 

the other hand, the baseline value should not be based only on 2006 production, as this is not 

representative of a facility’s potential capacity, but only reflective of the demand that particular 

year. Further, the commenter believes EPA should make clear that the facility must be a 

renewable fuel facility that was producing renewable fuel prior to enactment. [[Docket number 

2249.2, p. 34]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment:

The commenter supports the 10% debottlenecking increase to the baseline volume as proposed in 

the preamble. Any volume exceeding the baseline (plus 10% debottlenecking) would be subject 

to the 20% GHG reduction threshold. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2360 

Organization: Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2360.1) believes that the rule should grandfather an existing facility up to the 

permitted capacity and allow for a 20% tolerance on baseline value to account for such things as 

potential improvements in production efficiencies. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment: 

The commenter states that baseline volumes for grandfathered facilities should be based on 

maximum monthly production with a 10% tolerance and believes that there is no justification for 

establishing an overly restrictive definition of facility-specific grandfathered capacity. The 

commenter believes that EPA should define the baseline volume for grandfathered facilities as 

the actual maximum monthly production during any operating month that occurred prior to the 

effective date of this Proposed Rule, plus 10%. Once the baseline volume as defined above is 

exceeded, the increase above baseline volume would be subject to the 20% GHG reduction 

requirement in order to generate RINs. [[Docket number 2472.1, pp. 9-10]] 

Our Response

Most commenters favored the concept of a tolerance, although some favored 10% and 

others 20%. When we had solicited the comment about a tolerance, we were keeping open all 

options for structuring the basic exemptions, including the options for an expiration of the 

exemption. In light of our final decision to exempt baseline volume for an indefinite period, we 

have decided that a 10% (and 20%) level is not appropriate for this regulation for the following 

reasons: 1) our decision to interpret the exemption of the baseline volume of renewable fuel 

from the 20 percent requirement will extend indefinitely; thus, any tolerance provided could be 

present in the marketplace for a considerable time period; 2) increases in volume of 10% or 

greater could be the result of modifications other than debottlenecking, and 3) we are allowing 

baseline volume to be based on the maximum capacity that is allowed under state and federal air 

permits. With respect to the last reason, facilities that have been operating below the capacity 

3-142
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

allowed in their state permits would be able to claim a baseline volume based on the maximum 

capacity. As such, these facilities may indeed be able to increase their volume by 10 to 20 

percent by virtue of how their baseline volume is defined. We believe this is appropriate, 

however, since their permits should reflect their design, and the fuel resulting from their original 

pre-EISA (or pre-2010, for deemed compliant facilities) design should be exempt from the 20% 

GHG reduction requirement. 

We do recognize and agree with commenters that some allowances should be made for 

minor changes brought about by normal maintenance which are consistent with the proper 

operation of a facility. EPA is not aware of a particular study or analysis that could be used as a 

basis for picking a tolerance level reflecting this concept. We believe, however, that the value 

should be relatively small, so as not to encourage plant expansions that are unrelated to 

debottlenecking. We believe that a 5% tolerance level is consistent with these considerations. 

3.4.2.4 Restriction of Deemed Compliant Facilities to Produce Only Ethanol 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2384) states that the discussion of the 20% threshold recognizes no linkage 

between ethanol production and grandfathering for facilities operating or under construction 

prior to December 19, 2007. The language for the “deemed compliant” facilities that 

commenced construction in 2008 and 2009 comes from EISA 2007 210(a)(1). This language 

does suggest a requirement that the deems compliant facility be an ethanol plant in calendar 

years 2008 and 2009 but does not require that the plant remain an ethanol plant in future years. 

[[Docket number 2384.1, pp. 6-7]] 

The commenter recommends the following relevant principles for evaluating conversion of an 

exempt ethanol facility to the production of different renewable fuel: 

-Protection of historical investment. 

-Avoidance of long-term backsliding on environmental performance. 

-Encouragement of new technologies. [[Docket number 2384.1, pp. 6-7]] 

Our Response

 The language in EISA is specific that “deemed compliant” facilities are exempted from 

the 20% GHG threshold only if the plants use natural gas, biomass or combination, and that only 

ethanol is produced. The language is straightforward and provides no indication that different 

renewable fuels may be produced after 2009 as the commenter suggests. We note, however, that 

facilities that commenced construction prior to December 19, 2007, are not restricted to only 

ethanol production to qualify for the exemption. We apply the exemption, however, only to that 

volume of renewable fuel that does not exceed baseline volume. 

3-143
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

3.4.3 Alternative Options 

 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079 

Organization: AE Biofuels, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2079.1) with respect to option 2, or expiration of grandfathered status after 15 

years, believes that this option is tolerable, as it is clear and concise in its scope, and leaves no 

doubt as to what may or may not qualify for “grandfathering.” The commenter believes that 

option 3 is more tolerable than option 2, as the criteria is even clearer. The commenter finds 

option 4 interesting, but again, would create many of the same problems of a facility being 

unable to integrate cellulosic production technology into an existing production facility without 

risking being excluded from grandfathering and thus RIN generation. With regards to option 5, 

or indefinite exemption and no limitations on baseline volumes is the most preferred, as it 

enables industry to innovate and increase advanced renewable biofuels production capacity, 

without the compliance burden and risk of being disqualified by the EPA for any hybrid 

solutions and/or integration that might be the most efficient solution. (2079.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2106 

Organization: Endicott Biofuels II, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2106) suggests the EPA consider grandfathering only those facilities that have 

shown consistent production and operation and consistent demonstration of meeting ASTM 

quality specifications for the 12 months prior to enacting RFS2. The facilities should be capped 

at the then current operating limits of the legally permitted capacity at the time RFS2 is enacted. 

The facility should also be able to document from historical testing data that it was able to 

produce at the permitted capacity. Expiration of grandfathering would then follow 15 years after 

EISA enactment as in EPA proposal. This would allow currently financially viable facilities 

with significant investments to continue in operation and support the mandated levels of 

renewable fuels. This boundary would also provide for adequate market pricing signals which 

are necessary to incent new investment in more sustainable projects with genuine GHG 

reductions that meet EPA requirements. [[Docket number 2106.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

Regarding regulations governing the grandfathering of conventional renewable fuels in EISA, 

the commenter (2130) supports EPA’s limiting grandfathered volumes to the best three-month 

average during the first two years of operation. Moreover, the grandfathering should sunset no 

later than 15 years after enactment of EISA (no later than 2022. [[Docket number 2130.1, pp. 10-

11]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

3-144
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

Regarding the time period that should accompany grandfathering, the commenter (2393) believes 

that without a time limit on grandfathering, there may be little incentive to further reduce GHG 

emissions from existing bio-refineries. The commenter also states that EPA has extended the 

definition of “grandfathering” far beyond what Congress intended. EPA should be using a 12 

month time period after December 19, 2007 instead of a 36 month time period. [[Docket number 

2393.1, pp. 40-41]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter does not believe that grandfathered facilities should be exempted indefinitely 

and agrees with the 15 year expiration of exemption for all grandfathered facilities. The 

commenter also agrees that biofuel facilities should lose their grandfathered status if they make 

any changes that result in an increase in GHG emissions for the baseline volumes. The 

commenter believes that EPA should limit grandfathering to only the fuel pathways that applied 

in 2007. The commenter also agrees that if coal-fired units are replaced on grandfathered 

facilities, they must be replaced by natural gas and/or biomass-fired units. (2124.1, p.25) 

The commenter also agrees that EPA should require grandfathered facility owners to annually 

report, starting in 2010, the expenses for replacements, additions and repairs and that EPA 

should use these reports to determine when the facility effectively becomes new due to 

rebuilding or modernization. (2124.1, p.25) 

The commenter also agrees that EPA should require grandfathered facility owners to annually 

report, starting in 2010, the expenses for replacements, additions and repairs and that EPA 

should use these reports to determine when the facility effectively becomes new due to 

rebuilding or modernization. (2124.1, p.25) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) believes that once EPA has published the GHG thresholds and fuel 

pathways for biofuels, this will largely influence the future behavior of an existing plant. 

Without a time-limit on grandfathering, ethanol plants may have little or no incentive to further 

reduce GHG emissions. The commenter adds that EPA has extended the definition of 

“grandfathering” far beyond what Congress intended; EPA should use a 12 month time period 

after December 19, 2007 instead of a 36 month time period. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 44]] 

[[See docket number 2233.2, pp. 43-44 for the commenter’s detailed discussion related to EPA’s 

grandfathering scenarios.]] 

The commenter agrees with EPA that grandfathering provisions do not apply to advanced 

biofuels, biomass-based diesel or cellulosic biofuels. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 47]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2374 

3-145
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Organization: Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc. (Amyris) 

Comment: 

In principle, the commenter (2374) does not support grandfathering of facilities as they believe 

that all biofuels should be superior to the petroleum baseline. Such a waiver will result in unfair 

commercial advantages without GHG benefit. As to practical implementation, the commenter 

suggests such waivers have specific limited period with a critical focus on the objectives of 

reducing the carbon intensity of transportation fuels and reducing the nation’s reliance on 

petroleum derived transportation fuels [[Docket number 2374.1, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2491 

Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) 

Comment:

The commenter (2491) does not think that there should be an indefinite extension of the 

grandfathering provision, even with limitations. [[Docket number 2491.1, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2497 

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Comment: 

The commenter (2497.1) supports Option 2, which is the expiration of the grandfather exemption 

15 years after EISA enactment, industry-wide (~2022). The commenter also supports the 

provision of removal of grandfather status for currently operating facilities if they switch to a 

process fuel or feedstock resulting in a net increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The 

commenter also supports allowing a 10% increase in a facility’s baseline before triggering 

revocation of grandfather status. (2497.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) believes that EPA should limit the exemption to the volumes of fuels 

produced at qualifying facilities as of the date of enactment, and EPA should sunset the 

exemption. Both of these limitations to the exemption are consistent with congressional intent. 

Congress clearly intended the renewable fuels provisions of EISA to result in greenhouse gas 

emission reductions. It is consistent with that intent to limit the exemption to the volumes 

produced at the date of enactment. (2505.2, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) generally supports EPA’s proposed approach, but believes alternatives 

(1), (2) and (3) go against the statutory language and Congressional intent. The commenter 

believes that EPA’s Alternative 5, referred to as the Greenfield Approach, best expresses the 

statutory language and Congressional intent. (2329.1, p.67) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp. 

67-68 for a detailed discussion of Alternative 5]] 

With regards to Alternative (1), the commenter believes that it ignored the language and intent of 

the statute. EPA cannot determine if a facility is “new” based on actions dating as far back as the 

3-146
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

“startup” of the facility. The purpose of a grandfathering clause is to protect existing investment. 

Under this proposal EPA would require facilities to account for actions taken well before the 

EISA was enacted. This undermines the purpose of a grandfather clause. EPA must also clarify 

the reporting requirements under this approach. In particular, costs of routine maintenance and 

repair should not be included in such assessments. Also, facilities should not be required to find 

records of costs dating back to “startup” of the facility. If EPA goes down this road, it should 

limit the time period to consider costs to post-enactment, which at least recognizes the fact that 

Congress sought to protect pre-EISA investment, if not comply with the statutory provisions. 

(2329.1, pp. 71-72) 

With regards to Alternative (2) & (3), the commenter also believes that it is contrary to the 

language and intent of the statute. The 15-year limit is based on an underlying assumption that 

facilities are reconstructed over a set period of time–an estimated 15 years for ethanol plants. 

This may not be factually correct. The statute expressly refers to “new facilities” and making 

existing facilities “new” on a date certain beyond the dates in the statute is illegal. EPA simply 

has no authority to place a time limit on the grandfathering provided by Congress. The 

commenter believes that the 15 years is wholly arbitrary. Imposing time limits on the 

grandfathering provision undermines the purpose of a grandfathering statute to protect preenactment investment. (2329.1, pp.72-73) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079 

Organization: AE Biofuels, Inc. 

Comment: 

With regards to option 1, in which facilities are considered new if they meet the definition of 

reconstruction as defined by the EPA, the commenter believes that such a provision would 

eliminate the possibility of any renewable fuel production facility electing to integrate a 

cellulosic or second-generation ethanol production technology into their process. (2079.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2106 

Organization: Endicott Biofuels II, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2106) suggests the EPA consider grandfathering only those facilities that have 

shown consistent production and operation and consistent demonstration of meeting ASTM 

quality specifications for the 12 months prior to enacting RFS2. The facilities should be capped 

at the then current operating limits of the legally permitted capacity at the time RFS2 is enacted. 

The facility should also be able to document from historical testing data that it was able to 

produce at the permitted capacity for a reasonable time period. Expiration would then follow 15 

years after EISA enactment as in EPA’s proposal. This would allow currently financially viable 

facilities with significant investments to continue in operation and support the mandated levels of 

renewable fuels. This boundary would also provide for adequate market pricing signals which 

are necessary to incent new investment in more sustainable projects with genuine GHG 

reductions that meet EPA requirements which we presume is the primary goal. [[Docket number 

2106.1, p. 1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

3-147
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Comment:

The commenter (2249.2) believes that Alternative 1 (Reconstruction) and Alternatives 2 and 3 

(Time Limited Grandfathering) are contrary to the statute. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 35]] 

The commenter states that Alternative 1 is overly burdensome and ignores the intent of Congress 

to grandfather “facilities.” Moreover, requiring facilities to provide information to EPA 

regarding any action it takes to maintain their facility is overly burdensome, and creates 

disincentives for increasing a plant’s efficiency and reducing its overall GHG emissions. This 

approach should be rejected outright. [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 35-36]] 

The commenter adds that similarly, Alternatives 2 and 3, which propose to end grandfathering 

after 15 years, should be rejected outright. The 15-year limit is based on an underlying 

assumption that facilities are reconstructed over a set period of time. This may not be factually 

correct and is irrelevant based on the statutory language. This approach does not give meaning to 

Congress’ use of the words “new facilities” in that it makes existing facilities “new” on a date 

certain, even if they have not been reconstructed, and undermines the purpose of a 

grandfathering statute to protect pre-enactment investment. The commenter believes that EPA 

has no authority to place a time limit on the grandfathering provided by Congress. [[Docket 

number 2249.2, p. 36]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2363 

Organization: Ag Processing Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2362) offers the following recommendations related to four of the five 

alternative approaches: 

This concept of using “reconstruction” for retiring grandfathered volumes does not work under 

RFS2. RFS2 may require replacement of equipment with entirely different processes. There is 

no allowance for switching to more economical fuels. There is no “cost-effectiveness 

evaluation.” There are no set impact thresholds for any increase in emissions. 

- This is one of the most blatant violations of EPA’s own stated goals in the proposed rule. 

EPA states “At the same time we also want to offer protection for historical business 

investments that were made prior to enactment of EISA. 

- No proposal could contradict EPA’s stated goal more than the idea of using New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) to interpret the EISA Grandfather Clause. 

- Ethanol plants have been operating since the late 1970s and early 1980s. These plants 

will have had numerous upgrades and expansions in the past 25-30 years in order to stay 

competitive and comply with ever increasing safety, health and environmental 

regulations. 

- Even if an old plant has been completely rebuilt prior to the date of enactment such 

business decision should surely not be interpreted as thereby disqualification for 

grandfathering. 

- Nowhere does EISA say that EPA should revoke the grandfather clause after ANY period 

of time. EPA’s proposals to revoke the clause goes beyond the law and is clearly 

designed to kill any future growth in corn ethanol. 

- EPA has relied on conjecture from construction and engineering companies that 

producers will upgrade existing plants with equipment that will somehow bring such 

3-148
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

plants in under the 20% cap for “new” plants. In fact, EPA’s proposals-taken in their 

entirety, will put a chilling effect on any further investment in existing corn based ethanol 

plants. [[Docket number 2363.1, p. 12]] 

Regarding debottlenecking, the commenter notes that a facility is typically permitted at its 

bottlenecked capacity. The nameplate capacity of a facility could be determined by the highest 

capacity of the “significant” production components of a process, as long as the cost of 

debottlenecking does not exceed 25 percent of the cost of the existing facility. [[Docket number 

2363.1, p. 12]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2472) is concerned about the 15-year sunset provision discussed in the 

proposed rule. The commenter believes that limiting the grandfathering provision by either a sun 

setting provision or an overly restrictive definition of baseline volume will impede, and possibly 

prevent, the orderly financial recovery of the com-based ethanol industry. [[Docket number 

2472.1, pp. 8-9]] [[See Docket number 2472.1, pp. 8-9 for extensive discussion of the 

commenter’s concerns related to Grandfathering.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2491 

Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) 

Comment:

The commenter (2491) believes that of five additional options presented for grandfathering 

facilities, option (2) is the most appropriate provision since it protects the business interests, and 

is less costly to implement, monitor and verify. This option puts less burden on facility operators 

with regard to record keeping, and also provides an incentive to improve or modify the 

processes. Therefore, when the grandfathering provision expires after 15 years, the 

grandfathered facilities would be in a good shape to meet the 20% GHG reduction requirement. 

The option (2) can be imposed industry-wide so that facilities small or big will not be 

discriminated. [[Docket number 2491.1, p. 2]] 

 

Our Response:

 Some commenters supported the option of an expiration date, specifically API, NPRA 

some refining companies and others. Renewable Fuels Association, the National Biodiesel 

Board, Ag Processing and several other commenters did not support that option, nor the 

reconstruction and facility options (Options 2 and 3). 

Generally, commenters who supported an expiration of the exemption did so because of 

concerns that the basic approach of providing an indefinite exemption would not provide any 

incentives to bring these plants into compliance with current standards. They also objected to 

plants being allowed an indefinite exemption despite the fact that such plants have long since 

paid off their investors. Commenters who did not support the expiration option, opposed it 

because they felt it was a violation of the statute. Valero Energy claimed that such a limit 

3-149
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

would “impede, and possibly prevent, the orderly financial recovery of the com-based ethanol 

industry.” 

EPA believes that it would enhance the environmental protection goals of the Act to 

establish an expiration date for the exemption, and that, on the other hand, such an approach 

may lead to closures of plants that might find it too expensive to retrofit at the end of the 

exemption period. Such a result would not further the energy independence goals of the 

statute. Thus, a decision in either direction could both enhance and detract from important 

goals of the statute. With these factors in mind, we have decided not to adopt one of the 

exemption options for two primary reasons. First, our approach to limiting the exemption to 

baseline volumes means that there is less of a justification for an expiration of the exemption 

than if we had chosen an option such as exempting all volumes of fuel that could be produced 

into the indefinite future from qualifying facilities and their expansions. Second, we find the 

approach closer to the text of the statute, which does not specifically suggest a temporal 

limitation. 

 There were few comments addressing the “facility” approach, and the indefinite 

grandfathering approach in which the exemption status is not limited to baseline volume, but to 

whatever volume of renewable fuel the plant may produce. With respect to the latter option, the 

Renewable Fuels Association stated that such approach best expresses the statutory language and 

Congressional intent. However, we see nothing in the text of the statute to suggest that the 

expanded production from facilities that qualify for the exemption, and which may be based on 

major construction into the indefinite future, should also qualify for the exemption. We believe 

that the approach we have selected for the final rule will provide appropriate protection to 

existing investments, while requiring that new volumes be produced in accordance with the GHG 

standards specified in EISA. 

3.5 Generation of RINs 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2412 

Organization: Xebec Adsorption Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2412.1) proposes that EPA lead the world by including a requirement for the 

suppliers of fossil-based natural gas to generate RINs, calculated as a percentage of that portion 

of the product that the entire industry supplies for use as transportation fuels. We recommend 

that EPA apply this requirement industry wide, to all suppliers of Natural Gas. This will serve to 

share the burden of cost and not dissuade any specific gas supplier from selling small volumes of 

gas to fledgling NGV fuel providers. The commenter believes that this strategy will encourage 

the continued growth and expanded environmental benefits of the industry. (2412.1, p.4) 

Our Response:

3-150
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

 CAA 211(o) specifies that only renewable fuels are valid for meeting the volume 

mandates. The statute does not provide authority for EPA to allow fossil-based natural gas to 

generate RINs, regardless of whether that natural gas is used in transportation. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) believes that each RIN should continue to be generated by the producer 

or importer of the renewable fuel, as is the case under the RFS1 program. (2146.1, p.2) 

Our Response:

 While we examined various approaches to the designation of RIN generators in the RFS1 

rulemaking, we did not take comment on alternatives to the final RFS1 approach in the RFS2 

NPRM. We continue to believe that the RIN system operates most efficiently when RINs are 

generated by producers and importers of renewable fuel. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2548 

Organization: Xyleco, Inc. 

Comment:

To provide the legal certainty necessary for innovation, EPA should make clear in the final rules 

that, even in the event of litigation, (1) pathways remain approved until modified following the 

procedures of the final rules, (2) RINs generated by producers following an authorized pathway 

remain valid, and (3) producers who produce in good faith in compliance with those approved 

pathways are not vulnerable to compliance sanctions. 

Our Response:

The pathways in the lookup table in §80.1426(f) for which D codes have been assigned 

remain valid for RIN generation until modified through a notice-and-comment rulemaking. In 

the event of a court-ordered suspension of any portion of the RFS2 regulations, or during the 

period of any litigation, the court would indicate whether and under what conditions pathways in 

the lookup table at §80.1426(f) would continue to be valid for RIN generation. 

3.5.1 Equivalence Values 

3.5.1.1 Supports Energy-based Approach to Equivalence Values 

What Commenters Said:

3-151
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter (0994.1) requests that RFS2 continue to use the RFSI Equivalence Values for 

Biofuels on the basis of energy content. This will support the marketplace demand for Biofuels 

above their specified minimum. (0994.1, p.7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2110 

Organization: Chevron 

Comment:

The commenter (2110.1) believes that the energy-content-based equivalency values are 

appropriate. (2110.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) supports retaining the energy density-based approach to equivalence 

values. An energy density-based approach helps provide a level playing field for all existing and 

future potential renewable fuels. The commenter prefers the simplest approach, which would be 

to provide weighting factors and the factored RIN volumes would be used to meet the standards 

(i.e., the biomass-based diesel standard). (2124.1, p.21) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130) states that EPA’s RFS1 equivalence values for the various renewable 

fuels based on energy density is a reasonable mechanism and should be retained to encourage the 

use of higher energy density fuels. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 3]] 

 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) believes that equivalence values should be based on the energy and 

renewable contents of each renewable fuel against a baseline of denatured ethanol, consistent 

with the approach used under the original RFS program. The commenter also believes that EPA 

is correct to convert volumes of biomass based diesel to ethanol-equivalent volumes. The 

commenter also agrees with EPA’s proposal to treat the denaturant in ethanol and the 

nonrenewable portion of biodiesel as de minimis, thus counting these portions as part of the 

renewable fuel compliance volume. (2132.1, pp.6-7) [[See Docket Number 2132.1, pp.14-15 for 

a detailed discussion on equivalence values]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment:

3-152
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2143) recommends that the current method of generating RINs based on 

equivalent amounts of fuel energy must be retained. The commenter (2143) argues that the 

volume based program provides an inappropriate market advantage to low volumetric energy 

content renewable fuels.(2143.2, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2145 

Organization: Flint Hills Resources 

Comment:

The commenter (2145.1) supports retaining the energy-based approach of the RFS1 program. 

(2145.1, p.7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) recommends continuing the use of Equivalence Values as under RFS1. 

This approach is consistent with Congressional intent to support use the development and use of 

advanced biofuels, and is an appropriate measure of the biofuel’s ability to replace overall fossil 

fuel use and impact on the transportation sector. (2146.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2149 

Organization: Dynamic Fuels, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2149.1) agrees with option one, which would continue to apply equivalence 

values based on the energy content and renewable content of each renewable fuel in comparison 

to denatured ethanol, consistent with the approach under RFS1. The commenter also believes 

that this should continue to apply to the biomass-based diesel category. (21491.1, p.3) 

The commenter noted that if the second option is chosen, and all liquid renewable fuels are 

counted strictly based on their measured volumes, the commenter believes the non-renewable 

content of the fuels should be treated as de-minimus. The main reason is that this approach 

would simplify recordkeeping for us and other renewable fuel companies. (2149.1, pp.3-4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment:

The commenter (2154.1) supports retaining the current energy based equivalence values. 

(2154.1, pp.5-6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) believes that the concept of equivalence values, the weighting of 

renewable fuels volumes to account for differences in energy content, made sense for RFS1 and 

makes sense for RFS2. EPA should continue this practice. The use of equivalence values is 

necessary for the total and advanced renewable category because many different renewables will 

be combined in these categories. The commenter further states that it is essential that cellulosic 

3-153
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

diesel get some credit for the extra energy it supplies to U.S. transportation and the refinery 

based renewable diesel should get credit for the extra BTUs it provides. [[Docket number 

2233.2, p. 8]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2337 

Organization: California Air Resources Board 

Comment:

The commenter (2337.1) recommends that U.S. EPA calculate equivalence values for fuels 

based on the energy content (ethanol equivalent gallons) and not on volume. The use of energy 

equivalence values will create a more level playing field for the production of different fuels 

from the same feedstock. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2358 

Organization: Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the 

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) 

Comment:

The commenter (2358) believes the equivalence values should be based on a fuel’s energy 

content rather than its volume—this approach is more consistent with the program goal of 

displacing fossil fuel. Using a volume-based equivalence value would put the fuels capable of 

displacing the largest amount of fossil fuels at a cost disadvantage. [[Docket number 2358.1, p. 

5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2364 

Organization: Tyson Foods, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2364.1) agrees that equivalence values need to be applied based on the energy 

content and renewable content of each renewable fuel in comparison to denatured ethanol, 

consistent with the approach under RFS1. The commenter believes that this should continue to 

apply to the biomass-based diesel category. The commenter believes that a change in how 

Equivalence Values are applies could negatively impact the value of Dynamic Fuels” product. A 

change would also represent a flawed fix. The commenter noted that if EPA chose the second 

option, and all liquid renewable fuels are counted strictly based on their measured volumes, then 

the commenter believes the non-renewable content of the fuels should be treated as de minimus. 

The main reason is that this approach would simplify recordkeeping for us and other renewable 

fuel companies. In addition, because the non-renewable content is typically a small fraction of 

the overall volume of each alternative fuel, little benefit would be gained from the precision. 

(2364.1, pp.3-4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2365 

Organization: Neste Oil Holding, Inc 

Comment:

The commenter (2365.1) believes that the existing methodology for calculating equivalency 

value in the Renewable Fuel Standard remains very relevant and should not be altered. (2365.1, 

p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

3-154
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

The commenter (2384) agrees with EPA’s assessment of this issue in the RFS1 regulations and 

agrees with maintaining the use of equivalence values for RFS2. The commenter believes that 

equivalency values based on energy content and renewable content are the appropriate yardsticks 

for determining how different types of fuel deliver the goals of RFS2. [[Docket number 2384.1, 

pp. 4-5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) supports EPA’s use of fuel energy content as the basis of establishing 

RIN equivalence values and adds that equivalence values should be uniformly applied to all 

renewables, regardless of production means or use location. This approach was used in the 

RFS1 regulations and should be continued under RFS2 as a sound basis for weighing the relative 

energy contribution by the mandated renewables. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2408.1) supports the continuation of the current EPA approach basing the 

equivalence values on the energy content and renewable content of each renewable fuel in 

comparison to denatured ethanol, which is consistent with the approach under RFS1. This 

approach is also consistent with other energy sectors for non liquid-energy fuels such as biogas 

and renewable electricity. The commenter is concerned that the failure to utilize an energy 

density approach will lead to the diversion of feedstocks away from fuels and toward other 

energy sources, thus making it more difficult to reach the gallons mandated under the statute. 

(2408.1, p.2) 

The commenter encourages EPA to simply take the current energy density program and apply it 

forward to each of the distinct categories under the redesigned RFS2. (2408.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2106 

Organization: Endicott Biofuels II, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2106) proposes the continued use of energy content as finalized in RFS1 rather 

than volume as is proposed as an alternative. The commenter is concerned is that if Obligated 

Parties are measured on compliance using volume only, we believe this will erode the value of 

RINs associated with the newly developed categories of renewable fuels which have an 

inherently higher energy content per gallon when using the ethanol equivalency basis. This 

ethanol equivalency tends to incent the highest use of renewable feedstocks into delivering the 

most energy dense fuels which are in turn most efficient to transport and deliver to the end users. 

[[Docket number 2106.1, p. 5]] 

Our Response:

3-155
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

 As discussed in Section II.D.1 of the preamble to the final rule, we generally agree with 

the above comments in 3.5.1.1, and have finalized an energy-based approach to Equivalence 

Values that is consistent with the approach taken in RFS1. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2249.2) supports EPA’s proposal to retain equivalence values for biodiesel and 

renewable diesel, but not for those RINs being used toward the biomass-based diesel or 

advanced biofuel mandates. Unlike the existing RFS program where biodiesel is competing with 

corn ethanol, the advanced biofuel mandates should be met on a gallon to gallon basis. [[Docket 

number 2249.1, p. 5]] 

However, the commenter also recognizes that the existence of four standards under RFS2 may 

not obviate the value of standardizing for energy content, which provides a level playing field 

under RFS1 for various types of renewable fuels based on energy content. Thus, the commenter 

believes that equivalence values under RFS1 should remain in use for the renewable fuel 

category under RFS2. This category represents the RIN marketplace under RFS1 and fuels with 

higher ethanol equivalent energy content should be able to demonstrate their favorable energy 

profile in this category. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 32 and docket number 2249.1, p. 5]] 

Our Response:

 As discussed in Section II.D.1 of the preamble, we are retaining the energy-based 

approach to Equivalence Values promulgated with the RFS1 final rule for all renewable fuels. 

However, as described in Section II.E.1 of the preamble, we are treating the biomass-based 

diesel volume mandate as biodiesel equivalent volume, while treating the volume mandates for 

cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel as ethanol-equivalent volumes. To 

accomplish both of these goals, we have adjusted the biomass-based standard by the 1.5 

Equivalence Value for biodiesel. 

 We do not believe that it would be appropriate to treat the advanced biofuel mandate as 

actual volume rather than as ethanol-equivalent volume. While the biomass-based diesel 

mandate is clearly intended to represent diesel fuel and diesel fuel substitutes, the advanced 

biofuel mandate can be met with any type of renewable fuel. To treat the advanced biofuel 

mandate as actual volume would require that we presume a specific mixture of renewable fuels 

in setting the standard, and apply the appropriate Equivalence Value to each type of renewable 

fuel in a manner similar to the way we have set the standard for biomass-based diesel. The 

advanced biofuel standard would then depend on the mixture of renewable fuel types that we 

assume will be produced. Since doing so would b equivalent to EPA choosing what renewable 

fuel types should be produced or imported, we do not believe this would be appropriate. 

3-156
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

3.5.1.2 Supports Straight Volume Approach to Equivalence Values 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment:

The commenter (2511.1) noted that since EISA targets are defined in terms of volume, a 1:1 

valuation for all categories of RINs should be used. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0999 

Organization: Darling International Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2151.1) supports EPA’s decision in the NPRM to adopt the straight volume 

approach for measuring renewable fuel to calculate compliance with the volume mandates of 

RFS2, rather than taking the approach to incorporate equivalence values for renewable fuels 

based on their energy content. Specifically, the commenter supports EPA’s decision to adopt the 

straight volume based requirement to calculate compliance for biomass based diesel. (2151.1, 

p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA should not retain the current equivalence values. If 

EPA does retain equivalence values, the commenter would support setting the values at 1 for all 

liquid fuels and all of the volume mandates. (2329.1, pp.89-90) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1033 

Organization: Poet Ethanol Products 

Comment:

The commenter (1033.1) supports EPA’s proposal of shifting the RINS value of all renewable 

fuels to be based on the fuel’s measured volume as opposed to the existing equivalence value 

formulas. (1033.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (1044.1) supports the proposal that demonstrates the generation of 1 RIN for 1 

gallon because this concept demonstrates the actual gallons produced and distributed in the 

system to ensure 100% compliance without error. The commenter believes that EPA’s concern 

that the market will not respond and RINs may not have values is unfounded because recent 

developments in the RIN trading markets indicate otherwise. (1044.1, p. 1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2119 

Organization: National Sorghum Producers 

Comment:

3-157
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter (2119.1) is in favor of a straight volume approach to measuring liquid gallons of 

renewable fuel. The commenter believes that an energy-based approach would favor biodiesel 

and could result in not meeting the specific gallons of advanced biofuel as specified in EISA. By 

using a straight volume approach, the amount of advanced biofuel as specified in EISA would be 

produced at the most efficient level. The commenter believes that the final rule should provide a 

clear incentive to produce both advanced ethanol and biodiesel. (2119.1, pp.4-5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2360 

Organization: Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2360.1) believes that since EISA expanded the renewable fuels program to 

include four separate categories of renewable fuel with its own volume requirement, there may 

no longer be a need for Equivalence Values greater than 1.0. The commenter also supports 

EPA’s proposal that all liquid renewable fuels should be counted strictly on the basis of their 

measured volumes, and the Equivalence Values for all renewable fuels should be 1.0. This 

would greatly simplify the program and result in fewer calculation errors. (2360.1, pp.6-7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2400 

Organization: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter recommends all Equivalence Values for all renewable fuels be 1.0. The 

commenter recommends that the EPA keep the RIN types separated utilizing the different Dcodes. By using the different RIN types instead of equivalency values, it forces certain types of 

renewable fuels to be blended in, and one type (corn ethanol) cannot be used to meet the 

obligation for another (biodiesel). 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment:

The commenter (2511.1) encourages EPA to use a 1:1 valuation of RINs under the RFS2 

program. Based on the volume thresholds outlined in the RFS2 schedule, using an equivalence 

value of 1.5:1 would be allowing extra credit for biodiesel. (2511.1, p.7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

Initially, the commenter (2101.1) strongly disagreed with EPA’s proposal to create equivalency 

values for a range of fuels. Therefore, the commenter pleased that EPA is planning to enforce a 

straight volumetric approach for RFS2, this is especially appropriate given the nested standards 

that have been established in RFS2 for various forms of advanced and cellulosic biofuel. 

(2101.1, p.15) 

Our Response:

 The commenters provided little support for their preference that Equivalence Values be 

based strictly on measured volumes. Although some commenters believe that the use of an 

3-158
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

energy-based approach would provide extra credit to renewable fuels other than ethanol, in fact 

this approach would ensure that all renewable fuels are valued the same in terms of their ability 

to displace fossil-based transportation fuels. Therefore, as discussed in Section II.D.1 of the 

preamble, we are maintaining the energy-based approach to Equivalence Values promulgated 

under RFS1. 

3.5.1.3 Other Aspects of Equivalence Values 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter supports the proposal to change ethanol energy content from 77,550 Btu per 

gallon to 77,930 Btu per gallon. (2329.1, pp.89-90) 

Our Response:

 We agree with the need for a change to the volumetric energy content of ethanol. 

However, as described in Section III.D.1 of the preamble, we are finalizing an energy content for 

ethanol of 77,000 Btu/gal. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

The commenter is aware of several corn ethanol producers who have been able to generate 2.5 

credits for every gallon of ethanol produced under RFS1 because they have implemented a low 

carbon technology to power their ethanol facility. The commenter thinks it is unfair to arbitrarily 

take this opportunity away from those producers, so the commenter recommend that EPA 

consider a plan to gradually phase out the 2.5:1 credit. (2101.1, p.15) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2548 

Organization: Xyleco, Inc. 

Comment:

EISA displaces the explicit statutory-mandate of a 2.5 equivalence ratio. However, EISA 

prescribes that EPA shall make available credits at statutorily prescribed prices to enable 

obligated parties to demonstrate compliance. The Act further delegates to EPA broad authority 

to establish a credit regime that promotes cellulosic biofuels. EPA should reinstate credit 

advantages for cellulosic biofuels and sharpen the incentives for new innovative technologies, to 

ensure continuation of the targeted incentives necessary for renewable fuels development. At a 

minimum, EPA should maintain the existing credit incentives through 2012, the period of 

3-159
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

establishment contemplated by EPAct that market participants such as Xyleco have relied on in 

making investments and developing innovative cellulosic biofuels production processes. 

Our Response:

 EISA eliminated the provision originally created in CAA 211(o) by the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 which gave 2.5:1 credit to any ethanol if 90% of the facility's process energy is 

derived from renewable sources. Given the changes to the RFS standards and requirements for 

what fuels qualify for those standards that were brought about by EISA, we do not believe it 

would be appropriate or in keeping with the intent of the Act to continue to provide such 

additional credit for these fuels. Once the provisions of the revised CAA 211(o) are 

implemented through the RFS2 regulations, the 2.5:1 credit provision ceases to be applicable. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2137 

Organization: Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) 

Comment:

Urging EPA not to wait for the final endangerment finding, the commenter (2137.1) asks that the 

Agency promote the use of the lowest GHG emitting renewable fuels. The commenter 

recommends that EPA establish in the final RFS2 rule that the best performing renewable fuel 

pathway in any given RFS2 category would receive commensurately higher equivalence values 

based on their relative reduction in GHG emission (Code “RR” in 38-digit Renewable 

Identification Numbers, RIN codes). The commenter further states that in the absence of such a 

requirement, the renewable fuel with the lowest price—not necessarily the fuel with the lowest 

GHG emissions—would be consumed in the greatest quantity. In contrast, by including such a 

requirement, there would likely be greater demand for the fuels with lower GHG emissions as 

compared to conventional renewable fuels. [[Docket number 2137.1, p. 16]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment:

The commenter believes it appropriate to provide additional equivalency value relative to the 

GHG value of the utilized renewable fuels. The current approach provides very broad threshold 

values that do not value a renewable fuel for its potential contribution to GHG emission 

reductions. The commenter supports further weighting through added RIN production of 

advance-low GHG renewable fuels in a manner similar to the EV value in RFS1. (2154.1, pp.5-

6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter suggested that EPA consider providing additional RIN credits for all fuels that 

exceed their GHG reduction requirements. This changed could be a simple formula that involves 

3-160
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

awarding a couple of tenths of one RIN credit for each fuel which exceeds its GHG reduction 

target by some specific amount. (2408.1, pp.2-3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2548 

Organization: Xyleco, Inc. 

Comment:

EPA should also include in its approval procedure recognition for new renewable fuels 

production pathways by providing additional incentives for such innovative, breakthrough 

technologies. EPA should provide in its final rules that new biofuel pathways that meet certain 

criteria – e.g., new pathways representing breakthrough technologies with low environmental 

impacts -- receive increased Equivalence Values of 2.5 to 5 to 1. 

Our Response:

 As discussed in sections 3.5.1.1 and 3.5.1.2 above, we are finalizing Equivalence Values 

based on energy content in this final rule. We believe this effectively implements the provisions 

of section 211(o) of the CAA and results in a system that appropriately credits renewable fuels 

based on their ability to displace fossil fuels. We recognize that further adjusting Equivalence 

Values to reflect GHG performance could encourage facilities to improve the environmental 

attributes of their fuels beyond the specified statutory levels, and would provide additional 

market encouragement to the production of the best GHG-performing fuels. We believe, 

however, that such an approach would most effectively involve case-by-case life cycle analyses 

that are beyond the ability of the Agency to perform at this time. If in the future we develop 

such capability, or discern that a broader approach may be practical, we may reconsider this 

issue. 

 

3.5.2 RIN Generation for Domestic Producers 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2145 

Organization: Flint Hills Resources 

Comment:

The commenter (2145.1) supports the concept of allowing a biodiesel producer to “average” its 

production across facilities. The commenter noted that the following are advantages of using the 

company-wide averaging approach: GHG reduction goals met; high quality product available; 

and, better alignment with EISA volumetric goals. (2145.1, pp.3-4) [[See Docket Number 

2145.1, pp.2-5 for a detailed discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response:

 Based on the updated lifecycle analyses presented in today's final rule, both soy-based 

biodiesel and waste grease-based biodiesel meet the 50% GHG threshold associated with the 

biomass-based diesel volume mandate. As a result, there is no longer a need for a provision 

allowing biodiesel to be averaged across facilities. 

3-161
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2312 

Organization: LyondellBasell Industries 

Comment:

The commenter (2312.1) believes that the RFS2 regulations should continue the aspect of the 

RFS1 regulations that recognized and maintained the market flexibility to fully pass-through the 

RINs associated with renewable fuel alcohol volumes when those volumes are combined with 

isobutylene in making higher value bio-ether blendstocks such as ETBE. (2312.1, pp.2-3) 

Our Response:

 We agree that RINs assigned to renewable fuel used as a feedstock in the production of 

another renewable fuel should be assigned to the new renewable fuel. We have retained this 

provision at §80.1426(c)(6). 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2358 

Organization: Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the 

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) 

Comment:

The commenter (2358) believes it is essential that RINs be generated for all eligible fuel to 

maintain RIN liquidly. The commenter suggests creation of a renewable “pedigree” that 

accompanies the fuel as it moves through the stream of commerce to avoid creation of fraudulent 

RINs for fuel that does not meet the requirements. [[Docket number 2358.1, pp.3-4]] 

Our Response:

 In the NPRM, we proposed that a producer could produce and sell biofuel without RINs 

if he demonstrated that the renewable biomass definition had not been met. For the reasons 

described in Section II.B.4 of the preamble, we have determined that this requirement would 

have been overly burdensome to producers. The creation of a renewable pedigree as the 

commenter suggests would have required a similar level of effort. However, the final rule 

requires that RINs be generated for all qualifying renewable fuel for which the producer has 

demonstrated that the renewable fuel was made from renewable biomass. Moreover, we are 

finalizing an aggregate compliance provision for domestic “planted crops and crop residue” used 

as feedstock in biofuel production. As a result those producers using such materials as 

feedstock will not need to make a demonstration that their renewable fuel is made from 

renewable biomass, and they will be required to generate RINs. 

 We believe that the provisions we have finalized are sufficient to ensure that RINs are 

properly generated, traded, and used for compliance. In particular our creation of the EMTS 

3-162
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

system for tracking RIN transactions will help tremendously. Creation of a new renewable 

pedigree for RINs would appear to create considerable new complexity in the RIN system 

without providing any significant degree of protection against fraudulent RINs. As a result, we 

are not finalizing such a system. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2310) states that normally, they would expect the fuel categories with the 

highest GHG reduction thresholds to command the highest market price, and BTL producers 

would clearly generate RINs for those categories. However, in the preamble EPA states that 

“under certain conditions it may be possible for the market price of corn ethanol RINs to be 

significantly higher than the market price of cellulosic biofuel RINs.” Under such conditions, 

however remote, it would be inappropriate and contrary to Congressional intent to have corn 

ethanol RINs command a higher price than those of the most advanced fuels required under the 

statute, which may be more expensive to produce if externalities in the production cost 

assessment are not considered (as is the case with many first generation biofuels). In such a case, 

the commenter believes it would be appropriate for EPA to allow cellulosic biofuel producers the 

freedom to sell into a broader RIN category. [[Docket number 2310.1, p. 16]] 

Our Response:

 In order to ensure that RINs accurately represent the renewable fuels that they are 

generated to represent, we are requiring that producers generate RINs according to the D codes 

specified in the lookup table in §80.1426(f) that correspond to their operations. We do not allow 

producers to choose alternative D codes for the RINs, as this would misrepresent the fuels that 

they produce. However, since cellulosic biofuel RINs can be used to comply with the advanced 

biofuel and total renewable fuel standards, a producer of cellulosic biofuel can price its RINs to 

compete with advanced biofuel RINs or renewable fuel RINs. 

3.5.3 RIN Generation for Foreign Producers and Importers 

3.5.3.1 Party that Generates RINs 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2012 

Organization: Caribbean Basin Ethanol Producers Group 

Comment:

The commenter (2012.1) recommends that the generator of the RINS be the importer of record. 

(2012.1, p.3) 

3-163
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2137 

Organization: Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2137.1) states given that EPA takes the view that renewable fuel ethanol 

requires the addition of a denaturant, and that in the case of the sugarcane ethanol pathway the 

denaturant is nearly always added at the U.S. port of entry, the Final Rule should clarify that 

importers, not foreign producers, should generate the RINs under RFS2 as has been the case in 

RFS1. The requirement for adding denaturant, which ironically requires the addition of a nonrenewable fuel such as gasoline, is unique to the U.S. and consequently, one that shifts the point 

of RIN generation to the port of entry in the case of imported ethanol. [[Docket number 2137.1, 

p. 39]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2362 

Organization: Canopy Prospecting, Inc. And Trinidad Dehydration Company, Limited 

Comment:

The commenter (2362) is concerned about traceability and RINS. TDCL expects to operate as a 

tolling facility for third parties. TDCL would only have responsibility for their ethanol from the 

time it passes from the ship chartered by a client to deliver the hydrous ethanol to the time that 

TDCL delivers the product again to the tolling client’s chartered ship’s flange. Under such a 

scenario, TDCL could not establish the origins of the hydrous or anhydrous ethanol. Therefore, 

we recommend that the importer of record into the United States be responsible for generating 

RINS. [[Docket number 2362.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response:

 Under our final RFS2 regulations at §80.1401 (definition of “renewable fuel”), RINs can 

be generated for imported biofuel that meets the definition of “renewable fuel,” under which 

ethanol must contain a denaturant. Insofar as the importer adds the denaturant to a batch of 

ethanol that he is importing, then the importer is the only party that can generate RINs for that 

batch of ethanol. If the denaturant is added to the ethanol prior to importation, then the party that 

adds the denaturant has the opportunity to generate RINs for that batch if he is registered with 

the EPA and can make a demonstration that the batch meets the full definition of “renewable 

fuel” including the requirement that it be made from renewable biomass. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2637 

Organization: EthylChem, Ltd 

Comment: 

We must also concur with others’ comments in urging EPA to designate the importer of record 

as the entity responsible for generating the RINs on all imports of fuel ethanol into the U.S. So 

much consolidation and comingling make it virtually impossible to trace volumes back to a 

single mill in Brazil. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2017 

3-164
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2017.1) believes that the entity that denatures imported undenatured ethanol 

should not have the burden of complying with the feedstock source and pathway determination 

requirements. (2017.1, p.2) 

Our Response:

 A party that adds a denaturant to imported undenatured ethanol is a producer of 

renewable fuel under the RFS2 regulations, since “renewable fuel” is defined in §80.1401 to 

include only denatured (not undenatured) ethanol. If the party adding the denaturant wishes to 

generate RINs, it must obtain appropriate information from the foreign producer regarding 

compliance with the renewable biomass requirements and information about the production 

process, as provided in §80.1426(a)(2). 

3.5.3.2 Different Requirements for Foreign Versus Domestic Producers 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment:

The commenter (2511.1) supports equal and fair treatment for international producer certification 

and registration when compared to domestic producers and facilities. All imported biofuels 

products must be held to the same standards as domestic biofuels. (2511.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2137 

Organization: Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2137.1) believes that the EPA’s proposed approach to implementing the new 

RIN system, implicates several World Trade Organization (WTO) violations. The commenter 

urges EPA to reconsider the proposed system to avoid such concerns. Specifically, the proposed 

RIN system described in the proposed RFS2 are inconsistent with the United States’ 

international legal obligations under the WTO Agreement in six distinct ways as grouped into the 

follow three categories of measures: 

A. Additional “enforcement-related” requirements that are levied exclusively on foreign 

renewable fuel producers RFPs) and renewable fuel importers (RFIs), specifically 

requirements to (1) physically segregate fuel; (2) ensure third-party certification and 

comparison; (3) comply with an up-front bond-posting requirement; and satisfy 

additional annual attest engagement requirements; 

B. (5) the exemption of domestic small-batch RFPs from all recordkeeping, reporting and 

attest engagement requirements; and 

C. (6) The differential treatment of domestic and foreign RFPs in connection with 

documentation requirements for implementing the land use restrictions. [[Docket number 

2137.1, p. 35]] 

3-165
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter states that each single one of these six measure independently constitutes an 

unjust discrimination of foreign renewable fuel and is thus a violation of Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of 

the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), as well as Article III:4 of the 

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). In addition, all measures identified, except 

measure (5), the small-batch waiver for domestic RFPs, are in contravention of Article XI:1 

GATT. [[Docket number 2137.1, p. 35]] 

The commenter urges EPA to address these issues in finalizing the RFS2 to avoid any WTO 

violations. Further, beyond mere WTO ramification, these unfair restrictions against foreign 

producers risk EPA’s ability to achieve the ambitious volume goals mandated by EISA. [[docket 

number 2137.1, p. 36]] [[See docket 2137.2 pp 36-36 for details of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2145 

Organization: Flint Hills Resources 

Comment:

The commenter (2145.1) strongly agrees that a renewable fuel importer should have the same 

requirements as a U.S. producer. A level playing field should exist for all participants in this 

program. Ethanol and biodiesel produced by a foreign source must account for life cycle impacts 

just as a domestic producer. The commenter disagrees with the structure set up in RFS2 to 

accomplish this and requests EPA modify the process. The commenter suggests that EPA create 

requirements for “biofuel importers” that parallel the requirements of a “renewable fuel 

importer” found in §80.1426. In this scenario, the “biofuel importer” would provide 

documentation that the biofuel was provided by registered “biofuel producers” (vs. renewable 

fuel producers). A “biofuel producer” would have similar requirements for registration that a 

“renewable fuel producer” has in §80.1450. (2145.1, pp.5-6) [[See Docket Number 2145.1, pp.5-

6 for a detailed discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2358 

Organization: Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the 

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) 

Comment:

The commenter (2358) believes EPA proposal to prevent fraud by segregating foreign fuels that 

does not qualify for RIN generation is unrealistic and impractical. The commenter suggests that 

foreign producers meet all the same requirements as domestic producers as the best way to avoid 

fraud. [[Docket number 2358.1, pp. 4-5]] 

Our Response:

 For the most part, requirements under RFS2 for foreign and domestic producers of 

renewable fuel are the same. The RFS2 requirements that are unique to foreign producers of 

renewable fuel were developed collaboratively with stakeholders in previous fuel rulemakings, 

and in some cases are provisions developed and finalized in response to previous GATT 

challenges. Many of these provisions were again proposed and finalized in the RFS1 

rulemaking. These include such requirements as posting a bond, admitting EPA enforcement 

personnel, and submitting to third-party engineering reviews of their production process. 

3-166
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

 The additional requirements imposed by EISA on renewable fuels, in particular the need 

to demonstrate compliance with the GHG thresholds and the renewable biomass definition, 

demand more rigor than was necessary under RFS1 in terms of enforcement and verifying 

compliance because of the larger volumes and the need to determine what feedstocks and 

production processes were used at the foreign facility. For renewable fuel produced outside the 

U.S., this process presents special challenges due to the difficulty in gaining access to the fuel 

production, storage, and distribution network. Therefore, we believe it is both appropriate and 

necessary to place requirements on foreign producers to ensure that renewable fuel entering the 

U.S. is valid for compliance with the RFS2 volume mandates. See preamble Section II.D.2.c for 

further discussion. 

3.5.4 Facilities with Multiple Applicable Pathways 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) generally supports EPA’s proposal for facilities that have multiple 

pathways, but believes that facilities often mix energy sources to improve energy efficiency, 

which may not be accurately addressed in EPA’s pathways. (2329.1, p. 98) 

Our Response:

 We have revised the fuel pathways in the lookup table at §80.1426 to accommodate 

renewable fuel production facilities that utilize both fossil and non-fossil fuels for process heat 

where possible. See further responses to comments on facilities with multiple process heat 

energy sources in Sections 7.3 and 7.5. The final regulations also include a petition process that 

parties may utilize to seek qualification of such pathways for D codes. See responses to 

comments in Section 7.4. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1033 

Organization: Poet Ethanol Products 

Comment:

The commenter (1033.1) believes that the proposal of collecting the mass of different feedstocks 

consumed in the production of renewable fuel is not particularly cumbersome. The only 

modification the commenter would suggest to the EPA’s proposal of capturing this information 

daily is that Renewable Fuel Producers be allowed to capture it no less frequently than at a batch 

level. This approach would alleviate the additional complications of having to then dissect and 

reassemble the data for reporting on a batch basis when the batches cross days or you have 

multiple batches produced in a day. (1033.1, p.2) 

3-167
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Our Response:

 The regulations at §80.1426(d)(5) have been modified to allow producers to use 

feedstock mass data measured on a daily or per-batch basis. 

3.5.5 Facilities that Co-process Renewable Biomass and Fossil Fuels 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment: 

The commenter (2132.1) agrees with the proposal to generate RINs for the “advanced biofuel” 

portion of a renewable fuel produced through co-processing. Facilities that co-process 

renewable biomass and fossil fuels to produce a single fuel that is partially renewable should use 

the relative energy in the feedstocks to determine the number of gallon-RINs that should be 

generated. (2132.1, p.9) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130) states that RIN generation for co-processing of renewable and fossil fuels 

should be based on relative energy in the feedstocks. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 16]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) supports the methodologies for handling facilities with multiple fuel type 

pathways and co-processed fuels. [[Docket number 2233.2 p. 8]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) supports the methodologies for handling facilities with multiple fuel type 

pathways and co-processed fuels as proposed with subsequent application of appropriate EV and 

CV equivalency factors and does not support either of the suggested alternatives. The alternative 

methods involve far more complexity in compliance demonstration and enforcement than the 

small amount of accuracy that would be gained. EPA’s alternative clearly is not warranted. 

[[Docket number 2393.1, p. 10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1027 

Organization: Beta Analytic, Inc. 

Comment: 

3-168
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (0998_Copyright) believes that it should particularly since the ASTM D6866 

test can accurately determine the biomass fraction of the resultant fuel. It must be noted that the 

ASTM D6866 method is already adopted in the current EPA’s greenhouse gas reporting rule 

under the Tier 4 sampling protocol for municipal solid waste, specifically for the measurement of 

the biogenic CO2 fraction. Although the ASTM D6866 method cannot determine the different 

renewable biomass feedstock percentages, it can determine with excellent accuracy and precision 

the biomass carbon fraction of fuels. The commenter also wanted to mention that ASTM D6866 

is an accepted method for measuring the biomass fraction of fuels in the Australian, European 

Union, and other regional greenhouse gas protocols, such California’s AB 32 and the Western 

Climate Initiative. This widely accepted method is also being considered as a biomass carbon 

verification test for the Renewable Transportation Fuels Obligation in the United Kingdom. 

(0998_Copyright, pp.1-2) (See Docket Number 0998_Copyright, pp.1-31 for a detailed 

discussion on ASTM D 6866) 

Our Response:

 We have finalized our approach to facilities that co-process renewable biomass and fossil 

fuels essentially as proposed, as described in preamble Section III.D.4. We are also providing 

producers the option of using a radiocarbon dating test method such as ASTM D-6866 to 

determine the renewable content of their biofuels, as an alternative to determining the renewable 

content of their feedstocks. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2420 

Organization: Magellan Midstream Partners 

Comment:

The commenter (2420.1) supports EPA’s recognition that open-access terminals depend upon a 

regulatory environment that provides the ability to co-mingle renewable fuels from multiple 

suppliers in the same storage tank. Because of the potential increase in production of cellulosic, 

advanced and traditional biofuels, the commenter stresses the importance of co-mingling fuels in 

an effort to promote operational efficiencies and reduce distribution costs. (2420.1, p.2) 

Our Response:

 We have designed the RIN program structure to allow for such commingling of fuels. 

3.5.6 Fuels Without an Applicable D Code 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment:

3-169
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter (2408.1) recognizes the limited resources and the tremendous variability and 

range of renewable fuels technologies which are currently exploring their commercial 

applicability under the proposed RFS2 rules. The commenter urges that EPA create an expedited 

process that would allow individual technologies utilizing specific feedstocks to be able to 

demonstrate their various greenhouse gas reduction capabilities. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

Regarding RIN-less biofuels, the commenter believes that EPA should require all biofuels that 

are produced or imported to either meet the RFS2 thresholds or to be treated as transportation 

fuels, with a RFS2 obligation. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 10]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1036 

Organization: Vision FL I, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (1036.1) noted that since fuel pathways and applicable D codes have such a 

strong economic effect on ethanol sales from smaller producers (less than 100MGY), generalized 

fuel definition GHG reductions and D codes will put many companies at a severe competitive 

disadvantage because of the RIN generation and sales associated with those broad classes of fuel. 

The commenter suggests that a process can choose to prove through the EPA’s modeling (when 

completely finalized) they can produce GHG reductions in upwards of 60%; which would grant 

said process plant the ability to us a D code of 1 for use with the associated RINs. (1036.1, p.2) 

The commenter believes that the current wording and broad GHG definitions are 

”unintentionally subsidizing“ the cellulosic fuel class by ignoring project/process specific 

fundamentals such as production costs, best management practices, and electricity sales via byproduct combustion from other advanced biofuels. The commenter recommends that the fuel 

pathway tables (VI.E.1-1, VI.E.2-1, VI.E.4-1) remain as is to be used as general look up values, 

but Table III.B.2-1 should reflect fuel classes such as Class I, Class II etc...that corresponds to 

the appropriate GHG lifecycle reductions. If such an approach is not acceptable, than the 

commenter suggests a provision be added where a fuel producer can apply for a D code higher 

than the recommended D code from their fuel pathway as long as work is completed with the 

EPA on a ”case-by-case“ basis to confirm through the GHG models such a reduction is indeed 

feasible. (1036.1, p.2)

Our Response: 

 EPA is finalizing a petition process for all renewable fuels and fuel additives that are not 

in the list of modeled pathways. The process is designed to allow companies to generate RINs, if 

EPA can in its judgment determine if the unique pathway is eligible to generate RINs. We 

believe this addresses the comments on the need to have an expedited process. Not all petitions 

will be granted and some will require EPA to finalize a rule making before those pathways may 

be eligible for RINs. See additional discussion of the petition process in the response to 

comments in Section 7.4. 

3-170
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2119 

Organization: National Sorghum Producers 

Comment: 

With regards to distiller’s grains, the commenter believes that a facility that dries only a portion 

of its distiller’s grains should only be producing different RINs (or no RINs) on that portion of 

biofuels that resulted in dried distiller’s grains. If a facility estimates that it will dry 20% of its 

distiller’s grains in a year, then 20% of the daily volume of ethanol should have a different RIN 

(or no RIN). An adjustment could then be made each quarter to account for the actual amount of 

dried distiller’s grains produced. (21191, p.4) 

Our Response:

 EPA has modeled that facilities that dry no more than 65% of their distillers grains and 

solubles in a calendar year and uses other advanced technologies then they may qualify to 

produce RINs. If the production facility pathways qualify as meeting the GHG threshold then 

that facility may generate RINs for all qualifying volumes. If a producer believes that it should 

be permitted to generate RINs with different D codes depending on the fraction of distiller's 

grains that is dried, we have developed a petition process for that purpose. See responses to 

comments in Section 7.4. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2110 

Organization: Chevron 

Comment:

The commenter (2110.1) believes that EPA should create a Renewable Volume Obligation 

(RVO) for all RIN-less renewable fuels. In the final rule, EPA should make clear that RIN-less 

renewables, destined to be used neat or blended into other fuels are, by definition, transportation 

fuels for the purpose of the RFS and, consequently, incur a RVO. (2110.1, p.3) 

Our Response:

 We agree that biofuel may be produced or imported under RFS2 for which no RINs are 

generated. If this biofuel is used as transportation fuel, it might be reasonable to treat it as 

obligated fuel subject to the standards. However, we do not believe that it would be appropriate 

at this time to finalize a requirement that RIN-less biofuel be considered an obligated fuel. We 

did not propose such an approach in the NPRM, and as a result many renewable fuel producers 

who could be affected did not have an opportunity to consider and comment on it. Moreover, the 

volume of RIN-less biofuel is likely to be small compared to the volume of renewable fuel with 

RINs since RINs have value and producers currently have an incentive to generate them. See 

further discussion in preamble Section III.D.7. 

3-171
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

3.5.7 RINs Generated for Electricity, Natural Gas, and Propane 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment: 

Regarding how to calculate RINs for electric vehicles, natural gas and propane, the commenter 

believes that only VMT that is based on the actual use of renewables should be credited. There 

should be no double-counting (generation) of RINs. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 11]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment: 

Regarding how to calculate RINs for electric vehicles, natural gas and propane, while the 

commenter (2393) supports such RIN generation, only renewable fuels used in the direct 

application allowed by Congress, i.e., transportation fuels and heating oil that is based on the 

actual use of renewables in these applications should be credited. There should be no doublecounting (generation) of RINs and adequate enforcement mechanisms need to be created to 

ensure this. [[Docket 2393.1, p. 12]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment: 

The commenter believes that the EPA should not include biomass electricity, natural gas, CNG 

or LNG in the RFS2 program at this time. These industries are not well developed as 

transportation fuel sources, and for now creates a significant burden to have to track whether 

these energy sources were manufactured with qualified biomass, and whether any portion of 

these fuels (if manufactured from biomass) were used as transportation fuel. (0994.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2099 

Organization: Honeywell International, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2099.1) requests that EPA modify the proposed definition of renewable fuel by 

eliminating the inclusion of electricity, natural gas, and propane made from renewable biomass. 

(2009.1, pp.10) (See Docket Number 2099.1, pp.10-12 for a more detailed discussion on this 

issue) 

Our Response:

 As discussed in Section II.B.1 of the preamble, we are finalizing provisions to allow for the 

generation of RINs for renewable electricity, natural gas, or propane that has been shown to be 

used for transportation purposes. (Note that not all of these fuels currently have a D-Code 

assigned to them and would still have to qualify as renewable fuels under future additions to the 

lookup table in §80.1426.) Like any other renewable fuel producer, they will have to 

3-172
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

demonstrate at the time of registration and through annual audits that their fuel qualifies to 

generate RINs under the RFS program. In addition, producers of renewable electricity, natural 

gas, or propane can only generate RINs for their products if they can demonstrate that those fuels 

are in fact used as transportation fuel. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2466) supports the proposed alternative to allow or require parties that supply 

these fuels to centrally fueled fleets to generate RINs even if they are not the producers of the 

fuel. They support this approach because it would provide an incentive for a larger volume of 

electricity, natural gas and propane that is made from renewable biomass to be used as vehicle 

fuel. (2466.1.pdf, p.8) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2337 

Organization: California Air Resources Board 

Comment: 

The commenter (2337.1) recommends that parties who supply centrally located fleets with 

renewable electricity, natural gas, and propane be allowed to generate RINs, even if they are not 

the producer of the fuel. Any transportation fuel that can be verifiability linked via physical 

pathway to renewable biomass should be allowed to generate RINs. Only by establishing a level 

playing field for all renewable fuels will the market be effective in promoting the least cost mix 

of transportation fuels. (Page 4) 

Our Response:

 In order to protect against possible double counting, we are restricting RIN generation for 

renewable electricity, natural gas, and propane to the producer of the fuel. Downstream 

distributors or users of these fuels cannot generate RINs. We had considered allowing 

downstream parties to also generate the RINs since they could better identify the use of the fuels 

for transportation purposes. However, as some commenters suggested, this might have provided 

an opportunity for double-generation of RINs for these fuels. If these fuels develop as 

transportation fuels in the future and mechanisms can be developed to address potential double 

counting and related enforcement concerns, then in the future we can consider allowing 

downstream parties to generate RINs as well. 

3.6 Applicable Standards 

Note: Comments related to our projection of the 2010 cellulosic biofuel volumes and our process 

for setting the standard for cellulosic biofuel can be found in Section 6.3.2. 

3-173
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) supports the application of the renewable fuel standard to nonroad 

sources. 

Our Response:

 We agree with this comment. EISA requires that renewable fuels valid for compliance 

purposes under RFS2 are those that are used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel 

present in a transportation fuel, and transportation fuel is defined to include fuel used in nonroad 

vehicles and engines. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) stated that if the RFS2 regulations will be effective on 1/1/11, then 

statutory mandates for biomass-based diesel for 2009 and 2010 and for cellulosic biofuel for 

2010 should be ignored/eliminated. The commenter then stated that if the RFS2 regulations will 

be effective on 1/1/10, then the statutory mandate for biomass-based diesel for 2009 and 

cellulosic biofuel for 2010 should be ignored/eliminated. (2124.1, p.10) 

The commenter believes that EPA should not attempt to combine the 2010 and 2011 yearly 

standards for biomass-based diesel or cellulosic renewable fuels. (2124.1, p.11) 

Our Response:

 While the RFS2 regulations will go into effect on July 1, 2010, we are applying the four 

RFS2 standards to all gasoline and diesel produced in 2010. We do not believe that the statutory 

mandate for biomass-based diesel in 2009 should be ignored. We did not have the RFS2 

program in place for 2009 and thus could not establish a separate standard for biomass-based 

diesel in 2009. To best implement Congress’ intent for 2009 and 2010, we are combining the 

2010 biomass-based diesel volume of 0.65 billion gallons with the 2009 biomass-based diesel 

volume of 0.5 billion gallons to require that obligated parties meet a combined 2009/2010 

requirement of 1.15 billion gallons by the end of the 2010 compliance year. As described in 

more detail in Section II.E.2 of the preamble, this approach is similar in concept to the deficit 

carryover provision that would have applied to the full 2009 volume mandate of 0.5 billion 

gallons. 

As described in the responses to comments in Section 3.6.2 below, we also do not believe 

that the cellulosic biofuel standard for 2010 should be eliminated. Based on our analysis of 

3-174
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

cellulosic production facilities, we have determined that 6.5 million gallons of ethanol-equivalent 

cellulosic biofuel can be produced in 2010. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2374 

Organization: Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc. (Amyris) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2374) supports the proposed RFS2 fuel volumes and believes that advanced 

biofuels will contribute significantly to the objectives of reducing the carbon intensity of 

transportation fuels and reducing the nation’s reliance on petroleum derived transportation fuels. 

[[Docket number 2374.1, p. 1]] 

Our Response:

We agree that advanced biofuels are an important component of the RFS2 program for 

many reasons, including the fact that they must meet a GHG threshold of 50%. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA must continue to implement the volume mandates 

each year until it can complete its lifecycle analysis. (2329.1, p.16) 

Our Response:

We have conducted a complete lifecycle analysis for a number of renewable fuel 

pathways, and as a result we are implementing the full RFS2 program including the four RFS2 

standards required by EISA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2317 

Organization: National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) 

Comment:

Referring to the 2008 Texas petition to reduce the RFS mandate, the commenter (2317) believes 

that EPA should evaluate any waivers of the RFS volumes with a high degree of scrutiny. 

[[Docket number 2317.1, p. 44]] 

Our Response:

3-175
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

We agree that any request for a waiver of any portion of the volumes required by EISA 

must be evaluated closely before a decision is made to approve or disapprove it. Such waiver 

actions, however, are outside the scope of this final rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2408.1) believes that, within the Advanced Biofuels pool, if significant 

shortfalls in a particular subcategory such as the biomass-based diesel pool or the cellulosic pool 

require an adjustment of the volume mandate that other nested categories within the advanced 

biofuels pool should be allowed to fill the shortfall. Given the specific requirements of an 

advanced biofuel and the definition of conventional fuels in EISA, corn based ethanol should be 

excluded from filling any volume shortfalls in the advanced categories. (2408.1, pp.4-5) 

Our Response:

Congress gave EPA the authority to lower the required total and advanced biofuel 

volumes if EPA reduces the required volume of cellulosic biofuel. For 2010, while we are 

lowering the cellulosic biofuel standard, we are maintaining the other standards at their EISAmandated levels. The biomass-based diesel volume needed to meet its standard will 

automatically fulfill the advanced biofuel standard, given the energy-based Equivalence Values 

for biodiesel and renewable diesel. Decisions for standards in future years will be made at that 

time. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

Referring to EPA’s request for comment on how to address the individual targets identified for 

2009 and 2010 in the 2007 RFS legislation, the commenter (2233) states that obligated parties 

and renewable fuel producers remain at a loss as to how such targets can be addressed absent 

completion of the life cycle assessment methodology and final implementing regulations. 

Clearly the 2009 mandate for individual categories of renewable fuels is no longer feasible. 

Our Response:

The lifecycle analyses have been updated and finished for this final rule, and we have 

determined that there exist renewable fuel pathways meeting the applicable GHG thresholds for 

all four categories of renewable fuel. Therefore, we believe that the volume mandates in EISA 

can be met, with the exception of the cellulosic biofuel standard which we have determined 

should be based on 6.5 million gallons of ethanol-equivalent renewable fuel. Moreover, the 

3-176
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

2009 mandate for biomass-based diesel will be met in the context of a combined 2009/2010 

standard as described in preamble Section II.E. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that the standards for 2011 should be announced by the Agency by the 

end of November 2010. The commenter supports notice-and-comment, but observes that EPA 

lacks statutory authority to impose EISA Total Advanced Biofuel renewable mandates for 2010 

until RFS2 final rules become effective. (2124.1, p.20) 

Our Response:

The standards for 2011 will indeed be announced by EPA by November 30, 2010, 

following the statutory mandate. As described in Section I.A.2 of the preamble, we believe it is 

appropriate to set the annual standards through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Thus, 

for future standards, we intend to issue an NPRM in the Spring and a final rule by November 30 

of each year in order to determine the appropriate standards applicable in the following year. 

However, in the case of the 2010 standards, we are finalizing them as part of today’s action. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP). 

Comment:

The commenter (2384) states that given the physical and regulatory barriers to implementing 

RFS2, EPA should add a comprehensive market assessment to its annual process for setting 

RVOs to avoid market-wide shortfalls which could cause dislocations in the RIN marketplace 

and encourage unscrupulous behavior. The commenter believes this annual assessment should 

consider all aspects of the biofuels supply chain. [[Docket number 2384.1, p. 3]] 

Our Response:

As described in Section II.K of the preamble, we are requiring production outlook reports 

from the renewable fuel production industry to help us in projecting the volumes of renewable 

fuel that can be produced in the future. We will assess any other data that is available during our 

annual rulemaking process to set the standards for the next year, including data on the operation 

of the fuels market and the RIN market. 

What Commenters Said:

3-177
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment: 

Therefore the 2010 RFS2 obligation would be the 6.8 bgy directed under the current RFS 

regulations. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 1-2] 

Our Response:

 We do not believe it would be appropriate to continue to use the mandated volumes from 

EPAct 2005 for total renewable fuel as the basis for standards in 2009 and beyond. EISA 

changed the volumes in CAA 211(o), and the standards are based upon the volumes mandated in 

CAA 211(o). 

3.6.1 Calculation of Standards 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

Since the RFS2 regulations will not be in effect in 2010 and the small refinery and small refiner 

exemptions expire at the end of 2010, the “Std” equations only apply for years 2011 and later. 

As a result, the “GE” terms for exempt small refineries and small refiners should be dropped 

from the “Std” equations. (2124.1, p.43) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

Since the Std RF equations only apply for years 2011 and later, the “GE” term, which is used to 

represent small refinery exempted gasoline, should be dropped from the Std RF equations. 

[[Docket number 2393.1, p. 7]] 

Our Response:

The total projected non-renewable gasoline and diesel volumes from which the annual 

standards are calculated are based on EIA projections of gasoline and diesel consumption in the 

contiguous 48 states and Hawaii, adjusted by constant percentages of 11.9% and 15.2% in 2010 

only to account for small refinery/refiner gasoline and diesel volumes, respectively, and with 

built-in correction factors to be used when and if Alaska or a territory opt-in to the program. 

Because the RFS2 program will be in effect in 2010, it is appropriate to maintain the “GE” term 

in the equation and note that it only applies for 2010. 

What Commenters Said:

3-178
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) agrees with EPA’s proposal to base the RFS2 standards on the sum of 

all gasoline and diesel fuel used. This will allow obligated parties to use RINs generated in the 

most receptive markets to help satisfy their overall renewable volume obligation, and this will 

help minimize the overall cost of the program. (2132.1, p.7) 

Our Response:

 While we took comment on an alternative approach in which the standards would be 

calculated separately for gasoline and diesel, we agree that the most straightforward approach is 

to sum gasoline and diesel together in order to calculate the standards. This is the approach we 

have finalized in today's rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) believes there are problems with EPA’s calculation of the RVO in 

Section 80.1405. [[Docket number 2233.2, p.6]] [[See docket number 2233.2, pp. 6-7 for 

explanation of the formula issues.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter adds that there are problems with EPA’s calculation of the renewable volume 

obligation (RVO) under the RFS1 regulations. In the four Standard Renewable Fuel (Std RF) 

equations in this section, EPA subtracts the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 

projected renewable usage from EIA’s projected gasoline and diesel demand. The commenter 

believes that since EPA is actually mandating the minimum renewable volumes for the year in 

question, it should in fact only use the EIA renewable projections if they are larger than the 

mandated renewable volumes. In the cases where EIA’s projected renewable volumes are less 

than the renewable fuel volumes which will be mandated, the actual mandated volumes should 

be used. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) believes that the renewable fuel standard equations must be calculated 

carefully. The proposed equations for the calculation of the annual renewable fuel standard 

percentages are at §80.1405(d). The denominators should be EIA projections of gasoline and 

diesel volumes excluding renewable fuels. 

3-179
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Our Response:

 The denominator of the equations for setting the RFS2 standards represent non-renewable 

gasoline and diesel projected to be produced or imported in a calendar year. To obtain these 

values, we use the projections from EIA for total (renewable plus nonrenewable) gasoline and 

diesel, and then subtract the EIA projections for renewable fuels blended into gasoline and 

diesel. In this calculation, it does not matter if the EIA projection of renewable fuel is higher or 

lower than the EISA-mandated volumes for RFS2. The EIA projection must be used in either 

case to ensure that the resulting non-renewable gasoline and diesel projections are consistent. 

3.6.2 Treatment of Biomass-based Diesel in 2009 and 2010 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1001 

Organization: Kurzman Clean Tech Research & Kurzman Capital, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (1001.1) wants the program to succeed. Under the statute, EPA has ample 

authority to implement a workable program. The proposed rule, however, does not achieve this 

goal and, in fact, stands to undermine Congressional intent in establishing the biomass-based 

diesel requirement—an integral part of the program. (1001.1, p. 1) 

Our Response:

The final rule includes an updated lifecycle analysis concluding that biodiesel made from 

both waste greases and soybean oil will meet the 50% GHG threshold, and therefore will count 

as biomass-based diesel. In addition, to ensure that the volumes of biomass-based diesel 

required by EISA for 2009 are implemented, we are finalizing a 2010 standard that is based upon 

a combination of the 2009 and 2010 volume mandates for biomass-based diesel. Compliance 

with this standard must be demonstrated by February 28, 2011. We believe that these provisions 

result in a workable program that achieves Congressional intent. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2118 

Organization: CountryMark Cooperative, LLP 

Comment:

The commenter (2118.1) believes that the proposed changes will not adequately stimulate 

production of biomass-based diesel fuel. Based on current consumer demand, diesel fuel makes 

up approximately 31% of fuel demand. However, the biomass-based diesel volumes presented 

in EISA only account for 6.6% of the total renewable fuel requirement in 2012. The commenter 

believes that this disproportionate distribution between biomass-based diesel and other primarily 

gasoline substitute renewable fuels will lead to a potential diesel fuel supply shortfall as industry 

crude throughput is reduced to absorb gasoline substitutes. The commenter requests that the 

3-180
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA Administrator review the volume requirement for biomass-based diesel to determine if a 

higher volume requirement is necessary to ensure that adequate supplies of renewable diesel are 

developed on a commercial scale. (2118.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that EPA should carefully evaluate future biomass-based diesel 

production capability. The commenter stated that EPA will need to identify the annual 

regulatory volume for the first year of the RFS2 program for biomass-based diesel. To identify 

an appropriate regulatory volume for 2011, the Agency should project actual supply in 2011. 

The commenter believes that EPA should not just rely on nameplate production capacity and 

assume that all plants will operate at 100% capacity utilization throughout 2011. (2124.1, p.23) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2106 

Organization: Endicott Biofuels II, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2106) suggests that EPA strongly consider setting more aggressive targets for 

biomass-based diesel beginning in 2013 to provide the necessary pricing signals to the market to 

incent advancement of new technologies. The commenter’s analysis based upon a compilation 

of NREL, USDA, U.S. Bureau of Labor & Statistics, and National Renderer’s Association data 

concludes there is enough energy dense fats and oils neutral and non-neutral materials to support 

over 2 billion gallons of biomass based diesel already in the marketplace in the U.S. If foreign 

sources are included, the total is much higher. Technology exists today to convert these 

feedstocks into high quality methyl esters. The commenter also suggests that the only barrier to 

utilization of these feedstocks is price differential to crude oil and that the 30% suggested 

restriction is overly conservative. Therefore, the commenter suggests the EPA target 

significantly greater than 1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel in 2013 and beyond. [[Docket 

number 2106.1, p. 1]] 

Our Response:

 The volumes for biomass-based diesel were established by EISA, and EPA does not have 

the authority to increase those volumes prior to 2013. For 2013 and beyond, EPA must 

determine the appropriate volumes to require, so long as those volumes exceed 1.0 bill gal. We 

have not conducted the analyses necessary to determine the appropriate volumes for 2013 and 

beyond, and thus have not established those volumes in today's final rulemaking. 

 As discussed in our responses under section 3.6.2.2, we have assessed the potential 

biomass-based diesel volume for 2010 and believe that the standard based upon 1.15 bill gal is 

feasible. We intend to continue to assess the potential production as we set the standards for 

future years based on available information, including information provided to us in the annual 

production outlook reports discussed in preamble Section II.K. 

What Commenters Said:

3-181
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2141 

Organization: American Trucking Associations 

Comment:

The commenter (2141.1) recommends that EPA temporarily allow domestically produced soybased biodiesel to be used to meet the biomass-based diesel requirements under RFS2. This will 

ensure that the RFS2 statutory mandates are achievable in the near term. Once EPA obtains 

scientifically-defensible data on soy based biodiesel’s lifecycle emissions, EPA should address 

the issue in a future rulemaking. (2141.1, p.5) 

Our Response:

 The updated lifecycle analysis of GHG emissions for soy-based biodiesel indicates that it 

meets the 50% GHG threshold applicable to biomass-based diesel. Therefore, there is no need 

for special, temporary treatment of biodiesel in order to meet the biomass-based diesel standard. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2400 

Organization: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter believes that allowing parties to utilize the same RINs over multiple years will 

likely cause issues with software programs that are managing RINs and will also cause confusion 

when calculating the 0100 reports. The commenter recommends that the EPA not allow 

biodiesel RINs to be used twice. Allowing obligated parties to use the RINs for compliance as 

well as sell them would cause inconsistencies when performing attestations. (2400.2, p.2) 

Our Response:

 We have designed the regulations such that the software issues described by the 

commenter are unlikely to occur. Under RFS2, all RINs can only be used for compliance 

purposes in a single year. This includes compliance with the combined 2009/2010 biomassbased diesel standard. However, prior to determining compliance with the combined 2009/2010 

biomass-based diesel standard, obligated parties can take a credit for any biodiesel or renewable 

diesel RINs that were used for compliance in 2009. In other words, the RVO for biomass-based 

diesel will be reduced by the number of RINs that the obligated party used for compliance in 

2009. The resulting, adjusted RVO must then be met with 2008, 2009, and/or 2010 RINs that 

have not previously been used for compliance purposes, subject to rollover restrictions. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2155 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) 

Comment: 

3-182
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2155.1) believes that biomass based diesel should be treated as an ethanolequivalent volume as opposed to the suggested diesel volume for the purpose of continuity 

amongst other types of renewable fuels (2155.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter agrees with EPA that Congress intended the required volumes related to 

Biomass-based Diesel to be treated as diesel volumes rather than ethanol-equivalent volumes. 

The commenter states that Congress also intended to spur the development of advanced biofuels, 

through specific volume mandates. The commenter urges EPA to apply option 2 to the Biomassbased Diesel, Advanced Biofuel, and Cellulosic Biofuel RVOs. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 32]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2145 

Organization: Flint Hills Resources 

Comment:

The required categories of “Total Renewable Fuel”, “Total Advanced Fuel” and “Cellulosic 

Biofuel” should share a common basis for accounting for different renewable fuels that are 

replacing both gasoline and diesel in the marketplace. The commenter advocates that the 

biomass-based diesel standard be expressed as an ethanol-equivalent volume. This approach has 

the benefits of being simple and transparent. (2145.1, p.7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2360 

Organization: Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2360.1) agrees with the EPA that Congress intended the required volumes of 

Biomass-based Diesel to be treated as diesel volumes rather than ethanol-equivalent volumes. 

The 1 billion gallons of Biomass-based Diesel by 2012 is intended to be a strict volume 

calculation and not an ethanol-equivalent energy content calculation. (2360.1, p.7) 

Our Response:

 While the EISA-mandated volumes for cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total 

renewable fuel can be met with any type of renewable fuel, we believe that the mandated volume 

for biomass-based diesel was intended to be met only by renewable fuels that displace fossilbased diesel. Moreover, we expect that the predominant renewable fuel used to meet the 

biomass-based diesel requirement will be biodiesel (mono-alkyl esters). Since we are finalizing 

the energy content approach to Equivalence Values, we have adjusted the biomass-based diesel 

volume mandate from EISA upward by a factor of 1.5, the Equivalence Value for biodiesel. The 

net result is a biomass-based diesel gallon being worth 1.0 gallons toward the biomass-based 

diesel standard, but worth 1.5 gallons toward the other standards. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

3-183
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter noted that if EPA finalizes the Biomass-Based Diesel fuel standard as proposed, 

an Obligated Party’s BBD obligation will actually exceed its Advanced Biofuel RVO in 2010 

(due to the proposed combined 2009-2010 BBD mandate). The commenter does not believe that 

this result was intended and requests that EPA clarify this situation to allow Obligated Parties to 

separate an appropriate amount of self-generated “D3” RINs. (2471.1, p.17)

Our Response:

 The biomass-based diesel volume of 1.15 bill gal for 2010 will automatically fulfill the 

advanced biofuel standard, given the energy-based Equivalence Values for biodiesel and 

renewable diesel. However, obligated parties can still buy advanced biofuels with a D code of 5 

and use them to meet their total renewable fuel standard, or retain them for use in 2011. 

3.6.2.1 Supports the Proposed Treatment of Biomass-based Diesel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter (0994.1) supports the Option 1 Treatment that rolls the 2009 Biomass-based 

Diesel requirements into 2010 for total volume of 1.15 billion gal. The commenter also supports 

the pathway of subtracting 2009 consumed Biodiesel or Renewable Diesel from the 2010 

requirement of 1.15 billion gal. The commenter supports the position of being able to use excess 

2009 Biodiesel volumes (RR code of 15 or 17) (at a 20% rollover cap) to go toward meeting the 

balance of their 2010 Biomass-based Diesel volume requirements. (0994.1, p.8) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2110 

Organization: Chevron 

Comment:

The commenter (2110.1) believes that EPA should not penalize obligated parties who responded 

in good faith to EPA guidance on complying with the 2009 BBD volume requirement. EPA 

should explicitly allow BBD RINs procured based on EPA advice to be used for BBD 

compliance with the first BBD volume mandate established under the final RFS2 rules. (2110.1, 

p.3) 

Our Response:

 We agree that the special provisions proposed in the NPRM to account for the 2009 

biomass-based diesel volume requirements in EISA should be finalized. Since the RFS1 

regulatory structure did not provide a mechanism for implementing the 0.5 billion gallon 

requirement for biomass-based diesel in 2009, we are combining the 2010 biomass-based diesel 

requirement of 0.65 billion gallons with the 2009 biomass based diesel requirement of 0.5 billion 

3-184
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

gallons to require that obligated parties meet a combined 2009/2010 requirement of 1.15 billion 

gallons by the end of the 2010 compliance year. All 2009 RINs for biodiesel and renewable 

diesel are valid for complying with this combined 2009/2010 standard, consistent with our 

intention as described in the November 2008 notice setting the 2009 standard for total renewable 

fuel. 

3.6.2.2 Opposes the Proposed Treatment of Biomass-based Diesel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

The commenter (2384) recommends commencement of a biodiesel requirement on January 1, 

2011 and a volume requirement of 800 million gallons for 2011 as was legislated in EISA. The 

industry will need adequate lead time from the date of the final rule to plan, designing, construct, 

and complete the necessary biodiesel infrastructure. [[Docket number 2384.1, p. 3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) believes that EPA should not combine the 2009 and 2010 requirements. 

By imposing the 2009 volume requirements in 2010, EPA would be imposing a retroactive 

requirement and immediately put obligated parties in a compliance deficit. (2124.1, p.10) 

The commenter also believes that EPA’s proposal to combine the 2009 and 2010 volume 

mandates for 2010 is clearly contrary to the express intent of Congress. Combining the 2009 and 

2010 standards makes little sense as a practical matter since it results in a standard of 1.15 billion 

gallons when Congress only envisioned a 1 billion gallon mandate in 2012. EPA is creating a 

situation where unnecessary blending capacity is required for a one year period. The commenter 

noted that the same would be true if EPA attempts to combine the 2010 and 2011 standards if the 

RFS2 program starts in 2011. (2124.1, p.11) 

The commenter strongly opposes any attempt by EPA to impose, on a retroactive basis, biomassbased diesel requirements for 2009 or any other period that precedes a final rulemaking for RFS2 

that includes provisions sufficient to implement EISA requirements. EPA has no authority to 

“recapture” volume mandates under different start-date scenarios. (2124.1, p.11) [For a detailed 

discussion of this issue, see pp. 12-16 of Docket Number 2124.1). 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130) states that when EPA finalizes the RFS2 rulemaking, the 2009 biomassbased diesel requirement should not be carried forward to 2010 and the 2010 biomass-based 

3-185
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

diesel and cellulosic ethanol requirements should not be carried forward to 2011. [[Docket 

number 2130.1, p. 8]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

Regarding the 2010 mandates, the commenter opposes adding these mandates to 2011. Adding 

the Biomass-based Diesel mandates is particularly onerous as obligated parties sort through 

infrastructure, seasonality, quality, economic and GHG reduction issues. Therefore, for 2009, by 

default, EPA must rely on the RFS1 regulations and the overall mandate alone. [[Docket number 

2233.2, p. 39]] 

 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) believes that EPA should not combine the 2009 and 2010 requirements. 

By imposing the 2009 volume requirements in 2010, EPA would be imposing a retroactive 

requirement and immediately put virtually all obligated parties in an immediate compliance 

deficit. This is not consistent with longstanding legal principles, or principles of basic fairness, 

that prohibit the government from promulgating ex post facto laws. (2505.2, pp.3-4) (See Docket 

Number 2505.2 for a detailed discussion of this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter further states that EPA should abandon any notion that EISA requirements can 

be brought forward. Should the RFS2 start date be 1/1/2011 (as recommended by the 

commenter), the 2011 EISA requirement of 0.80 bg would be a substantial fraction of the 

proposed 2009/2010 lumped requirement of 1.15 bg and would come at a time when production 

is even lower than when initially proposed with the November 2008 notice. [[Docket number 

2393.1, pp. 14-15 and 2523.1, p. 2]] 

The commenter understands that EPA’s rationale for establishing the proposed 2009/2010 BBD 

standard is in jeopardy should the start date be extended, but in extending the start date EPA will 

have to establish a transition program to manage other EISA mandates and a few practical 

matters that are seriously compromised by the delay in promulgating the final rules. As part of 

this transition program, EPA should explicitly allow the use of prior-year biodiesel RINs 

procured based on EPA advice for BBD compliance with, at a minimum, the first BBD volume 

mandate established under the final RFS2 rules. [[Docket number 2393.1, pp. 15-16]] 

Our Response:

 We continue to believe that it is appropriate and consistent with the statute to combine 

the 2009 and 2010 mandated volumes for biomass-based diesel into a single two-year obligation 

for which compliance must be demonstrated by February 28, 2011. Congress expected and 

intended that RFS2 regulations would be adopted by the end of 2008, and that they would have 

3-186
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

applied in full to 2009 and 2010. If that had occurred, then obligated parties would have 

transitioned from RFS1 requirements to RFS2 requirements starting with 2009. They would 

have had a 2009 volume obligation for biomass-based diesel based on a total volume of 0.5 

billion gallons, and a 2010 volume obligation based on a total volume of 0.65 billion gallons. If 

an obligated party did not satisfy their individual 2009 volume obligation by the end of 2009, 

then the statute allowed the party to carry the deficit over to 2010 as long as they were in full 

compliance with both 2009 and 2010 volume requirements by the end of 2010. This is the 

mechanism that Congress employed to ensure that 1.15 billion gallons would be used by the end 

of 2010, spread out over 2009 and 2010, through the use of separate 2009 and 2010 volume 

obligations combined with a deficit carry over provision. 

EPA did not issue the RFS2 regulations by the end of 2008, and the transition from RFS1 

to RFS2 did not occur at the beginning of 2009. EPA is thus faced with structuring and 

implementing a transition from the RFS1 to the RFS2 regulations in a way that most 

appropriately meets two goals. One goal is to maximize compliance with the volume 

requirements Congress set out for biomass-based diesel. The other goal is to provide the 

regulated parties with adequate lead-time to meet such volume requirements. 

 As discussed below, there is significant productive capacity for the production and use of 

biomass-based diesel, a large amount of which is not currently used because of inadequate 

demand. Productive capacity is currently estimated at over 2.8 billion gallons, far beyond the 

2009 and 2010 volumes set by Congress in EISA. Clearly productive capacity of biomass-based 

diesel is not a limiting factor as far as the feasibility of the EISA volume requirements or lead 

time for obligated parties. As discussed below it is also relatively straightforward for much of 

the current unused capacity to be brought on line, something we believe will occur once 

sufficient incentive is put in place, such as the combined 2009-10 volume requirement in this 

rule. 

 In these circumstances, EPA believes it is appropriate to establish a volume obligation on 

refiners and importers that amounts to using 1.15 billion gallons by the end of 2010. This should 

not be seen as just a 2010 obligation. It is an obligation that must be met by the end of 2010, and 

that reflects the use of biomass-based diesel over both 2009 and 2010. In effect, EPA believes 

that given the amount of biomass-based diesel that was already used in 2009, obligated parties 

have adequate lead time such that by the end of 2010 their use of biomass-based diesel over both 

2009 and 2010 can quite feasibly and practicably amount to 1.15 billion gallons. This recognizes 

that approximately 300 million gallons have already been used in 2009, calling for the use of 

approximately 815 million additional gallons by the end of 2010. Less volume may actually be 

called for, as obligated parties can also use 2008 RFS1 RINs that are not used for other 

compliance purposes. 

 As discussed above and in more detail later and in Section IV.B.4 of the preamble and 

Section 1.5.4 of the RIA, there is adequate lead time to accomplish this given the large excess 

current capacity for production of biomass-based diesel. In addition, this approach maximizes 

the ability to meet the volume goals established by Congress in EISA. Recognizing that, in light 

of the fact that we are issuing the final RFS2 regulations over a year later than specified in the 

statute, no program established by EPA will match the specific structure envisioned by Congress 

3-187
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

in EISA, this approach comes closest to meeting both the content and purpose of EISA. It is 

built on and achieves the same volume levels envisioned by Congress. It also functions very 

similar to the compliance carryover provisions adopted by Congress. Section 211(o)(2)(A) uses 

broad language giving EPA authority to “revise the regulations under this paragraph to ensure 

that transportation fuel sold or introduced into commerce in the Untied States .... on an annual 

average basis, contains at least the applicable volume of ... biomass-based diesel determined in 

accordance with subparagraph (B).” This generally broad grant of authority reasonably is 

construed to include the authority to adopt this kind of transition from RFS1 to RFS2 

requirements, that best promotes the purposes of the EISA biomass-based diesel provisions, 

given all of the circumstances noted above and best matches the 2009 transition from RFS1 to 

RFS2 envisioned in EISA. 

 The alternative approach, suggested by some commenters, would be for EPA to establish 

solely a 2010 volume requirement, based on the 0.65 billion gallons. This would lead to less use 

of biomass-based diesel over the two calendar years than envisioned by Congress. 

 This approach of a combined 2009 and 2010 volume requirement, achieved by the end of 

2010, does not impose any retroactive requirements. The obligation that is imposed under the 

RFS2 regulations is forward-looking – by February 28, 2011, when compliance is determined, 

obligated parties must satisfy a certain biomass-based diesel volume obligation. This is a future 

requirement and can be satisfied by biodiesel produced and used in 2009 in addition to 2010, and 

to some extent biodiesel produced and used in 2008. However the RFS2 regulations do not 

change in any way the legal obligations or requirements that apply for conduct or action 

occurring prior to the effective date of the RFS2 regulations. Instead, the RFS2 requirements 

impose new biomass-based diesel requirements that must be met in the future. While they take 

into account and give credit for past actions, they do not regulate or change in any way the legal 

obligations applicable to past conduct. 

 Some commenters stated that this approach would make them in noncompliance as of the 

issuance of the regulations. That is not accurate. Compliance by refiners or importers is not 

determined until February 28, 2011. No one can be in noncompliance with this volume 

obligation prior to that date. As of the effective date of the RFS2 regulations, refiners and 

importers will have new obligations that they will have to meet by a future compliance date, but 

the regulations do not mean that they are in noncompliance upon issuance of the regulations. 

 Sufficient capacity exists for producing the entire biomass-based diesel needed in 2010 to 

comply with the combined 1.15 billion gallon requirement. As discussed in section IV.B.4 in the 

preamble, biodiesel production capacity has continued to grow and is currently estimated at over 

2.8 billion gallons; also 75 million gal/yr of renewable diesel production capacity is expected to 

come online in 2010 as well. 

 As a benchmark, U.S. biodiesel production in 2008 reached an estimated 776 million 

gallons, demonstrating that not only does the U.S. have ample production capacity, but also the 

feedstock and distribution infrastructure to produce very large volumes. For various economic 

reasons, production fell in 2009, but despite this fact, we have seen that approximately 600 

million gal/yr of capacity was built or purchased between fall of 2008 and fall of 2009 

3-188
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

(determined by comparing lists of operating plants maintained by National Biodiesel Board). 

This suggests continued interest and available production capacity to enable obligated parties to 

meet the standard. 

 As an additional metric, we see that for July-September of 2009 (the latest EIA data 

available as of this writing), biodiesel was produced at an annualized rate of 570 million gal/yr. 

Many of these plants are operating below their full capacities, so simply increasing utilization 

will likely be sufficient to meet the required volume for 2010. In reviewing biodiesel production 

over time, it is clear that wide swings in production can occur extremely rapidly. Thus, 

increasing production at plants currently operating is entirely feasible, with the main issues 

limited to purchase and transport logistics for the increased volumes of feedstock. Meanwhile, a 

portion of the large amount of idle capacity could also be brought online once operators receive 

the signal that will be provided by publication of this final rulemaking. Biodiesel plants have the 

ability to restart rapidly as evidenced by the long history of facilities shutting down temporarily 

and then starting back up again when economic conditions improve. 

3.6.2.3 Request for Interim Rulemaking 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2510 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2510) says EPA should implement interim rules to ensure the volume 

requirements for biomass-based diesel are met and not further delayed. Delaying the effective 

date is not consistent to the stated goal to reduce U.S. dependence of foreign sources of 

petroleum by increasing domestic sources of energy. [[Docket number 2510.1, p. 2]] 

The commenter concludes that the final rules as they are today will destroy business, investors 

will lose their equity, and employees will lose jobs and benefits. Delaying the implementation of 

a good RFS proposal encourages the use of more foreign oil, and that should not be the goal of 

EPA’s proposal. [[Docket number 2510.1, p. 8]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1051 

Organization: Aberdeen Development Corp. 

Comment:

The commenter (1051) supports having the RFS2 regulations enforceable beginning January 1, 

2010 but adds that delayed implementation of the biomass-based diesel requirement has 

adversely affected the biodiesel industry and the commenter specifically. Recognizing that 

EPA’s proposed rule may not be finalized until the end of 2009 and may have an effective date 

beyond January 1, 2010, EPA must act now to effectuate Congressional intent and implement the 

2009 volume mandate for biomass-based diesel (and, if necessary, the 2010 requirement). 

[[Docket number 1051.1, p.1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1005 

3-189
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Organization: Cotner Consulting Services 

Comment:

The commenter (1005.1) noted that the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 

added a specific mandate for biomass-based diesel as part of the program’s Advanced Biofuels 

schedule. The biomass-based diesel requirement was to begin in 2009 with 500 million gallons. 

EISA required EPA to revise the current RFS regulations to ensure these new mandates are 

implemented. Unfortunately, EPA has yet to issue final rules largely due to the complicated and 

controversial lifecycle analysis being conducted as part of the RFS2 regulations. This has 

delayed implementation of the biomass-based diesel requirement, which has adversely affected 

the biodiesel industry. The commenter believes that EPA must act now to effectuate 

Congressional intent and implement the 2009 volume mandate for biomass-based diesel (and, if 

necessary, the 2010 requirement). (1005.1, p.1) 

The commenter believes that existing biodiesel facilities, which are able to meet the RFS2 

requirements with existing feedstock sources, should not be unfairly penalized for assumptions 

related to international land use changes. EPA has already indicated that obligated parties will 

be able to use 2009 biodiesel and renewable diesel to meet the RFS2 requirements. The 

commenter believes that EPA should grant this relief in the form of an interim final rule that 

codifies this finding and that would ensure the biomass-based diesel requirement is being met 

until the entire RFS2 program is finalized and becomes effective. At a minimum, EPA must 

provide notice that 2009 biodiesel RINs are valid and will be required to show compliance with 

the RFS2 to fulfill Congressional intent and provide legal certainty to the industry. (1005.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1052 

Organization: Pennsylvania Energy Resources Group (ERG) 

Comment:

The commenter (1052) states that existing biodiesel facilities which are able to meet the RFS2 

requirements with existing feedstock sources should not be unfairly penalized for assumptions 

related to international land use changes. Since EPA has already indicated that 2009 biodiesel 

and renewable diesel can be used to meet the RFS2 requirements, an interim rule will support 

stability for the industry. [[Docket number 1052.1, pp. 1-2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079 

Organization: AE Biofuels, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2079.1) requests that EPA publish a rule that will implement the Biomass-based 

Diesel requirement for 2009 (and until final regulations become effective) or, at a minimum, 

provide notice that 2009 biodiesel and renewable diesel will be valid and required to be in 

compliance with the RFS2 program. (2079.1, p. 3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2360 

Organization: Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2360.1) requests that EPA publish a rule that will implement the Biomass-based 

Diesel requirement for 2009 and 2010 (and until final regulations become effective) or, at a 

3-190
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

minimum, provide notice that 2009 and 2010 biodiesel and renewable diesel will be valid and 

required to be in compliance with the RFS2 program. (2360.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1051 

Organization: Aberdeen Development Corp. 

Comment:

The commenter (1051) states that EPA has already indicated that obligated parties will be able to 

use 2009 biodiesel and renewable diesel to meet the RFS2 requirements. If EPA does not issue 

an interim final rule that codified this finding then, at a minimum, EPA must provide notice that 

2009 biodiesel RINs are valid and will be required to show compliance with the RFS2 to fulfill 

Congressional intent and provide legal certainty to the industry. [[Docket number 1051.1, p, 1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2249.2) believes that EPA must implement the volume mandates for biomassbased diesel. The commenter is concerned about delays due to the ongoing work needed to 

complete the lifecycle analysis and urges EPA to issue RVOs this year for the 2010 required 

volumes for renewable fuel, advanced biofuels, and biomass-based diesel. Issuing RVOs this 

year for each of these mandates would provide certainty for stakeholders and ensure that the 

mandated volumes are meted. The commenter suggests that until EPA can finalize the RFS2 

regulation, the current RFS regulations can be used to implement the volume requirements. 

[[Docket number 2249.1, pp. 2-3] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1001 

Organization: Kurzman Clean Tech Research & Kurzman Capital, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (1001.1) looks forward to working with EPA to address the proposal’s 

shortcomings and implement a final rule prior to January 1, 2010. The commenter recognizes, 

however, that a final rule may not be issued until the end of 2009 and/or may not be made 

effective until after January 1, 2010. The commenter urges EPA to issue an interim rule to 

effectuate Congressional intent and address the adverse impacts any further delay of 

implementing the RFS2 requirements will have on the biodiesel industry. (1001.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1015 

Organization: Renewable Energy Group 

Comment:

The commenter also says EPA should implement interim rules to ensure the required volume 

requirements biomass-based diesel to the regulated parties are met and not further delayed. 

Delaying the effective date is not consistent to the stated goal to reduce U.S. dependence of 

foreign sources of petroleum by increasing domestic sources of energy. Recognizing the 

complexity of this task and that never before has a regulatory program assessed greenhouse gas 

emissions of fuels. [[Docket number 2123.1, pp. 3-4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1049 

Organization: Prairie Pride, Inc. 

3-191
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Comment:

The commenter (1049) states that delayed implementation of the biomass-based diesel 

requirement has adversely affected their business and believes that EPA should act now to 

implement the 2009 volume mandate for biomass-based diesel. Also, EPA should grant this 

relief in the form of an interim final rule that codifies the biomass-based diesel requirement is 

met until the entire RFS2 program is finalized and becomes effective. [[Docket number 1049, p. 

1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1051 

Organization: Aberdeen Development Corp. 

Comment:

Since EPA has already indicated that obligated parties will be able to use 2009 biodiesel and 

renewable diesel to meet the RFS2 requirements, the commenter believes that EPA should grant 

this relief in the form of an interim final rule that codifies this finding and that would ensure the 

biomass-based diesel requirement is being met until the entire RFS2 program is finalized and 

becomes effective. [[Docket number 1051.1, p.1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1052 

Organization: Pennsylvania Energy Resources Group (ERG) 

Comment:

The commenter (1052) strongly believes that an interim rule is critical to ensure that the 2009 

and 2010 volumes are met, as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

The two month extension to the comment period for the new regulations further delays 

implementation, creating additional difficulties for biodiesel plants, refineries and terminal 

facilities that are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in Pennsylvania alone to meet the 

volume goals under RFS2. The commenter states that the Pennsylvania biodiesel industry 

cannot afford a significant further delay in implementation of the volume requirements mandated 

by EISA 2007. [[Docket number 1052.1, p. 1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2010, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2011, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-2013, et al. 

Organization: SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC, Western Dubuque Biodiesel LLC, Central Iowa 

Energy, LLC, et al. 

Comment:

The commenters stated that EPA should implement interim rules to ensure the required volume 

requirements biomass-based diesel to the regulated parties are met and not further delayed. 

Delaying the effective date is not consistent to the stated goal to reduce U.S. dependence of 

foreign sources of petroleum by increasing domestic sources of energy. Recognizing the 

complexity of this task and that never before has a regulatory program assessed greenhouse gas 

emissions of fuels. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2300 

Organization: Dow AgroSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2300) requests that due to the tight timing and possibilities that the rule may not 

be made effective until after January 1, 2010, EPA should issue an interim rule to effectively 

3-192
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

state Congressional intent which the commenter believes is different from that currently 

proposed. (2300, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2435 

Organization: R.W. Heiden Associates LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2435) recognizes that a final rule may not be issued until the end of 2009 and/or 

may not be made effective until after January 1, 2010. As such, they urge EPA to issue an 

interim rule to effectuate Congressional intent and address the adverse impacts any further delay 

of implementing the RFS2 requirements will have on the biodiesel industry. The lack of 

implementation of the RFS2 adds greatly to business uncertainty in an already stressed market 

place. [[Docket number 2435.1, pp. 1-2 and 6-7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2464, 2537 

Organization: Musket Corporation 

Comment:

The commenter (2464.1) believes that EPA should issue an interim version of RFS2 in time to 

enforce the 2009 volumes in the EISA no later than January 1, 2010 unless a final version can be 

issued at that time. (2464.1, p.2) (See Docket Number 2464.1, pp.1-2 for a detailed discussion of 

this issue) 

Our Response:

 An interim rulemaking that put in place the 2009 volume requirement for biomass-based 

diesel without also putting in place EISA's new definition for biomass-based diesel, renewable 

fuel, and renewable biomass, would have raised significant legal and policy issues that would 

necessarily have required a new proposal with its own public notice and comment process. After 

analyzing our available authorities, we determined that a rulemaking addressing these issues 

without allowing for public participation would ultimately not be successful. Additionally, 

because of the significant time required for notice and comment rulemaking, the need to provide 

industry with adequate lead time for new requirements, and the fact that we were already well 

into calendar year 2009 when the request for an interim rulemaking was received, it was unlikely 

that any interim rule could impact biodiesel demand in 2009. Resources applied to the interim 

rulemaking would also have been unavailable for development of the final RFS2 rulemaking. As 

a result, developing an interim rule could easily have undermined EPA's ability to complete the 

full RFS2 program regulations in time for 2010 implementation. Therefore, we believed that the 

most prudent course of action was to continue development of the final RFS2 rulemaking rather 

than to divert resources to an interim rulemaking that would not likely have had a significant 

impact on 2009 biodiesel demand. 

3.6.2.4 Treatment of 2008 and 2009 Biodiesel RINs 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

3-193
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter is against the proposal of allowing 2008 Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel excess 

RINs for compliance of the 2009/2010 Biomass-based Diesel requirements. This can work 

against the purchase of Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel in 2009 and 2010. Per the RFS1 

regulations, excess 2008 RINs no matter what type are permitted to meet the 2009 RFS1 volume 

obligation, but should not be permitted to meet the 2009/2010 Biomass-based Diesel Obligation. 

This eliminates any possible confusion about when 2008 RINs are to be retired. (0994.1, p.8) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (1044) supports this proposed option, allowance of 2008 RINs for compliance 

subjected to the 20% carryover provisions, because it demonstrates a common sense approach of 

the intended actions of RFS1 and identified the issue caused by the delayed implementation of 

RFS 2. The commenter asks for an immediate notice or technical amendment on this issue. 

(1044.1, p. 2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter states that current holders of biodiesel RINs for 2008 and 2009 (and potentially 

2010) should be able to carry those RINs forward for use in demonstrating compliance for 2011 

if EPA carries any of the biodiesel requirements for 2009 and 2010 forward to 2011. [[Docket 

number 2130.1, p. 17]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2155 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) 

Comment:

The commenter (2155.1) believes that it is important for the EPA to set guidance stating that 

2009 generated biodiesel RINs be used for biodiesel compliance purposes and be allowed to 

carry over into 2010. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

Referring to the November 2008 notice of the 2009 mandated volumes, the commenter believes 

that it is extremely unfair for EPA to now finalize rules that cause economic harm to the 

obligated parties who attempted to comply with EPA’s earlier guidance. The commenter 

recommends that EPA allow 2008 and 2009 biodiesel RINs to comply with either a partial 2010 

or a 2011 biomass based diesel obligation. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 39]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

3-194
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2384) recommends commencement of a biodiesel requirement on January 1, 

2011 and a volume requirement of 800 million gallons for 2011 as was legislated in EISA. The 

commenter also recommends that any biodiesel blended in 2009 and 2010 be allowed to be 

applied to the 2011 obligations. [[Docket number 2384.1, p. 3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

In particular, EPA has proposed to allow 2008 RINs be used to meet the joint 2009/2010 

Biomass-based Diesel volume. The commenter states that this proposal would violate the 12 

month limit on the life of a credit, as such RIN should have been applied in 2008 and could have 

been applied to meet the overall standard in 2009. Moreover, there is more than sufficient 

supply in 2009, and expected in 2010, to meet the Biomass-based Diesel requirement. Indeed, 

obligated parties have refused to purchase biodiesel in 2009, making it unlikely that the 2009 

volume mandate will be met in actual volumes, despite availability of biodiesel. Obligated 

parties should not be able to make up for their own inaction by using 2008 RINs. There is 

simply no justification for allowing 2008 RINs to be used to show compliance in 2010. [[Docket 

number 2249.2, pp. 31-32]] 

Our Response:

 Since the 2010 compliance demonstration will include the obligation that would have 

applied in 2009, and 2008 RINs would be valid for 2009 compliance, we are allowing excess 

2008 biodiesel and renewable diesel RINs that were not used for compliance purposes in 2008 to 

be used for compliance purposes in 2009 or 2010. This is consistent with the requirement that 

RINs are valid in the year they are generated and in the following calendar year. Moreover, all 

2009 RINs for biodiesel and renewable diesel are valid for complying with this combined 

2009/2010 standard, consistent with our intention as described in the November 2008 notice 

setting the 2009 standard for total renewable fuel. Roll-over provisions apply when using prioryear RINs, as discussed in the preamble. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) disagrees with EPA’s proposal to allow 2009 biodiesel and renewable 

diesel RINs to be used for the 2010 biomass-based diesel standard. The commenter noted that 

EPA is trying to apply the statutory RFS2 standard in 2009 even before implementing the RFS2 

program, on the assumption that soy-based biodiesel could satisfy EISA’s GHG lifecycle test. 

Since EPA’s analysis ultimately showed biodiesel did not qualify as biomass-based diesel, this 

assumption is no longer valid. If EPA could legally justify extending the allowance program to 

biomass-based diesel, this would help the market function better when EPA’s volume estimates 

prove significantly off the mark. (2132.1, p.17) 

3-195
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Our Response:

 Our updated lifecycle analysis for the RFS2 final rule determined that soy-based 

biodiesel meets the 50% GHG threshold for biomass-based diesel. We note, however, that 

biodiesel RINs generated in 2009 are valid to demonstrate compliance with the 2010 RFS2 

biomass-based diesel standard as a transition measure, reflecting the fact that RINs are valid in 

the year they are generated and the following calendar year. Thus, the 2009 biodiesel RINs 

would be valid for use in complying with the 2010 standards even if the fuel for which the RINs 

were generated did not meet the 50% RFS2 GHG reduction threshold or if that fuel was not 

made with renewable biomass. Therefore, biodiesel RINs generated in 2009 are valid for 

meeting the appropriate RFS2 standards. Our analysis of the biomass-based diesel market 

indicates that sufficient production capacity exists to meet the combined 2009/2010 volume 

requirement of 1.15 bill gal, taking into account biodiesel produced in 2009. 

3.7 Fuels that are Subject to the Standards 

3.7.1 Coverage Expanded to Transportation Fuels 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2396 

Organization: CVR Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2396.1) supports the long-range goal of diversifying America’s transportation 

fuels and do not oppose the development and use of biofuels. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2369 

Organization: New Generation Biofuels (NGBF) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2369) states that given that EISA expanded the RFS program to include 

transportation fuel other than gasoline, EPA proposes to include motor vehicle, nonroad, 

locomotive, and marine (MVNRLM) diesel fuel in the required volume obligation (RVO) 

calculation. The commenter argues that biofuels that may be used in non-road, locomotive 

applications would qualify for RINs as well. If there is a larger pool of RVO required by 

including the total MVNRLM volumes, biofuels should be able to be used in those applications 

as well. Further, reducing the emissions in the nonroad and locomotive applications is just as 

valid as reducing emission in motor vehicle applications. [[Docket number 2369.1, p. 5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2358 

Organization: Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the 

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2358) supports EPA’s extension of the RFS to all transportation fuels, including 

diesel and nonroad fuels. [[Docket number 2358.1, p. 2]] 

3-196
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment: 

It is the commenter’s (2233) position that EPA cannot lawfully establish renewable fuel 

standards (either general or fuel-type-specific) based on the volumes set forth in EISA without 

completing the rulemaking specified in the final sentence of CAA 211(o)(2)(A)(I), nor can EPA 

lawfully extend the RFS program to fuels other than gasoline. 

Our Response:

We appreciate the comments received on this topic. With respect to comments related to 

the expansion of the RFS program to include “transportation fuels”, EISA clearly stated that the 

renewable fuels standards apply to transportation fuels—and such fuels are to include fuels for 

use in “motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, nonroad vehicles, and nonroad vehicle engines...” 

Accordingly, we are applying the standards to transportation fuels in the RFS2 rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1044) believes the definitions at §80.1401 are incomplete and offered the 

following recommendations: 

Diesel—The definition for diesel refers to any and all products listed in §80.1407. So, in 

§80.1407 the fuels Gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, and Biomass-Based Diesels and others are listed 

thereby capturing gasoline products as diesel. We are certain this is an error. The commenter 

proposes the definition of Diesel to codify 40 CFR 80.2 and requests Diesel to be defined as 

MVNRLM (petroleum derived) as discussed in the preamble. As it is written, the term diesel 

would also imply that the renewable fuel producers (Biomass-Based Diesel) would become 

obligated parties since the federal definition of diesel 40 CFR Part 80 (80.2(x)(2)) includes 

biodiesel. 

This further identifies the need and use of MVNRLM as discussed in the preamble as a definition 

for diesel in RFS 2 and absolves the renewable biomass based diesel producers from compliance 

issues associated with obligated parties. The commenter believes this is an unintended 

consequence and would promote the intent of the RFS for compliance purposes between parties. 

[[Docket number 1044.1, pp. 3-4]] 

Our Response:

 The final regulations at §80.1407(d) specify that diesel fuel which is subject to the 

standards must be non-renewable, and meet the definition of MVNRLM diesel fuel at 

§80.2(qqq). 

3-197
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

3.7.2 Treatment of Heating Oil and Jet Fuel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2314 

Organization: The New England Fuel Institute 

Comment: 

While the commenter (2134.1) supports including heating oil and jet fuel into the RIN program, 

the commenter opposes any effort to subject these fuels to the RVO mandate. The problem with 

calculating obligated party RVOs for heating oil is that it is difficult to predict with any 

reliability the volumes needed for a particular heating season due to fluctuating winter weather 

conditions. Previous year consumption data provides little evidence with which to predict 

current year demand. (2134.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment: 

The commenter requests that EPA clarify whether aviation fuel will be included in determining 

the renewable volume obligation if RINs are generated. The commenter believes that aviation 

fuel should be included in the definition of transportation fuel as defined in EISA, and counted in 

determining obligated parties RVOs. The commenter finds aviation to be a mode of 

transportation and more specifically a nonroad vehicle, and thus it would be appropriate to 

categorize aviation fuel as a type of transportation fuel in calculating the RVOs. [[Docket 

number 2249.2, pp. 38-39]] 

Our Response:

 While we are not requiring heating oil and jet fuel to be included in the fuel used by a 

refiner or importer to calculate their RVOs, we are allowing renewable fuels used as or in 

heating oil and jet fuel to generate RINs. Similarly, RINs associated with a renewable fuel, such 

as biodiesel, that is blended into heating oil will continue to be valid for compliance purposes. 

 As mentioned above, EISA clearly stated that the renewable fuels standards apply to 

transportation fuels. However, the statute did not expressly define all terms in the definition of 

“transportation fuel”, so we are interpreting this to mean that Congress defers to the Agency’s 

definitions in this respect. We are interpreting the “diesel” portion of transportation fuel to be 

MVNRLM diesel fuel (as defined at §80.2(qqq)), and jet fuel is not an MVNRLM diesel fuel. 

As such, we are not considering jet fuel (or heating oil) to be a transportation fuel under the RFS 

program. 

3.7.3 Treatment of Fuels for Use in Ocean-Going Vessels 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

3-198
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter supports the definition of an Oceangoing Vessel to include Category 3 engines 

only, and opposes the inclusion of Category 2 engines. [[Docket number 1044.1, p. 4]] [[See 

Docket number 1044.1, pp 4-5 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2393) is opposed to expanding the definition of “ocean-going vessel” to include 

C2 engines. To help with the success of the RFS, EPA should allow every possible outlet for 

renewable fuel. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 78]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2249.2) believes that EPA should revise its definition of “ocean going” vessels. 

While the commenter supports excluding Category 3 marine engines, as provided by the statute, 

it believes that EPA should clarify that the definition does not include any Category 1 and 

Category 2 marine engines. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 36-37]] [[See pp. 36-38 for additional 

discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment: 

The commenter is opposed to the expansion of the term “ocean-going vessel” to include those 

powered by C2 engines. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 69]] 

Our Response:

To avoid confusion with the recently finalized Category 3 Marine Rule (Control of 

Emissions from New Marine Compression Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder, 

signed December, 18, 2009), we have instead finalized a definition of “fuels for use in oceangoing vessels.” We believe that “fuels for use in ocean-going vessels” is a more appropriate 

definition because it is based on the fuel supply system. Under this definition, those heavy 

distillate and residual fuels that are intended for use in ocean-going vessels are not considered 

transportation fuels and thus will not be subject to the RVOs. 

For this definition, we interpret the term “ocean-going vessels” to mean, primarily, 

Category 3 marine vessels (vessels propelled by the largest category of marine engines—those 

with a displacement of 30 liters per cylinder or more). Since these vessels use residual fuels 

most of the time, and almost no other marine vessels use residual fuel, our definition deems 

marine residual fuel to be a fuel used in ocean-going vessels. The definition also recognizes that 

these vessels may sometimes use other fuels. In particular, the definition states that Emission 

Control Area (ECA) marine fuel is also deemed to be a fuel used in ocean-going vessels. 

3-199
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

(Recently adopted regulations specify that fuel used by these vessels near the U.S. coast will be 

ECA marine fuel that is generally subject to a 1,000 ppm sulfur cap beginning June 1, 2014.) 

With respect to the comments that EPA should not allow the term “ocean-going vessel” 

to include Category 2 engines, we note that Category 1 and Category 2 engines/vessels are 

generally subject to the NRLM diesel fuel standards. Since NRLM diesel fuel would not be 

considered part of “fuels for use in ocean-going vessels”, this means that the vast majority of fuel 

used by Category 1 and Category 2 engines would be considered part of “transportation fuels”. 

However, our recent rulemaking to establish new standards for Category 3 engines included a 

provision that would effectively allow Category 1 and 2 auxiliary engines installed on Category 

3 vessels (i.e., those vessels powered by Category 3 engines) to utilize fuels other than NRLM. 

This allowance is to reduce burden that could potentially be caused by requiring that these 

Category 1 and 2 auxiliary engines burn 15 ppm diesel fuel—which could result in a Category 3 

vessel needing to carry three different types of fuel onboard. Thus, to the extent that these 

engines use residual fuel or ECA marine fuel, their fuel would also not be considered 

“transportation fuels”. 

3.8 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2014 

Organization: Clean Fuels Clearinghouse 

Comment:

The commenter (2014.1) provided specific comments regarding regulatory text responding to 

RVOs. [[See Docket Number 2014.1, pp.1-2 for these detailed comments]] 

Our Response:

 We have modified the language in §80.1427 to be clearer with regard to compliance with 

RVOs. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment:

The commenter (2154.1) believes that EPA should apply any expired RINs to reducing the next 

year’s total volume obligation. (2154.1, p.6) 

Our Response:

 While we took comment on this alternative in the NPRM, there was little support for it 

among stakeholders. We do not believe it would be appropriate to apply expired RINs to the 

3-200
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

next year's volume requirements since it would have the effect of making the valid life of RINs 

meaningless on a nationwide basis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2364 

Organization: Tyson Foods, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2364.1) has serious concerns with the renewable fuels volumes mandated in the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), particularly the increased mandate for 

com-based ethanol. A sustainable and successful biofuels program will promote high 

performance products that do not rely primarily on food-based feedstocks. The commenter urges 

EPA to make this transition to the next generation of biofuels its primary focus as it finalizes this 

rule. (2364.1, p.1) 

Our Response:

 Since the volume mandates were specified in EISA, EPA has very little authority to 

change them. Aside from the waiver provisions, we cannot promote advanced biofuels over 

general renewable fuels. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

It is the commenter’s (2393) view that if “RIN-less” renewables enter the marketplace suitable 

for use in motor vehicles, they are, for the purpose of the RFS, motor vehicle fuels and, 

consequently, incur a renewable volume obligation (RVO). To avoid future misunderstandings, 

EPA should include a clear statement to this effect in the final rule and its preamble. [[Docket 

number 2393.1, p. 8]] 

Our Response:

 We agree that biofuel may be produced or imported under RFS2 for which no RINs are 

generated. If this biofuel is used as transportation fuel, it might be reasonable to treat it as 

obligated fuel subject to the standards. However, we do not believe that it would be appropriate 

at this time to finalize a requirement that RIN-less biofuel be considered an obligated fuel. We 

did not propose such an approach in the NPRM, and as a result many renewable fuel producers 

who could be affected did not have an opportunity to consider and comment on it. Moreover, the 

volume of RIN-less biofuel is likely to be small compared to the volume of renewable fuel with 

RINs since RINs have value and producers currently have an incentive to generate them. See 

further discussion in preamble Section III.D.7. 

3-201
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

3.8.1 Treatment of RFS1 RINs under RFS2 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1033 

Organization: Poet Ethanol Products 

Comment: 

The commenter believes the EPA’s suggestion of allowing any appropriately generated RINs 

with a D-Code of 1 that exist prior to the effective date of RFS2 to also be treated as cellulosic 

biofuel under RFS2 and be used to meet up to 20% of the current year Renewable Volume 

Obligations for Obligated Parties. (1033.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) disagrees with EPA’s proposal to allow 2009 cellulosic biomass 

ethanol RINs to be used for the 2010 cellulosic biofuel standard. (2132.1, p.17) 

Our Response:

 We believe that RFS1 RINs with a D code of 1 should be treated as RFS2 RINs with a D 

code of 3, as described more fully in Section III.G.3 of the preamble. However, RFS1 RINs 

generated in 2010 will not be subject to the 20% rollover cap in the context of 2010 compliance 

demonstrations. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

With regards to EPA’s transition rules for RFS1 RINs, the commenter agrees with EPA that 

RFS1 RINs for ethanol would meet new requirements for RFS2, including the renewable 

biomass and 20 percent requirement. Although the commenter supports EPA’s proposed 

transition rules, these rules will not be necessary if the effective date is January 1, 2011. (2329.1, 

p. 19) 

 

If EPA continues to allow for some rollover of credits into the next year, the commenter supports 

EPA’s proposed treatment of RINs generated under RFS1 to show compliance with RFS2 

requirements. (2329.1, p.91) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (1044) supports the use of excess 2009 RINs for 2010 compliance, as this 

represents a responsible approach to the smooth transition to the new program. In addition, it is 

the commenter’s opinion this action supports all renewable fuels producers and would alleviate 

3-202
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

concerns of the obligated parties regarding compliance. The commenter asks for an immediate 

notice or technical amendment on this issue. (1044.1, p. 2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2130) supports the proposed read-across from the RFS1 biodiesel and cellulosic 

ethanol RINs for use in RFS2. Using RIN “D” code for cellulosic ethanol is appropriate. 

[[Docket number 2130.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2130) supports the proposed read-across from the RFS1 biodiesel and 

Cellulosic ethanol RINs for use in RFS2. Using RIN “RR” code for ester and non-ester based 

biodiesel to biomass-based diesel is appropriate. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2233) urges EPA to carefully review the final rule to ensure that it has 

completely translated the single RIN concepts from RFS1 to the four different types of RINs in 

RFS2. For example when RINs are retired, it should be made clear that the type of RIN which is 

retired should match the type of RIN generated. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 10]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment:

To avoid double counting, RINs that have been retired, previously used for compliance or used 

in an off-road application shall not be eligible for use or eligible to be “unretired.” Only RINs 

which have not been previously used for compliance should be allowed to be used as credit 

against Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs). (2511.1, p.7) [[See Docket Number 2511.1, 

pp.7-8 for a detailed discussion of this issue]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2249.2) notes that the Proposed Rule states that RINs previously retired in 

nonroad applications may be reinstated under the RFS2. The commenter agrees with this 

language and asks the EPA to provide a workable time frame for such reinstatement. The 

commenter also asks EPA to clarify that RIN ownership for reinstated RINs belong to the party 

that retired the RIN. Additionally, the commenter asks EPA to clarify specific treatment of 

nonroad RINs in 2010 or later provided the RFS2 does not commence on January 1, 2010. 

[[Docket number 2249.2, p. 36]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

3-203
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter (2471.1) supports EPA’s position that RINs generated under RFS1 should be 

grandfathered under RFS2. In particular, we agree that biodiesel RINs with an “RR” code of 

“15” or “17” should be considered “Biomass-Based Diesel” RINs under RFS2, and that RINs 

with an RFS1 D-code of 1 should be treated as “Cellulosic Biofuel” RINs. We also suggest 

allowing RINs for waste-derived ethanol (RFS1 D-code of 2, “RR” code of “25”) to qualify as 

“Advanced Biofuel” RINs. (2471.1, P.12) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter supports the proposal documented in III.E.3.a that provides for 2009 RFS1 RINs 

with a D code of 15 or 17 to be equivalent to 2010 RINs with a D code of 2 (or D code of 4 if the 

six D code option is approved). This will allow all excess 2009 Biodiesel RINs to meet up to 

20% of the 2010 Biomass-based Diesel obligation (after the 2009 volume obligation is 

subtracted from the total 2010 obligation). (0994.1, p.8) 

Our Response:

 We agree that RFS1 RINs should be valid for compliance with the RFS2 standards, and 

have finalized the transition provisions as proposed. These provisions ensure that the two-year 

valid life of RINs is maintained during the transition from RFS1 to RFS2. Our final regulations 

at §80.1427(a)(4) describe the treatment of RFS1 RINs for compliance purposes under RFS2. 

According to this protocol, all RFS1 RINs can be used for compliance purposes under RFS2 and 

are correlated according to their RR and D codes. 

 We do not believe that it would be appropriate to allow RFS1 RINs representing wastederived ethanol to qualify as advanced biofuel RINs under RFS2. Although such RFS1 RINs 

could be identified by a D code of 2 and an RR code of 25, waste-derived ethanol is not 

explicitly defined in the RFS1 regulations at §80.1101. As a result, we do not have confidence 

that such renewable fuel would meet the requirements for advanced biofuel under RFS2. Thus, 

RFS1 RINs representing waste-derived ethanol will be treated as renewable fuel RINs under 

RFS2. However, in 2010 there will be no need for RINs categorized as advanced biofuel since 

the advanced biofuel standard will be automatically met with biomass-based diesel RINs 

generated to meet the biomass-based diesel standard. 

 Retirement of RINs for renewable fuels used in nonroad or heating oil applications is 

governed by RFS1 regulations at §80.1129(e). We believe that a specific RIN which is retired 

under these circumstances should be allowed to be reinstated and used for compliance purposes 

under RFS2, since RINs have a valid life of 2 years, and an RFS1 RIN generated in 2009 or 2010 

should be valid for RFS2 compliance purposes in 2010 or 2011, respectively, if it has not 

previously been used for compliance. The protocol for RIN reinstatement is described at 

§80.1429(g). Since the same specific RIN that was retired would be reinstated, the type of RIN 

which is retired will always match the type of RIN generated. RIN ownership for reinstated 

RINs belongs to the party that owned the RIN at the time it was retired. 

3-204
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

3.8.2 RINs Eligible to Meet Each RVO 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2118 

Organization: CountryMark Cooperative, LLP 

Comment:

The commenter (2118.1) believes that consideration should be given to allowing RINs to be 

interchangeable to meet individual obligation of each category. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2400 

Organization: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter recommends the substitution of corn RINs for all or part of cellulosic obligation 

be allowed. (2400.2, p.1) 

 

Our Response:

 EISA intended that specified categories of renewable fuels would be used to meet 

specified volume mandates. The substitution of one type of RIN for another would make the 

four separate standards meaningless. 

3.8.3 Deficit Carryovers 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2345 

Organization: Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA) 

Comment:

Regarding the “deficit carry over” provision, EPA says that the excessive 2009 RINs could not 

be traded to another party. The commenter (2345) believes this approach is appropriate because 

it approximates the manner in which the statute had assumed compliance would have been 

demonstrated if the RFS2 regulations had been issued by the end of 2008. [[Docket number 

2345.1, p. 5]] 

Our Response:

 The commenter refers specifically to the proposed approach to the biomass-based diesel 

standard in which the number of 2009 biodiesel RINs used by an obligated party for compliance 

in 2009 can be subtracted off that party's RVO for the biomass-based diesel standard in 2010, 

prior to determining compliance with that RVO. In this context, such RINs could not be traded 

to another party. We agree with the commenter that this approach is designed to approximate the 

3-205
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

intent of EISA given that RFS2 was not effective in 2009, and we have finalized this approach as 

proposed. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2102 

Organization: RENTECH, INC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2102.1) encourages EPA to allow obligated parties to run negative credit 

balances for longer periods of time in the early years of the program, consistent with EPA’s 

statutory obligations to determine available volumes each year. (2102.1, p.6) 

Our Response:

 CAA 211(o) explicitly allows a deficit carryover of no more than one year at a time. As 

a result, obligated parties cannot carry a deficit for two or more years in a row. The statute does 

not provide EPA the authority to change this provision. 

3.8.4 Obligated Volumes 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2400 

Organization: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2400.2) believes that exported fuels should be excluded from a company’s 

RVO. EISA requires EPA to exclude fuel from an obligated party’s obligation because EISA is 

limited to the transportation fuels used in the United States. The commenter recommends that 

language be put in similar to §80.1407 (d)(5) to include exported distillate fuels as well. Just as 

the provisions apply to gasoline fuels, the same provisions should apply to distillate fuels and 

should be excluded from the obligation. EPA should also be clear that both gasoline and distillate 

volumes produced at transmix facilities do not incur an obligation since these fuels are 

previously accounted for and are already part of the obligation of refiners and importers. (2400.2, 

p.12) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter believes that EPA should include provisions in this section specifying which 

types of distillate fuels are included, and excluded from the obligation. EPA should also clarify 

that gasoline and distillate volumes produced at transmix facilities do not incur an obligation 

since such fuel was already accounted for and is part of the obligation of refiners and importers. 

(2505.2, p.5) 

3-206
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response:

 In the list of exclusions for exported gasoline in the proposed regulations at §80.1407(d), 

we inadvertently failed to list corresponding exclusions for exported diesel. This has been 

corrected for the final rule. The correction includes an explicit reference to diesel in transmix. 

3.8.5 Exported Renewable Fuel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter (2471.1) believes that EPA should amend the RFS2 regulations to better 

recognize certain commercial realities of the renewable fuel export industry. The commenter 

believes that modest changes to the regulations can enhance exporters’ flexibility. Specifically, 

EPA should allow exporters to demonstrate that the product exported was actually produced or 

acquired in the preceding year. The commenter noted that the requested change would not in 

any way reduce accountability for renewable fuel exports. Instead it would merely correct an 

inequity that arises during the transition between compliance years. (2471.1, Section 3.6, pp.12-

13) 

Our Response:

 

 The provisions at §80.1430 that require an exporter to determine an RVO based on 

exported volumes of renewable fuel are designed to ensure that only renewable fuel actually 

consumed within the 48 contiguous states or Hawaii is counted towards meeting the volume 

mandates in EISA. Since the statutory volume consumption mandates are annual, the regulations 

are designed to account for exported renewable fuel at the time it is exported, when it is removed 

from the pool of renewable fuel being consumed in the U.S. In this context, the year of 

production of the exported renewable fuel is not as important as the year of exportation. 

Moreover, exporters are unlikely to have access to information about the production date of the 

renewable fuel they are exporting. Any RINs assigned to the exported renewable fuel may not 

have been generated to represent that fuel, since assigned RINs are fungible and can be moved 

from one batch of renewable to another. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter also supports an approach where an exporter assumes all ethanol is renewable 

fuel and biodiesel is biomass based diesel. The incentives to import cellulosic and advanced 

biofuels in the RIN market will encourage companies to import cellulosic and advanced fuels. 

3-207
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter is aware of several biodiesel exporters who have apparently failed to retire the 

RINs associated with biodiesel produced in the U.S. and shipped to Europe. The commenter 

urges EPA to enforce these provisions. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 9]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter also supports the approach where exported ethanol is assumed to be renewable 

fuel and exported biodiesel is presumed to be biomass-based diesel. The commenter believes 

incentives to import cellulosic and advanced biofuels in the RIN market will encourage 

companies to import cellulosic and advanced fuels. Thus, it is highly likely that exported 

renewable fuels will not meet the cellulosic and advanced biofuel criteria. [[Docket number 

2393.1, pp. 10-11]] 

Our Response:

 

 We agree that it is more likely that cellulosic and advanced biofuels will be imported 

rather than exported, minimizing any potential misrepresentation of exported volumes when an 

exporter determines its RVOs. We also agree that exported volumes of biodiesel and renewable 

diesel should in most cases be used to determine an RVO for biomass-based diesel. However, 

we have determined that the approach we proposed in the NPRM could provide an opportunity 

for some parties to gain an inappropriate advantage in the RIN market. For instance, a party 

could import ethanol with advanced biofuel RINs, separate those RINs, export the ethanol, and 

be subject to only a total renewable RVO. They would then be able to sell the advanced biofuel 

RINs and purchase lower value renewable fuels RINs to satisfy their RVO. A similar situation 

could arise when a producer of cellulosic biofuel is also an exporter. Therefore, we have 

modified §80.1430 so that if an exporter knows or has reason to know that the renewable fuel 

that it is exporting is advanced biofuel or cellulosic biofuel, the exporter must determine an RVO 

for the advanced biofuel or cellulosic biofuel rather than simply assuming it is general renewable 

fuel. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2096 

Organization: Beveridge & Diamond, PC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2096) notes that a party may receive a biodiesel blend containing volumes of 

biodiesel without attached RINs. As currently proposed, EPA’s RFS2 regulations do not appear 

to place any express requirement on the transferors of such a blend to identify the volume 

percentage of biodiesel included in that blend. This ambiguity may become problematic when a 

party that subsequently receives the biodiesel blend seeks to export the blend. [[Docket number 

2096.1, p. 2]] 

The commenter explains that without a requirement that the transferor of a biodiesel blend 

disclose to subsequent parties the volume percentage of biodiesel in the blend, an exporter may 

3-208
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

acquire a quantity of blended biodiesel for which the specific volume percentage of biodiesel is 

unknown. The exporter would thus be blocked from an ability to make the determination of its 

own export RVO. [[Docket number 2096.1, p. 2]] 

For this reason, the commenter believes that with regard to every transfer of biodiesel, whether 

for export or domestic use, EPA should require that the volume of biodiesel being transferred by 

any party be identified in PTDs used to transfer ownership of the blend. At a minimum, the 

commenter asks that EPA clarify the obligation of every party that transfers a blend containing 

biodiesel from which RINs have been separated to disclose to the transferee the volume of 

biodiesel in the transferred blend. [[Docket number 2096.1, p. 2]] 

The commenter also points out that EPA’s proposal does not identify any test method for use by 

exporters making the required volume determination. They respectfully ask that EPA include in 

its final RFS2 regulations the specific method, whether ASTM or otherwise, that exporters must 

use to determine the amount of renewable fuel or biodiesel in a blend, including the degree of 

accuracy to which the Agency requires such a determination to meet. In addition, the commenter 

asks EPA to indicate whether there is a de minimis volume percentage of renewable fuel and/or 

biodiesel in a blend below which EPA does not require consideration by an exporter determining 

its RVO and, if so, the method by which such de minimis amount must be identified. [[Docket 

number 2096.1, pp. 2-3]] 

Our Response:

 

 We agree that exporters require more specific direction on how to determine the 

concentration of renewable fuel in blends that they export. To this end, we have added a 

provision to §80.1430(b)(4) that gives exporters the option of obtaining this information from 

their supplier, using a radiocarbon dating test method such as ASTM D-6866 to determine the 

renewable content of the exported fuel, or by assuming the maximum concentration of the 

renewable fuel in the blend as allowed by law and/or regulation. 

 We do not believe that such direction is necessary for domestic use of biodiesel blends, 

since such blending is generally the basis for separation of any assigned RINs. As a result, 

downstream parties taking ownership of such blends will not have a need to know the specific 

concentration of renewable fuel in the blend under RFS2 regulations. 

3.9 Designation of Obligated Parties

3.9.1 Supports Existing Approach 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

3-209
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter (2329.1) supports retaining the obligated parties as defined under the current 

system. The RFS program has been in place for two years, and the parties understand their 

obligations and the requirements. The commenter agrees that the alternatives “would result in a 

significant change in the number of obligated parties and the movement of RINs.” (74 FR 

24963.) (2329.1, p.86) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2017 

Organization: Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2017.1) believes that the current definition of Obligated Party and the definition 

included in the proposed RFS2 regulations under §80.1406 are adequate and should not be 

changed. The current approach, where importers and refiners are Obligated Parties, is the most 

effective way to enforce the requirements of the RFS. (2017.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2110 

Organization: Chevron 

Comment:

The commenter (2110.1) believes that EPA should not change the current obligated parties or 

shift the point of regulation downstream in the supply chain. The commenter believes this 

threatens the ability of the program to reach mandated goals and will result EPA having to delay 

the program even further or risk having to take remedial action midstream, a very disruptive 

prospect at a time when the program faces several serious challenges as it is. The proposal 

appears to create more problems than it solves. (2110.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2155 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2155.1) noted that the concept of moving a federal obligation from major oil 

companies to small businesses is not practical nor will it generate the outcome as described in 

this preamble. Furthermore, the EISA does not imply nor does it suggest that any party other 

than fuel reformulators, importers, and refiners are obligated under the law. The commenter 

believes that the suggestion to move the RFS obligation to the renewable fuel blender is 

premature and will only increase energy costs to the end consumer further. (2155.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2217 

Organization: Petro-Diamond Incorporated 

Comment: 

The commenter (2217) opposes modifying the current definition of “obligated party” as 

primarily refiners and importers to include “blenders”. (2217, p.1) (See Docket Number 2217.1, 

p.1 for more discussion on this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2314 

Organization: The New England Fuel Institute 

Comment:

The commenter (2134.1) opposes any changes in the RFS program that would extend obligated 

party status to downstream blenders. The commenter believes it is premature to assess the status 

3-210
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

of the RINs market until the agency deploys its Moderated Tracking System MTS for RINs 

transactions. The MTS will produce a much more accurate snapshot of the RINs market because 

it creates a central transaction point for all RINs separations, including buy, sell, and retire 

transactions. MTS will also have the capability to track detailed transaction history on a 

company by company basis and identify invalid or incomplete RIN report filings. (2134.1, pp.2-

3) 

The commenter believes that EPA must consider alternative regulatory approaches to minimize 

the significant economic impact that redefining obligated parties would have on small businesses 

petroleum marketers and fuel dealers. Alternatives should include renewable fuel blending 

thresholds for transportation fuels below which obligated party status is not imposed. If done 

properly, the thresholds would protect small business petroleum marketers and fuel dealers from 

the crushing compliance burdens that shifting obligated party status would inflict while at the 

same time helping to achieve the ambitious RVO schedule under EISA. EPA must also conduct 

a new, thorough and comprehensive regulatory flexibility analysis on the costs and associated 

compliance burdens such a change would impose on small business petroleum marketers and 

fuel dealers. 2134.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2328 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2328.1) opposes any changes in the RFS program that would extend obligated 

party status to downstream blender. The commenter noted that if EPA should continue to weigh 

such options, it must consider alternative regulatory approaches to minimize the significant 

economic impact that redefining obligated parties would have on small business petroleum 

marketers. Alternatives should include renewable fuel blending thresholds for transportation 

fuels below which obligated party status is not imposed. If done properly, the thresholds would 

protect small business petroleum marketers from the crushing compliance burdens that shifting 

obligated party status would inflict while helping to achieve ambitious RVOs under EISA. 

(2328.1, p.2) 

If EPA was to consider redefining obligated parties, the commenter would expect the agency to 

conduct a new and comprehensive regulatory flexibility analysis pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. Sec. 

601-612 on the costs and associated compliance burdens such a change would impose on small 

business petroleum marketers. (2105.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2358 

Organization: Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the 

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) 

Comment:

The commenter (2358) believes the proposal to alter the designation of obligated parties by 

assigning RVOs based solely on the volume of finished gasoline produced or imported is badly 

misguided and also believes EPA’s scenario where large refiners hoard RINs is unlikely. In 

addition, EPA’s proposal to more closely align a party’s obligation to acquire RIN with a party’s 

access to RINs relies on false assumptions. The commenter believes that the method for 

assigning RVOs should remain unchanged and RBOB and CBOB should remain on the list of 

3-211
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

fuels subject to the standard. [[Docket number 2358.1, pp. 5-8]] [[See docket number 2358.1, pp. 

5-8 for a detailed discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2374 

Organization: Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc. (Amyris) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2374) notes that in RFS, the renewable volume obligation applied to refiners, 

blenders, and importers of motor vehicle or non-road gasoline or diesel. The commenter 

believes this system should be extended to RFS2 to promote blending of renewable fuels with 

traditional petroleum fuels. [[Docket number 2374.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

The commenter (2384) believes that changing the obligated parties under RFS2 to include 

blenders of RBOB and CBOB provides minimal benefits while requiring a higher cost of 

administration for both market participants and for EPA. The RFS1 approach to obligated 

parties was well designed; there is no need to change it. [[Docket number 2384.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2400 

Organization: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2400.1) opposes the potential shift of obligated party “downstream” to the 

terminal operator. The commenter hopes that EPA will consider the financial implications and 

investments used to meet the current compliance measures as an obligated part and the resulting 

impact of more than doubling the number of obligated parties in the marketplace by moving the 

responsibility “downstream.” (2400.1, p.1) 

 

The commenter recommends that EPA keep the obligated party at the current refiner level. The 

reporting requirements and time taken to ensure RVO is met would become even more difficult 

should EPA change the obligated party. Shifting the obligation further downstream would likely 

cause confusion in reporting and inject a high degree of instability in the RIN marketplace. If the 

obligated party were change, EPA may have to delay the program in order to address myriad of 

unforeseen variables, complexities in monitoring and enforcement, and training of scores of new 

obligated parties. (2400.2, pp.3-4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2464 

Organization: Musket Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2464.1) requests that EPA continue to define obligated parties in RFS2 as the 

refiners and importers of petroleum-based fuels. (2464.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2322 

Organization: Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association 

Comment: 

3-212
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter [[2322]] number of consequences will flow from designating downstream

blenders as “obligated parties.” First, if blenders have no control over the volume of blended 

gasoline they can acquire in any given year, how can they be sanctioned for failing to meet a 

goal? We recommend that downstream blenders who are not producers, refiners or exporters 

should not be designated obligated parties. [[#2322.1 p.2]] 

Our Response:

 We agree in general that the existing designation of obligated parties has been effective 

and should be retained under RFS2. 

3.9.2 Blenders or Other Downstream Parties Become Obligated Parties 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2118 

Organization: CountryMark Cooperative, LLP 

Comment:

The commenter (2118.1) believes that the Renewable Volume Obligation calculation should be 

adjusted so products that rely on ethanol blending to make a final product not be included in the 

calculation for those volumes that said blending is not under control of the obligated party. For 

product sold as 84 CBOB, the ethanol blending obligation should be shifted to the downstream 

blender of the final product. (2118.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment: 

Regarding EPA’s request for comment on a possible change in the definition of the parties 

subject to the renewable volume obligation, the commenter (2130) believes that the parties 

obligated under the RFS should be those parties that have control of the decision regarding 

whether to blend or not to blend biofuels to make a finished fuel blend for retail or wholesale 

purchaser consumer sales. The commenter believes that in the absence of this change, it will 

become increasingly difficult for refiners and importers to secure the requisite number of RINs to 

demonstrate compliance, particularly if their refinery production levels of gasoline or diesel 

exceed their downstream marketing volumes. [[Docket number 2130.1, pp.1-2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2472) supports changing the designation of obligated parties to the party that 

has title of the gasoline and diesel at the truck rack before it is loaded into trucks for delivery to 

retail outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities as the EPA proposed in the RFS2 

preamble. [[Docket number 2072, p. 2]] [[See docket number 2072, pp 2-4 for discussion of the 

impact of this change.]] 

3-213
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1002 

Organization: Fuel Marketing Corporation 

Comment:

The commenter (1002) supports eliminating RBOB and CBOB from the list of fuels that are 

subjected to the standard, as such making blenders of these fuels obligated parties. (1002/1002.1, 

p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1033 

Organization: Poet Ethanol Products 

Comment:

The commenter (1033.1) endorses altering the definition of an Obligated Party/Renewable 

Volume Obligations to say that the RVO is placed upon the party blending the finished gasoline 

or diesel fuel. This modification would correct a fundamental weakness in the alignment of 

incentives for how RVOs were calculated under RFS1. (1033.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) approves the second alternative which is to move the obligations for all 

gasoline and diesel downstream to parties who supply finished transportation fuels. The 

commenter noted that there are numerous problems with the current RFS1 regulations that will 

be magnified under the RFS2 regulations if the obligated party remains the refiner/importer. The 

current form of the regulation does not: maximize benefits and minimize costs, treat all regulated 

parties equally, or minimize costs to the consumer. The commenter noted that the current 

definition of obligated party has the following issues: 

1. Creates an uneven playing field among refiners/importers 

2. Creates an uneven playing field between refiners and renewable fuel blenders 

3. Does not address issue of state clear gasoline regulations 

4. Does not address the issue of RIN-less renewable fuel. (2124.1, p.16) 

 

The commenter stated that EPA’s primary reason for making refiners and importers the obligated 

party instead of renewable fuel blenders or those parties that hold title to the fuel at the truck rack 

was to minimize the number of parties impacted by the regulations. With ethanol now 

approaching 100% penetration in the gasoline pool (at least at 10% or lower blends), all of these 

parties will be reporting under the current RFS1 regulations. The commenter believes that 

changing the definition of obligated party to providers of finished transportation fuels will not 

significantly increase the number of parties reporting to the EPA. (2124.1, p.17) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2145 

Organization: Flint Hills Resources 

Comment:

The commenter (2145.1) supports moving the Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO) to the 

producer of the finished fuel. The commenter recommends that a party’s RVO be based on the 

volumes of non-renewable finished gasoline or diesel that it produces or imports. (2145.1, p.2) 

[[See Docket Number 2145.1, p.2 for a detailed discussion on this issue.]] 

3-214
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment:

The commenter (2154.1) believes that a change in the obligated party designation is imperative 

to the workability of the RFS2 program and parity amongst market participants. The commenter 

support shifting the obligation to the provider of finished transportation fuels. (2154.1, p.2) 

[[See Docket Number 2154.1 pp.2-4 for a detailed discussion on this issue]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2345 

Organization: Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA) 

Comment:

Referring to EPA’s proposed alternates to the current designation, including a suggested 

alternate that EPA change the designation to the entity that owns the renewable fuel and the 

petroleum product immediately prior to blending above the rack, while not endorsing the 

suggestion, the commenter (2345) stresses that if the Agency makes such a change in the 

designation, it should only apply to lenders operating above the rack. These blenders tend to be 

larger companies that greater ability to ensure compliance. [[Docket number 2345.1, pp. 1-2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter (2471.1) believes that EPA can dramatically ease the flow of RINs and reduce 

the costs associated with compliance by re-defining “Obligated Parties” as solely renewable fuel 

blenders, thus moving the point of compliance downstream to the terminal rack or other point 

where renewable and petroleum-based fuels are blended to produce a retail-grade product. 

(2471.1, p.4) (See Docket Number 2471.1, pp.4-5 for a detailed discussion on this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2472) does not support any of EPA’s alternative approaches related to the 

designation of obligated parties. Rather, the commenter supports a hybrid of the two alternative 

approaches proposed by EPA. The commenter says that the RFS2 obligated party should be the 

ethanol blender for RBOB and CBOB, and the party that holds title to finished conventional, 

RFG and diesel at the truck rack before it is loaded into trucks for supply to retail outlets or 

wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities. [[Docket number 2472.1, p. 3]] [[See docket number 

2472.1, pp. 3-5 for extensive discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) believes that EPA should move the obligation downstream to blenders 

who have control over the amount and type of biofuel blended. Shifting the burden downstream 

is appropriate in light of the complicated four mandate structure of EISA, since it is only the 

downstream blender that has the ability to decide which biofuels to blend. Shifting the 

obligation downstream also addresses the issue of state ethanol blending laws, which have the 

3-215
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

potential to interfere with the ability of obligated parties to comply. The commenter 

recommends that the obligated party be the party that has title to gasoline or diesel fuel at the 

time that it enters the truck at a terminal rack (the typical point of taxation). To the extent that a 

party downstream of that point adds ethanol or biodiesel to the gasoline or diesel, the obligation 

for that volume of gasoline or diesel fuel should transfer to the party that blended the ethanol or 

biodiesel and be subtracted from the obligation of the party that held title to the gasoline or diesel 

fuel as it enters the truck at a terminal rack. (2505.2, pp.4-5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment: 

Referring to the three alternatives for obligated parties, the commenter believes that all the 

alternatives have serious problems, such as requiring obligated parties to blend more than the 

marketplace can absorb, which are likely to eventually cause the obligated parties to be unable to 

comply or for EPA to be unable to effectively enforce the RFS2. The commenter does indicate 

that the “Finished transportation fuel supplier” option is the best of the three. In addition, the 

commenter states that obligated parties cannot be held responsible for activities outside of their 

control, and urges EPA to create reasonable boundaries each year to ensure the market acts 

rationally. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 2-3]] [[See docket number 2233.2, pp. 2-6 for a detailed 

discussion of each EPA-proposed alternative.]] 

Our Response:

 We do not believe that the concerns expressed about the existing designation of obligated 

parties, or the perceived benefits of alternative schemes, warrant a change for the RFS2 program 

at this time. We continue to believe that the market will provide opportunities for parties who 

are in need of RINs to acquire them from parties who have excess. This has been the case in 

RFS1, and we believe that it will continue to be true under RFS2. Moreover, a change in the 

designation of obligated parties would result in a significant change in the number of obligated 

parties and the movement of RINs. Such changes could disrupt the operation of the RFS 

program during the transition from RFS1 to RFS2 and be administratively burdensome in the 

long term for the many blenders who are small businesses. Further discussion of this issue can 

be found in Section II.G.1 of the preamble. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2322 

Organization: Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2322]] states that IPMA members have traditionally purchased ethanol at the 

best price from an independent ethanol producer. They receive Renewable Identification 

Numbers (RINs) as a result of this process. Many oil companies now no longer sell pure, 

unblended gasoline at the terminal rack and will only sell pre-blended gasoline. This removes 

independent marketers’ ability to purchase gasoline and ethanol separately. The new RIN rules 

eliminate this competition by removing the financial incentive to blend and discouraging 

3-216
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

blending below the terminal rack will have an impact on the wholesale and retail price of 

gasoline that could also create opportunities to manipulate the market. [[#2322.1 p.1-2]] 

Our Response:

 The RFS program is intended only to ensure that certain mandated volumes of renewable 

fuel are used in transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in the U.S. each year. The program 

leaves to the market the choice of which party blends renewable fuels into gasoline and diesel. 

However, since we have determined that RINs should continue to be transferred with volumes of 

renewable fuel through the distribution system until renewable fuel is purchased by an obligated 

party or blended into conventional fuels, consistent with the RFS1 program, there remains an 

incentive for blenders to purchase ethanol and gasoline separately and blend them to produce 

transportation fuel. 

3.9.3 Expired RINs Used to Reduce Nationwide Obligation for the Following Year 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter believes that EPA should reject its proposed alternative to reduce the overall 

volume based on excess RINs. The mandated volumes are a minimum, and EPA should not take 

actions that may otherwise reduce the volumes in any year. Moreover, while EPA claims this 

approach would prevent “hoarding” from driving up demand for renewable fuel, it, in fact, may 

provide incentives for obligated parties to hoard RINs. (2329.1, p.90) 

Our Response:

 We agree with this comment. While the use of expired RINs to reduce the next year's 

volume could help ensure that the obligation applied to each refiner and importer of gasoline and 

diesel is more closely aligned with their access to RINs, we recognize that this alternative 

approach would reduce the volumes mandated by EISA. We do not believe this would be 

appropriate, and therefore are not finalizing this approach. 

3.9.4 Other 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment: 

3-217
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

While the commenter (2249) believes that EPA does not intend for biodiesel producers to 

become obligated parties with RVOs, the commenter requests clarification on the application of 

the definition of producers and importers of diesel fuel. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 29]] 

Our Response:

 As provided in §80.1407(d) and (f), diesel fuel that is subject to the standards and incurs 

an RVO must be non-renewable. Thus, producers that produce only biodiesel and do not export 

would not have an RVO. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2370 

Organization: NGVAmerica 

Comment: 

The commenter (2370.1) supports the decision to not include natural gas and other alternative 

fuel providers as regulated entities. While it is laudable to encourage alternative fuels to include 

a renewable component, there is no indication that Congress intended such a requirement to be 

mandatory for alternative fuels such as natural gas, propane or electricity. (2370.1, p.8) 

Our Response:

 While we have excluded natural gas, propane and electricity from the list of obligated 

fuels subject to the standards, we are allowing producers of such fuels to generate RINs if they 

can demonstrate that their fuels are made from renewable biomass and are actually used as 

transportation fuel in the U.S. If in the future these fuels become a more significant portion of 

the transportation fuel pool, we may consider making them subject to the standards. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2393) states that none of the three alternatives proposed by EPA eliminates the 

future compliance difficulties of obligated parties or the future enforcement issues that will face 

EPA with the RFS2 four-tier renewable fuels mandates. Nor will any of them solve the problem 

that the commenter believes is the fundamental driver causing this discussion to intensify at this 

time, i.e., the approaching E10 blend wall and, consequently, a potential RIN shortage that will 

send obligated parties scrambling to try to find a way to comply with the RFS. [[Docket number 

2393.1, p. 4]] 

Regardless of where the obligation lies, the commenter believes that EPA must ensure that all 

annual biofuels mandates are in fact achievable. EPA needs to err on the side of being certain 

that the next year’s production of the mandated biofuels will occur. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 

3-218
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

5]] [[Also see Docket number 2393.1, pp. 4-7 for further discussion of the alternatives for 

obligated parties.]] 

Our Response:

 In the annual rulemaking that we intend to promulgate to set the standards for the 

following year, we will be evaluating both production and import potential under the provisions 

of CAA 211(o)(7)(D) as well as issues related to consumption potential, such as storage, 

distribution, and dispensing capacity. In this context we will be evaluating the E85 market and 

the potential for FFVs to consume it. The annual standard for cellulosic biofuel will be based 

directly on the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production in the following year. EPA will 

use similar information in considering whether waivers are appropriate for the other renewable 

fuel standards. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1041 

Organization: DSI Fabrication, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter’s (1041) specifically relates to whether county, state, or local governments that 

produce their own biodiesel from waste vegetable oil (WVO) or yellow grease and use it in their 

fleet vehicles are subject to this proposed rulemaking. The commenter is aware of several 

county governments that produce high quality biodiesel (B100) from WVO for use in their own 

fleet vehicles. The counties do not distribute or sell the biodiesel but use a blend of B20 in their 

fleet vehicles. The commenter questions if this means they are not subject to the requirements of 

this proposed rulemaking. (1041, p.1) 

The commenter believes that the benefits of counties, states, or local governments producing 

biodiesel from WVO and using it in-their fleet vehicles should be supported, encouraged and 

promoted. In addition, biodiesel produced from WVO has a GHG performance of 80% 

reduction from the conventional diesel baseline. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to reduce 

the threshold to 40% to allow biodiesel producers to average their emissions to meet the one 

billion gallon volumetric requirements by 2012 unless every effort is made to encourage and 

promote the production of biodiesel from WVO. (1041, p.1) 

The commenter’s other comment relates to whether a county, state, or local government that 

produces ASTM quality biodiesel from WVO which is used strictly in their fleet vehicles (not 

distributed or sold) would be eligible to participate in any future carbon trading efforts to reduce 

GHG. (1041, p.2) 

Our Response:

 The RFS program does not distinguish between renewable fuels used by the party that 

produced them, or sold for use by another party. Renewable fuels that are valid under RFS are 

those that are used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel, 

3-219
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

heating oil, or jet fuel. Any party producing renewable fuel that meets these requirements is a 

regulated party. 

 The RFS program does not currently provide a means for generating carbon credits for 

trading. Any provision for carbon credits generated for renewable fuels must await a future 

regulatory action allow it. 

3.10 Separation of RINs 

Note: Comments addressing the alternative approach to RIN transfers presented in the NPRM in 

which producers would have been allowed to separate RINs from batches (Section III.H.4 of 

NPRM) are addressed in Section 3.11 

3.10.1 Nonroad Diesel Fuel, Heating Oil, and Jet Fuel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2369 

Organization: New Generation Biofuels (NGBF) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2369) questions the logic of retiring RINs if a renewable fuel is used in a 

commercial or industrial boiler or ocean-going vessel. If a renewable fuel is sold on the market 

and blended in all fuel oil #2 and sold on the retail level it is not clear why a RIN would be 

retired as the renewable fuel in principle reduces greenhouse gas emissions and is better for the 

environment. If RINs are separated from the fuel and the distributor blends biofuel in most of 

the gallons of fuel sold, the commenter believes that determining a customer’s use of the fuel 

places an unnecessary burden on the biofuel providers and distributors. [[Docket number 

23369.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2549 

Organization: Triton Energy LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2549.1) question the logic of retiring RINs if a renewable fuel is used in a 

commercial or industrial boiler or oceangoing vessel. If RINs are separated from the fuel and the 

distributor blends biofuel in most of the gallons of fuel sold, determining a customer’s use of the 

fuel places an unnecessary burden on the biofuel providers and distributors. (2549.1, pp.6-7) 

Our Response:

 EISA's definition of “additional renewable fuel” includes renewable fuel that is used to 

replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in home heating oil and jet fuel, and in the 

NPRM we proposed that RINs could be generated and used for compliance purposes for all such 

renewable fuels. However, in the NPRM we distinguished between heating oil used for 

residential heating from that used for commercial or industrial heating purposes. Based on 

3-220
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

further evaluation of industry practices and comments from stakeholders, we have determined 

that such a distinction is not appropriate. First, the term home heating oil is used interchangeably 

in the marketplace with heating oil to refer to the type of fuel used in home, commercial, and 

industrial applications, not to refer to its place of use. Second, by using the broader industry 

interpretation of the term “home heating oil” to refer to all heating oil that could be used in 

homes, whether or not it ultimately does, the RFS2 program will be greatly simplified for both 

regulated parties and EPA enforcement personnel, and appropriate credit will be provided for the 

use of renewable fuels that displace fossil fuels. This is in keeping both with the GHG reduction 

and energy security goals of EISA. Therefore, for the final rule we are eliminating the 

requirement that RINs be retired for renewable fuel present in heating oil that is used in a 

commercial or industrial boiler, and are allowing RINs to be generated and used for RFS2 

compliance purposes for all renewable fuels designated as or used in heating oil. The term 

“heating oil” is defined for RFS2 purposes consistent with existing EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

80.2(ccc). See additional responses to comments on the subject of heating oil in Section 3.2.6. 

 EISA explicitly excludes renewable fuels used in ocean-going vessels from the definition 

of transportation fuel, and makes no other allowances for including such fuels in the RFS2 

program. Therefore, we are requiring RINs assigned to renewable fuel that is used in an oceangoing vessel to be retired. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2549 

Organization: Triton Energy LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter believes that a similar system in the fuels market whereby the RINs are 

separated from the fuel sold in the market managed by the EPA through an EPA Moderated 

Transaction System appears to be logical especially if the participants are limited to those who 

generate and sell RINs and those who need to purchase RINs. (2549.1., p.7) 

Our Response:

 The EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) will streamline much of the RIN 

transfers and RIN separations that are currently recorded separately in each party's IT system, 

and will significantly reduce many of the errors in RINs. However, we do not believe that the 

benefits of EMTS warrant a change in which parties can own RINs or separate RINs from 

volumes of renewable fuel. In the RFS1 program we designed the regulatory program such that 

RINs must be assigned to renewable fuel by the producer or importer, and must be transferred 

with the renewable fuel until it is owned by an obligated party or is blended into gasoline or 

diesel. This approach was designed to ensure that RINs make their way to the parties that need 

them for compliance. While we did take comment on alternative approaches to RIN transfers, 

we have determined that these alternatives should not be implemented as discussed more fully in 

Section 3.11. 

3-221
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2155 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) 

Comment:

Written guidance on how to handle 2009 biodiesel RINs, previously retired due to nonroad 

applications, is needed so that those RINs may be pulled out of retirement and made valid for 

meeting RVOs. (2155.1, p.1) 

Our Response:

 In the NPRM we proposed that certain RINs retired under the RFS1 regulations at 

§80.1129(e), including those retired because of ultimate use in a nonroad application, could be 

reinstated for use in complying with the 2010 RFS2 standards. We have finalized this provision 

at §80.1429(g). Reinstatement can be made through EMTS. 

3.10.2 Exporters 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter believes that the current treatment of exports and imports of renewable fuels is 

appropriate. (2329.1, p.87) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter noted that RFS1 expressly allows RF producers, importers and marketers to 

transfer up to 2.5 assigned RINs per gallon, and likewise authorizes RF blenders to separate up to 

2.5 RINs per gallon blended. The regulations, however, do not specifically authorize RF 

exporters to separate up to 2.5 RINs per gallon exported (although we have been advised by EPA 

that it has informally adopted this position). The commenter requests that EPA formally adopt 

this change as part of RFS2. (2471.1, p.17) 

Our Response:

 The regulations at §80.1429(b) have been modified to allow exporters to separate up to 

2.5 RINs for each gallon of renewable fuel exported, consistent with the treatment of blenders. 

3.10.3 Neat Renewable Fuels 

What Commenters Said:

3-222
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter (0994.1) noted that if the Producer RIN separation proposal does not become 

law, then the commenter agrees that sections 80.1429(b)(2) and 80.1429(b)(5) be eliminated and 

section 80.1429(b)(4) be expanded to allow RINs to be separated from neat fuel or blends under 

the restrictions cited by the EPA. 

Our Response:

 We have retained the proposed provisions for neat renewable fuel or blends designated as 

transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in the final rule. These provisions are designed to 

ensure that RINs can be separated from any renewable fuel, whether in neat or blended form 

when the fuel is designated and used as transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel without further 

blending. However, we do not believe that the RIN separation provisions applicable to blenders 

should be eliminated since the blender is not required to ensure that the blend is used as a 

transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in its blended form without further blending. 

Moreover, we do not believe that the RIN separation restrictions on biodiesel, which require that 

biodiesel be blended at 80 percent biodiesel or less to activate RIN separation, in instances where 

the fuel is not designated for use as transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel without further 

blending, should be eliminated since biodiesel producers often add small amounts of fossil-based 

diesel to their biodiesel for tax credit purposes, but do not designate the resulting blend as a 

transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel. As described in Section 3.4.10 below, RINs can be 

separated from biodiesel blends with greater than 80 percent biodiesel if such blends are 

designated and used as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel at that blend level. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment:

Regarding “Neat Renewable Fuels and Blends-Transportation and Home Heating Oil and Jet 

Fuel” the commenter (1044) believes that requiring a blending event is misguided. The 

commenter states that biomass-based diesel must conform to recognized ASTM standards that 

allow the fuels to be used in any fashion similar to diesel. The commenter further states that the 

notion that biomass-based diesels must be blended with baseline or non-baseline diesel is 

nonsense. The commenter believes that a review of this action, and the subsequent removal of 

this item, would relinquish the requirement and burden of support documentation for blenders 

and support statements of use as discussed in this proposed rule and streamline the ability of 

producers to generate, separate and distribute RINs more effectively. (1044.1, p. 2) 

Our Response:

3-223
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

 The provisions at §80.1429 regarding separation of RINs do not require blending of 

renewable fuel with conventional gasoline or diesel prior to the separation of RINs. However, 

due to concerns that producers could exercise market power by separating and retaining RINs 

from renewable fuels that they produce, we have included a requirement that RINs can only be 

separated from neat renewable fuels if a party designates the neat renewable fuel as 

transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel and demonstrates that it is used as such in its neat 

form. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2081 

Organization: Novogy, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2081) seeks to confirm their interpretation of the proposed approach to RIN 

separation for a fungible renewable fuel such as methane molecules derived from cellulosic 

biomass that are produced and sold as biogas in “neat” form under RFS2. Specifically, the 

commenter would like to confirm that the regulation allows producers who can produce and sell 

cellulosic biogas for an intended transportation fuel use under RFS2 (and potentially as a fossil 

gas replacement in a home heating application) to be eligible to separate the RINs generated for 

that batch of fuel at the time the fuel is sold for its designated purpose. Successful 

documentation would include verification that the amount of cellulosic biogas produced and sold 

was used either: (a) as produced for a designated on-site transportation user; (b) injected into a 

pipeline network serving multiple end users drawing on this supply for transportation; or, (c) 

directly by industrial entities connected into that same pipeline network, where their direct usage 

of cellulosic biogas would effectively displace quantities of fossil derived natural gas from that 

network. Designated use would be verified in an off-setting sales contract. Producers generating 

and separating RINs would track the credits on the EPA monitored trading system. Annual attest 

requirements will use Btu equivalence measures from RFS2 tied to cu ft of biogas sold on 

required PTD documents to ensure producers are not able to separate more RINs than correspond 

to the volume of fuels they produce. Mirroring proposed compliance mechanisms would allow 

cellulosic biogas producers flexibility to scale new distribution by selling directly to 

transportation users, into pipelines or to large industrial natural gas users drawing off natural gas 

pipeline networks that serve transportation (and potentially home heating) users. The commenter 

requests confirmation that a producer of cellulosic biogas can separate an appropriate RIN at the 

time the cellulosic biogas product is sold in “neat” form for an approved use as designated use 

under RFS2. [[Docket number 2081.1, p. 7]] [[See docket number 2081.1, pp. 7-11 for detailed 

discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response:

 Our final regulations allow biogas producers to generate RINs and separate them if they 

designate it as transportation fuel, and demonstrate its use as transportation fuel. The regulations 

specify conditions and procedures applicable to producers introducing biogas into a fungible 

natural gas pipeline to ensure that a similar quantity of fungible fuel is ultimately used for 

transportation purposes. See also the discussion of biogas in Section 3.2. Biogas used as 

transportation fuel could only be considered cellulosic biofuel if it is made from cellulosic 

3-224
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

renewable biomass, and could only be assigned cellulosic biofuel RINs if a D code is approved 

by EPA in §80.1426(f) or pursuant to §80.1416. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter agrees with and supports allowing RINs associated with neat renewable fuels to 

be separated and traded as EPA has proposed as long as such renewable fuels are not further 

blended. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 11]] 

Our Response:

 We agree that parties designating neat renewable fuels as transportation fuel, heating oil, 

or jet fuel for use without further blending can separate the RINs. 

3.10.4 Biodiesel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

If the Producer RIN separation proposal does not become law, then the commenter agrees with 

the EPA proposal to allow RIN separation for blends above B80 when the fuel is specified for 

transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel and no further blending is allowed. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter supports allowing RINs associated with neat renewable fuels to be separated and 

traded and supports altering the definition of a neat renewable fuel to allow biodiesel blenders 

creating a blend of B80 or higher to separate RINs. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 9]] 

Our Response:

 In order to account for situations in which biodiesel blends of 81 percent or greater may 

be used as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel without ever having been owned by an 

obligated party, EPA proposed, and is finalizing a change to the applicability of the RIN 

separation provisions for RFS2. Regulation Section 80.1429(b)(4) will allow for separation of 

RINs for neat renewable fuel or blends of renewable fuel and diesel fuel that the party designates 

as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel, provided the neat renewable fuel or blend is used in 

the designated form, without further blending, as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel. 

3-225
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Those parties that blend renewable fuel with gasoline or diesel fuel (in a blend containing 80 

percent or less biodiesel) must separate RINs pursuant to §80.1429(b)(2). 

3.10.5 Other 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2400 

Organization: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2400.2) recommends that RINs associated with any renewable fuel blended into 

any distillate be allowed to be separated and then used for compliance purposes. Using RINs for 

compliance that were blended into any distillate outside of MVNRLM will not change an 

obligated parties RVO, and still allows for the use of renewable fuel into the distillate supply. 

(2400.2, p.5) 

 

Our Response:

 EISA defines renewable fuels that are valid under RFS2 as those that are used to replace 

or reduce fossil fuel present in transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel. Under most 

circumstances this means that renewable fuels that can be blended into fossil-based distillate will 

be valid for RFS compliance purposes. However, the resulting blend must be used as 

transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel. For instance, renewable fuel blended with distillate 

for use in ocean-going vessels would not be valid under RFS2, since EISA explicitly excludes 

such fuels. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter believes that EPA should revise the rules to limit the ability to separate RINs to 

obligated parties. Since the time that EPA promulgated the RFS1 rules several states have 

passed laws that could interfere with the ability of obligated parties to comply with the RFS 

rules. EPA could facilitate compliance with the RFS by re-aligning the obligated parties and 

limiting the ability to separate RINs to such parties. (2505.2, p.9) 

Our Response:

 While obligated parties can separate RINs for any renewable fuel batches that they own, 

not all renewable fuel is owned by an obligated party prior to being used as transportation fuel, 

heating oil, or jet fuel. Therefore, we must provide opportunities for other parties to separate 

RINs from renewable fuel. In most cases, RIN separation by a non-obligated party will occur 

because the renewable fuel has been blended with gasoline or diesel to produce transportation 

3-226
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel. Exporters can also separate RINs for volumes of renewable fuel that 

they export, but such exporters will also incur an RVO to which those RINs can be applied. 

Other parties can also separate RINs without blending if they designate the renewable fuel as 

transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in its neat form, and they demonstrate that the neat 

renewable fuel is actually used in its designated form. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment: 

The commenter (0994.1) requests that RIN Marketers be permitted to own RINs and to function 

under the RFS2 program. (0994.1, p.13) 

Our Response:

 Any party that registers under the RFS2 program can own RINs. A marketer that 

assumes ownership of renewable fuel with assigned RINs cannot separate those RINs unless they 

blend the renewable fuel into gasoline or diesel for use as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet 

fuel. However, once separated, RINs can be owned by any party. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2155 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) 

Comment:

The commenter (2155.1) also believes that the original intent of the RFS must be upheld and that 

those desiring to take title to the RINs on neat product, being purchased downstream, must be 

allowed to do so without interference or pressures from other EPA-registered parties. (2155.1, 

p.3) 

Our Response:

 A party who takes ownership of neat renewable fuel can also take ownership of any RINs 

assigned to that neat renewable fuel if it is registered with EPA under the RFS2 program. If an 

upstream party has already separated the RINs from the neat renewable fuel by designating it as 

transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in its neat form, then no RINs will be assigned to it 

when a downstream party takes ownership of it. 

3.11 Alternative Approaches to RIN Transfers 

3.11.1 Opposes Allowing Producers and Importers to Separate RINs

3-227
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2155 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) 

Comment:

The commenter (2155.1) noted that EPA proposes alternate methods for the separating and 

selling of RINs. One such proposal would lead renewable fuel producers down the path of predesignating their product as transportation fuel, home heating oil, or jet fuel, yielding a 

marketable RIN. The subsequently separated RINs could then be sold to obligated parties by the 

Producer or Importer. The commenter believes that not only would this remove any potential 

incentive for the actual (true) blender on record to continue purchasing renewable fuels but it is 

also wrought with tracking and end-use verification issues. If such language were to be adopted, 

renewable fuel blenders would be left with a strict compliance burden with zero financial 

incentive to absorb the costs of compliance. The commenter also wanted to point out to EPA 

that if adopted, this provision would be subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act and as amended 

by the Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. (2155.1, P.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

The commenter (2384) states that since the inception of RFS2, obligated parties and blenders 

have made investments and divestments contemplating RIN separation fuels consistent with 

RFS1. A policy shift 4 years later would likely reward those companies who chose not to invest 

and penalize those who have made investments in biofuel blending based on RIN separation. In 

addition linking RIN separation with blending, more directly aligns the economic incentive with 

the business decision to blend more biofuels. [[docket number 2384.1, p. 5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393.1) believes EPA has not provided justification for allowing producers to 

separate RINs and does not support allowing renewable fuel producers and importers to separate 

RINs. The concerns for market manipulation are equally, if not more valid in the RFS2 program. 

Also, the approach does not correct the inefficient markets that result from obligated parties 

being only at the refinery gate. If however, EPA decides to allow producers to separate RINs the 

commenter believes that significant safeguards are needed. These safeguards must include, at a 

minimum: obligated party only trading, establishment of the EMTS, controls to prevent RIN 

hoarding by producers and RFS1-type trading limits on the number of RINs bought and sold. 

[[Docket number 2393.1]] 

 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2400 

Organization: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter also believes that renewable producers should not have the ability to separate 

RINs and pass them along as they feel necessary. The commenter recommends that the EPA 

only allows a producer to separate RINs if they are selling to an obligated party to allow for 

3-228
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

fewer bulk transfers. RINs should continue to be passed as stated in RFS1 if the buyer is not an 

obligated party. (2400.2, p.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) believes that allowing the renewable fuel producers to separate the 

RINs could result in hoarding of RINs by the producers and take away the economic incentive 

for the blender (who could either use or sell the RIN) to blend the renewable fuel. (2505.2, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2537 

Organization: Musket Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2537) opposes a change in the process of separating a RIN from the fuel. To 

the extent that EPA continues to be conceded about RIN transfers, a reduction of the rollover cap 

would suffice. The commenter notes that in one of EPA’s alternate proposals a renewable fuel 

producer would be allowed to separate RINs from the fuel. In another proposal renewable fuel 

producers would only be allowed to transfer RINs to obligated parties. Both of the proposals 

ignore the incentives that were created for non-obligated parties to participate in and improve the 

economic efficiency of the RFS. This vibrant sector has the capability of “filling in the gaps” in 

regions where obligated parties are unwilling or unable to invest in the infrastructure required to 

bring renewable fuels into the motor fuel supply chain. Changing the RIN transfer system as 

EPA proposes would create the high likelihood of failing to meet the volume goals in EISA, 

since the opportunity to detach and resell the RIN is in many cases the only incentive for nonobligated parties to blend renewable fuels. Although many obligated parties have their own 

facilities for distribution and handling of renewable fuels and can chose whether to purchase the 

renewable fuel or the RIN, the likelihood that a non-obligated party would invest capital would 

decline without the assurance of a forward RIN market in which to hedge their risk. The EPAstated goal of a gain in efficiency in the “tracking and trading of RINs” would be offset by the 

real risk of a shortfall in the consumption of renewable fuels by non obligated parties which 

would raise the total cost to the motoring public. [[Docket number 2537, pp. 2-3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2472) notes that EPA proposes allowing renewable fuel producers to separate 

and sell RINs to obligated parties as a “solution” to the issue of an uneven playing field. The 

commenter strongly opposes this option. This option would not address the issue of state clear 

gasoline regulations and RIN-less renewable fuel working against the goals of the RFS2 

program. In addition, as EPA stated in section 1II.B.4.b of the preamble (74 FR 24936), “... this 

approach could potentially place obligated parties at greater risk of market manipulation by 

renewable fuel producers...” While EPA may favor this approach because it simplifies the 

regulations, the commenter believes that EPA acknowledged risks are unacceptable. Especially 

when the hybrid approach to obligated parties is a valid workable solution. [[Docket number 

2472.1, p. 5]] 

3-229
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Referring to EPA’s request for comments on alternative approaches to RIN transfers as an 

alternative to changing the designation of obligated party, the commenter does not support this 

approach. The alternative approaches to RIN transfers will not minimize cost, treat all regulated 

parties equally, minimize cost to the consumer, and would be potentially un-workable and 

definitely have unintended consequences. [[Docket number 2072, pp. 4-5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2464 

Organization: Musket Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2464.1) believes that changing the RIN transfer system as the EPA proposes 

would create the high likelihood of failing to meet the volume goals in EISA, since the 

opportunity to detach and resell the RIN is in many cases the only incentive for non-obligated 

parties to blend renewable fuels. The commenter opposes a change in the process of separating a 

RIN from the fuel. To the extent that EPA continues to be concerned about RIN transfers, a 

reduction of the rollover cap would suffice. (2464.1, pp.2-3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

The commenter (2384) believes that the current approach developed for RFS1 is an effective 

system that avoids pitfalls that may emerge in the alternate RIN transfer approaches considered. 

[[docket number 2384.1, p. 5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1033 

Organization: Poet Ethanol Products 

Comment:

The commenter (1033.1) believes the majority of complications associated with RIN Transfers 

will be addressed through the implementation of EMTS. By making changes to the area of 

separating or transferring RINs, it seems it would be adding complexity to an area that is already 

working fairly effectively or where plans are already in place to address shortcomings. The 

commenter feels that it would be best to implement the Proposed Rulemaking and see how that is 

functioning before making further modifications to this process. (1033.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2118 

Organization: CountryMark Cooperative, LLP 

Comment:

The commenter (2118.1) believes that RINs should be separated from renewable fuels from the 

Blender who is or will be an obligated party. The commenter does not agree with the alternative 

approaches on the transfer of RINs. If renewable fuel producers are allowed to separate all RINs 

and either transfer them separately or sell them to obligated parties, obligated parties would be at 

the mercy of the renewable fuels producers. The intent of the standard is to blend renewable 

fuels into existing gasoline and diesel production. (2118.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

3-230
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2124.1) opposes EPA’s proposal allowing renewable fuel producers to separate 

and sell RINs to obligated parties as a “solution” to the issue of an uneven playing field. The 

commenter believes that this “direct transfer” approach would just change the location of the 

uneven playing field to between refiner/importers and renewable fuel producers. This option 

would not address the issue of state clear gasoline regulations and RIN-less renewable fuel 

working against the goals of the RFS2 program. The commenter noted that while EPA may 

favor this approach because it simplifies the regulations, the EPA-acknowledged risks are 

unacceptable, especially when the hybrid approach to obligated parties is a valid workable 

solution. (2124.1, p.18) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2135 

Organization: Ad Hoc Coalition of Small Business Refiners (SBR) 

Comment:

The commenter (2135) does not agree with the alternative approach of allowing renewable fuel 

producers to separate RINS from renewable fuels. If renewable fuel producers are allowed to 

separate RINs and either transfer them separately or sell them to obligated parties, obligated 

parties could be at increased risk of market volatility/manipulation by the renewable fuels 

producers. The current system of having the blender or the obligated party separate the RIN 

from the renewable fuel provides a check and balance on the system that ensures that the intent 

of the standard is met. The few SBRs now participating in the RFS RIN program spend a 

significant amount of time verifying and ensuring that the volume of RINs received are correct 

for the volume of renewable fuels they purchase for introduction into the market place. 

Allowing the renewable fuels producer to separate the RIN and transfer or sell them separately 

may not promote entry of the same levels of renewable fuels into the marketplace, the 

overarching goal of the RFS program. [[Docket number 2135, p. 21]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

Regarding EPA’s request for comment on the separation of RINs by biofuel producers, the 

commenter (2130) states that while this change could simplify RIN reporting and verification, it 

would necessitate other changes to safeguard against RIN market manipulation. [[Docket number 

2130.1 pp. 2-3]] 

 

Our Response:

 We agree that allowing producers to separate RINs from renewable fuels that they 

produce would have significant impacts on the RIN distribution system, potentially allowing 

producers to hoard RINs. Blenders may also have less incentive to purchase renewable fuels for 

bending if they will not receive RINs with those renewable fuels that they can separate and sell. 

Therefore, the RFS2 program requires that producers assign RINs to batches and transfer those 

RINs with batches to downstream parties, consistent with the RFS1 program. The only 

exception is that a producer can separate RINs if they designate their renewable fuel as 

transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in its neat form, and the fuel is ultimately used in its 

designated form without further blending. EPA believes that this exception is appropriate, since 

3-231
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

there will be no downstream blending event at which RINs would be separated, and the fuel may 

never be owned by an obligated party (who would separate it). 

3.11.2 Supports Allowing Producers and Importers to Separate RINs 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2172 

Organization: Minnesota Soybean Processors 

Comment: 

MnSP strongly supports EPA's proposal to allow renewable fuel producers to separate and sell 

RINs apart from renewable fuel gallons. MnSP's experience with RIN assignment has been 

extremely negative in that it has reduced the MnSP customer list from 200 plus to less than 10. 

In Minnesota, a state with a 5 percent biodiesel requirement, most petroleum wholesalers 

(“jobbers”) simply cannot afford the cost of complying with the RIN regulations and as a result 

MnSP has seen nearly a complete loss of biodiesel demand from petroleum jobbers. The 

enactment of RFS1 and its attending RIN program has been the single largest disincentive for 

petroleum jobbers to perform biodiesel blending in the history of biodiesel. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment: 

The commenter supports the proposal to make all RIN separating activities the responsibility of 

the Producer (Section III.H. 4) which would simplify the RIN management process. If this were 

adopted, it would not be necessary to consider the proposals in IV.A or IV.C.1. (0994.1, p.15) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) supports allowing RINs to trade separately from volume, as it will 

foster greater RIN market simplicity and liquidity. Separating RINs and volume will avoid 

imposing the significant inefficiencies and cost burdens of physical segregation of the different 

fuels along the value chain. (2146.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1015 

Organization: Renewable Energy Group 

Comment:

The commenter (1015) believes allowing a renewable fuel producer to separate the RIN at 

production will not only streamline the tracking and trading of RINs, but will be effective 

because our biodiesel company works with a significant number of small jobbers in the 

marketplace. (1015, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1975 

Organization: Canadian Bioenergy Corporation 

Comment: 

3-232
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (1975) believes that EPA should allow RINs to be separated by biodiesel 

producers in order to offer value. Allowing a renewable fuel producer to separate the RIN at 

production will not only streamline the tracking and trading of RINs, but will be effective 

because our biodiesel company works with a significant number of small jobbers in the 

marketplace. Allowing the biodiesel producer to take ownership and separate these RINs gives 

producers the ability to transfer/sell RINs to third parties. This also removes compliance burdens 

from the small petroleum jobbers which, in turn, will increase availability of biodiesel in the 

marketplace and provide an additional revenue stream to the biodiesel industry which is already 

under duress. [[Docket number 1975, p. 1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2010 

Organization: SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2010) believes that allowing a renewable fuel producer to separate the RIN at 

production (with a K code of 2 rather than 1) will streamline the tracking and trading of RINs. 

This will also be effective because REG works with a significant number of small jobbers in the 

marketplace who, although they are proponents and supporters of the renewable fuel industry, do 

not have the financial ability to comply with the reporting requirements being placed on them as 

part of the RFS. If the EPA requires absolute compliance with the RFS standard as written, the 

commenter believes this group will remove themselves from the biodiesel marketplace. This 

represents approximately 30% of our market. By allowing the producer to take ownership and 

separate these RINs and achieve the ability to transfer/sell them to third parties while removing 

compliance burdens from the small operators will increase availability of biodiesel in the 

marketplace and provide an additional revenue stream to an industry already under duress. 

[[Docket number 2010.2, p. 7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2011 

Organization: Western Dubuque Biodiesel LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2011) believes that allowing a renewable fuel producer to separate the RIN at 

production (with a K code of 2 rather than 1) will streamline the tracking and trading of RINs. 

This will also be effective because REG works with a significant number of small jobbers in the 

marketplace who, although they are proponents and supporters of the renewable fuel industry, do 

not have the financial ability to comply with the reporting requirements being placed on them as 

part of the RFS. If the EPA requires absolute compliance with the RFS standard as written, the 

commenter believes this group will remove themselves from the biodiesel marketplace. This 

represents approximately 30% of our market. By allowing the producer to take ownership and 

separate these RINs and achieve the ability to transfer/sell them to third parties while removing 

compliance burdens from the small operators will increase availability of biodiesel in the 

marketplace and provide an additional revenue stream to an industry already under duress. 

[[Docket number 2011.1, p. 7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2013 

Organization: Central Iowa Energy, LLC 

Comment:

3-233
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter (2013) believes that allowing a renewable fuel producer to separate the RIN at 

production (with a K code of 2 rather than 1) will streamline the tracking and trading of RINs. 

This will also be effective because REG works with a significant number of small jobbers in the 

marketplace who, although they are proponents and supporters of the renewable fuel industry, do 

not have the financial ability to comply with the reporting requirements being placed on them as 

part of the RFS. If the EPA requires absolute compliance with the RFS standard as written, the 

commenter believes this group will remove themselves from the biodiesel marketplace. This 

represents approximately 30% of our market. By allowing the producer to take ownership and 

separate these RINs and achieve the ability to transfer/sell them to third parties while removing 

compliance burdens from the small operators will increase availability of biodiesel in the 

marketplace and provide an additional revenue stream to an industry already under duress. 

[[Docket number 2013.1, p. 7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2248 

Organization: Iogen Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2248.1) believes that EPA should allow CE RINs to be separated from the 

associated fuel by CE producers. This will allow CE producers to more directly control how 

they are able to profit from both of the commodities they produce. (2248.1, p.9)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (docket number 2249.2) supports the proposal to allow renewable fuel producers 

to separate and sell RINs apart from gallons. Allowing biodiesel producers to separate all RINs 

will reduce some of the burdens involved in tracking the use of the biodiesel. EPA initially 

imposed this requirement to avoid RIN hoarding by renewable fuel producers. However, such 

has not been the case. Moreover, it is in the interest of biodiesel producers to ensure that the 

biodiesel is sold, but provides more flexibility in the sale of the RINs. In addition, the 

commenter opposes EPA’s other proposals to ensure access to RINs and believes there is ample 

capacity for biodiesel production to meet the RFS2 requirements. [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 

29-30]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2502 

Organization: Verenium Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2502.1) sees merit in permitting separation of RINs to make various attributes 

of fuels tradable. This greater flexibility will enhance market operations and simplify the 

logistics of fuel transportation and delivery and, as EPA noted, enable the creation of a single 

RIN marketplace. The commenter recommends that EPA adopt its proposed alternative 

approach of permitting producers to sell RINs separate from volumes of fuel, to any party. 

(2502.1, p.7) (See Docket Number 2502.1, p.7 for a detailed discussion of this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2510 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC 

Comment: 

3-234
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2510) states that much of their business is with local and regional companies 

that are established oil jobbers and believes that it is logical to include the biodiesel fuel 

distribution in their business as they have existing infrastructure to handle the products and a 

customer base that desires fuels requiring less foreign oils. With the way the current RIN 

program is written, these local jobbers may elect to not participate. This defeats the purpose of 

the RFS2 proposals and will again delay the goals of the program. [[Docket number 2510.1, p. 

4]] 

The commenter adds that allowing the producer to take ownership and separate these RINs and 

achieve the ability to transfer/sell them to third parties while removing compliance burdens from 

the small jobbers will increase availability of biodiesel in the marketplace and provide an 

additional revenue stream to an industry already under duress. [[Docket number 2510.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment: 

The commenter believes the RIN credits should be able to be sold separately from the fuel. This 

will provide a larger pool of purchasers and also make it easier on a regional basis to distribute 

some of the local renewable gallons. (2408.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2149 

Organization: Dynamic Fuels, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2149.1) supports removing the restriction requiring that RINs be strictly 

assigned to fuel, and therefore do not support the direct transfer alternative. The commenter 

agrees with EPA that this approach streamlines compliance, and provides greater incentives to 

demonstrate compliance. The commenter disagrees, however, with the notion there is somehow 

any greater possibility for market manipulation by renewable fuel producers than obligated 

parties. The commenter also believes that removing the assignment would reduce industry-wide 

spending on transportation and logistics costs. (2149.1, pp.1-2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter (0994.1) supports the alternative of Producers separating RINs and not 

transferring them with renewable fuel purchases. This will result in more small volumes of 

biofuel being distributed, and RIN tracking will be much simpler. The commenter believes that 

§80.1429(4) addresses the RIN transfer issues that were not clear in RFS1. The commenter also 

supports the situation where RIN Marketers are permitted to participate in the RFS2 program, to 

own RINs and have access to the information in the EMTS in order to make buy or sell decisions 

on RINs. The commenter believes that the inclusion of RIN Marketers will reduce the potential 

for manipulation of the RIN value in the marketplace by either RIN Generators or Obligated 

Parties. (0994.1, pp.8-9) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

3-235
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Comment:

The commenter (1044) supports allowing the renewable fuel producer to sell the RIN to any 

registered party. The commenter, as a producer, sees the need to streamline the RIN transfer 

process or transactions responsibly. Similarly, the thought process represents other diesel 

programs. The commenter also agrees this would spare the entire distribution system issues of 

reporting and compliance that are causing a direct restriction of trade. It would also allow the 

parties that wish to conduct transactions with RINs the “option” to participate. (1044.1, p. 2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2084 

Organization: Syntroleum 

Comment: 

We support [[2324]] removing the restriction requiring that RINs be strictly assigned to fuel, and 

therefore do not support the direct transfer alternative. However, we disagree with the notion 

that there is somehow any greater possibility for market manipulation by renewable fuel 

producers than obligated parties. There is one key reason why removing the assignment makes 

sense: It will reduce industry-wide spending on transportation and logistics costs. [[2324.1 p.1]] 

The commenter [[2324]] states that for an example, assuming conventional diesel sells for 

$2.00/gal and biomass-based diesel RINs are worth $0.20/gal, most non-obligated parties would 

be willing to pay $2.00/gal for the biomass-based diesel, because at that point the costs of both 

fuels are identical. However, an obligated party would be willing to pay a greater amount for the 

fuel, $2.20/gal. As such, even if the cost to transport the fuel to an obligated party was $0.15 

more than a non-obligated party, the producer would be incented to send the fuel a longer 

distance to make more on a per gallon basis [[2324.1 p.2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2364 

Organization: Tyson Foods, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2364.1) supports removing the restriction requiring that RINs be strictly 

assigned to fuel, and therefore do not support the direct transfer alternative. 

The commenter agrees with EPA that this approach streamlines compliance, and provides greater 

incentives to demonstrate compliance. The commenter disagrees with the notion there is 

somehow any greater possibility for market manipulation by renewable fuel producers than 

obligated parties. (2364.1, p.2) 

 

The commenter noted that the ability of a producer to separate the RIN from the fuel would 

enable producers to sell the fuel to the closest buyer, without regard to whether or not the buyer 

is an obligated party. Under the current system, where RINs are attached to batches of fuel, 

producers are incentivized to sell the fuel to obligated parties so long as the RIN value is greater 

than the transportation cost to send the fuel to a more distant obligated party. The commenter 

believes that a preferable system would enable the producer to separate the RIN, and therefore 

sell the fuel to the closest user. Also, because the RINs have value, there is an economic 

incentive for the renewable fuel producer to transfer the RINs to the obligated party. (2364.1, 2) 

Our Response:

3-236
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

 In general we disagree with these comments. We believe that the advantages of this 

alternative approach are significantly outweighed by the disadvantages. For instance, while 

allowing producers to separate RINs from batches of renewable fuel they produce would likely 

simplify the distribution of RINs, it also creates the potential for RIN hoarding on the part of 

producers. The commenters did not provide compelling arguments that this potential hoarding 

was unlikely to occur. The fact that this alternative approach would be a significant deviation 

from the RFS1 program structure could also adversely impact the transition from RFS1 to RFS2. 

Both RIN hoarding and adverse impacts on program transition could increase RIN prices and 

ultimately fuel prices for consumers. 

 With the exception of potential simplification to information included on PTDs, we do 

not believe that allowing producers to separate RINs would simplify the distribution of fuels, as 

physical segregation of the different fuels within the distribution system is not required by the 

RFS2 program. Producers can transfer anywhere between zero and 2.5 gallon-RINs with each 

gallon of renewable fuel, and are not required to maintain the assignment of a specific RIN to the 

gallon of renewable fuel that it was generated to represent. These provisions provide producers 

the flexibility to sell some renewable fuel without RINs for downstream parties who prefer it. 

The introduction of EMTS is also expected to ease compliance burdens for parties who buy and 

sell renewable fuel with assigned RINs. 

3.11.3 Direct Transfer Approach 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter agrees that RINs attached to renewable fuel sold directly to Obligated Parties 

should also be transferred to Obligated Parties. However, based on the regulations that RINs 

need to be retired when renewable fuel is exported, Exporters must also receive RINs with their 

fuel purchase so that they can meet their export RVO. The commenter also agrees that for all 

other sales, the Producer (or RIN Generator) should separate and keep the RINs. (0994.1, p.10) 

The commenter does not agree that Producers (RIN generators) must sell their RINs to Obligated 

Parties on a quarterly basis. The Producer, if a direct exporter, will need to retain some RINs to 

meet his direct export RVO. The commenter believes that Renewable fuel Exporters must also 

be allowed to own RINs to meet direct export RVO. (0994.1, p.10) 

The commenter noted that sections 80.1426(e) and 80.1429 need to be changed to reflect the 

proposal that RINs are assigned to volumes of renewable fuel and only transferred if the fuel is 

sold directly to an Obligated Party or to an Exporter, otherwise the RINs are separated from the 

fuel and retained by the Producer or RIN Generator. (0994.1, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

3-237
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment: 

The commenter states that if the Agency does select the direct transfer option, EPA should 

restrict the sale of RINs to obligated parties, as proposed in the NPRM. However, the 

commenter does not support the proposed auction approach for RINs that a renewable fuel 

producer does not sell. Instead, EPA should require that by the 15th of every month, the 

renewable fuel producer must have sold all of its RINs from the previous month’s production. 

There will always be a market clearing price that renewable fuel producers will be able to sell 

their RINs at to meet their sales requirement. [[Docket number 2472.1, p. 5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233.2) does not support allowing producers and importing parties to separate 

RINs with no further safeguards, citing concerns for market manipulation. The commenter 

would support this approach only if tied to “obligated party only” trading and establishment of 

EMTS and controls to prevent RIN inventory builds by producers. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 

7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that if EPA selects the direct transfer option, then EPA should restrict 

the sale of RINs to obligated parties, as proposed in the NPRM. The commenter though does not 

support the proposed auction approach for RINs that a renewable fuel producer does not sell. 

Instead, the commenter believes that EPA should require that by the 15th of every month, the 

renewable fuel producer must have sold all of it RINs from the previous month’s production. 

Introducing an auction mechanism is an unnecessary complication. The commenter also does 

not support using the proposed EPA-moderated RIN trading system as a vehicle to facilitate RIN 

purchases and sales beyond the voluntary listing of contact information only by buyers and 

sellers. (2124.1, p.18) 

Our Response:

 The direct transfer approach had the potential to alleviate some of the concerns with 

allowing producers to separate RINs as expressed in comments summarized in Section 3.11.1 

above. However, we continue to believe it would be difficult to ensure that producers are 

actually selling their RINs in a timely manner without imposing excessive prices on those RINs. 

Moreover, this change to the RIN distribution system could significantly disrupt the functioning 

of the RIN market during the transition from RFS1 to RFS2, as some RINs would be required to 

be transferred with volume whole others would not. Therefore, as discussed in Section II.H.4 of 

the preamble, we are not finalizing such an approach. 

3.11.4 Other 

3-238
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

If the Producer RIN separation proposal does not become law, then the commenter requests that 

the regulations for section 80.1429 be expanded to clarify the three fuel sales situations discussed 

in Section III.H.4 so that RIN separation in these cases is well defined. (0994.1, p.10) 

Our Response:

 Modifications have been made to §80.1429 to clarify the conditions under which RINs 

may or must be separated from renewable fuel. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1002 

Organization: Fuel Marketing Corporation 

Comment:

The commenter (1002) has concerns over the two proposed methods of distributing RINs, either 

allowing producers complete separation of RINs or allowing producers to sell directly to 

obligated parties. Both scenarios pose a serious risk to the distribution of renewable fuel that is 

going to be required, especially true if blenders who may not buy directly from producers are 

made into obligated parties with the above mentioned changes. The commenter sees both 

methods limiting the ability to push current and new renewable fuel types through the supply 

chain, limiting or even eliminating the ability of marketers to sell product without RINs to 

obligated parties since such product is not needed for obligation. The commenter also feels that 

giving producers the ability to separate RINs completely or sell directly to obligated parties gives 

too much control to single group of stakeholders. (1002/1002.1, p.2) 

The commenter proposes that RINs be separated by marketers and producers for the two 

following circumstances: 

-Product is shipped by railcar 

-Product is placed in a terminal or pipeline for blending purposes 

Separating RINs for fuel transported by railcar would eliminate the need of tracking railcar 

movement for the purposes of transferring RINs. RIN separation for renewable fuel placed in 

terminals and pipelines for blending will allow producers and marketers the ability to assign 

RINs based on volumes purchased instead of individual transactions. (1002/1002.1, pp.2-3) 

Our Response:

 As described in our responses to comments in Section 3.11.2 above, we agree that 

producers should generally not be allowed to separate RINs from batches of renewable fuel that 

they produce. (One exception being where a producer designates neat renewable fuel as 

3-239
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel, and the fuel is used in that manner without further 

blending. See Section 3.10). However, we also do not believe that RIN separation should be 

allowed for renewable fuel shipped by railcar or pipelines. The RFS2 program is based on 

ownership of renewable fuel with assigned RINs, not the mode of transport. Moreover, the IT 

systems required for tracking renewable fuel with assigned RINs should be the same regardless 

of mode of transport. The RFS2 program includes a variety of flexibilities that can address the 

commenter's concerns, including the flexibility to assign batch numbers on the basis of 

individual transactions or total volumes purchased, up to 30 days worth of volume. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment: 

If EPA retains the general prohibition on renewable fuel producers being able to separate RINs, 

the commenter (2249.2) requests EPA to change the transfer rate of RINs with associated gallons 

of biodiesel. Under RFS1 RINs may be transferred accompanying gallons of renewable fuel in 

the range of 0-2.5 RINs per gallon of fuel. Since a gallon of biodiesel generates 1.5 RINs, the 

commenter requests that a gallon of biodiesel be transferred with between 0 and 3 RINs. The 

commenter believes this would greatly simplify the math and result in fewer calculation errors. 

[[Docket number 2249.2, p. 33]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) believes that EPA should clarify that the 2.5 gal transfer limit in (a)(4), 

which was a feature of RFS1, should not apply to RFS2, since there is no longer a 2.5 

equivalence value for cellulosic ethanol. (2505.2, p.9) 

Our Response:

 The regulatory provision allowing 0-2.5 gallon-RINs to be transferred with each gallon of 

renewable fuel was established under RFS1. The upper limit of 2.5 was determined from the 

maximum number of gallon-RINs that could be generated for any gallon of renewable fuel, 

based on the statutory requirement that cellulosic biomass ethanol and waste-derived ethanol 

each count as 2.5 gallons of renewable fuel for compliance purposes. However, this higher limit 

also served to provide flexibility in RIN transactions, allowing more or fewer RINs to be 

transferred with volume depending on the needs are desires of the trading partners. 

 Although EISA eliminated this provision from CAA 211(o), the RFS2 NPRM did not 

propose changing the upper limit of 2.5 for gallon-RINs transferred with each gallon of 

renewable fuel in order to maintain the flexibility for RIN transactions. We believe that the 2.5 

limit provides sufficient flexibility for all renewable fuels, including biodiesel. Moreover, 

maintaining this provision for RFS2 helps to ensure a smooth transition from RFS1. 

3-240
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2345 

Organization: Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2345) believes that only parties within the petroleum business should be 

engaged in the purchase and sale of RINs. The participation of brokers and traders is detrimental 

to the market and should not be permitted under RFS2. The commenter also suggests that at the 

end of the year, all regulated parties own no more than a specific percentage of expired RINs. In 

this way, each party will have an incentive either to use the RINs or sell those that are expiring. 

Thus, a greater number of RINs will be on the market and obligated parties can meet their 

obligation more easily [[Docket number 2345.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter supports restricting the purchase of separated RINs to only obligated parties 

regardless of the approach adopted in the final regulations. First, allowing non obligated parties 

to purchase RINs creates an un-level playing field. Second, allowing non obligated parties to 

purchase RINs may lead to higher prices and increased price volatility. Finally, allowing non 

obligated parties to purchase RINs will lead to higher costs to the consumer and act as another 

hidden tax. The commenter strongly noted they do not support EPA acting as a broker, buyer or 

seller of RINs beyond the statutory requirement for EPA to offer cellulosic credits for cellulosic 

biofuel when a waiver is necessary. (2124.1, p.30) 

Our Response:

 The regulatory provisions established during the RFS1 rulemaking process allowing any 

party to own RINs were intended to maximize the avenues through which blenders can sell the 

RINs they have acquired. We continue to believe that this is an important element of the 

program. Moreover, we do not believe it would be appropriate to limit the number of RINs that 

any party can own, and either of these changes could significantly alter the operation of the RIN 

market. Therefore, we have not made these changes for the RFS2 final rule. 

 Under the RFS2 program, EPA does not act as a broker, buyer, or seller of RINs beyond 

the statutory requirement that we offer cellulosic biofuel waiver credits under specific 

circumstances. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2358 

Organization: Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the 

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) 

Comment:

3-241
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter (2358) believes that the proposal regarding RIN transfer should be altered, but 

not in the way EPA suggests. The commenter urges EPA to consider an alternative that would 

have RINs generated at the time the renewable fuel is actually either blended with fossil fuels or 

used in its “neat” form as a transportation fuel or heating fuel. [[Docket number 2358.1, pp. 7-8]] 

[[See docket number 2358.1, pp. 7-10 for an extensive discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response:

 We considered a variety of approaches to designing the RIN program in the RFS1 

rulemaking, including that raised by this commenter. We evaluated comments received in 

response to the RFS1 NPRM and promulgated a program structure in which the renewable fuel 

producer generates the RINs. The reasons we did not select the approach recommended by the 

commenter are described in the preamble to the final RFS1 rule, and remain applicable under 

RFS2. 

3.12 Treatment of Cellulosic Biofuel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter also believes that at this point in time, the credits should be issued on a wet 

barrel basis and that the Agency resist the inclination to issue paper credits. EPA should make 

adjustments to volume at the end of each mandated period, not at the beginning. This approach 

will help create an atmosphere for financial support moving forward for the industry. (2408.1, 

p.5) 

Our Response:

 EISA requires that we make cellulosic biofuel waiver credits available if we waive a 

portion of the statutory volume for cellulosic biofuel. These credits represent an alternative 

means of compliance for obligated parties in the event that cellulosic biofuel RINs are either 

unavailable or available at excessive prices. Therefore, the waiver credits are not issued on the 

basis of wet barrels. 

 EISA directs EPA to publish the RFS2 standards by November 30 of the previous year. 

As a result, we must determine what the required volumes of renewable fuel will be prior to the 

beginning of a compliance period, not at the end. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2345 

Organization: Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA) 

3-242
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment:

The commenter (2345) supports the proposal to calculate the price of cellulosic allowances using 

the 12-month average wholesale price of a gallon of gasoline from the refinery gate. The price 

should remain constant for the entire calendar year the waiver is in place. In addition, the 

allowances program needs stability—a constant annual price, not quarterly changes. To provide 

for a transparent predictable and stable allowance market, the price of allowances should be 

based on the higher of 25 cents per gallon or the amount by which $3.00 per exceeds the average 

wholesale price of a gallon of gasoline measured from the refinery gate. This approach will 

provide the program with a more accurate measure of wholesale gasoline prices. [[Docket 

number 2345.1, pp. 6-7]] 

Our Response: 

 We have finalized using a 12 month average price per gallon based on EIA’s monthly 

refinery gate price data. We have also finalized that the price will be set annually. 

3.12.1 Approach to Cellulosic Biofuel Credits 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (0952.1, 0970.1) believes that the proposal does not provide sufficient certainty 

to investors in cellulosic biofuels. The price cap on EPA’s allowances may also result in placing 

cellulosic biofuels at a price disadvantage, affecting investments and creating disincentives to 

develop cellulosic biofuels. The commenter feels that the proposal also goes against 

Congressional intent to promote investment in cellulosic biofuel. (0970.1, p.2) 

The commenter believes that EPA should limit waivers of the RFS. For the cellulosic biofuel 

waiver, EPA indicated that it believed it would be appropriate to allow excess advanced biofuels 

to make up some or all of the shortfall in cellulosic biofuel. The commenter supports this 

interpretation, and agrees that if other advanced biofuels are available they should be allowed to 

make up the waived amount of cellulosic biofuel. This would ensure that the GHG emission 

reductions sought by Congress are still met, and the mandated volumes are sold. (2329.1, p.92) 

The commenter also believes that EPA should limit the ability of obligated parties to use 

cellulosic allowances. The commenter supports the proposed limits on the use of cellulosic 

biofuel allowances, but believes that they are not sufficient. The commenter also believes that 

EPA should implement the dual RIN system to ensure the sale of cellulosic ethanol and ensure 

the volume mandates are met. (2329.1, p. 93-94) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp.93-95 for a 

detailed discussion of these issues]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

3-243
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Comment:

The commenter (0952.1, 0970.1) would like to work with EPA to ensure that the final version of 

the RIN system is designed to ensure that it does not undermine the main thrust of RFS program: 

namely to increase the use of all renewable fuels and, in particular, cellulosic ethanol. (0970.1, 

p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1033 

Organization: Poet Ethanol Products 

Comment:

The commenter (1033.1) agrees in principal with EPA’s theory for issuing Cellulosic 

Allowances. Because there are still a number of avenues though that would exist in the proposed 

methodology for market manipulation, the commenter encourages EPA to be flexible in its 

implementation approach and be ready to make modifications as warranted to ensure the intent 

of the program is carried out. (1033.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

The commenter (1050.1) is concerned about the provisions that address the treatment of 

cellulosic biofuel within this revised RIN system, which they believe may have the effect of 

inhibiting cellulosic biofuels commercialization. (1050.1, p.1) 

The commenter noted that EPA credits equal to the reduced volumetric target would not only be 

allowed to show compliance with the cellulosic biofuel volumetric mandate, but also with the 

advanced biofuel and renewable fuel mandates. This is not what Congress intended. The 

commenter noted that the EISA requires that EPA develop rules with respect to cellulosic 

biofuels that do not “reduce the use of other renewable fuels.” But as currently proposed, EPA 

issued credits could be used by obligated parties to reduce the overall volumetric consumption 

requirements of the RFS. As the commenter indicated during the rulemaking for the first RFS 

program, they have serious concerns about actions EPA may propose to permit the use of a paper 

credit or allowance to satisfy the Act’s requirement to use a physical gallon of fuel, because 

doing so could result in a reduction in the overall volume of renewable fuel used under the 

program. (0150.1, pp. 1-2) 

The commenter is also concerned that the proposed price cap on EPA’s allowances could lead to 

cellulosic biofuels being put at a price disadvantage, which would have a negative impact on 

cellulosic biofuels investment. (1050.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) believes that EPA’s assessment of the statutory requirements of the 

cellulosic biofuel waiver provision is appropriate. In the event that a waiver is required by the 

annual assessment of cellulosic biofuel capability, the commenter believes that EPA must make 

available to obligated parties at their discretion allowances up to the amount of the revised 

cellulosic biofuel requirement. The commenter also supports EPA’s proposal that such 

3-244
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

allowances cannot be traded or banked for future use, but would be allowed to meet the 

cellulosic biofuel requirement, the advanced biofuel requirement, and the total renewables 

requirement. Use to meet all three requirements must be allowed due to the nested nature of the 

mandates. (2124.1, p.19) 

The commenter also strongly supports EPA’s proposal that if it reduces the cellulosic biofuel 

mandate, then cellulosic biofuel allowances bought from EPA may also be used to meet the 

obligated party’s RVOs for Advanced Biofuels and the general RFS. (2124.1, p.20) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130) believes that EPA must make available to obligated parties allowances up 

to the amount of the revised cellulosic biofuel requirement and supports the proposal that such 

allowances cannot be traded or banked for future use, but used to meet the requirements. In 

addition, in making its annual assessment of cellulosic biofuel capability, the commenter urges 

EPA to adjust the advanced biofuel and total renewables requirements by the same volume as 

cellulosic adjustment. [[Docket number 2130, pp 4-5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) noted that some have expressed concern that if EPA issues RIN credits 

for cellulosic fuels, retailers might be able to avoid buying the fuel, which could result in 

cellulosic ethanol prices below ethanol made from other feedstocks. The commenter wants to 

ensure that the cellulosic fuel industry is able to quickly expand to meet the RFS requirements, 

and this will mean avoiding the use of credits and waivers. The commenter also noted that EPA 

had proposed to allow obligated parties to purchase cellulosic credits from EPA as a way to 

discharge their obligation to purchase advanced biofuel. This arrangement could cause 

significant market disruptions anytime the market price for conventional RINs was above the 

EISA-dictated price for EPA-supplied cellulosic credits. The commenter noted that one fix to 

this potential problem would be to not exempt any obligated party using EPA-supplied credits 

for compliance with the cellulosic standard from the obligation to purchase its full share of 

advanced biofuels. (2132.1, pp.23-24) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) believes that EPA should make available for sale a number of cellulosic 

biofuel credits that is no more than the volumetric requirement. Each credit will sell at the 

higher of $0.25 per gallon or the amount by which $3.00 per gallon exceeds the average U.S. 

wholesale price of a gallon of gasoline. The commenter supports the process as outlined in the 

RFS2 proposed rulemaking, with the exception that the cellulosic allowances should not be 

applicable to meeting other renewable fuel categories. (2146.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

3-245
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) support the process proposed by EPA for conducting a yearly review 

and rulemaking process to determine cellulosic ethanol volumes, thereby both ensuring an outlet 

for the early cellulosic volumes produced and eliminating the requirement for the fuel industry to 

purchase volumes larger than those anticipated to be available for their purchase. (2146.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2171 

Organization: Mascoma Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2171) urges EPA to limit the number of cellulosic allowances that EPA will 

offer for sale in years that it reduces the cellulosic biofuels mandate to better ensure a market 

demand for cellulosic ethanol that will spur investment in cellulosic production. [[Docket 

number 2171.1, p. 5]] 

The commenter states that the specific volume requirements for cellulosic biofuels in the RFS2 

are critical to fostering investment confidence in developing new projects; therefore, it is 

essential that EPA not undermine confidence via the rules establishing EPA’s waiver authority 

and the resulting sale of cellulosic allowances. The proposal envisions the issuance of 

allowances equal to the amount of the reduced cellulosic biofuel requirement and allows them to 

be used to show compliance for not only the cellulosic biofuel requirement, but also the 

advanced biofuel and renewable fuel requirements. The commenter believes that this proposal 

has two significant shortcomings. First, by choosing to issue an equal number of cellulosic 

allowances as the cellulosic volume mandate (instead of a smaller percentage of the total 

volume) the rule artificially caps cellulosic ethanol prices. While conventional ethanol RINs are 

allowed to be priced in the marketplace, cellulosic RINs would be capped based upon the price 

that EPA sells the cellulosic allowance. Second, this proposal could also result in EPA-issued 

cellulosic allowances reducing the overall number of actual gallons of renewable fuels sold in the 

United States. As a result of these two deficiencies, the RFS2 rule does not provide sufficient 

certainty to cellulosic biofuels investors and creates a potential disincentive to developing 

cellulosic biofuels. The commenter appreciates EPA’s efforts to restrict cellulosic allowances to 

ensure obligated parties do not misuse them, and believes the final rule should correct these 

deficiencies to ensure that the RFS2 truly drives demand and spurs investment in cellulosic 

biofuel production. [[Docket number 2171.1, p. 4]] [[See docket number 2171.1, pp.3-4 for 

further discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2248 

Organization: Iogen Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2248.1) noted that if implemented properly, the availability of EPA-issued 

cellulosic biofuel credits will: 

1) Ensure competition/deny market- or monopoly-power for parties that hold CE RINs in 

excess of their RVO for CE 

2) Ensure, as a result of that market competition, that cost of CE is capped at the prevailing 

market price for ethanol, plus the price for an EPA-issued cellulosic biofuel credit or a 

CE RIN 

3-246
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

3) Ensure a smooth process exists for compliance in the event that either 

a. EPA overestimates the available volume of CE, or 

b. Parties holding excess CE RINs choose to use them for additional compliance 

purposes rather than sell them to other obligated parties 

4) Enable the credit price formula set in law to create transparency and certainty on CE RIN 

prices 

5) Create certainty for regulated entities through availability of EPA-issued cellulosic 

biofuel credits for all who seek them for compliance 

6) Creates market liquidity through the option for obligated parties to purchase as many 

EPA-issued cellulosic biofuel credits from EPA as are sought for compliance 

7) Create certainty for renewable fuel producers by ensuring that the market rewards CE for 

its additional policy benefits by pricing it at a slight premium 

The commenter believes that this provision is deserving of especially careful and thoughtful 

implementation. The multiple functions of this provision underscore and at the same time solve 

the challenges created for the market players needing to comply with the CE portion of the RFS. 

(2248.1, p.4) 

 

The commenter also believes that the ability of EPA to sell cellulosic biofuel credits both 

eliminates the prospect of any party establishing market- or monopoly-power over CE RIN 

markets and limits what can be charged for those RINs. It is necessary that EPA make as many 

cellulosic biofuel credits available as are sought for compliance in any given year. Failure to do 

so would reconstitute the opportunity for obligated parties to be subjected to monopoly pricing 

whenever the market lacks willing sellers offering reasonable prices. (2248.1, p.5) 

The commenter noted that EPA’s proposed implementation of the provisions of Sec. 202 

(e)(2)(D) would allow an EPA-issued credit - or allowance - to excuse obligated parties from 

purchasing the full applicable volume for Advanced Biofuel or renewable fuel. This is in direct 

contravention of the provision in EISA that states that the Administrator must “limit any 

potential misuse of cellulosic biofuel credits to reduce the use of other renewable fuels”. (2248.1, 

p.6) (See Docket Number 2248.1, pp.6-7 for a detailed discussion of this issue) 

The commenter noted that the proposed rule suggests obligated parties would be forced to 

purchase EPA-issued cellulosic biofuel credits to cover a volume of CE that the EPA is certain 

the industry will not produce. Should this occur, it could undermine public and political support 

for the RFS, which in turn would dampen investment in next generation renewable fuel 

technology. The NPRM also suggests that EPA would not reduce the CE applicable volume to a 

level at which it can be reasonably confident will be available to obligated parties. The 

commenter urges EPA to adhere to Congressional direction and set the applicable volume each 

year at a level that EPA can reasonably expect will be available. (2248.1, pp.7-8) (See Docket 

Number 2248.1, pp.7-8 for a detailed discussion of this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2248 

Organization: Iogen Corporation 

Comment: 

3-247
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter (2248.1) recommends that EPA maximize the benefits of the RFS by reducing 

the applicable volume for CE based on EPA’s best assessment of available CE, and limit the use 

of EPA-issued cellulosic biofuel credits to satisfying compliance with an obligated party’s RVO 

for CE, but not for Advanced Biofuel or Renewable Fuel. The result will be a more favorable 

and predictable environment for businesses looking to commercialize CE. (2248.1, p.2) (See 

Docket Number 2248.1, pp.2-3 for a detailed discussion of this issue) 

The commenter believes that it is essential that the Administrator follow Congressional direction 

and reduce the applicable volume to a level agency assessments suggest will be available. This 

serves two purposes. First, it will relieve the petroleum industry of any obligation to purchase 

those volumes of fuel that the CE industry is not yet able to produce. Secondly, it will serve the 

larger Congressional objective of ensuring that, to the extent the CE industry can produce fuel; it 

will have a market for that fuel. In taking this approach, the Administrator will promote 

confidence in the political stability behind the policy. If EPA were to require obligated parties to 

purchase EPA-issued cellulosic biofuel credits for every gallon between actual production and 

the ambitious target volumes in EISA, it is highly likely that the CE mandate will come under 

attack from the petroleum industry as equivalent to a tax that will have no effect on accelerating 

CE deployment. (2248.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment: 

The commenter (224932) noted that for the Cellulosic Biofuel waiver, EPA indicated that it 

believed it would be appropriate to allow other excess advanced biofuels to make up some or the 

entire shortfall in cellulosic biofuel. The commenter supports this interpretation, and agrees that 

if other advanced biofuels are available they should be allowed to make up the waived amount of 

cellulosic biofuel. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 49]] 

The commenter also has concerns that EPA’s cellulosic biofuel allowance provisions may work 

to reduce the actual volumes of advanced biofuels or renewable fuels sold each year. While the 

commenter supports EPA’s limitations on purchasing and trading such allowances, EPA also 

proposes to permit these allowances to be used to show compliance with the Cellulosic Biofuel, 

Advanced Biofuel and Renewable Fuel obligations. As EPA recognizes, its proposal still runs 

the risk of affecting the overall volumes sold. As such, the commenter supports EPA’s 

alternative approach to limit the application of allowances to the Cellulosic Biofuel volume only 

to limit the potential adverse impacts on the purchase of other renewable fuels. [[Docket number 

2249.2, pp. 49-50]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

The commenter supports EPA’s proposals to allow obligated parties to purchase allowances up 

to the level of their cellulosic biofuel RVO less the number of cellulosic biofuel RINs they own; 

to allow an obligated party to use such allowances to meet its total renewable and advanced 

biofuel standards, if it used the allowance to meet its cellulosic biofuel standard; and 

3-248
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

recommends that EPA provide obligated parties the flexibility to meet their revised cellulosic 

requirement with cellulosic RINs and/or cellulosic allowances. [[docket number 2384.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

Where EPA adjusts the cellulosic biofuel requirement due to inadequate production capacity, 

EPA proposes to make allowances available to obligated parties up to the level of the adjusted 

cellulosic biofuel standard. The commenter agrees that this is required by EISA. EPA also states 

that “Because cellulosic biofuel RINs can be used to meet the advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel standards in addition to the cellulosic biofuel standard, we propose that cellulosic 

biofuel allowances also be available for use in meeting those three standards.” Section 80.1427 

should be clarified to make clear that allowances used to comply with the cellulosic renewable 

fuel mandate also count towards the advanced and general renewable fuel obligations. [[Docket 

number 2393.1, p. 40]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2400 

Organization: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter noted that should EPA over-estimate the amount of cellulosic gallons that will 

be available for a particular year, obligated parties will need other means to meet their 

obligation. The commenter recommends that the EPA offer cellulosic allowances to obligated 

parties only when they need additional RIN credits to meet their annual obligation. The number 

of credits purchased needs to be limited to the remaining amount of credits needed to meet the 

obligation, with no excess. (2400.2, pp. 7-8) 

The commenter also noted that EPA indicated interest in restricting obligated parties from 

purchasing extra allowances and to use cellulosic RINs for other compliance categories. EPA 

must carefully consider the timing and availability of allowances before advancing such a 

change. The commenter recommends that the EPA only allow obligated parties to purchase 

cellulosic allowances after the year-end RFS0300 reports are completed and obligation has been 

calculated. (2400.2, p.8) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter (2471.1) supports EPA’s proposal to place certain restrictions on Cellulosic 

Biofuel credits that EPA must issue, per statute, if it waives a portion of the Cellulosic Biofuel 

mandate. It could be very difficult to obtain Cellulosic Biofuel RINs, even when there is not a 

waiver, given the relatively small volume of Cellulosic Biofuel required initially and the fact that 

every Obligated Party, no matter how small their obligation, must obtain these RINs. If part of 

the mandate is waived, securing Cellulosic Biofuel RINs could be especially difficult. The 

commenter also supports EPA’s proposal that Cellulosic Biofuel “allowances” issued by EPA 

pursuant to a waiver should be limited in terms of who can buy, sell or trade them. The 

3-249
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

commenter requests that EPA clarify that it will not issue allowances in instances where the 

entire Cellulosic Biofuel mandate is waived. (2471.1, p.11) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2502 

Organization: Verenium Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2502.1) recommends that EPA require that obligated parties demonstrate actual 

progress toward fulfilling their annual RVOs through periodic, e.g., quarterly reports on volumes 

actually acquired during each period. (2502.1, p.6) (See Docket Number 2502.1, p.5 for a 

detailed discussion of this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) agrees with EPA’s proposal to make allowances available to obligated 

parties up to the level of the adjusted cellulosic biofuel standard. Whenever EPA adjusts the 

cellulosic biofuel mandate due to inadequate production capacity, the commenter believes that 

EPA should reduce the overhanging advanced and general renewable fuel mandates by an equal 

amount. If EPA does not reduce the overhanging mandates, EPA will be merely creating an 

incentive to increase use of the least performing biofuels and exacerbating the E10 blend wall 

problem and the de facto E85 mandate imposed by EISA. (2505.2, p.13) 

The commenter also believes that section 80.1427 should also be clarified to make clear that 

allowances used to comply with the cellulosic renewable fuel mandate also count towards the 

advanced and general renewable fuel obligations. (2505.2, p.13) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2526 

Organization: Coskata 

Comment: 

The commenter (2526) believes that the EPA must set a clear and strong precedent for allowing 

the waiver and cellulosic RIN allowance to perform as Congress intended, which is to spur 

deployment of cellulosic technologies that can have meaningful reductions in transportation 

related greenhouse gas emissions. The commenter believes that RIN allowances should not 

displace volumetric requirements for blending all biofuels and RINs should trade separately from 

volume. [[Docket number 2526.1, p. 1]] [[See docket number 2526.1, pp. 2-9 for a detailed 

discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2047 

Organization: Terrabon 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2071]] also states because of regional demand disparities caused by 

transportation costs. The result is that certain regions of the country may have an oversupply of 

biofuels because distant Obligated Parties choose to purchase allowances rather than wet gallons 

while those Obligated Parties that are near sources of biofuels would only purchase sufficient 

wet gallons to satisfy their applicable RVOs. This would leave producers with gallons of 

3-250
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

cellulosic biofuel that cannot be sold for an economical price even while satisfying 

Congressional intent under the EISA. [[#2071.1 p.8]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2389 

Organization: BlueFire et al. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2389) wants EPA to have transparent pricing and to ensure renewable fuel is 

actually purchased. 

Our Response: 

 Based on the comments provided, EPA has finalized the Cellulosic Biofuel Waiver 

Credits (waiver credits) provision slightly differently than as proposed. We agree that waiver 

credits should not replace consumption of renewable fuel. Our final rules provide that waiver 

credits may only be used for the cellulosic biofuel standard. Companies purchasing waiver 

credits will need to purchase biomass based diesel, advanced biofuel and total renewable RINs to 

meet their obligations for those standards in the same way as if they had purchased cellulosic 

biofuel RINs. In order to ensure every obligated party has access to the waiver credits we are 

setting the quantity of waiver credits for a given compliance year to the volume of the reduced 

cellulosic biofuel standard for that year. 

 Some parties commented about the price of waiver credits stating that the price could 

affect market dynamics. The pricing formula was set in the Act and EPA is finalizing what we 

proposed based on the instructions provided in the Act. We took comment on how often we 

should set the price for credits. Based on comment, EPA will only set the price annually when 

we finalize the cellulosic biofuel standard for the next compliance period. This approach will 

provide regulatory certainty for obligated parties and producers of cellulosic biofuels. 

3.12.2 Adjustments to Other Standards in the Event of a Cellulosic Waiver 

What the Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) believes that if EPA determines that a cellulosic biofuel waiver is 

needed, the commenter urges EPA to also adjust the advanced biofuel and total renewables 

requirements by the same volume as the cellulosic adjustment. If EPA adopts a 30 year 

averaging and zero discount rate for Lifecycle Analysis, it is unlikely there will be any advanced 

biofuel to make up the cellulosic shortfall. The commenter stated that EPA should not ever 

adjust only the advanced biofuel requirement and leave the total renewable requirement 

unchanged. Such an action would allow the use of grandfathered biofuels that need not provide 

any GHG reduction to replace cellulosic biofuels that are required to achieve at least a 60% 

lifecycle GHG emissions reduction. (2124.1, p.19) 

3-251
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment: 

The commenter (224932) believes that, as long as other renewable fuels are available, the 

renewable fuel standard should not be reduced. While it may not present the same GHG 

reductions as cellulosic biofuel, other renewable fuels would still provide GHG emission 

reduction benefits over petroleum. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 49]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

For the Cellulosic Biofuel waiver, EPA indicated that it believed it would be appropriate to allow 

other excess advanced biofuels to make up some or the entire shortfall in cellulosic biofuel. The 

commenter supports this interpretation, and agrees that if other advanced biofuels are available 

they should be allowed to make up the waived amount of cellulosic biofuel. [[Docket number 

2249.2, p. 49]] 

EPA further noted that, if the advanced biofuel requirement were also lowered, the total 

renewable fuel volume would be lowered to the same degree. The commenter believes that, as 

long as other renewable fuels are available, the renewable fuel standard should not be reduced. 

While it may not present the same GHG reductions as cellulosic biofuel, other renewable fuels 

would still provide GHG emission reduction benefits over petroleum. [[Docket number 2249.2, 

p. 49]] 

The commenter also has concerns that EPA’s cellulosic biofuel allowance provisions may work 

to reduce the actual volumes of advanced biofuels or renewable fuels sold each year. While the 

commenter supports EPA’s limitations on purchasing and trading such allowances, EPA also 

proposes to permit these allowances to be used to show compliance with the Cellulosic Biofuel, 

Advanced Biofuel and Renewable Fuel obligations. As EPA recognizes, its proposal still runs 

the risk of affecting the overall volumes sold. As such, the commenter supports EPA’s 

alternative approach to limit the application of allowances to the Cellulosic Biofuel volume only 

to limit the potential adverse impacts on the purchase of other renewable fuels.[[Docket number 

2249.2, pp. 49-50]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2337 

Organization: California Air Resources Board 

Comment:

The commenter (2337.1) believes that a policy which allows the substitution of biodiesel or 

sugarcane ethanol for cellulosic biofuel would significantly reduce incentive for investment in 

cellulosic and other second and third generation biofuels. Therefore, they recommend U.S. EPA 

only allow other second and third generation biofuels that do not compete with food for arable 

land to be substituted for cellulosic ethanol should the projected volume of cellulosic ethanol not 

meet the minimum applicable volume required by statute. This restriction will help preserve the 

incentive for investment in truly sustainable biofuels. (Page 4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

3-252
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

The commenter recommends that if EPA determines a shortfall in cellulosic biofuel production 

capacity for the following year and subsequently reduces the following year’s requirements for 

cellulosic biofuel, the EPA should also reduce the advanced and total renewable fuel volume 

requirements by the same amount that the cellulosic requirements were reduced. [[docket 

number 2384.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

Regarding the impact of the cellulosic mandate on other mandates, the commenter (2393.1) 

believes that both the advanced and total mandates should be reduced by the same amount as the 

cellulosic waiver—this will have no material adverse impact on any producing entity and will 

serve to slow the approach of the E10 blend wall. The commenter adds that if EPA does not 

reduce the overhanging mandates, EPA will (a) create an incentive to increase use of the least 

performing biofuels that Congress clearly sought to limit and (b) exacerbate the E10 blend wall 

problem and the de facto E85 mandate imposed by EISA. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 40]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter adds that the mandates for both the advanced biofuels and total renewable fuels 

should be reduced by the same amount as the cellulosic biofuels waiver. This will have no 

material adverse impact on any producing entity and will serve to slow the approach of the E10 

blend wall. [[Docket number 2523.1, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2364 

Organization: Tyson Foods, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter agrees with EPA’s view that EISA effectively sets a limit for participation in the 

RFS program of 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol by 2022. The commenter also agrees 

with EPA’s position that any reduction to the advanced biofuels standard in a given year should 

be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in the overall renewable standard. This will 

ensure that com-based ethanol cannot be used to meet volume levels that Congress clearly 

intended be met by next generation biofuels. (2364.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

Regarding where “EPA determines that the projected volume of cellulosic biofuels is not 

sufficient to meet the levels in EISA we will consider the availability of other advanced biofuels 

in deciding whether to lower the advanced biofuel standard as well.” The commenter believes 

that both the advanced and total mandates should be reduced by the same amount as the 

cellulosic waiver. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 42]] 

3-253
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

The commenter also supports the approach that EPA has proposed for the issuance and use of 

EPA-issued cellulosic RINS. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 43]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (0952.1, 0970.1) is concerned that the provisions in the proposed rule that 

address cellulosic biofuel may undermine, rather than advance, Congress’ intent. (0970.1, p.1) 

 

The new program could have some important shortcomings with respect to how RINs are issued 

and applied for cellulosic biofuel in the event EPA waives all or part of the cellulosic biofuel 

requirement. Under the Act, EPA must reduce the cellulosic biofuel requirement to the extent 

projections indicate that the volume expected to be produced in the next year will be less than the 

minimum applicable volume required. If such is the case, EPA must issue allowances up to the 

reduced volume for sale at a price capped by the statute. Under the proposal, EPA would issue 

such allowances in the amount of the reduced cellulosic biofuel requirement and allow them to 

be used to show compliance not only with the cellulosic biofuel requirement, but also the 

advanced biofuel and renewable fuel requirements. While the commenter appreciates the limits 

EPA has proposed to restrict the ability of obligated parties to misuse these allowances, these 

limits are not adequate to protect against reduction in the amount of renewable fuel sold or to 

ensure continued investments being made in the industry—two clear goals of Congress. (0970.1, 

pp.1-2) 

The commenter noted that EISA requires that EPA promulgate regulations governing cellulosic 

biofuel credits in a manner that does not inappropriately “reduce the use of other renewable 

fuels” and that provides certainty to renewable fuel producers. Obligated parties utilizing 

cellulosic allowances purchased directly from the EPA may not be required to purchase a volume 

of renewable fuel equal to the number of cellulosic credits that it retires. These paper credits, 

rather than actual volumes, then will be used to meet these requirements. Thus, EPA-issued 

credits could be used to reduce the overall volume requirements of the RFS. If EPA reduces the 

RFS commensurate with the reduction in the cellulosic biofuel requirement, this reduction in 

actual volumes sold is even more pronounced. (0970.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment:

The commenters (2129.1) believe that EPA should exercise its authority under Section 202(e) of 

EISA to reduce the total volume required under the renewable fuel standard if it determines that 

reduced volumes of cellulosic biofuel are projected to be available, so as to match the required 

volume to the projected volume available. The commenters suggest that the EPA adjust the total 

renewable standard, and not only the advanced biofuel standard, downwards in every event of 

projected shortfall in the volumes of cellulosic biofuels, and to make that downward adjustment 

of equal or greater amount. EPA must not allow for a fuel that achieves less GHG emissions 

3-254
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

reductions below baseline levels than the cellulosic or advanced biofuel that has fallen short of 

projected volume levels to be allowed to fill the deficit left by this shortfall. (2129.1, p.14) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2137 

Organization: Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2137.1) notes that it is likely that there will not be enough cellulosic biofuels 

available to meet the RFS2 volume targets for 2010 and beyond. And concurs with EPA’s 

interpretation of the EISA that “it would be appropriate to allow excess advanced biofuels to 

make up some or all of the shortfall in cellulosic biofuel.” The commenter believes that in any 

given year, if there is an insufficient volume of cellulosic biofuel available but an ample volume 

of other advanced biofuels available with GHG emissions equal or better than the cellulosic 

threshold, EPA should not lower the required volumes for advanced biofuel but instead shift the 

requirement from cellulosic to the other advanced biofuel categories. To ignore this option 

would be to encourage the use of fossil fuels. [[Docket number 2137.1, pp. 14-15]] 

The commenter (2137.1) also concurs with EPA’s assertion that “we do not believe it would be 

appropriate to lower the advanced biofuel standard but not the total renewable standard”, as this 

would allow conventional biofuels to effectively be used to meet the standards that Congress 

specifically set for cellulosic and advanced biofuels. [[Docket number 2137.1, p. 15]] 

Our Response:

 We appreciate the varying perspectives of the different commenters on future 

adjustments to the advanced and total renewable fuel standards in the event of a waiver of the 

cellulosic biofuel standard. For 2010, while we are waiving a portion of the cellulosic biofuel 

standard, we are not adjusting the other standards. The relative magnitude of the biomass-based 

diesel standard in 2010 made any adjustment to the advanced biofuel and total renewable 

standard unnecessary. The approach for any adjustments to the standards in future years will be 

decided when those standards are finalized. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1, p.11) believes combining standards for the cellulosic biofuel mandate 

would exceed EPA’s authority. (2124.1, p.11) 

Our Response: 

 EPA is not combining standards for the cellulosic biofuel mandate in the final rule. 

3.13 Production Outlook Reports 

3-255
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment:

If Production Outlook Reports can be captured by the EMTS system, the commenter (1044) 

would fully endorse the requirement based upon their live attendance at the EMTS Seminar. The 

commenter finds this provision similar to other agency fuel programs; therefore, they would 

support it provided the EMTS system will capture the data. (1044.1, p. 3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130) believes that Production Outlook Reports by biofuel producers should be 

required, but not overly relied upon, particularly for new biofuel technologies. [[Docket number 

2130.1, p. 17]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA provides no reasonable explanation to require the 

information being requested for the outlook reports, and such information is not needed to assist 

parties to come into compliance. (2329.1, p. 105) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp.104-105 for a 

detailed discussion of this issue]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter (0994.1) rejects the proposal for an annual outlook report required for each 

regulated party. With so many unknowns and no previous history of renewable fuels mandate, 

and no sense of continued tax rebate, the renewable fuels industry cannot confidently project 

what will happen in year 2010, let alone 2022. Until the industry operates a few years under the 

RFS2 carve-outs and the issues on tax rebate for renewables are resolved, the industry cannot 

develop a meaningful outlook forecast. EPA would be better off hiring a consultant who can 

look at the big picture and provide a much more meaningful evaluation than could be provided 

by the individual members of the biofuels industry. (0994.1, pp.14-15) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2155 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) 

Comment:

The commenter (2155.1) believes that EPA would be grossly duplicating regulatory efforts by 

requiring renewable fuel marketers and terminals to report on an annual basis as to volumes, 

type, and projections. These regulated parties already submit quarterly and annual (sometimes 

monthly) reports for blending credit purposes. This information is readily available to the EPA 

and should not be duplicated. (2155.1, p.3) 

3-256
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2249.2) opposes requiring annual production reports. This proposal would be 

another burden for the renewable fuels industry. Moreover, the requirement is wholly 

unnecessary. EPA has sufficient information available to track production and future plans for 

production from EIA and from the National Biodiesel Board for the industry as a whole. EPA 

provides no valid justification to require annual production reports from individual facilities. 

[[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 43-44 and docket number 2249.1, p. 5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2345 

Organization: Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2345) believes that additional terminal reporting is unnecessary and 

burdensome. EPA can base its decision regarding terminals on information from EIA and from 

private publications that provide data on individual facilities, tankage, and products they handle. 

[[Docket number 2345.1, p. 7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) notes that EPA is considering whether to require the annual submission 

of data to facilitate its evaluation of the ability of the distribution system to deliver projected 

volumes of biofuels to petroleum terminals. Currently, EIA’s Petroleum Supply Monthly reports 

data on a monthly basis for the supply, disposition, and inventory of renewable fuels for each 

PADD. The commenter suggests that EPA use these EIA data and not place any additional 

reporting burden on terminal operators and others in the distribution system. [[Docket number 

2393.1, p. 14]] 

Regarding the fuel producers annual “Production Outlook Report”, because cellulosic 

technologies are unproven, and based on past experience with projected timelines for completion 

of cellulosic projects, it would seem likely that there may be a tendency for producers to 

overestimate their production capacity. EPA does not appear to provide guidelines to producers 

regarding their predictions of next year production, nor provisions for penalties to producers who 

submit information that does not prove to be accurate. The commenter believes that accuracy in 

mandated producer reports should be enforced just as vigorously as accuracy in mandated 

obligated party compliance demonstration reports. [[Docket number 2393.1, pp 38-39]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment:

The commenter (2511.1) is opposed to submitting such confidential and strategic information 

even under a CBI submission. The commenter believes that any forward looking information to 

2022 seems excessive and somewhat useless given the nature of such long-term predictions. 

(2511.1, p.5) 

3-257
Chapter 3: Major Elements of the Program As Required By EISA 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) believes that EPA should limit these reports to producers of renewable 

fuel (both domestic and foreign) and not require such reports from importers. Importers will 

tend to import renewable fuels based on variable economic conditions and will likely not be able 

to reliably predict the amount of renewable fuels that they may import in future years. (2505.2, 

p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2172 

Organization: Minnesota Soybean Producers (MnSP) 

Comment: 

MnSP also objects to EPA's proposal that annual renewable fuel production outlook reports be 

required of all domestic renewable fuel producers. This proposal is burdensome and duplicative 

for the domestic biodiesel industry. The Energy Information Administration currently collects 

significant and detailed monthly biodiesel production, by-product production, pricing, production 

forecasts and other information from biodiesel producers. This information already exists in the 

public domain. MnSP urges EPA to utilize the information already being generated and not 

implement duplicate reporting requirements that are already required by other agencies. 

Our Response:

As discussed in section II.K of the preamble, we are finalizing the requirement for 

production outlook reports from renewable fuel producers. The information required for the 

reports will be in a simple spreadsheet format, similar to the diesel fuel pre-compliance reports, 

and we may also utilize information reported to EMTS as well. The information submitted in the 

reports will be used to evaluate the progress that the industry is making towards the renewable 

fuels volume goals mandated by EISA. They will help EPA set the annual cellulosic biofuel 

standard and consider whether waivers would be appropriate with respect to the advanced 

biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and total renewable fuel standards. Without this information we 

would be unable to reliably set the renewable fuel standards each year and appropriately respond 

to waiver applications. While we understand that the types of projections we request in the 

Outlook Reports could be somewhat speculative in nature, we believe that the projections will 

provide us with the most reliable information possible to inform the annual RFS standards and 

waiver considerations. Further, we believe this information will be more useful to us than other 

public information that is released in other contexts (e.g., announcements for marketing 

purposes). It will provide the most accurate information available for setting the cellulosic 

biofuel and biomass-based diesel standards, and any adjustments to the advanced biofuel and 

total renewable fuel standards. 

We recognize concerns of some commenters with respect to submission of confidential 

business plans and forecasts. All information submitted to EPA will be treated as confidential 

business information (CBI), and if used by EPA in a regulatory context will only be reported out 

in very general terms. As with our Diesel Pre-compliance Reports, we fully expect that the 

information will be somewhat speculative in the early reports, and we will weight it accordingly. 

3-258
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

3-259

As the program progresses, however, information submitted for the reports will continue to 

improve. We believe that any information, whether speculative or concrete, will be helpful for 

the purposes described above. Thus we are finalizing Production Outlook Reports, and the 

required elements at §80.1449. 

We appreciate that some commenters expressed concern that the Production Outlook 

Reports may contain too many unknowns or might not provide meaningful information. 

However, as discussed above, while these reports will have their limitations, we believe they will 

provide the best and most up to date information available for us to use in setting the standards 

and considering any waiver requests. We will of course also look to other publicly available 

information, and may consider using contractors to help out in this regard, but it cannot replace 

the need for the production outlook report data. 

 A commenter noted that this provision is similar to reports required under the diesel 

program, and further stated that if the required information can be captured by EMTS, the 

commenter fully supports this requirement. However, the commenter stated that it is opposed to 

some of the required elements of the reports for planned expanded or new production (strategic 

planning, planning and front-end engineering, detailed engineering and permitting, procurement 

and construction, and commissioning and start-up); these are an aspect of financial planning that 

the commenter believes EPA has no jurisdiction over and cannot derive basis from EISA in any 

form regardless of interpretation. As explained above, this information will be used by EPA to 

inform us for setting the standards on an annual basis and in responding to any waiver petitions. 

It will not be used to assess compliance with the program. The other provisions for registration, 

recordkeeping, and reporting serve that purpose. 

 We note that the information that currently exists from other sources mentioned by the 

commenters is generally either current or historical information. For the purposes of setting 

future standards, we need to have information on future plans and projections. We understand 

that reality will always be different from the projections, but they will still give us the best 

possible source of information. Furthermore, by having projections five years out into the future, 

and then obtaining new reports every year, we will be able to assess the trends in the data and 

reports to better utilize them over time. 
EPA-420-R-10-003

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Summary and Analysis of 

Comments

Chapter 4

Compliance 

(Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting)
4. COMPLIANCE (REGISTRATION, RECORDKEEPING, REPORTING) 

4.1 Registration 4-3 

4.2 RIN Tracking and Price Reporting 4-14 

4.3 Reporting and Attest Engagements 4-21 

4.3.1 EMTS 4-21 

4.3.2 Monthly Reporting 4-23 

4.3.3 Additional Reporting Information 4-26 

4.3.4 Attest Engagements 4-30 

4.4 Product Transfer Documents (PTDs) 4-31 

4.5 Recordkeeping 4-33 

4.6 EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) 4-33 

4.6.1 General Comments 4-33 

4.6.2 PTD and Attest Engagements Under RFS2 4-36 

4.6.3 Start-up of EMTS 4-37 

4.6.4 Timing of Transaction Reporting 4-39 

4.6.5 Technical Elements of EMTS 4-40 

4.6.6 Batch Reporting Via EMTS 4-41 

4.7 Prohibited Acts and Liability for Violations 4-42 

4.8 Retail Dispenser Labeling for Gasoline with Greater than 10 Percent Ethanol 4-43
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

4. COMPLIANCE (REGISTRATION, RECORDKEEPING, REPORTING) 

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section correspond to Section IV of the preamble to the proposed 

rule and address registration, recordkeeping, reporting. A summary of the comments received 

and our response to those comments are located below (and in section III of the preamble to the 

final rule). 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1044) offers the following remarks related to proposed regulation §80.1427: 

§80.1427(7)(i) and (7)(iii) (How are RINs used to demonstrate compliance?) The language 

contradicts itself. In §1427(7)(i) the word ”all“ is used referring to 2008 and 2009 RINs for 2010 

compliance purposes and in §1427(7)(iii) the wording limits the use to 2008 and 2009 RINs that 

were not used for prior compliance. Which is it? Clearly the preamble discusses all 2008 and 

2009 excess RINs that were not used for compliance purposes will move forward. Therefore the 

commenter requests the wording to reflect that position. [[Docket number 1044.1, p. 6]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2312 

Organization: LyondellBasell Industries 

Comment: 

The commenter (2312.1) noted that the revised RFS2 definition of “renewable fuels” will likely 

exclude or block much of the current foreign biofuels as well as future expansions from entering 

U.S. commerce and thereby being used to satisfy non-RFS2 markets. EPA is essentially 

applying the same costly and extensive supply chain record-keeping and segregation 

(verification) requirements on any biofuel trade in the U.S. even if that trade is not intended for 

satisfying RFS2 obligations. Unless modified, these additional requirements will economically 

penalize any future biofuels trade in the U.S. that is not intended for meeting the RFS2 fuels 

requirements in the U.S., and will unfairly and unnecessarily disadvantage a U.S. producer’s 

ability to compete in supplying either fuel blends with biofuels or bio-component intermediates 

to the global markets. (2312.1, p.4-5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA should revise the registration, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for the renewable biomass definition to simply require registrants to 

identify the types of feedstock they use, to keep verifiable records of the amount and type of 

feedstocks used in producing the renewable fuel. (2329.1, p. 102) 

4-1
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079 

Organization: AE Biofuels, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2079.1) noted that the proposal includes a multitude of new registration, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for biodiesel producers, including possible onsite 

engineering reviews by a certified Professional Engineer. Many of these new requirements 

(which also include renewable biomass verification records and submission of RIN pricing 

information to EPA) appear to offer little or no regulatory benefit and are not thoroughly 

justified in the proposal. (2079.1, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2099 

Organization: Honeywell International, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2099.1) supports EPA’s proposed approach that importers of renewable fuels 

should be subject to the same reporting, registration, recordkeeping, and attest engagement 

regimes. (2099.1, p.25) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2149 

Organization: Dynamic Fuels, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2149.1) believes that it is important that EPA works to keep the regulatory 

compliance burdens to a minimum. The benefits of regulations should be carefully balanced with 

the costs they create. This is perhaps most important in the emerging renewable fuels industry 

where the typical competitor is relatively small and therefore lacks the scale that can help it 

absorb such costs. (2149.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2383) believes EPA should eliminate recordkeeping, reporting, and registration 

requirements that are unnecessary or overly burdensome or expensive. [[Docket number 2380.1, 

p. 3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2474 

Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2474) believes that registration, certification, and reporting requirements that 

are impractical and burdensome should be eliminated. (2474, p.2) 

Our Response: 

RFS2 is inherently more complicated than RFS1 due to additional requirements imposed 

by Congress in EISA. As such, the registration, recordkeeping and reporting requirements have 

necessarily become more burdensome to ensure the requirements of EISA are being fulfilled. In 

Section II of the FRM preamble, we have addressed concerns over burdens associated with 

specific topics such as Registration requirements, third party engineering reviews, and 

4-2
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Production Outlook reports. While additional burdens are a fact of new RFS2 requirements, we 

are sensitive to the burdens placed on the regulated community and have made significant 

improvements to the mechanisms associated with some of these functions. We have revised our 

registration system via EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) enabling regulated parties to apply 

for registration IDs and make corrections online. We have also introduced the EPA Moderated 

Transaction System (EMTS) to manage the generation and tracking of RINs in a less 

burdensome manner than was used in RFS1. EPA staff continues to make improvements to the 

registration and reporting infrastructure in order to reduce burdens on the regulated community 

and EPA, as well as to insure confidence and compliance with RFS2. 

4.1 Registration 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2157) is concerned with additional registration, certification, and reporting 

requirements that EPA is proposing. The commenter finds these are impractical, burdensome 

and unnecessary. Generally the current RFS RIN program has been working, and EPA should 

not add undue burdens that may be cost prohibitive and, in fact, may result in having the 

opposite of the intended effect. Specifically, EPA should presume the existing agricultural lands 

are met, and not require certification and, at most, should utilize an approach similar to the 

baseline production approach identified in the Proposed Rule (taking into account increased 

yields). Additionally, price information, on-site engineering reviews, and production outlook 

reports are unnecessary and burdensome, may require release of confidential business 

information, and should not be required. (2157 p. iv-v). 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2358 

Organization: Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the 

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) 

Comment:

EPA should impose regulatory requirements of foreign producers in a way that facilitates their 

participation, for example, allowing engineers based in and licensed by foreign countries to 

perform reviews. [[Docket number 2358.1, pp. 4-5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) generally supports using a one-time registration requirement to identify 

grandfather status and identify pathways to generate RINs. The commenter does not agree with 

4-3
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

the on-site engineering review requirements. (2329.1, p. 102) [See Docket Number 2329.1, p. 

102 for a detailed discussion of this issue]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter (0994.1) believes that EPA should eliminate the re-registration process because 

the only purpose it served is to allow EPA to obtain confidential business information that is not 

necessary for the success of the RFS2 program. Requiring re- registration and engineering 

inspection will delay the Jan 1, 2010 launch of the RFS2 which will have significant negative 

economic impact on the Biodiesel industry. (0994.1, p.6) 

The commenter also believes that since feedstock usage is the critical element in establishing the 

proper Biofuel categories, the requirement for a professional engineering inspection of all 

renewable fuel facilities is not necessary and should be eliminated. If a biofuel facility is 

expecting to get grandfathered into the system then a formal request form should be required. 

This form should require the details about the facility such as the existing production capacity at 

the time of the grandfathering. However this form is not needed for all other biomass Producers 

who are not to be grandfathered. (0994.1, p.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1033 

Organization: Poet Ethanol Products 

Comment:

The commenter (1033.1) suggest that the requirement of an Independent Professional Engineer 

review places a undue burden and expense on facilities, not to mention being impractical to 

accomplish given what is likely to be a very narrow window for registration after the final rule is 

published. Since most producers have licensed engineers on-site or individuals who are very 

knowledgeable of the design and operation of the facilities, the commenter believes that at least 

for all of the Grandfathered facilities, but preferably all Producers, that the requirement of the 

analysis to be done by an “Independent Professional Engineer” be stricken and allow it to be 

performed by a “knowledgeable employee of the Producer”. (1033.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment: 

Referring to proposed §80.1450, the commenter (1044) vehemently opposes these additional 

requirements and this section! Their opposition is based upon the reality of Biomass-Based 

Diesel production (Biodiesel)–producers must undergo the exact requirements for permitting 

under the guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act as adopted by each State. 

[[Docket number 1044.1, pp. 7-8]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1051 

Organization: Aberdeen Development Corp. 

Comment:

The commenter (1051.1) states that the proposed rule includes many new requirements which 

appear to offer little or no regulatory benefit while adding significantly to biodiesel producers” 

4-4
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

compliance burdens. Since most producers are small businesses, many are incapable of 

complying with these extremely complex regulations. Therefore, we recommend working with 

the National Biodiesel Board to simplify or eliminate registration, certification, and reporting 

requirements that are impractical and burdensome. [[Docket number 1051.1, p, 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2110 

Organization: Chevron 

Comment:

The commenter (2110.1) is hopeful that the registration and reporting system could be 

simplified. Eventually any system should include an internationally accepted certification 

system applied by accredited organizations that cover the fuel life cycle (as required by EISA 

and presumably other sustainability measures if and when they are developed) and provisions for 

a consistent global certification system. A preferred system would take advantage of existing or 

developing third-party efforts and ultimately provide a single certificate establishing the 

sustainability credentials of the biofuel, its GHG saving percentage, and all the information 

needed to establish a D code or, better yet, assign the D code itself. (2110.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that the only option is for implementation of the program is January 1, 

2011 or later. Even if EPA is able to promulgate a final rule before January 2010, it will take 

until 2011 to accomplish the registrations that are required and to put in place the systems and 

plans that are necessary for compliance (assuming that EPA can issue the final rule by January 

2010). (2124.1, p. 9). 

The commenter (2124.1) noted that registration will be a burdensome process for renewable fuel 

producers and that it will take considerable time for all renewable fuel producers to complete the 

registration process. The commenter believes that it is imperative that EPA provide sufficient 

lead time at the beginning of this program to allow these registrations to occur. If sufficient time 

is not provided, it could limit the availability of RINs. (2124.1, p.22-23) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) supports an engineering review to verify the appropriate D code is being 

generated and believes that EPA should clarify the kinds of production changes that would 

trigger a review by a professional engineer. However, the commenter believes that the 

requirements that EPA envisions are far too complex and time consuming which is one of the 

reasons they believe a start date before 1/1/2011 will be disruptive. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2125 

Organization: Mercedes Benz 

Comment:

With respect to the registration of new biomass-diesel manufacturers, including biodiesel 

manufacturers under 40 CFR. Part 79, and the regulation of fuel production quality under 40 

4-5
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

CFR Part 80, the commenter (2125.10 believes that the existing regulatory mechanisms need to 

be made more stringent and effective. (2125.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2145 

Organization: Flint Hills Resources 

Comment:

The commenter (2145.1) noted that in §80.1450, there are several references to providing EPA 

with registration “information specified under §80.76.” Some of the §80.76 registration 

information does not make strict sense in the context of '80.1450. The commenter suggests that 

EPA address these inconsistencies with changes to either §80.76 or §80.1450, or both. (2145.1, 

p.8) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) supports extending the RIN registration requirements to all domestic 

renewable fuel producers, importers, and foreign renewable fuel producers in an equitable 

manner. While it is appropriate for EPA to request information about a producer’s products, 

feedstocks and facilities in order to allow proper classification of the fuel, the commenter is 

concerned about the potential compliance burden and additional costs a new verification or 

certification process would create. (2146.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2157) is concerned with additional registration, certification, and reporting 

requirements that EPA is proposing. The commenter finds these are impractical, burdensome 

and unnecessary. Generally the current RFS RIN program has been working, and EPA should 

not add undue burdens that may be cost prohibitive and, in fact, may result in having the 

opposite of the intended effect. Specifically, EPA should presume the existing agricultural lands 

are met, and not require certification and, at most, should utilize an approach similar to the 

baseline production approach identified in the Proposed Rule (taking into account increased 

yields). (2157 p. iv). 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) supports an engineering review to verify the appropriate D code is being 

generated. EPA should make clear what kinds of production changes would trigger a P.E. 

review. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 45]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

4-6
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2249.2) supports a streamlined registration process. In particular the commenter 

generally supports the proposed revisions to the registration process, but opposes the requirement 

for an on-site engineering review as unnecessary and overly burdensome. The commenter agrees 

that it made sense to require on-site inspection of the facility for foreign producers where EPA 

does not have the same access to records or ability to inspect, but such is not the case for U.S. 

facilities. The commenter notes that EPA already requires substantial recordkeeping and 

reporting, including attest engagement requirements that are sufficient to meet any enforcement 

needs. The on-site engineering review also seems counter to EPA’s decision to use lookup tables 

to identify general pathways to ease administrative burdens, rather than allow those facilities to 

establish a source-specific pathway. If EPA believes there is a question regarding a particular 

facility, it retains authority to request and review additional records, and to inspect the facility. 

The commenter believes that EPA should remove this requirement for on-site engineering 

reviews of U.S. facilities. [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 39-40]] 

In addition the commenter asks EPA to clarify how to register facilities that use 

multiple/aggregated feedstocks. Although the commenter opposes an on-site review 

requirement, they seek clarification to ensure that EPA’s proposal to require an update of facility 

registration does not include a change in feedstock that was already identified and documented 

under the list of “capable” feedstocks for renewable fuel production. If EPA intends every 

feedstock change to require an on-site engineering review, this requirement would be costly and 

unnecessary. Docket number 2249.2, p. 40]] [[See docket number 2249.2, pp. 40-42 and docket 

number 2249.1, pp 4-5 for additional discussion of this issue. ]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2341 

Organization: Noble Americas 

Comment: 

The commenter (2341) believes that re-registration should not be required and would contribute 

to delays in the implementation of RFS2. The commenter asks that the inconsistency be 

reconciled and feels that re-registration is not justified. (2341, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2358 

Organization: Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the 

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2358) believes EPA should impose regulatory requirements of foreign 

producers in a way that facilitates their participation, for example, allowing engineers base in and 

licensed by foreign countries to perform reviews. [[Docket number 2358.1, pp. 4-5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

In Section 80.1450, EPA proposes expanded registration requirements applicable to renewable 

fuel producers. The commenter (2383) requests that EPA eliminate from the registration 

requirements information under section 80.1450(b)(1)(v) regarding facilities that commenced 

4-7
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

construction prior to December 19, 2007. EPA further proposes that as part of the re-registration 

process, each producer must include an “independent third-party engineering review” of 

information regarding each facility’s fuel and feedstock production, feedstocks, production 

processes, and energy sources. The commenter believes such an independent review will 

produce no new information, will only confirm information the facility has already certified is 

accurate, and will be expensive. [[Docket number 2383.1, pp. 59-60]] 

The commenter believes there is no basis or need for EPA to require the types of records 

specified under section 80.1450(b)(1)(v) (records of costs of additions, repairs, replacements, 

estimated life of facility, economic and technical limitations to meeting 20 percent GHG 

performance standard) from ethanol production facilities that commenced construction before 

December 19, 2007. The commenter requests that EPA eliminate the requirements from the final 

rule. [[Docket number 2383.1, p. 59]] 

The commenter also believes that EPA’s suggestion that renewable fuel producers must 

reregister every three years is too frequent. Given the burden and cost of re-registering, the 

commenter recommends that producers should not have to re-register more frequently than every 

five years. Further, the commenter believes EPA should eliminate its proposed section 

80.1450(d)(2) that requires producers to update registration within seven days for any changes to 

a renewable fuel facility “not affecting the renewable fuel category for which the producer is 

registered.” Such requirement serves no regulatory purpose and is unnecessarily burdensome. 

[[Docket number 2383.1, p. 60]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment: 

The commenter (2511.1) noted that EPA proposes that every facility complete an on-site 

engineering review of their facility performed in conjunction with his or her initial registration 

for the new RFS program in order to establish the proper basis for RIN generation, and every 

three years thereafter to verify that the fuel pathways established in their initial registration are 

still applicable. The commenter believes that grandfathered and deemed compliant facilities 

should not be subject to such a requirement. The commenter points out that EPA is requiring 

every facility to complete such an engineering review, but is advocating a “generic” fuel 

pathway in lieu of individual plant carbon footprints. (2511.1,p .6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2435 

Organization: R.W. Heiden Associates LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2435) notes that EPA’s proposal requires a number of new compliance and 

certification provisions that will place a significant regulatory compliance burden on the 

industry, the majority of which is comprised of small businesses. Many of the proposed 

compliance provisions do not have practical application and will not work in practice as part of 

the day-to-day operation of producing biodiesel, nor do they offer regulatory benefit and are not 

justified in the proposal. The commenter recommends that the agency work with the National 

Biodiesel Board to simplify or eliminate registration, certification, and reporting requirements 

that are impractical and overly burdensome. [[Docket number 2435.1, p. 6]] 

4-8
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2472) notes that as proposed, all renewable fuel producers would be required to 

make a showing to EPA, certified by an independent 3rd party, to establish the pathway for the 

renewable fuels produced at each facility so that the renewable fuels produced at each facility 

can be classified appropriately under the RIN system. Clearly, this will be a burdensome process 

for renewable fuel producers and it will take considerable time for all renewable fuel producers 

to complete the registration process. The commenter believes it is imperative that EPA provide 

sufficient lead time at the beginning of this program to allow these registrations to occur. If 

sufficient time is not provided, it could limit the availability of RINs. [[Docket number 2472.1, p. 

7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter noted that there is not sufficient time before January 1, 2010, for foreign and 

domestic renewable fuel producers to satisfy the requirements for registration under proposed 

section 80.1450. (2505.2, pp.1-3) (See Docket Number 2505.2, pp.1-3 for a detailed discussion 

of this issue) 

The commenter (2505.2) believes that it is imperative that EPA provide sufficient lead time at 

the beginning of this program to allow these registrations to occur. If sufficient time is not 

provided, it could result in a shortage of RINs, because renewable fuel producers will not be able 

to assign RINs to the fuels that they produce unless they are registered under the new rules. 

(2505.2, pp.10-11) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1001 

Organization: Kurzman Clean Tech Research & Kurzman Capital, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (1001.1) noted that the proposal includes a multitude of new registration, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for biodiesel producers, including possible on-site 

engineering reviews by a certified Professional Engineer. Many of these new requirements 

appear to offer little or no regulatory benefit and are not thoroughly justified in the proposal. 

The commenter recommends that the agency work with the National Biodiesel Board to simplify 

or eliminate registration, certification, and reporting requirements that are impractical and overly 

burdensome. (1001.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1005 

Organization: Cotner Consulting Services 

Comment: 

The commenter (1005.1) noted that the proposed rule includes many new requirements which 

appear to offer little or no regulatory benefit while adding significantly to biodiesel producers’ 

compliance burdens. Since most producers are small businesses, many are incapable of 

complying with these extremely complex regulations. The commenter recommends working 

4-9
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

with the National Biodiesel Board to simplify or eliminate registration, certification, and 

reporting requirements that are impractical and burdensome. (1005.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1010 

Organization: CC Gas Systems, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (1010.1) noted that the proposal includes a multitude of new registration, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for biodiesel producers, including possible on-site 

engineering reviews by a certified Professional Engineer. Many of these new requirements 

appear to offer little or no regulatory benefit and are not thoroughly justified in the proposal. 

The commenter recommends that the Agency work with the National Biodiesel Board to 

simplify or eliminate registration, certification, and reporting requirements that are impractical 

and overly burdensome. (1010.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1011 

Organization: Atlantic BioFuels 

Comment: 

The commenter (1011.1) noted that the proposed rule includes many new requirements which 

appear to offer little or no regulatory benefit while adding significantly to biodiesel producers’ 

compliance burdens. Since most producers are small businesses, many are incapable of 

complying with these extremely complex regulations. The commenter recommends working 

with the National Biodiesel Board to simplify or eliminate registration, certification, and 

reporting requirements that are impractical and burdensome. (1011.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1012 

Organization: Glenwood Farms 

Comment: 

The commenter (1012.1) noted that the proposed rule includes many new requirements which 

appear to offer little or no regulatory benefit while adding significantly to biodiesel producers’ 

compliance burdens. Since most producers are small businesses, many are incapable of 

complying with these extremely complex regulations. The commenter recommends working 

with the National Biodiesel Board to simplify or eliminate registration, certification, and 

reporting requirements that are impractical and burdensome. (1012.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1025 

Organization: Law Offices of David Wilcox 

Comment: 

The commenter (1025) noted that the proposed rule includes many new requirements which 

appear to offer little or no regulatory benefit while adding significantly to biodiesel producers’ 

compliance burdens. Since most producers are small businesses, many are incapable of 

complying with these extremely complex regulations. The commenter recommends working 

with the National Biodiesel Board to simplify or eliminate registration, certification, and 

reporting requirements that are impractical and burdensome. (1025, p.5) 

 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1028 

Organization: Citizen 

4-10
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment: 

The commenter (1028) noted that the proposed rule includes many new requirements which 

appear to offer little or no regulatory benefit while adding significantly to biodiesel producers’ 

compliance burdens. Since most producers are small businesses, many are incapable of 

complying with these extremely complex regulations. The commenter recommends working 

with the National Biodiesel Board to simplify or eliminate registration, certification, and 

reporting requirements that are impractical and burdensome. (1028, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1029 

Organization: C.I.B. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1029) noted that the proposed rule includes many new requirements which 

appear to offer little or no regulatory benefit while adding significantly to biodiesel producers’ 

compliance burdens. Since most producers are small businesses, many are incapable of 

complying with these extremely complex regulations. The commenter recommends working 

with the National Biodiesel Board to simplify or eliminate registration, certification, and 

reporting requirements that are impractical and burdensome. (1029, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1043 

Organization: University of Georgia Engineering Outreach Service 

Comment: 

The commenter (1043.1) noted that the proposal includes a multitude of new registration, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for biodiesel producers, including possible on-site 

engineering reviews by a certified Professional Engineer. Many of these new requirements 

appear to offer little or no regulatory benefit and are not thoroughly justified in the proposal. 

The commenter recommends that the Agency work with the National Biodiesel Board to 

simplify or eliminate registration, certification, and reporting requirements that are impractical 

and overly burdensome. (1043.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2016 

Organization: Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that for overseas installations, independent engineering review, if ever 

required, should also be allowed to be conducted by a professional engineer recognized by the 

country in which the installation is located. (2016.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2172 

Organization: Minnesota Soybean Processors 

Comment: 

MnSP is extremely opposed to the portions of this proposed EPA rulemaking that contains 

numerous and burdensome registration, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that outweigh 

any benefit. This rulemaking includes a multitude of new registration, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements for biodiesel producers including proposed on-site engineering reviews 

by a licensed Professional Engineer. 

Our Response: 

4-11
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

Registration Info

In order to implement and enforce the new restrictions on qualifying renewable fuel 

under RFS2, we are revising the registration process for renewable fuel producers and importers. 

Many commenters argue that the expanded registration requirement is unnecessary and 

burdensome. EPA disagrees and believes that the information to be collected through the 

expanded registration process is essential to generating and assigning a certain category of RIN 

to a volume of fuel. Additionally, the information collected is essential to determining whether 

the feedstock used to produce the fuel meets the definition of renewable biomass, whether the 

lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of the fuel meets a certain GHG reduction threshold and, in 

some cases, whether the renewable fuel production facility is considered to be grandfathered into 

the program. Therefore, we are requiring producers, including foreign producers, and importers 

that generate RINs to provide us with information on their feedstocks, facilities, and products, in 

order to implement and enforce the program and have confidence that producers and importers 

are properly categorizing their fuel and generating RINs. 

Re-registration

Several commenters argue that they should not be required to update their RFS1 

registration for purposes of RFS2. EPA believes that re-registration is necessary because the 

information being collected for purposes of RFS2 is greatly expanded from that collected under 

RFS1 due to the additional requirements imposed by EISA. More detailed information on 

feedstocks, processes and energy sources is necessary under RFS2 to ensure the proper RIN type 

is generated. This type of information was not necessary or required under RFS1, so even if a 

party is already registered under the RFS1 program, that party will need to re-register for 

purposes of RFS2 to provide the additional information. 

Registration for Grandfathered Facilities

Several commenters argue that those facilities that are grandfathered under RFS2 should 

not be subject to the registration and engineering review requirements proposed for RFS2. 

However, EPA believes that producers of renewable fuel from grandfathered facilities must 

confirm their eligibility to be grandfathered and must provide information that demonstrates 

when the facility commenced construction, and that establishes the baseline volume of the fuel. 

However, in response to comments and to reduce demand on engineering resources, EPA is 

allowing grandfathered facilities an additional six months to register and submit their 

engineering review. 

Registration for Foreign Producers and Importers

EPA proposed that foreign producers of renewable fuel meet the same requirements as 

domestic producers, including registering information about their feedstocks, facilities, and 

products, as well as submitting an on-site independent engineering review of their facilities at the 

time of registration for the program and every three years thereafter. These proposed 

requirements apply to all foreign renewable fuel producers who plan to export their products to 

4-12
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

the U.S. as part of the RFS2 program, whether the foreign producer generates RINs for their fuel 

or an importer does. NBB argues that facilities located in the U.S. should not have to conduct 

the engineering review of the facility as it is unnecessary since EPA has the authority to inspect 

the facilities at any time and conduct their own review, but that foreign facilities should be 

required to conduct third-party engineering reviews. In contrast, DuPont Applied BioSciences 

argues that domestic and foreign facilities should be subject to the same engineering review 

requirements. EPA believes that the application of the facility registration and engineering 

review requirement should be consistently applied to both domestic and foreign producers so that 

EPA has the information necessary ensure from the beginning of the RFS2 program that the 

correct types of RINs are being generated by facilities. Without the registration information, 

RINs will not properly generated from the beginning of the program by both domestic and 

foreign producers and EPA will have to take remedial action and invalidate many RINs, which 

will hinder the program as a whole. 

Engineering Reviews

A number of commenters argue that engineering reviews are not necessary. EPA is 

finalizing the proposed requirement for an on-site engineering review of facilities producing 

renewable fuel due to the variability of production facilities, the increase in the number of 

categories of renewable fuels, and the importance of ensuring that that RINs are generated in the 

correct category. Without these engineering reviews, we do not believe it would be possible to 

implement the RFS2 program in a manner that ensured the requirements of EISA were being 

fulfilled. Additionally, the engineering review provides a check against fraudulent RIN 

generation. In order to establish the proper basis for RIN generation, we are requiring that every 

renewable fuel producer have the on-site engineering review of their facility performed in 

conjunction with his or her initial registration for the new RFS program. Additionally, the onsite engineering review must be conducted every three years thereafter to verify that the fuel 

pathways established in the initial registration are still applicable. Producers are required to 

submit a copy of their independent engineering review to EPA, for verification and enforcement 

purposes. 

Independent Third Party Engineer

Commenters argue that having the facility engineering review conducted by an 

independent third party is unnecessary since most facilities could have their review conducted by 

on-site engineers who have in-depth knowledge of the facility and its processes, heat sources and 

feedstocks. EPA argues that it is necessary to have an independent party conduct the engineering 

review because an independent party can maintain impartiality and objectivity in evaluating the 

facilities and their processes. The independent party must be a licensed professional engineer 

(P.E.), or foreign equivalent who works in the chemical engineering field. The independent third 

party must provide to EPA documentation of his or her qualifications as part of the engineering 

review, including proof of appropriate P.E. license or foreign equivalent. 

Timing

4-13
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

Many commenters argue that completing the registration and third-party engineering 

requirements will take a significant amount of time, and that EPA would need to provide ample 

time for regulated parties to complete these requirements prior to the start of the RFS2 program. 

The agency recognizes that there are significant concerns involving timing necessary and ability 

to produce a completed engineering review to satisfy registration requirements. Since the 

publication of the RFS2 NPRM, we have delivered consistently a message stating that advanced 

planning and preparation was necessary from all parties, EPA and the regulated community 

inclusive, for successful implementation of this program. Furthermore, in an effort to reduce 

demand on engineering resources, we are allowing grandfathered facilities an additional six 

months to submit their engineering review. This will direct the focus of engineering review 

resources on producers of advanced, cellulosic and biomass based diesel. EPA fully expects 

these producers of advanced renewable fuels to meet the engineering review requirement; 

however, if they are having difficulties producing engineer’s reports prior to July 1, we ask that 

they contact us. 

Registration Updates

Commenters argue that registration updates every three years are unnecessary and that 

the registration should be a one-time occurrence. However, since operations change over time 

EPA believes that updates are necessary to confirm that the producer is continuing to generate 

the proper RIN type based on its feedstocks, processes and product. Additionally, registration 

updates must be submitted if a producer makes changes at his facility that are not included in his 

original registration. 

Handling of Information Claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)

 EPA acknowledges that some information required to be submitted under the RFS2 

regulation may be claimed as CBI by the submitter. EPA is required to treat such information in 

accordance with our regulations at 40 CFR part 2. In addition, EPA has issued guidelines and 

policies for handling of information claimed as CBI in order to implement these regulations. 

4.2 RIN Tracking and Price Reporting 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

With regards to Part (e)(3)(x), the commenter (2505.2) strongly disagrees with this proposal. 

EPA does not need this information for compliance purposes, and it is highly sensitive 

confidential business information that EPA should not require parties to submit unless it is 

absolutely necessary for compliance. (2505.2, p.12) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2155 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) 

4-14
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment:

The commenter (2155.1) believes that in the event that a RIN generator inadvertently attaches an 

invalid RIN (incorrect batch number, duplicated RIN, typo, etc.) to valid gallons sold, and said 

generator subsequently goes out of business, EPA shall regenerate or replace those RINs in order 

to maintain the intent of the law. The commenter also believes that the RIN generator should be 

allowed to generate RINs on a point of sale and/or point of import basis until such time allows 

for the implementation of EPA’s EMTS RIN verification and tracking tools. This will limit the 

negative impacts and disincentives created by RINs generated at the end of calendar years but 

not sold until the following year. (2155.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1044) strongly opposes the requirement to provide pricing information with 

transactions. They feel this type of information gathering is the responsibility of the SEC. In 

their review of the EISA, they were unable to identify the provisions that require the gathering of 

this information from any party. (1044, p. 3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment:

The commenters (2129.1) believe that the RIN and pathway system as proposed by EPA will 

make it virtually impossible to track the emissions of specific gallons. This will greatly reduce 

the usefulness of the RIN system in encouraging market differentiation. EPA should strive to 

incorporate more specificity in the RIN system, aiming to assign more refined point-assessments 

of emissions associated with each batch of renewables fuels and tracking that rather than just 

pathways in the RIN. Simply expanding the number of digits in the RIN code will remove the 

current constraint, which limits tracking to just pathway letters. Second, the pathway system 

needs to include a better way for novel and better pathways to be recognized in a timely fashion. 

(2129.1, p. 15) 

 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment:

With regards to EPA requiring reporting of RIN prices, the commenter (2154.1) considers this 

information to be Business Confidential and object to its inclusion in the RIN reporting 

requirements. EPA should eliminate this when promulgating the final rule. (2154.1, p.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment: 

4-15
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

The commenter (2233) notes that as the RFS2 program is currently proposed, RIN costs can 

infinitely increase and at some point a very high RIN price will have a negative impact on the 

program. The commenter suggests that EPA consider establishing a RIN cap or ceiling. EPA 

would make paper RINs available at this value and thus RIN prices would not rise above this 

ceiling price. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 13-14]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that EPA provides no evidence that the RIN market is not working, and 

requires EPA to “assess the general health and direction of the market and overall liquidity of 

RINs.” The commenter states that the RIN market is already transparent, and parties should not 

be required to submit pricing information to EPA, which may then be available to the public. 

Price information is considered confidential business information and the disclosure of this 

sensitive information should not be required. None of EPA’s asserted benefits justifies requiring 

this information. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 42]] 

The commenter adds that there is ample information in the marketplace as to the supply of 

renewable fuels, the prices of those fuels, and obligated parties are well aware of RIN pricing in 

the marketplace. There is simply no support to claim that RIN prices will provide any additional 

information of which the regulated entities are not already aware. In sum, the commenter 

believes that the price of RINs is confidential business information and EPA should remove the 

requirement to report RIN prices. [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 42-43]] [[See docket number 

2249.1, p. 5 for additional discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2400 

Organization: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2400.2) recommends that all RIN information pertaining to value or financial 

position of the company be kept confidential. The commenter believes the EPA can obtain 

enough RIN market perspective without requiring companies to give specific company pricing 

information. (2400.2, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment: 

The commenter rejects EPA’s proposal to include RIN pricing on the RIN Transaction Reports. 

RIN values are not necessarily known at the time of a renewable fuel sale; and RIN values are 

not a strong measure of industry health. Feedstock prices, and diesel and gasoline prices are a 

much stronger indicator of industry health and these items are published in readily accessible 

forms. EPA should develop the expertise of using the feedstock and petroleum fuels prices to 

gauge the health of the renewable fuels industry and for setting renewable fuel standards. 

(0994.1, p.13) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1002 

4-16
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: Fuel Marketing Corporation 

Comment:

The commenter (1002) has concerns over the requirement that price information be submitted 

with each transaction. The commenter strongly feels this is strictly private information, and such 

information is not needed to access the market conditions as there are reporting services the 

industry uses to evaluate pricing that the EPA can access as well. The commenter also questions 

the security of such information, especially the quantities of such information being stored; make 

it more of a target for intrusion for those seeking such information. (1002/1002.1, p.3) 

The commenter also feels that including pricing information by transaction basis will 

dramatically impact the technical requirements needed to implement the EMTS system for the 

user, increasing the amount of data entry for those that cannot automate, and prevents the ability 

to send volume reporting as stated above which will have the positive effect of reducing the 

amount of transaction the EMTS system will handle. (1002/1002.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2124.1) opposes EPA’s proposal to require that RIN prices be reported to EPA. 

The commenter recommends that EPA should follow the same RIN pricing reporting 

requirement as set in RFS1. Reporting RIN pricing, in general, could have an adverse affect on 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) and Corporate Intelligence (CI). (2124.1, p.30) 

The commenter also noted that that the EPA lacks specific statutory authority to require 

burdensome and intrusive reporting of RIN price information with regard to the price of RINs in 

transactions (whether purchases, trades or sales). (2124.1, p.31) [See more detailed information 

on this issue in Docket Number 2124.1, pp.31-32] 

The commenter noted that a downstream party should not be required to adjust records, reports 

and compliance calculations because an upstream party made a mistake and distributed invalid 

RINs. The proposed regulation should be edited such that the upstream party makes peace with 

EPA and EMTS when an invalid RIN is discovered and downstream parties will not be bothered. 

(2124.1, pp.34-35) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2135 

Organization: Ad Hoc Coalition of Small Business Refiners (SBR) 

Comment:

The commenter (2135) opposes the proposal to include requirements for RIN price reporting to 

EPA as a result of RIN purchases, sales or trades. Public disclosure of company-specific RIN 

pricing data could lead to unintended market manipulation and price volatility. Moreover, the 

prices of RINs do not ensure that the applicable level of renewable fuel has been added to a 

transportation fuel nor are they needed to ensure that the requirements of the RFS program are 

satisfied. [[Docket number 2135.1, p. 22]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2155 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) 

4-17
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

Comment:

The commenter strongly disagrees with the EPA’s position on the need to capture RIN values for 

separated and assigned RINs. This is not the function of the EPA to gather market (pricing) 

information and to then hold that information publicly. (2155.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2341 

Organization: Noble Americas 

Comment: 

The commenter also believes that pricing information is of significant commercial value and 

could disrupt markets if inadvertently disclosed, and EPA should not require price reporting. 

Since price errors are the most common reason for invoice corrections, including pricing 

information in the data required for each renewable fuel and RIN transaction managed through 

the EMTS will not only increase the quantity of data being processed by the EMTS system, it 

will create unintentional RIN errors which will further increase the burden on EMTS. (2341, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment:

The commenter is opposed to submitting the price information for assigned RINs. The RIN 

value is not a line item on the invoice when selling volumes of renewable fuels with RINs. The 

commenter proposes that EPA source RIN pricing information from publicly available RIN 

trading groups on a stated periodic basis. (2511.1, p.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2464 

Organization: Musket Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2464.1) opposes a requirement for the reporting of confidential RIN prices to 

EPA. (2464.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2537 

Organization: Musket Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter also opposes a requirement for the reporting of confidential RIN prices to EPA. 

The commenter believes that the inclusion of RIN prices in the regular reports is unnecessary if 

EPA’s intent is solely to monitor market disruptions, since several industry-standard reporting 

services publish RIN prices daily. The quality of that price data is good enough for major firms 

to accept for marked-to-market treatment. For individuals to report price transactions to EPA is 

burdensome, unnecessary and creates the risk of the loss of confidential business information. 

[[Docket number 2537, p. 3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter disagrees with EPA’s proposal to compel parties to report their RIN transaction 

prices. 18 RIN price data is currently available from a variety of sources, including several trade 

4-18
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

publications such as OPIS Ethanol and Biodiesel Information Service and Platt’s Oilgram 

Report, and published price data from the Chicago Board of Trade and NYMEX. (2471.1, p.15) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2145 

Organization: Flint Hills Resources 

Comment: 

The commenter (2145.1) does not support reporting RIN prices through the EMTS system. 

Pricing information is not required or needed to implement the objectives of EISA. If EPA 

needs this type of information to make decisions around such things as waiver requests, there are 

commercial services (e.g., Biofuelsconnect.com, OPIS, Platts) that can satisfy this need. (2145.1, 

pp.6-7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) opposes reporting RIN prices as business confidential information that 

could be subject to FOIA. The commenter also opposes the requirement for renewable fuel 

prices and volumes. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 11]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter strongly opposes the requirement to report RIN prices. RIN prices are business 

confidential information that could be subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. In 

addition, RINs purchased with renewable fuel are often, if not always, not priced separately. 

Thus for anything other than pure RIN transactions, RIN prices are not available. [[Docket 

number 2393.1, p. 12]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter also opposes EPA’s proposal to require reporting of RIN prices. This 

requirement, as well as the requirement for production outlook reports, is unnecessary and raises 

substantial business confidential issues that EPA does not address in the Proposed Rule. Price 

information is considered confidential business information and should not be required to be 

disclosed. EPA should eliminate this requirement from the final rule (2329.1, p. 103-104) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) supports the EPA moderated transaction system that EPA has proposed 

with one important exception. The commenter strongly opposes the requirement to report RIN 

prices. RIN prices are business confidential information that could be subject to Freedom of 

Information Act requests. In addition, RINs purchased with renewable fuel are often, if not 

always, not priced separately. Thus for anything other than pure RIN transactions, RIN prices are 

not available. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 12]] 

4-19
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2145 

Organization: Flint Hills Resources 

Comment: 

The commenter (2145.1) supports the development and implementation of the EMTS system. 

The commenter does not support reporting RIN prices through the EMTS system. Pricing 

information is not required or needed to implement the objectives of EISA. If EPA needs this 

type of information to make decisions around such things as waiver requests, there are 

commercial services (e.g., Biofuelsconnect.com, OPIS, Platts) that can satisfy this need. (2145.1, 

pp.6-7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1002 

Organization: Fuel Marketing Corporation 

Comment:

The commenter (1002) has grave concerns on recording pricing information on a transaction 

basis. The commenter also has concerns of using a transaction based system instead of volumes. 

(1002/1002.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2047 

Organization: Terrabon 

Comment: 

Commenter [[2071]] proposes that quarterly pricing should be used rather than annual pricing, 

given the volatility of the price. Within the past year, retail gas prices have ranged from nearly 

$4 per gallon last summer to $1.80 in January 2009.More frequent pricing will come closer to 

replicating market conditions. [[#2071.1 p.7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2172 

Organization: Minnesota Soybean Processors 

Comment: 

The commenter (2172) is opposed to the submission of Confidential Businesses Information 

regarding the pricing of Renewable Fuel Identification numbers (RINs). 

Our Response:

A group of commenters suggested that EPA track emissions of specific gallons of 

renewable fuel and that the RIN number be increased to provide a means for expanding RIN 

pathway information collected. The RIN system has been developed to verify the production 

(and presumed use) of the different categories of renewable fuels required by the RFS2 

standards. Any additional use of the RIN for greater differentiation of environmental 

performance of renewable fuels is beyond the scope of this rule. 

Another commenter suggested that EPA set a cap, or ceiling, on the price of RINs in 

RFS2 and further suggested that EPA make paper RINs available at the ceiling. The RIN 

concept was developed as a market based system where RIN price has the potential to drive 

desirable outcome through the economic incentives associated with supply and demand. That is, 

a higher RIN price would foster development of the renewable product that is associated with 

4-20
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

that RIN. Additionally, EISA only provides for EPA generated credits for use with the cellulosic 

biofuel standard and only for the situation where EPA has determined that a given year’s 

cellulosic standard will not be met and sets an adjusted cellulosic standard. There are general 

waiver provisions that may be used in cases of localized, State, or national economic hardship 

should conditions warrant such an action. 

A majority of commenters stated their opposition to the collection of RIN price data with 

transaction submissions, due to Confidential Business Information (CBI) concerns, other services 

being able to provide this information, marketplace delays and undue stress on the EMTS from 

disagreements in RIN Price. EPA decided that the price information has great programmatic 

value because it will help us anticipate and appropriately react to market disruptions and other 

compliance challenges, assess and develop responses to potential waivers, and assist in setting 

future renewable standards. In addition, EPA decided that highly summarized price information 

(e.g., the average price of RINs traded nationwide) may be valuable to regulated parties, as well, 

and may help them to anticipate and avoid market disruptions. Also, EPA will not require the 

matching of the exact RIN price to alleviate the burden of resubmission due to price mistakes. 

However, the price information must be accurate rounded to the nearest cent (US Dollar) at the 

time of sending the transactional information to EMTS. With regard to concerns about handling 

of information claimed as CBI, EPA acknowledges that some information required to be 

submitted under the RFS2 regulation, including individual price information and certain other 

aspects of RIN transactions, may be claimed as CBI by the submitter. EPA is required to treat 

such information in accordance with our regulations at 40 CFR part 2. In addition, EPA has 

issued guidelines and policies for handling of information claimed as CBI in order to implement 

these regulations. 

4.3 Reporting and Attest Engagements 

4.3.1 EMTS 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) notes that the proposed rule requires a list of all RINs used for 

compliance and that Section 80.1452(c)(1)(iii)(E) also requires this list. The commenter 

recommends that this redundancy be removed by restating §80.1452(a)(1)(x) to reference the list 

provided in §80.1452(c)(1)(iii)(E). [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 14]] 

The commenter recommends that EMTS be designed with the capability to accept and 

requirement to submit the obligation report information within its framework. The obligated 

parties transportation fuel production volume, resulting RVOs, and deficit RVOs are all that 

remain for EMTS to capture so that all RFS reporting information is in a common system. 

[[Docket number 2233.2, p. 14]] 

4-21
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2135 

Organization: Ad Hoc Coalition of Small Business Refiners (SBR) 

Comment:

The commenter (2135) adds that they would support a RIN transaction environment in which a 

sophisticated, well-managed and enforced EMTS became the central distribution point for 

Producer/Importer RINs mandatorily transferred directly into it for subsequent distribution/sale 

only to Obligated Parties. SBRs agree that the purchase of separated RINs should be restricted 

to obligated parties only. Allowing non-obligated parties to purchase segregated RINs can lead 

to increased market price volatility, speculation and perceived market longs/shorts, none of 

which furthers compliance with the Reformulated Fuels Standard. [[Docket number 2135.1, p. 

22]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1044) opposes the provision for a Federally run trading platform and believes 

this is a responsibility of private business and not that of government. The commenter points out 

that there are no other government run trading boards. (1044, p. 3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) believes that Part (e)(3), which requires that after EMTS starts, 

obligated parties will have to report within 3 days to the transaction, is unworkable. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2172 

Organization: Minnesota Soybean Processors 

Comment: 

The commenter (2172) believes EPA could allow for a greater time period, 10 days, before a 

renewable fuel producer has to transfer RINs thus allowing time for payment to occur. 

Our Response:

A commenter suggested that we eliminate the requirement of listing RINs used for 

compliance and that we build the capability to accept obligated party information into the EMTS 

framework. The Agency is adopting EMTS for RFS2 RIN generation activities and for 

transactions involving RFS2 RINs. While the use of EMTS will reduce the burdens on most 

regulated parties, including obligated parties, it does not replace all functions of quarterly and 

annual reports submitted through CDX. EMTS will eliminate the need to list RFS2 RINs used 

for compliance, but it will not manage deficits and RVO calculations. 

Regarding the comment that EMTS be the basis for a direct RIN transfer system, EPA 

addressed a number of alternative options in the FRM preamble. It was determined that given 

the significant challenges associated with a change to the requirement that RINs be transferred 

with volume and the opposing views among stakeholders, we would not make any changes. 

4-22
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

A commenter opposes a federally run trading platform pointing out that this is a function 

for the private sector. The characterization of EMTS as a trading platform is a misconception. 

Implementation of EMTS incorporates requirements necessary to confirm RIN generating 

activities and transactions, thus ensuring overall compliance with RFS2. EMTS does not broker 

transactions, nor does it post holdings of RIN accounts; the information submitted to EMTS is 

based on commercial transactions that have been completed and are documented by PTDs. 

EPA has concluded that five days, or a business week, is an appropriate amount of time 

for both parties to receive or provide necessary documentation in order to interact with EMTS 

accurately and timely. “Real time” will be defined as within five (5) business days of a 

reportable event (e.g., generation and assignment of RINs, transfer of RINs). 

4.3.2 Monthly Reporting 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) believes that reporting should remain quarterly. Monthly reporting will 

not provide adequate time for obligated parties to complete RIN tracking/reconciliation with 

counterparties - it barely works with quarterly reporting now. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment: 

If, as the commenter (2393) recommends, EMTS is implemented concurrently with RFS2 

startup, no increased reporting frequency is justified. RFS2 should not start up without EMTS to 

avoid having to create a temporary, interim RFS2 system that will be wasteful of resources, both 

those of industry and of EPA. [[Docket number 2393.1, pp. 13-14]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2400 

Organization: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2400.2) prefers to keep the reporting on a quarterly basis to ensure accuracy and 

preciseness of reports submitted to the EPA. If the EPA were to need any data for statistical 

purposes, they will have real-time information, especially with EMTS which should eliminate 

the need for monthly reporting. (2400.2, p.9 and p.11) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) opposes increasing the reporting frequency from quarterly to monthly. 

EPA should strive to align the roll out of the EMTS system with the implementation of the RFS2 

regulations. There is no justification to increase the reporting requirements simply because EPA 

4-23
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

has failed to both finalize the RFS2 regulations and to roll out the EMTS in a timely manner. 

[[Docket number 2233.2, p. 14]] 

 Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2341 

Organization: Noble Americas 

Comment: 

The commenter (2341) believes that monthly reporting substantially increases the cost of 

reporting and should not be required. If it is required, the deadline for reporting should be 60 

days after the end of the month (rather than 30 days) to allow sufficient time to reconcile and 

perfect the data. The commenter believes that EPA should also consider elimination of quarterly 

transaction reporting (RFS0200) once the EMTS system is fully operational in year two. (2341, 

p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment:

The commenter (2154.1) noted that even if there ends up being a timing disconnect between the 

implementation of the rule requirements and the initiation of the EMTS, monthly reporting is not 

warranted. At a minimum, monthly reporting should only apply to renewable producers as the 

accuracy of the RIN information is critical to the system. (2154.1, p.7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2155 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) 

Comment:

The commenter (2155.1) believes that given the relatively short period of time until the 

implementation of the EMTS, EPA should continue with quarterly reporting. Monthly reporting 

will not solve RIN validation issues. (2155.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2130) does not support a monthly reporting requirement for 2010 as a lead in to 

the EMTS. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 9]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2124.1) believes that monthly reporting should not be required in 2010 for all 

RIN-owning parties. The RFS2 regulations will be effective when the EMTS is activated, 

probably 1/1/11. Therefore, there is no need to submit monthly reports when EMTS is 

operational. (2124.1, p.34) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

4-24
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter agrees with EPA’s proposal to provide faster and more efficient validation of 

RINs. Although the commenter does not believe EPA can implement the RFS2 for an effective 

date of January 1, 2010, the commenter does not oppose requiring monthly transaction reports 

until the EMTS is operational. Parties should be able to adjust their reporting from quarterly to 

monthly without significant burden, and it would provide EPA with information sooner to 

validate RINs to avoid the problems with finding potential problems down the road. (2329.1, p. 

103) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1044) states that the increased frequency of reporting is a change that would 

invoke a financial burden; however, in the big picture, realizes this important aspect to the EISA 

needs support. The commenter hopes the implementation and use of the proposed EMTS system 

would shift reporting to an issue of data query by the agency and relieve them of the reporting 

issues including attestation. (1044.1, p. 2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2014 

Organization: Clean Fuels Clearinghouse 

Comment: 

The commenter (2018.1) noted that RFS2 will increase reporting frequency from a quarterly time 

cycle to monthly in that period of time between RFS2 going into effect and EMTS becoming 

operational. Once EMTS is operational, reporting frequency increases to “near real-time”, or no 

less than every 3 days. The commenter supports such modifications and encourages EPA to 

adopt the rule as proposed in these areas. The commenter believes that the proposed increased 

reporting frequency does not address the demand side of the economic balance, leaving obligated 

parties to an annual reporting frequency. The commenter recommends that EPA increase the 

reporting frequency for obligated parties. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2124.1) believes that monthly reporting should not be required in 2010 for all 

RIN-owning parties. The RFS2 regulations will be effective when the EMTS is activated, 

probably 1/1/11. Therefore, there is no need to submit monthly reports when EMTS is 

operational. (2124.1, p.34) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2172 

Organization: Minnesota Soybean Processors 

Comment: 

The commenter (2172) believes that producer of renewable fuel be required to submit batch RIN 

transaction reports on a monthly basis for 2010 is extremely burdensome for MnSP and other 

regulated parties, EPA states that the reason for these reports is to assist parties in indentifying 

errors before the errors result in violations(s). MnSP does not believe that an increased 

frequency in reporting is needed or warranted and suggests that any RINs generated prior to 

EMTS implementation could trade under a separate category and disclosure since RIN traders 

4-25
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

using EMTS has the ability to instantly determine if the RINs being traded were created before 

EMTS and thus poses a greater risk. 

Our Response: 

The NPRM discussed changing the frequency of reporting for RFS2 RIN generation 

activity and transactions from quarterly to monthly, in the event that EMTS would not be 

available for use at the start of the program. EMTS will be available and its use will coincide 

with the start of the RFS2 program. 

EPA acknowledges that some information required to be submitted under the RFS2 

regulation may be claimed as CBI by the submitter. EPA is required to treat such information in 

accordance with our regulations at 40 CFR Part 2. In addition, EPA has issued guidelines and 

policies for handling of information claimed as CBI in order to implement these regulations. 

4.3.3 Additional Reporting Information 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) questions EPA’s proposal to further burden terminal operators and others 

in the distribution system with new reporting requirements. It is unclear what information these 

parties could give the EPA that would provide useful or new information not already available to 

EPA through EIA’s Petroleum Supply Monthly data. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 15]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2014 

Organization: Clean Fuels Clearinghouse 

Comment: 

The commenter (2018.1) suggests that EPA should consider requiring an “estimated” RFS0300 

report each quarter with the accompanying RFS0200 and associated “USE” records. A final 

RFS0300 report would be made then on an annual basis. This could be set up similar to the 

quarterly estimated tax approach utilized by the IRS and required of corporations where prior 

year obligations would serve as the quarterly basis. (2018.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2014 

Organization: Clean Fuels Clearinghouse 

Comment: 

The commenter (2018.1) recommends that EPA require a reporting of the last batch number used 

by either a producer or importer of renewable fuel during the first interim period (RFS1). This 

last batch number would then be made publicly available on the transition date and would be 

utilized by industry to self monitor and assure that subsequent batches under RFS2 were 

generated at a batch number greater than that reported. (2083.1, p.1) 

4-26
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter (2471.1) believes that EPA should provide clear guidance to producers that 

propose certain documentation or records to demonstrate that their fuel meets the qualifying 

criteria. There are likely various existing forms of documentation upon which EPA can rely and, 

thus, limit the potential documentation burden created by EISA and the proposed RFS2 

regulations. (2471.1, p.13) 

The commenter also believes that EPA should use reports under RFS2 both to ensure parties’ 

compliance and to monitor the overall health of the program. While the commenter does not 

endorse the establishment of position limits or caps on the total number of unassigned RINs that 

a party may buy or hold, they do believe that, in a tight RIN market, EPA should scrutinize 

reports to prevent obvious attempts to hoard RINs or to manipulate the market. (2471.1, p.15) 

The commenter noted that regulated parties generally have struggled to identify the correct 

“transaction date” for RIN Transaction Reports under RFS1. This issue is not inconsequential, 

as the choice of transaction date can influence whether a party maintains compliance with the 

quarterly balancing requirements for assigned RINs. The commenter believes that EPA should 

clarify this ambiguity by adopting as a default position that the “transaction date” is the date of 

the product transfer document or other document (e.g., invoice) that conveys RINs from buyer to 

seller. (2471.1, p.17) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2383) is concerned about EPA’s proposed section 80.1452(e)(2)(xi) that 

renewable fuel producers must now report “the type and volume of co-products produced” with 

each batch of renewable fuel. This proposed requirement is burdensome, costly, and 

unnecessary D-code classification is not linked to the level of co-product produced at a facility 

and reporting the quantity of co-product production serves no regulatory purpose under EISA. 

[[Docket number 2383.1, p. 59]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment: 

The commenter (0994.1) believes that EPA needs to rethink the concept of the Batch Report. 

The supposition that every gallon of renewable fuel in a tank with assigned RIN numbers will be 

sold or will be sold as renewable fuel is faulty. Having to assign a batch RIN number for the 

total batch volume will create extra work, requiring facilities to assign RIN numbers and then 

retire RIN numbers for non fuel sales and for tank heel volumes. Under RFSI, assigning RIN 

numbers prior to a renewable fuel sale was simple and avoided having to generate and retire RIN 

numbers for fuel volumes that were not part of the renewable fuel program. (0994.1, p.11) 

The commenter noted that EPA will have to create a new RIN Retire code to deal with the 

circumstance when RINs are retired because a heel volume is not sold from a tank, and that heel 

4-27
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

becomes part of the next batch created in that tank. While the commenter sees many advantages 

of the EMTS, the Batch Report causes facilities to generate more transactions to retire RINs than 

in RFS1. If retiring RINs becomes a significant burden, facilities will generate a Batch Report 

for each single sale in which the batch volume and RIN number are tied to that single sale. The 

commenter also noted that Producers will have to have two accounts in the EMTS RIN Bank: 

one account will be for valid Generated RINs (from Batch Reports) and one account for 

Separated RINs. (0994.1, pp.11-12) 

The commenter rejects the idea of requiring all the additional information on the RIN Generation 

Report. These results can always be verified by examining the feedstock purchase orders and the 

test results from the biofuel made from these purchases as part of the attest engagement. The 

request for additional information such as co-products produced have nothing directly to do with 

verification that the feedstock is qualified to produce the specified category of biofuel. The RFS 

reports need to be kept as simple as possible. (0994.1, p.12) 

The commenter rejects the requirement that feedstocks need to be certified that they are the 

proper feedstocks for the specified category of biofuel product. The commenter also rejects the 

statement that a renewable fuel producer who makes renewable fuel that does not qualify under 

RFS2 must report this fuel and state why it does not qualify. If a producer makes a product that 

does not use approved feedstocks and does not produce a fuel that qualifies under one of the four 

(or 6) D codes, then the product is not renewable fuel. Therefore this product does not need to 

be reported at all to the EPA. (0994.1, pp.12-13) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter noted that EPA should clarify the rules for retiring RINs. The rules do not 

address the situation where a party exports cellulosic renewable fuel, or advanced renewable 

fuel. (2505.2, p.9) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1969 

Organization: SeQuential-Pacific Biodiesel 

Comment: 

The commenter (1969) states that as a Renewable Fuel Producer committed to sustainable 

Biodiesel production from renewable resources, they have been fortunate to survive this 

economic contraction. A huge piece has been the added value of the Renewable Identification 

Numbers (RINs). The small but steady RIN revenue stream allowed the commenter to keep our 

doors open and prevent a complete plant shut down and lay offs. In recent months they have 

seen the value of the RINs decrease sharply. One of those factors is the rule that obligated 

parties are only required to report RINs on an annual basis. This creates an uneven demand for 

RINs throughout the year. The commenter strongly encourages EPA to change the reporting 

requirements of obligated parties so they are identical with the responsibilities of renewable fuel 

producers. Quarterly reporting would create a level playing field for both obligated parties and 

renewable fuel producers thus smoothing the volatile market prices. [[Docket numbers 1969.1, p. 

1 and 2027, p. 1]] 

4-28
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1033 

Organization: Poet Ethanol Products 

Comment:

The commenter (1033.1) finds that the reporting of the volume and type of co-products produced 

with the renewable fuel to be ancillary to the determination of the fuel pathway the renewable 

fuel qualifies for and poses an additional layer of complexity to the reporting process for 

Producers which is unnecessary. The commenter respectfully submits that this item be removed 

from the Recordkeeping Requirements for Renewable Fuel Producers. (1033.1, p.3) 

Our Response:

 Several commenters expressed concern for additional reporting burdens associated with 

RFS2. Some referenced alternate means of collecting data such as EIA’s monthly data reports. 

However, in order to enforce the requirements of EISA and RFS2, EPA must be able to confirm 

claims of individual renewable producers for the products they make, the feedstocks they use and 

the processes employed. Part of the assessment includes reviewing co-products generated which 

were considered during EPA’s life cycle assessment. We are requiring that co-product 

production be identified for each batch of renewable produced, and that each quarter the volumes 

of co-product produced at a facility be reported by co-product type. 

 Some commenters suggested that EPA require obligated parties to demonstrate quarterly 

use of RINs for compliance. Such a requirement, while it may provide for more constant 

demand for RINs, conflicts with the statutory requirement for an annual compliance program. 

 The Clean Fuels Clearing House suggested that EPA require reporting of the last batch 

number used by a producer or importer and that EPA publish this information for industry self 

monitoring. EPA understands the potential utility of such information, but after considering the 

added burden of this one-time data collection and limitations for a practical implementation – 

modifications of RFS1 ICR, conflicting collection methods with EMTS, and limited resources, 

EPA chose not to pursue this idea. 

 A comment regarding the use of EMTS data to monitor hoarding is being considered for 

future development. The same commenter suggested that EPA clarify the definition of 

“transaction date.” Just as with RFS1, the date of the commercial document (PTD) which 

transfers ownership of RINs from one owner to another is the date that shall be used by both the 

buyer and seller of RINs. 

 A commenter suggested that EPA reconsider the concept of a batch. We believe that the 

definition of a batch, as carried over from RFS1, provides RIN generators with a range of 

flexibility to accommodate a variety of process methods (i.e., generating RINs in a batch tank or 

generating RINs as product is being shipped out of the facility. The same commenter suggested 

that new RIN retirement codes need to be incorporated into the EMTS system, however the 

producer may want to examine whether or not it makes sense to align RIN generation with 

volume that is leaving the facility. The commenter is also correct that a RIN owner with have 

separate accounts for assigned and separated RINs. Finally, the commenter suggested that 

feedstocks do not need to be certified. The statutory requirements that are the basis for RFS2 

4-29
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

require such certification. EPA has taken steps to ease the burdens of certification where 

practicable. 

 A commenter suggested that EPA clarify rules for exporters separating RINs. 

The FRM preamble discusses the requirements for exports given the fungible nature of RINs. 

The exporter will determine its RVO based on the type of renewable and the volume being 

exported. 

4.3.4 Attest Engagements 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2124.1) believes that the proposed attest engagement requirements should be 

greatly minimized by EMTS, in particular noting the attest of the PTDs and transactions between 

the transferor and transferee. The commenter believes that the RFS2 regulations should be 

flexible when requiring information submission to EPA within a short period of time after a 

renewable fuel is produced or imported. (2124.1, p.35) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter also provided public testimony regarding the hopefulness that this system would 

eventually become a data inquiry system and alleviate the burden of reporting and the attestation 

audits. Furthermore, the commenter suggests EPA consider a “vesting” program for data entry 

to ensure future compliance with the renewable fuels producers and hopes this will build 

relationships and foster a sense of trust between all regulated parties and the Agency. (1044.1, p. 

3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2145 

Organization: Flint Hills Resources 

Comment: 

The commenter (2145.1) believes that the attest requirements as proposed in '80.1464 for an 

obligated party should be modified to exclude the attestation of RIN transaction reports. The 

commenter also noted that the attest requirements in §80.1464 say “The requirements regarding 

annual attest engagements in §§80.125 through 80.127, and 80.130, also apply” to these RFS2 

attest procedures. Since §§80.125 and 80.130 are limited in scope to refiners and importers, 

§80.1464 should be revised to account for that. The lead-in sentence of §80.1464 could be 

reworded: “As the requirements regarding annual attest engagements in §§80.125 through 

80.127, and 80.130 apply to refiners and importers in Subpart F, so do those requirements also 

apply to obligated parties, exporters, renewable fuel producers, RIN-generating importers, and 

other parties owning RINs with regard to any attest engagement procedures required under this 

Subpart M.” (2145.1, pp.7-8) 

4-30
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2), with regards to EPA’s proposal to require auditors to attest PTDs, 

believes that it is duplicative and overly burdensome to require this for parties that receive PTDs. 

In addition, given the EMTS system, it appears that the attestation requirements will no longer be 

necessary and should be eliminated. (2505.2, p.13) 

Our Response:

 Commenters suggested that with the use of EMTS, that Attest requirements could be 

eliminated or greatly reduced. The purpose of the Attest is for EPA to receive third party 

verification of information submitted to EPA as well confirmation that records required to be 

retained by the regulated community are being kept. While the requirements for RFS2 reports 

have changed from RFS1 and the introduction of EMTS will simplify some data transactions and 

will result in data of better quality, the requirement for third party verification must still be met 

through the Attest process. 

4.4 Product Transfer Documents (PTDs) 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that EPA needs to drop its proposal that PTDs contain complete RINs. 

[[Docket number 2233.2, p. 9]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) believes that RIN numbers should not be required to appear on a PTD 

in their entirety. PTDs should be required to show the number and type of gallon-RINs being 

transferred, but not all 38 digits. The commenter believes that these proposed regulations could 

cause problems when the PTD shows 38 digits that do not match the RINs transferred within 

EMTS. (2124.1, p.34) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2145 

Organization: Flint Hills Resources 

Comment:

The commenter (2145.1) believes that Renewable fuels PTDs should not be required to duplicate 

information already entered into the EMTS. The proposed regulations require the 38-digit RIN 

(reference §80.14538) and the number of RINs by type and RIN generation year (reference 

§80.1453(d)). The renewable fuel PTD should only be required to show the quantity of RINs 

4-31
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

being transferred. A replication of any of the data contained in the EMTS is unnecessary 

especially the 38-digit RIN as it will always be prone to error. One of the most significant 

benefits of the EMTS is the elimination of transcription errors and this benefit should not be lost. 

The commenter also believes that no additional PTD documentation for separated RIN 

transactions should be required other than what is contained in the EMTS. (2145.1, p.7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2400 

Organization: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2400.2) believes that with the implementation of EMTS, EPA should only 

require the volume of RINs transferred to be stated. There is no need to continue to incorporate 

the entire 38-digit RIN on any invoice or PTD. Requiring the 38 digit number be present on the 

PTD could create an issue if the number is incorrectly printed or does not match the RIN number 

within the EMTS system. Other than the number and type of gallon-RINs being transferred, no 

additional information is needed on the PTD. The commenter recommends that the PTD or 

invoice only contain the number of RINs being transferred as stated in the EMTS section (IV. 

E.2). (2400.2, p.13) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) believes that EPA should eliminate the requirement for renewable fuel 

producers to provide a PTD the “same day” as they transfer title to the renewable fuel. 

Experience under the RFS1 program suggests that this is an unnecessary and impractical 

requirement. This PTD requirement will be especially unworkable for foreign renewable fuel 

producers. The commenter proposes that EPA require “timely” delivery of PTDs or “within 10 

business days”. (2505.2, p.9) 

 

The commenter believes that once EMTS is in place, regulated parties should not be required to 

send each other PTDs. After EMTS, the rules should provide that all that is required to be sent 

to a counter party is reference to the EMTS activity ID number. (2505.2, p.12) 

Our Response:

 With the implementation of EMTS, EPA agrees that parties trading Renewable 

Identification Numbers (RINs) will no longer need to include the RIN in its entirety on a Product 

Transfer Document (PTD). However, in order to complete an EMTS RIN transfer, certain buy 

and sell transaction elements must match. Therefore, a PTD must be used to transfer generic 

RINs with identifying transactional information used for matching. EPA has removed the 

requirement for parties to include the RIN in its entirety on a PTD, but RIN identifying 

information must be included on a PTD, such as RIN type, generation year, and assignment. 

EPA maintains that a PTD must be used to transfer ownership of assigned and separated 

RINs. A product transfer document is the physical document where renewable fuel and RIN 

ownership are transferred between parties. While EMTS buy and sell transactions contain an 

optional PTD field for a user specified PTD number, EMTS does not generate PTD numbers. 

4-32
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The optional PTD number element can assist both trading parties match records with EMTS 

transactional information and reports for annual attest engagements. 

EPA maintains that if assigned RINs are being transferred separately from the PTD 

transferring a volume of renewable fuel, then the document listing the assigned RINs must be 

provided to the same person on the same day as the PTD used to transfer ownership of the 

volume of renewable fuel. Assigned RINs may not be transferred without simultaneously 

transferring a volume of renewable fuel. 

4.5 Recordkeeping 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2112.1) believes that producer record keeping requirements are not costeffective and are difficult to enforce. (2112.1, p.13) 

Our Response: 

EPA maintains that the recordkeeping requirements in RFS2 are necessary to support 

enforcement of the proper generation and use of RINs for compliance purposes. Furthermore, 

we believe that most parties would keep basic records regarding their products and RINs, and 

records regarding transactions involving their products and RINs, in the normal course of 

business. 

4.6 EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS)

4.6.1 General Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2014 

Organization: Clean Fuels Clearinghouse 

Comment:

The commenter is in support of the EMTS concept and encourages EPA to take a much more 

active role in the initial generation of RINs as well as the clearing of RIN transactions between 

principal parties. Without involvement and enforcement by EPA the number of erroneous and 

fraudulent RINs will continue to propagate. (2019.1, p.1) [[See Docket Number 2019.1, pp.1-2 

for additional specific comments regarding regulatory text responding to EMTS]] 

The commenter provided detailed comments on the issues related to the duplication of renewable 

fuel credits, known as RINs, and their detrimental effect on the effectiveness of the renewable 

4-33
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

fuel standard. Such occurrences are frequent and have a very costly impact on legitimate biofuel 

producers and considerable exposure to liability on behalf of the obligated parties under these 

regulations. (2319.1, p.1) [[See Docket Number 2319.1, pp.1-2 for a discussion on this issue of 

duplication of RIN credits]] 

The commenter (2014.1) provided specific comments regarding regulatory text responding to the 

EMTS and invalid RINs. [[See Docket Number 2319.1, pp.3-6 for these detailed comments]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2135 

Organization: Ad Hoc Coalition of Small Business Refiners (SBR) 

Comment:

The commenter (2135) supports EPA’s recognition that improvement is needed in screening and 

tracking RIN credits. The proposed EPA-Monitored Transaction System (EMTS) offers a viable 

approach that would maintain basic RIN handling requirements from RFS1 and presumably 

bring greater integrity to the market. A strong policing system, of course, should be an essential 

element of such a mechanism. [[Docket number 2135.1, pp. 21-22]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment:

The commenter (2154.1) supports EPA’s development of the EMTS. This system, when 

implemented, will help alleviate the burden of tracking RIN transactions and hopefully reduce 

complication of non-legitimate RINs in the marketplace. However, it is imperative that the 

EMTS recognize the time requirements to verify data and transactions. The commenter believes 

the EMTS tool can reduce the perceived complications of placing the obligation with final fuel 

providers. EPA should be designing the EMTS to accommodate this approach. (2154.1, p.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2157) supports EPA’s decision to build on the current RFS1 program, as well as 

to move toward an EPA moderated trading system. The commenter also supports various 

proposals by EPA, which it believes would improve renewable fuel producers’ ability to compete 

in the RIN market, but believes there is ample access to RINs and rejects attempts by EPA to 

become a market regulator. (2157 p. iv) 

Organization: Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA). 

Comment:

The commenter (2345) believes the EPA EMTS could be a system that would provide the 

regulated community with the needed information and transparency regarding RIN transactions 

to facilitate a more liquid RIN market. The commenter provides recommendation to EPA for 

4-34
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

making EMTS as useful as possible. [[Docket number 2345.1, p. 2]] [[See docket number 

2345.1, pp 2-3 for the EMTS recommendations.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2345 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2369 

Organization: New Generation Biofuels (NGBF) 

Comment: 

Regarding the Renewable Identification Numbers questions and approaches outlined in the 

preamble, the commenter (2369) supports separating RINs from the biofuel and an EPA 

Moderated Transaction System. In the electricity market, Independent System Operators (ISO) 

frequently manage the renewable electricity credits (REC) trading. Entities that participate in the 

REC market through the ISOs, generated the credits or need them for compliance. Within such 

systems, there are few speculators or marketers who may participate. The commenter believes 

that a similar system in the fuels market whereby the RINs are separated from the fuel and sold 

in the platform managed by the EPA through an EPA Moderated Transaction System appears to 

be logical, especially if the participants are limited to those who generate and sell RINs and those 

who need to purchase RINs. [[Docket number 2369.1, p. 5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2383) supports EPA’s proposed use of the EMTS for tracking RINs. The 

commenter believes use of EMTS will help eliminate certain errors related to using and tracking 

individual RINs, eliminate administrative errors, and should help save time and resources. 

Early-stage screening will help ensure that RINs are valid, and EPA’s proposal that RIN records 

move toward generation in ”real time,” when renewable fuel is produced, would alleviate some 

of the problems with delayed reporting under the current system. The commenter also supports 

EPA’s proposal to allow parties to opt-in to EMTS in 2010. [[Docket number 2383.1, p. 60]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment: 

The commenter fully supports continuation of the 38 digit RIN-structure. This current 

methodology can easily manage all expected changes associated with RFS2 (i.e., revising D 

codes) and will minimize the cost to all users by avoiding costly IT infrastructure restructuring. 

(2124.1, p.29) 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2472) does not support the proposed EPA-moderated RIN trading system as a 

vehicle to facilitate RIN purchases and sales beyond the voluntary listing of contact information 

by buyers and sellers. [[Docket number 2472.1, pp. 4-5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2105 

Organization: Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy 

4-35
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

Comment:

The commenter (2105.1) believes that EPA should report on the feasibility of the RIN trading 

system. While the EPA plans to create an automated, real-time system, it does not yet exist. 

Until such a system is in full operation, the incidence and cost of reporting error is likely to 

increase as blending requirements increase dramatically under RFS2. The commenter requests 

an analysis of the RIN system in order to better understand the market and its feasibility and 

efficiency. (2105.1, p.5) 

Our Response:

We introduced the EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) in the NPRM as a new 

method for managing the generation of RINs and transactions involving RINs, designed to 

resolve the RIN management issues of RFS1 that lead to widespread RIN errors, many times 

resulting in invalid RINs and often tedious remedial procedures to resolve those errors. In 

response to the generally broad acceptance of the EMTS concept, we are instituting the use of 

EMTS for all RFS2 RIN generation and transactions beginning July 1, 2010. 

We believe that EMTS will significantly reduce the number of invalid RINs that have 

been generated – inadvertently, in many cases – under RFS1. In cases in which invalid RINs do 

make their way into EMTS, we have designed the system in such a way as to enable EPA to take 

corrective action swiftly, as several of the commenters have emphasized is necessary. We 

disagree with the comment that EPA is attempting to act as a market regulator with the 

institution of EMTS. Rather, we view EMTS as offering a neutral platform through which RIN 

transactions can be carried out with reduced burden on industry. While the 38-digit RIN 

information will remain intact as the basis of EMTS transactions, the system will conduct these 

transactions in a more generic, and therefore simpler, way than has been done under RFS1. 

4.6.2 PTD and Attest Engagements Under RFS2 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment:

The commenter (2154.1) believes that there should be no need for the entire 38 digit RIN to be 

on the PTD. Also, the attestation requirements should be simplified due to the presence of 

EMTS. (2154.1, p.7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) states that, under the EMTS environment, the RIN should not be required 

on the PTD. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 11]] 

Our Response:

4-36
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

While we believe that EMTS will simplify and reduce burdens on the regulated 

community, it is important to point out that EMTS is strictly a RIN tracking and managing tool 

designed to facilitate reporting under the Renewable Fuel Standard program. Product transfer 

documents are the commercial documents used to memorialize transactions of RINs between a 

buyer and a seller in the market. The EMTS will rely on references to these documents, which 

can take many forms, but it is not capable of replacing those documents. In addition, the entire 

38-digit RIN will not be required to be listed on the PTD as the generic RIN information is 

sufficient as long as both parties accept the trading of RINs on a generic basis. Attest 

engagements are used to verify that the records required to be kept by regulated parties, 

including information retained by a regulated party as well as information reported to EPA such 

as laboratory test results, contracts between renewable fuel/RIN buyers and sellers, feedstock 

documentation, etc. is correctly maintained or reported. The information reported via EMTS is 

but a subset of the information required to be maintained in a regulated party’s records, and both 

PTDs and attest engagements are necessary to ensure that the information collected and tracked 

in EMTS concurs with actual events. 

4.6.3 Start-up of EMTS 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) supports a mandatory start date for EMTS coincident with the rest of 

RFS2 which they presume [per the commenter’s comments in Chapter 2 of this Summary and 

Analysis of Comments document] will be January 1, 2011. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 12]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130) supports the proposed Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) and urges 

EPA to keep the program on schedule and to require its use as soon as possible by all parties who 

hold or transact RINs. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) supports a January 1, 2011 start date for EMTS and the alignment of the 

RFS2 implementation date with the EMTS start date. A fter EMTS has been in place for a year, 

EPA should review the RFS and RFS2 regulations and drop any requirements that are no longer 

warranted. The commenter also believes that once the EMTS is in place, EPA should review and 

simplify the attest engagement requirements. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 11]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

4-37
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

While the commenter (2499.2) generally supports EPA’s proposal to move toward an EPA 

moderated transaction system, however they have concerns regarding the implementation. The 

commenter would like EPA to be aware of the IRS requiring our members to become active 

participants in the ExStars system, which is designed to report the sale of taxable biodiesel. To 

reduce the implementation burden, the commenter asks EPA to consider EMTS implementation 

alongside ExStars implementation. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2014 

Organization: Clean Fuels Clearinghouse 

Comment:

The commenter (2014.1) recommends that in the event of a mid-year implementation of RFS2 

that EPA take additional steps to accelerate the implementation of EMTS to coincide with the 

same date. In the event that the entire EMTS system could not be made active on the same date 

as RFS2, then as a minimum the priority should be placed on making that portion of EMTS that 

addresses renewable biomass and RIN batch generation active and fully functional on the RFS2 

effective date. (2083.1, pp.1-2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2017 

Organization: Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2017.1) endorses a “closed” system for RIN transactions and management as 

the EPA proposes. The initiation of this new RIN management system should coincide with the 

start of the RFS2 program. Sufficient time should be allotted for companies to purchase and 

install new hardware and software programs, train personnel and learn the new system. In fact, 

starting the EMTS system prior to RFS2, even if only in “beta” mode, would be helpful in 

making the transition from the current system to EMTS. (2017.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter (2471.1) noted that the Proposed Rule indicates that if EMTS is not in place at 

the start of RFS2, parties will be required to file reports similar to the current process under 

RFS1, but on a monthly rather than a quarterly basis. The commenter disagrees with this 

proposed change in the reporting schedule. Monthly reporting frequency is impossible in the 

present 38-digit code system due to on-going problems with invalid RINs and transfer delays, 

which in turn have required parties to continuously revisit and re-file their RFS1 reports. A 

monthly reporting requirement will exacerbate these delays and re-filings and will not produce 

any commensurate benefit of improvements to RIN integrity. Until EMTS is in place, the 

current quarterly reporting timeframes should be maintained. (2471.1, p.15) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

4-38
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2505.2) noted that while the EMTS system will be a helpful new tool, 

participation in the program should be voluntary. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2172 

Organization: Minnesota Soybean Processors 

Comment: 

The commenter (2172) noted that EPA needs to also be aware that IRS has indicated that 

biodiesel producers will most likely be required to participate in the IRS ExStars tax reporting 

system, a system using only IRS approved software, which may also place significant demands 

on renewable fuel producers IT staff. 

Our Response:

We are requiring the use of EMTS for all RFS2 RIN generation and transactions 

beginning July 1, 2010. We appreciate commenters’ concerns over having sufficient time to 

implement the new system, which is why EPA has utilized an open process for the development 

of EMTS since it was first introduced in the NPRM, conducting workshops and webinars and 

soliciting stakeholder participation in its evaluation and testing. EPA pledges to continue to 

work with the regulated community, as a group and individually, to ensure EMTS is successfully 

implemented. EPA anticipates that with this level of assistance, regulated parties will not 

experience significant difficulties in transitioning to the new system, and EPA believes that the 

many benefits of the new system warrant its immediate use. Due to limitations, EPA chose not 

to integrate EMTS with IRS ExStars tax reporting system at this time. However, EPA will look 

for future integration opportunities. 

4.6.4 Timing of Transaction Reporting 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment:

The commenter (2154.1) believes that three days to enter RIN transactional information into 

EMTS is not feasible. The commenter thinks a more reasonable approach would be to require 

sellers to enter data within 7 days and provide purchasers an additional 7 days (for a total of 14 

days following the activity). Given the complexity of the 4 tiers of renewable fuels and 

establishment of the new D code, this additional time will be particularly important at the start of 

the program. (2154.1, pp.6-7) 

Our Response:

In order for EMTS to be a “real time” system, we must require that the information 

comes in a timely manner. EPA has concluded that five days, or a business week, is an 

appropriate amount of time for both parties to receive or provide necessary documentation in 

order to interact with EMTS accurately and timely. “Real time” will be defined as within five 

4-39
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

(5) business days of a reportable event (e.g., generation and assignment of RINs, transfer of 

RINs). 

4.6.5 Technical Elements of EMTS 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2081 

Organization: Novogy, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2081) seeks to confirm that RINs generated and for the production and 

separation of cellulosic biogas would be eligible to utilize the envisioned EPA monitored trading 

system. [[Docket number 2081.1, p. 11]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

Although not included specifically in the Proposed Rule but a concern to the commenter (2249) 

is the security of the EMTS system. Using node capability may place users at an increased risk 

of data misplacement. The information being exchanged is sensitive, and as such the commenter 

requests the EPA clarify the potential risks and take steps as necessary to ensure the security of 

sensitive data provided in the EMTS system. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 43]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter recommends that EMTS generate a unique transactional ID for each transaction 

that which the Transferor may reference in their commercial documentation sent to the 

Transferee by which the Transferee will be able to readily match and reconcile with EMTS and 

subsequently acknowledge the transaction. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2172 

Organization: Minnesota Soybean Processors 

Comment: 

The commenter (2172) also has significant concerns about the security of the EMTS network. 

As a large producer of biodiesel, it appears that because of the design of the MnSP computer 

network, MnSP will most likely need to become a node on the EMTS network. EPA needs to be 

sensitive to the fact that any time a node is placed on a computer network, a potential door for 

security breach is opened. MnSP requests that EPA clearly and precisely document to users the 

network safeguards that will be used to protect the sanctity of the system. 

Our Response:

Under the final RFS2 regulations, EMTS will be the platform for generation of and 

transactions involving all RINs beginning with the effective date of the regulations. Therefore, 

4-40
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

RINs associated with cellulosic biogas will indeed be eligible, in fact required, to be exclusively 

generated and traded within EMTS. 

EPA acknowledges that some information required to be submitted under the RFS2 

regulation may be claimed as CBI by the submitter and this includes some data that may be 

submitted via EMTS. EPA is required to treat information claimed as CBI in accordance with 

our regulations at 40 CFR Part 2. In addition, EPA has issued guidelines and policies for 

handling of information claimed as CBI in order to implement these regulations. EPA is 

required to develop system security plans (SSPs) that are compliant with our regulations and 

with various standards, including the current version of NIST 800-53, related to government 

information systems. We are also required to periodically review and update our technical 

controls. 

We appreciate the comment on the need for a unique ID for each transaction that takes 

place within EMTS. We have determined that such information should be part of the record for 

each RIN transaction and have added it into the system design. 

4.6.6 Batch Reporting Via EMTS 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter (0994.1) believes that EPA needs to rethink the concept of the Batch Report. 

The supposition that every gallon of renewable fuel in a tank with assigned RIN numbers will be 

sold or will be sold as renewable fuel is faulty. Having to assign a batch RIN number for the 

total batch volume will create extra work, requiring facilities to assign RIN numbers and then 

retire RIN numbers for non fuel sales and for tank heel volumes. Under RFSI, assigning RIN 

numbers prior to a renewable fuel sale was simple and avoided having to generate and retire RIN 

numbers for fuel volumes that were not part of the renewable fuel program. (0994.1, p.11) 

The commenter noted that EPA will have to create a new RIN Retire code to deal with the 

circumstance when RINs are retired because a heel volume is not sold from a tank, and that heel 

becomes part of the next batch created in that tank. While the commenter sees many advantages 

of the EMTS, the Batch Report causes facilities to generate more transactions to retire RINs than 

in RFSI. If retiring RINs becomes a significant burden, facilities will generate a Batch Report 

for each single sale in which the batch volume and RIN number are tied to that single sale. The 

commenter also noted that Producers will have to have two accounts in the EMTS RIN Bank: 

one account will be for valid Generated RINs (from Batch Reports) and one account for 

Separated RINs. (0994.1, pp.11-12) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

4-41
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

The commenter (2499.2) believes that the proposal requiring importers and producers of 

renewable fuel to submit batch reports RIN transaction reports on a monthly basis for 2010, is 

extraneous and onerous. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 43]] 

Our Response:

We are finalizing our proposed approach to screen and assign RINs at the point when 

RINs are generated through production or importation of renewable fuel. However, we will 

continue to allow producers and importers to generate RINs at the renewable fuel point of sale as 

long as this practice, if adopted by a RIN generator, is applied consistently. We believe that this 

allowance will obviate the need for a RIN generator to retire RINs associated with heel volumes 

or other volumes of fuel that will not be subject to the regulations under Subpart M. 

As for the frequency of report submissions, given that participation in EMTS will be 

required of all parties who own RINs beginning with the effective date of the RFS2 regulations 

(July 1, 2010), RIN generation (“batch reports”) and transaction reports will be due on a 

quarterly, not monthly, basis. 

4.7 Prohibited Acts and Liability for Violations

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2358 

Organization: Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the 

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) 

Comment:

Regarding the proposal to impose liability on parties that use or transfer invalid RINs, regardless 

of whether the RIN was acquired in good faith, the commenter (2358) believes it is unfair to 

impose liability on parties unless they knew or should have known that the RIN was invalid. 

Strict liability will discourage parties from participating in the sale of renewable fuels. [[Docket 

number 2358.1, p. 11]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2155 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) 

Comment:

The commenter (2155.1) questions what type of enforcement actions can the EPA take against a 

foreign producer? Even if a supply agreement between Importer and Foreign Producer states 

that the Producer will comply and document RFS2 requirements, will not the Importer be the 

non-compliant and enforced upon entity by EPA, as opposed to an entity outside of EPA’s 

jurisdiction? The commenter believes that if ILUC temporarily drops out of this rule-making, 

then this issue would most likely be of a lesser concern. The Importer would have to document 

that the Producer has complied with the FRARs fuel registration process and meets ASTM 

standards. Both are easily done by EPA records review and physical testing of the product. 

(2155.1, p.2) 

4-42
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2341 

Organization: Noble Americas 

Comment: 

The commenter (2341) noted that the rules governing the assignment of the advanced categories 

are complicated such that errors could result, which would invalidate the RIN. The commenter 

believes that rather than invalidate the advanced RIN entirely, it should be instead downgraded 

to category 4 (assuming that it meets those lesser requirements). This would partially preserve 

the economic value of the RIN and reduce disruptions to Obligated Parties. (2341, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) noted that while the EMTS system will be a helpful new tool, 

participation in the program should be voluntary. Where parties purchase RINs that have been 

cleared through the EMTS system, they should be able to rely on those RINs and held harmless 

if the RIN is later found to be invalid for some reason. The commenter believes that liability for 

the invalid RIN should fall on the party that caused the RIN to be invalid, not a party that 

innocently acquires an invalid RIN. (2505.2, p.) 

Our Response: 

Shell Oil, SIGMA and NACS argue that parties should not be liable for invalid RINs that 

they receive in good faith. However, EPA believes these enforcement provisions are necessary 

to ensure the RFS2 program goals are not compromised by illegal conduct in the creation and 

transfer of RINs. As with RFS1, under RFS2 there is no “good faith” provision to RIN 

ownership. An underlying principle of RIN ownership is still one of "buyer beware" and RINs 

may be prohibited from use and retired at any time if they are found to be invalid. However, 

because of the “buyer beware” nature of the program, EPA is offering the option, thought EMTS, 

for a RIN buyer to protect themselves by accepting or rejecting RINs from specific RIN 

generators or from specific classes of RIN generators. 

Commenter Noble Americas argues that improperly generated advanced RINs should not 

be invalidated, but should instead be downgraded to a lower category of RIN. EPA believes that 

in order to maintain the integrity of the RIN program, improperly generated RINs must be 

considered invalid, and, therefore, must be retired. EPA believes that the registration process, 

combined with the safeguards in EMTS will greatly limit situations in which a RIN is generated 

in an incorrect category. 

PMCI questions EPA’s jurisdiction over foreign producers of renewable fuel that is 

imported into the U.S. In order for a foreign producer to generate RINs under the RFS2, the 

producer must commit to allow EPA inspections of their facilities and records, and are subject to 

U.S. substantive and procedural laws for civil and criminal enforcement under the Clean Air Act. 

If an importer plans to generate RINs for renewable fuel produced by a foreign producer, the 

importer is responsible for ensuring that the RINs are properly generated and would be liable for 

a violation if the RINs improperly generated. 

4-43
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

4.8 Retail Dispenser Labeling for Gasoline with Greater than 10 Percent Ethanol

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

Depending on the outcome of ongoing DOE/EPA/CRC testing for mid-level blend use in the 

legacy fleet, the commenter (2130) states that stronger preventive measures may be needed, as 

well as product liability relief to enable E10+ distribution and marketing, or widespread E85 use. 

EPA’s proposal to require labels on pumps that dispense gasoline with greater than 10% ethanol 

content is the minimum mechanism necessary to prevent misfueling. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 

4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) supports the proposal to require a new warning label for marketers who 

sell, dispense or offers for sale ethanol blends containing more than 10% v/v ethanol. This label 

would advise consumers that such fuel is for use only in flexible fueled vehicles (FFVs), may 

damage non-FFVs and warns that putting such fuel into non-FFVs is against federal law. While 

the commenter opposes using the label as the sole mechanism to prevent misfueling should EPA 

grant a partial waiver, a label is an important communication and educational tool. (2132.1, p.6) 

[[See Docket Number 2132.1, pp.15-16 for a detailed discussion on Pump Labeling for E10+]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2135 

Organization: Ad Hoc Coalition of Small Business Refiners (SBR) 

Comment:

The commenter (2135) believes that refiners and blenders should be held harmless for claims of 

damage to engines arising out of increasing ethanol content of gasoline above 10% by volume if 

and when such blends are approved for sale and the refiner or blender chooses to fulfill his 

obligation for RINs by producing or marketing such product. [[Docket number 2135.1, p. 21]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment:

The commenter (2143) supports EPA’s labeling provision and suggests that the exact wording 

will have to depend on the outcome of E15 section 211(f) waiver review. (2143.2, p.2) 

 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) is concerned about rolling out large volumes of E85 or a mid level 

ethanol gasoline and selling these in the same market as E10. All three fuels will be sold from 

dispensers with the same size nozzles, which can be used to fuel either FFVs or standard 

4-44
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

gasoline vehicles. E85 and mid level ethanol gasoline will have to be priced lower than E10, if 

large volumes of these fuels are needed for mandate compliance. This lower price will probably 

encourage consumers to use E85 and mid level ethanol gasoline in vehicles that will be damaged 

by these fuels. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 19]] 

The commenter believes that EPA must undertake a robust public information campaign to 

educate the population about the potential effects of misfueling and supports an approach that 

addresses misfueling using both methods–advisory and preventative. The commenter adds that 

the fuel manufacturer (i.e., refiners, blenders, importers) cannot and should not be held 

responsible for ensuring that consumers choose compatible products when fueling their vehicle. 

The commenter also believes that fuel retailers and suppliers cannot and should not be 

responsible for customers misfueling their vehicles in the presence of adequate, government 

directed measures to advise/prevent against its occurrence. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 20-22]] 

[[See docket number 2233.2, pp. 20-22 for further discussion of these issues.]] 

The commenter urges EPA to drop the provisions covering E10+ labeling requirements when 

finalizing the RFS2 rule. Since EPA is not proposing to approve an E10+ fuel at this time, the 

commenter believes it would be more appropriate and make more sense for EPA to establish the 

E10+ labeling requirements after they have approved an E10+ fuel. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 

38]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2241 

Organization: Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI); Alliance for a Safe 

Alternative Fuels Environment (AllSAFE) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2241.1) noted that labeling alone would not be a sufficient safeguard to prevent 

widespread misfueling. However, as an initial measure, labeling should be required. To 

improve the pump labeling provisions, EPA should adopt a single uniform and clear label and 

not allow for alternate labels. Second, the proposed pump label refers only to vehicles. EPA 

must include strong language that indicates that (other than flex-fuel motor vehicles), vehicles, 

portable gas containers, boats, and nonroad vehicles and equipment should not be fueled with 

blends above E10. EPA must also strengthen language to ensure that labels are visible to 

consumers. Rather than require that a label be in “the immediate area” of the pump stand, the 

commenter suggests that EPA explicitly require that pump labels be on each pump and in plain 

view of the person operating the pump. EPA should require that the label inform consumers that 

ethanol blends contain less energy than regular gasoline, and that vehicles and equipment 

operating on them will not realize advertised fuel efficiency. (2241.1, pp.13-14) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2358 

Organization: Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the 

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) 

Comment:

The commenter (2358) believes that believes EPA’s proposed retail dispenser labeling is 

sufficient to prevent most retail customer misfueling. Imposing fines on retailers is unfair as 

most retail sales are self-service sales. Additionally, it is unrealistic to expect store personnel to 

police motorists dispensing fuel. [[Docket number 2358.1, pp. 11-12]] 

4-45
Chapter 4: Compliance (Registration, Recordkeeping, Reporting) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

The commenter (2384) is concerned about misfueling and the distinct potential liabilities 

involved. The commenter believes EPA should clearly specify the steps that fuel suppliers and 

marketers can take to minimize these liabilities and provide limited relief from liability. [[Docket 

number 2384.1, p. 12]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2393) believes that EPA must undertake a robust public information campaign 

to educate the population about the potential effects of misfueling. The commenter supports an 

approach that addresses misfueling using both advisory and preventative methods. Whichever 

method(s) are chosen, such measures must provide retailers and suppliers with liability 

protection should misfueling take place. The commenter states that fuel retailers and suppliers 

cannot and should not be responsible for customers misfueling their vehicles in the presence of 

adequate, government directed measures to advise and prevent its occurrence. [[Docket number 

2393.1, pp. 19-21]] [[See docket number 2393.1, pp. 19-21 for further discussion of the 

misfueling issue.]] 

The commenter further states that to ensure that consumers are aware of the presence of ethanol, 

there will have to be a significant effort towards consumer awareness. The commenter believes 

that both the government and industry should be responsible for educating the consumer on the 

options and benefits of ethanol. Where a retailer decides to sell E85, it is that retailer’s 

responsibility to advertise his specific product in his market. Additionally, automakers should 

reach out to all FFV owners to ensure that those consumers are aware of the types of fuel that 

their vehicle can use (including reminders on vehicle fill stems, etc.). [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 

26]] 

In addition, the commenter requests that EPA clarify the legality of the use of retail blender 

pumps for dispensing blends between E10 and E70. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 70]] [[See 

docket number 2393.1, pp. 69-70 for discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) noted that §80.1469 contains requirements for the labeling of gasoline 

containing greater than 10 volume percent ethanol. The commenter agrees that under existing 

law, such fuel can only be used in FFVs and that consumers should be advised that is the case 

and that any misfueling is a violation by the consumer and is a violation of federal law for which 

the consumer would be liable. (2505.2, p.14) 

Our Response:

4-46
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

4-47

Based on the public comments and the fact that EPA has not completed its evaluation of 

the E15 waiver petition, we believe that it is appropriate to defer finalizing labeling requirements 

for >E10 blends at this time. This will afford us the opportunity to complete our analysis of what 

measures might be appropriate to prevent misfueling with >E10 blends before this may become a 

concern in the context of the RFS2 program. 
EPA-420-R-10-003

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Summary and Analysis of 

Comments

Chapter 5

Program Changes and Flexibilities
5. PROGRAM CHANGES AND FLEXIBILITIES

5.1 Small Refinery and Small Refiner Flexibilities 5-1 

5.1.1 Extension of the Temporary Exemption for Small Refineries and Small Refiners 5-1 

5.1.2 Additional Small Refiner-specific Flexibilities 5-6 

5.1.3 Other Small Refinery and Small Refiner Issues 5-9 

5.2 Upward Delegation of RIN-Separating Responsibilities 5-11 

5.3 Small Producer Exemption 5-16 

5.4 20% Rollover Cap 5-17 

5.4.1 Level of the Rollover Cap 5-17 

5.4.2 Other Aspects of the Rollover Cap 5-22 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

5 PROGRAM CHANGES AND FLEXIBILITIES

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section correspond to Section IV of the preamble to the proposed 

rule and address changes to the RFS program and flexibilities offered under the program. A 

summary of the comments received and our response to those comments are located below (and 

also in section III of the preamble to the final rule). 

5.1 Small Refinery and Small Refiner Flexibilities 

5.1.1 Extension of the Temporary Exemption for Small Refineries and Small Refiners 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2105 

Organization: Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy 

Comment:

The commenter (2105.1) believes that EPA should institute a temporary delay of implementation 

of the RFS2 rule for small refiners. The commenter believes that the statutory language in the 

EISA does not interfere with EPA’s ability, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA), to grant relief to regulated small entities upon which the rule will have a significant 

economic impact. A delay in implementation for small refiners would also lessen the regulatory 

burden of this rule. (2105.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2118 

Organization: CountryMark Cooperative, LLP 

Comment:

The commenter (2118.1) believes that provisions should be provided to allow a delay or phase-in 

for small refiners. The commenter is a member of an ad-hoc coalition of Small Business Refiners 

(SBR) and agrees with the comments provided by the group. The SBR Coalition believes that 

EPA does have the legal discretion to allow small refiners and small refineries owned by SBRs 

to delay their entry in to the RFS2 program for as long as five years. The commenter 

recommends that the RFS2 compliance date for small entities be delayed until at least 2014. 

(2118.1, p.2) 

The commenter takes issue with the Department of Energy (DOE) “Small Refinery Exemption 

Study” released in January of 2009 determining that small refineries would not face 

disproportionate economic harm by their participation in the RFS Program. Such a limited 

investigation into the impact on small refineries could not have resulted in any in-depth analysis 

as to the financial impact. Before EPA adopts the final RFS2 regulations that, DOE should 

conduct another study which properly evaluates the impact on small refineries. (2118.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2135 

5-1 
Chapter 5: Program Changes and Flexibilities 

Organization: Ad Hoc Coalition of Small Business Refiners (SBR) 

Comment: 

The commenter states that EPA does have legal authority to permit a delay (or phase-in) of the 

RFS2 program under the CAA. The SBR Coalition submits that EPA’s legal concerns relative to 

both the suggested delay and the phase-in are unsustainable in view of EPA’s past exercises of 

discretion under the RFS1 program and also in view of the extensive discretion afforded to EPA 

under Section 211(o) of the CAA. [[Docket number 2135.1, pp. 15-16]] [[See docket number 

2135.1, pp 15-19 for extensive discussion of this issue.]] 

The commenter makes the following specific comments/recommendations: that the Department 

of Energy should be directed to reopen and reassess the Small Refineries Exemption Study by 

June 30, 2010 as suggested by the Senate Appropriations Committee in January 2009; and that 

the RFS2 effective date for small entities should be delayed at least until 2014. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2311 

Organization: Wyoming Refining Company 

Comment:

The commenter (2311.1) urges EPA to review and exercise its legal authority to provide 

additional flexibility and relief for small refiners as recommended by the Small Advocacy 

Review Panel. (2311.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2498 

Organization: North Atlantic Refining Ltd. 

Comment: 

The commenter urges EPA to grant small refiners as much time to prepare for the burdens of 

RFS2 as was provided under RFS1, thereby delaying small refiner compliance to January 2014. 

This extension would provide invaluable time for small refiners to adjust to the new 

requirements and to take steps to mitigate their burdens. 

The commenter also urges EPA to finalize its proposal to allow small refiners to apply for future 

extensions of their exemption based on case-by-case showings of economic hardship. The 

commenter recommends that EPA adopt a policy of liberally granting such extension requests. 

Doing so would alleviate the significant burdens facing small refiners, and would be consistent 

with U.S. small business relief policies. (2498.1, pp.4-5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2396 

Organization: CVR Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2396.1) requests that EPA reopen and reassess the Small Refineries Exemption 

Study by June 30, 2010 as suggested by the Senate Appropriations Committee in January 2009. 

The commenter would also like EPA to delay the effective date for SBRs until at least 2014 

and/or grant an automatic exemption extension for those qualifying for an extension under the 

original RFS rule. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2400 

Organization: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 

5-2 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment:

The commenter (2400.2) recommends that EPA maintain the exemption set forth in RFS1 and 

allow small refinery exemption through December 31, 2010. (2400.2, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) agree with EPA’s continuance of the RFS1 temporary small 

refiner/small refinery exemption through December 31, 2010, recognizing that RFS2 will 

probably be implemented on or before this date for all obligated parties. The commenter urges 

EPA to not extend the exemption beyond this date since all parties have been well aware of the 

statute’s timeline, including small refineries and qualified small refiners should have been 

striving to achieve compliance by the end of 2010 since EISA passage. (2132.1, pp.17-18) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that the small refinery exemption should not be extended; and 

the small refiner exemption should be eliminated. (2329.1, p. 86) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, 

pp.86-87 for a detailed discussion of this issue]] 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130) supports EPA’s intention not to extend the RFS1 small refiner 

exemption. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 11]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment:

The commenter (2505.2) believes that EPA should not promulgate an exemption for small 

refiners. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 very specifically provides an exemption for small 

refineries. Nowhere does the Act provide a similar exemption for small refiners. EPA should not 

extend the exemption for an additional two years. The law includes a provision that allows an 

extension of the small refinery exemption upon a showing of undue economic hardship by 

individual small refineries. The commenter believes that EPA should limit any exemption 

extension to situations where the party seeking the exemption qualifies as a small refinery and 

can make such a showing. (2505.2, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) believes that EPA should not promulgate an exemption for “small 

refiners.” EPAct 2005 very specifically provides an exemption for “small refineries.” Nowhere 

does the Act provide a similar exemption for “small refiners.” Thus, EPA should never have 

provided this small refiners’ exemption. Now, EPA is proposing to extend the exemption for an 

5-3 
Chapter 5: Program Changes and Flexibilities 

additional two years. The commenter states that EPA should not extend this exemption. The 

law includes a provision that allows an extension of the small refinery exemption upon a 

showing of undue economic hardship by individual small refineries. EPA should limit any 

exemption extension to situations where the party seeking the exemption qualifies as a small 

refinery and can make such a showing. Any exemption should only apply to the specific small 

refinery that has petitioned for an extension, not the entire universe of small refineries. [[Docket 

number 2393.1, pp. 12-13]] 

Our Response:

The RFS1 program regulations exempt gasoline produced by small refineries from the 

renewable fuels standard through December 31, 2010 (at 40 CFR 80.1141), per EPAct. As EISA 

did not alter the small refinery exemption in any way, we are retaining this small refinery 

temporary exemption in the RFS2 program; however, the exemption will now apply to all 

transportation fuel produced by small refineries (including diesel and nonroad fuels), as EISA 

also covers transportation fuels, not just gasoline. Likewise, as we extended under RFS1 the 

small refinery temporary exemption to the few remaining small refiners that met the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) definition of a small business (1,500 employees or less 

company-wide), we are also finalizing a continuation of the small refiner temporary exemption 

through December 31, 2010 for transportation fuels produced by these refiners. 

Some commenters mentioned the opportunity for relief based on a case-by-case hardship 

demonstration, and we note (as discussed in Section III.E.2 of the preamble to the final rule) that 

EPAct also authorizes EPA to grant an extension for a small refinery based upon 

disproportionate economic hardship, on a case-by-case basis. We believe that these avenues of 

relief can and should be fully explored by small refiners who are covered by the small refinery 

provision. In addition, we believe that it is appropriate to allow petitions to EPA for an 

extension of the temporary exemption based on disproportionate economic hardship for those 

small refiners who are not covered by the small refinery provision (again, per our discretion 

under section 211(o)(3)(B)); this would ensure that all small refiners have the same relief 

available to them as small refineries do. Thus, we are finalizing a hardship provision for small 

refineries in the RFS2 program, that any small refinery may apply for a case-by-case hardship at 

any time on the basis of disproportionate economic hardship per CAA section 211(o)(9)(B). We 

are also finalizing a case-by-case hardship provision for those small refiners that do not operate 

small refineries using our discretion under CAA section 211(o)(3)(B). This provision will allow 

those small refiners that do not operate small refineries to apply for the same kind of hardship 

extension as a small refinery. In evaluating applications for this hardship provision EPA will 

take into consideration information gathered from annual reports and RIN system progress 

updates, as recommended by the SBAR Panel, as well as information provided by the petitioner 

and through consultation with DOE. 

As discussed in Section III.E of the preamble to the final rule, EPAct required that DOE 

perform a study by December 31, 2008 on the impact of the renewable fuel requirements on 

small refineries (section 211(o)(9)(A)(ii)(I)), and whether or not the requirements would impose 

a disproportionate economic hardship on these refineries. In the small refinery study, “EPACT 

2005 Section 1501 Small Refineries Exemption Study”, DOE’s finding was that there is no 

5-4 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

reason to believe that any small refinery would be disproportionately harmed by inclusion in the 

proposed RFS2 program. Further, the finding was that there appeared to be no shortage of RINs 

available under RFS1, and EISA has provided flexibility through waiver authority (per section 

211(o)(7)). Further, in the case of the cellulosic biofuel standard, cellulosic biofuel allowances 

can be provided from EPA at prices established in EISA (see regulation section 80.1456). DOE 

thus determined that small refineries would not be subject to disproportionate economic hardship 

under the proposed RFS2 program, and that the exemption should not, on the basis of the study, 

be extended for small refineries (including those small refiners who own refineries meeting the 

small refinery definition) beyond December 31, 2010. DOE noted in the study that, if 

circumstances were to change and/or the RIN market were to become non-competitive or 

illiquid, individual small refineries have the ability to petition EPA for an extension of their 

small refinery exemption (pursuant to Section 211(o)(9)(B)). 

A number of commenters take issue with the DOE study, and we are also aware that there 

have been expressions of concern from Congress regarding the DOE Study. Specifically, in 

Senate Report 111-45, the Senate Appropriations Committee “directed [DOE] to reopen and 

reassess the Small Refineries Exemption Study by June 30, 2010,” noting a number of factors 

that the Committee intended that DOE consider in the revised study. The Final Conference 

Report 111-278 to the Energy & Water Development Appropriations Act (H.R. 3183), 

referenced the language in the Senate Report, noting that the conferees “support the study 

requested by the Senate on RFS and expect the Department to undertake the requested economic 

review.” At the present time, however, the DOE study has not been revised. If DOE prepares a 

revised study and the revised study finds that there is a disproportionate economic impact, we 

will revisit the exemption extension at that point in accordance with section 211(o)(9)(A)(ii). 

With respect to the comments regarding extending the small refiner temporary exemption 

past December 31, 2010 and EPA’s legal authority, we note that (as described in the Final Panel 

Report) EPA early-on identified limitations on its authority to issue additional flexibility and 

exemptions to small refineries. In section 211(o)(9) Congress specifically addressed the issue of 

an extension of time for compliance for small refineries, temporarily exempting them from 

renewable fuel obligations through December 31, 2010. As discussed above, the statute also 

includes two specific provisions describing the basis and manner in which further extensions of 

this exemption can be provided. In the RFS1 rulemaking, EPA considered whether it should 

provide additional relief to the limited number of small refiners who were not covered by the 

small refinery provision, by providing them a temporary exemption consistent with that provided 

by Congress for small refineries. EPA exercised its discretion under section 211(o)(3) and 

provided such relief. Thus, in RFS1, EPA did not modify the relief provided by Congress for 

small refineries, but did exercise its discretion to provide the same relief specified by statute to a 

few additional parties. 

In RFS2 we are faced with a different issue—the extent to which EPA should provide 

additional relief to small refineries beyond the relief specified by statute, and whether it should 

provide such further relief to small refiners as well. There is considerable overlap between 

entities that are small refineries and those that are small refiners. Providing additional relief just 

to small refiners would, therefore, also extend additional relief to at least a number of small 

refineries. Congress spoke directly to the relief that EPA may provide for small refineries, 

5-5 
Chapter 5: Program Changes and Flexibilities 

including those small refineries operated by small refiners, and limited that relief to a blanket 

exemption through December 31, 2010, with additional extensions if the criteria specified by 

Congress are met. EPA believes that an additional or different extension, relying on a more 

general provision in section 211(o)(3) would be inconsistent with Congressional intent. Further, 

we do not believe that the statute allows us the discretion to give relief to small refiners only—as 

this would result in a subset of small refineries (those that also qualify as small refiners) 

receiving relief that is greater than the relief already given to all small refineries under EISA. 

EPA also notes that the criteria specified by statute for providing a further compliance 

extension to small refineries is a demonstration of “disproportionate economic hardship.” The 

statute provides that such hardship can be identified through the DOE study, or in individual 

petitions submitted to the Agency. However, the DOE study has concluded that no 

disproportionate economic hardship exists, at least under current conditions and for the 

foreseeable future under RFS2. Comments received by EPA on this matter also do not have the 

data and information necessary for EPA to conclude that disproportionate economic hardship 

exists. Therefore, absent further information that may be provided through the petition process, 

there does not currently appear to be a basis under the statute for granting a blanket extension of 

the exemption to small refineries at this time. If DOE revises its study and comes to a different 

conclusion, EPA can revisit this issue at that time. 

5.1.2 Additional Small Refiner-specific Flexibilities 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2105 

Organization: Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy 

Comment:

The commenter (2105.1) believes that EPA should consider a phase-in for small refiners. By 

phasing in compliance requirements over a brief time period, EPA could lessen the burden of 

regulation and promote compliance. (2015.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2118 

Organization: CountryMark Cooperative, LLP 

Comment:

The commenter (2118.1) believes that provisions should be provided to allow a phase-in for 

small refiners. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2135 

Organization: Ad Hoc Coalition of Small Business Refiners (SBR) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2135) is concerned that EPA’s proposed rule ignored or denied much of the 

relief recommended in the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (Panel). The commenter 

believes that EPA’s tentative responses to concerns expressed by the SERs orally and in written 

comments were unsatisfactory. The commenter adds that it is clear that the Panel favored broadbased relief for small business refiners. [[Docket number 2135.1, pp. 14-15]] 

5-6 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter states that EPA does have legal authority to permit a delay or phase-in of the 

RFS2 program under the CAA. The SBR Coalition submits that EPA’s legal concerns relative to 

both the suggested delay and the phase-in are unsustainable in view of EPA’s past exercises of 

discretion under the RFS1 program and also in view of the extensive discretion afforded to EPA 

under Section 211(o) of the CAA. [[Docket number 2135.1, pp. 15-16]] [[See docket number 

2135.1, pp 15-19 for extensive discussion of this issue.]] 

The commenter adds that SBRs do not have the staff or systems to manage and account for four 

different categories of RINs and rural SBRs will suffer economic hardship and disadvantage 

because of the unavailability of biofuels. The commenter believes that RINs should be 

interchangeable for SBRs. [[Docket number 2135.1, p. 21] 

The commenter submits that EPA needs to recognize (i) the extent of potential harm of the 

current RFS2 proposal to members of the SBR Coalition and similarly situated entities, (ii) the 

need for corresponding relief, (iii) the inadequacy of the small refinery study conducted by DOE 

on which many of EPA’s recommendations are based and (iv) the legality of the alternatives 

proposed by the SBR Coalition in connection with Congressional authority under the relevant 

legislation and last year’s Small Business Advocacy Review Panel process. By fully and actively 

involving ourselves in a dialogue with EPA over the foregoing issues—issues which are of 

critical importance to our industry—the commenter remains hopeful that judicial review of the 

RFS2 rulemaking by our industry segment will not be necessary.[[Docket number 2135.1, p. 22] 

The commenter makes the following specific comments/recommendations: 

- When SBRs become obligated parties under RFS2, they should be provided critical 

flexibilities, including a phase-in of the standards, a higher rollover cap (50% is 

recommended) and the ability to use RINs interchangeably. 

- EPA should include a review of the RIN system in its annual review procedures and 

invite SBR participation in the development of the review process. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1397 

Organization: United Refining Company 

Comment: 

The commenter (1397) would like to see an exemption written in the rule excluding “Small 

Business Refiners” from being required to blend renewable fuels beyond the maximum levels of 

E10 and B5, better known as the “blendwall”. (1397, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2396 

Organization: CVR Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2396.1) stated that EPA should also provide the SBRs with critically needed 

flexibility by establishing a phase-in of the standards. (2396.1, p.1) 

The commenter would also like EPA to perform an annual review of the RIN system and make 

adjustments as necessary to mitigate adverse impacts to the refining industry with particular 

focus on disproportionate SBR impact. EPA should also provide a general hardship exemption 

5-7 
Chapter 5: Program Changes and Flexibilities 

for any SBRs meeting specified hardship criteria, which should be developed cooperatively with 

SBR participation. (2396.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) noted that EPA seeks comment on whether to provide a program 

review as recommended by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. The commenter 

believes that EPA should not interfere with markets. The commenter believes that the vast 

majority, if not all, renewable fuel in the United States will be targeted for inclusion in the RFS 

program, EPA’s projections as to the availability of such fuel is sufficient information to assess 

whether RINs will be available. There is no valid reason to include review of RIN trading 

system. (2329.1, p. 104) 

Our Response:

With respect to a phase-in for small refiners, we stated in the NPRM that we had serious 

concerns about our legal authority to provide such a phase-in. CAA section 211(o)(3)(B) states 

that the renewable fuel obligation shall “consist of a single applicable percentage that applies to 

all categories of persons specified” as obligated parties. A phase-in approach would essentially 

result in different applicable percentages being applied to different obligated parties. Further, 

such a phase-in approach would provide more relief to small refineries operated by small refiners 

than that provided under the statutory small refinery provisions. 

After considering the comments on this issue, we continue to believe that allowing a 

phase-in of regulatory requirements for small refiners would be inconsistent with the statute, for 

the same reasons we discussed in 5.1.1 for why we cannot grant an automatic extension of the 

temporary exemption. Any individual entities that are experiencing hardship that could justify a 

phase-in of the standards have the ability to petition EPA for individualized relief. Thus, we did 

not include a phase-in of standards for small refiners in the final rule. 

With respect to RIN-related flexibilities for small refiners (flexibilities in the RIN 

rollover cap percentage and allowing small refiners only to use RINs interchangeably), we do not 

believe it is appropriate to finalize such provisions. In the RFS1 rule, up to 20% of a previous 

year’s RINs may be “rolled over” and used for compliance in the following year. In the 

preamble to the proposed rule, we discussed the concept of allowing for flexibilities in the 

rollover cap, such as a higher RIN rollover cap for small refiners for some period of time or for 

at least some of the four standards. As the rollover cap is the means through which we are 

implementing the limited credit lifetime provisions in section 211(o) of the CAA, and therefore 

cannot simply be eliminated, we requested comment on the concept of increasing the RIN 

rollover cap percentage for small refiners and an appropriate level of that percentage. In 

response to the Panel’s recommendation, we also sought comment on allowing small refiners to 

use the four types of RINs interchangeably. As highlighted in the NPRM, we continue to believe 

that allowing the concept of interchangeable RINs for small refiners only, would fail to require 

implementation of the four different standards mandated by Congress (e.g., conventional biofuel 

could not be used instead of cellulosic biofuel or biomass-based diesel), and is not consistent 

5-8 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

with section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act. Essentially, it would circumvent the explicit direction 

of Congress in EISA to require that the four RFS2 standards be met separately and fully. An 

additional and independent reason for not providing the relief requested is that, given the 

findings from the DOE study that small refineries (and thus, most small refiners) do not currently 

face disproportionate economic hardship, and are not expected to do so as RFS2 is implemented, 

and without the data and information necessary to conclude that disproportionate economic 

hardship exists, we do not believe that a basis exists to justify providing small refiners with a 

larger rollover cap than other regulated entities. Thus, small refiners will be held to the same 

RIN rollover cap as other obligated parties. 

Based on comments received on the proposed rule regarding an annual review, we 

believe that such information could be helpful to industry, especially small businesses, to aid the 

proper functioning of the RIN market (particularly in the first years of the program). However, 

during the development of the final rule, it became evident that there could be instances where 

we would want to report out RIN system information on a more frequent basis than just once a 

year. Thus we will periodically report out elements of RIN system progress; but such 

information will be reported via other means (e.g., the RFS website 

(www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/index.htm), EMTS homepage, etc.). 

5.1.3 Other Small Refinery and Small Refiner Issues 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2498 

Organization: North Atlantic Refining Ltd. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2498.1) noted that the proposed RFS2 small refiner provisions currently do not 

require a “prior ownership” certification. The commenter urges EPA to finalize these provisions 

as proposed. If, however, EPA elects to include a prior ownership requirement in the final rule, 

EPA should not set a retroactive ownership date, to avoid disrupting parties’ investment-backed 

expectations and plans. (2498.1, p.3) (See Docket Number 2498.1, pp.2-3 for a detailed 

discussion of this issue). 

The commenter also noted that the proposed RFS2 regulations provide that any small refiner that 

subsequently fails to meet all of the qualifying criteria will be disqualified from exemption “as of 

the effective date of this subpart.” The commenter believes that such retroactive application of 

the RFS program is unnecessarily punitive and could inhibit ordinary growth and expansion. 

The commenter strongly urges EPA to apply the RFS program’s requirements only prospectively 

in the event that an exempt small refiner subsequently fails to qualify. (2498.1, p.3) (See Docket 

Number 2498.1, pp.3-4 for a detailed discussion of this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

5-9 
Chapter 5: Program Changes and Flexibilities 

The commenter believes that EPA should not change the year used to establish a refinery’s 

qualification for the small refinery exemption in this manner. Changing the qualification year 

will change which refineries are eligible for the small refinery exemption. Refineries have 

already built their compliance strategies based on having received EPA recognition that they 

qualify for the small refinery exemption under EPAct and the RFS1 regulations, using the 

refinery’s 2004 production to determine qualification. Changing the rules at this point in the 

program is unfair and is not authorized under EISA 07. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 12]] 

The commenter supports the extension of the small refinery exemption and believes that these 

small refineries should be grandfathered or should be granted a permanent exemption. [[Docket 

number 2233.2, p. 12]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2105 

Organization: Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy 

Comment: 

The commenter noted that there are issues with the availability of “exotic” renewable fuels, those 

made using methods that are not yet commercially viable. This additional GHG reduction 

requirement adds significant cost and uncertainty to a rule that is already costly and filled with 

uncertainty for small entities. 

The commenter noted that given that the production, price, and availability of RINs are very 

uncertain, further narrowing the types of renewable fuels acceptable for compliance will further 

decrease the availability of RINs. RFS2 was designed with a focus on the importance of energy 

independence and security rather than greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Areas within the 

United States that currently grow soybeans and produce soybean-based diesel will be drastically 

affected by the elimination of this fuel from certification for blending. The commenter believes 

that EPA should consider waivers to assist these regions in compliance. (2105.1, p.6) 

The commenter also believes that the approval and selection of renewable fuel technologies will 

create limitations on innovation. These limitations would put restraints on potentially beneficial 

and cost-effective improvements. (2105.1, p.6) 

Our Response: 

 Due to the fact that the RFS1 rule only placed renewable fuel obligations on producers 

and importers of gasoline, there may be new small refiners (or small refineries) that were not 

covered by the RFS1 exemption for small refineries and small refiners—such as refiners that 

only produce diesel fuel. Consequently, we have finalized such provisions for RFS2 to also 

cover diesel and nonroad fuels. With regard to the comment that we are changing the 

qualification date from 2004 to 2007, we would like to clarify that this is not the case. Any small 

refinery or small refiner that is currently exempt under RFS1 will not need to reapply under 

RFS2 for the temporary exemption. The verification letter for small refineries (§80.1441) or 

RFS program small refiner status (§80.1442) is for those refiners that are now newly covered by 

the RFS program due to EISA’s expansion to “transportation fuels” (which include diesel and 

nonroad fuels). 

5-10 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

 Regarding the comment that EPA should not set a “retroactive ownership date”, we note 

first that the small refiner provisions for this rule are consistent with the small refiner provisions 

in our other fuels programs (the small refinery provision under the RFS program was set out by 

Congress in EPAct, thus there are elements of it that are not the same as our previous fuels 

programs). We believe that a prior ownership requirement is necessary to ensure that we are 

providing relief to those refiners that are truly at an inherent disadvantage due to their size, as 

recognized by the Small Business Administration’s small entity size standards. Our intent in all 

of our fuels programs has been, and continues to be, limiting the small refiner relief provisions to 

a small subset of refiners that are generally inherently challenged, as discussed above. It would 

be hard to understand how an entity with the ability to purchase a new refinery is inherently 

challenged. At the same time, it is also our intent to avoid stifling normal business growth. 

Therefore, a refiner will be disqualified as a small refiner if it exceeds the small refiner criteria 

through its involvement in transactions such as purchasing or being acquired by another entity, 

merging with a non-small refiner, or when it ceases to produce its transportation fuel from crude. 

With respect to the commenter’s concern regarding disqualification, we are finalizing that 

refiners who qualify as small refiners and subsequently fail to meet all of the qualifying criteria 

are disqualified as small refiners as of January 1 of the next calendar year. However, a refiner 

that is disqualified from its small refiner status due to providing false information in its small 

refiner verification letter will be disqualified as a small refiner as of the effective date of the rule. 

With regard to the comments from Advocacy, we note that EISA put in place a number 

of additional requirements for the RFS program, which we are implementing with the RFS2 final 

rule. This includes both the new cellulosic, advanced, and biomass-based diesel standards, as 

well as the lifecycle GHG performance thresholds for these fuels. 

5.2 Upward Delegation of RIN-Separating Responsibilities 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) supports the proposal to allow small blenders to delegate their 

obligations. Experience with RFS1 shows that it is difficult for parties to transfer a small amount 

of RINs. This proposal would also make it easier to track RINs, than would be requiring 

numerous small entities to report RIN transactions. (2329.1, pp.91-92) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter supports the proposal to make all RIN-separating activities the responsibility of 

the Producer (Section III.H. 4) which would simplify the RIN management process. If this were 

adopted, it would not be necessary to consider the proposals in IV.A or IV.C.1. If the proposal 

in III.H.4 is not adopted, then the commenter would support the option to have small blenders 

5-11 
Chapter 5: Program Changes and Flexibilities 

(125,000 gal handled) delegate their RIN separating responsibilities to the Producer or fuel 

provider. (0994.1, p.15) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1002 

Organization: Fuel Marketing Corporation 

Comment:

The commenter (1002) noted in Section 3.9 that they believe the threshold of 125,000 gallons 

should be set at a minimum of 1,000,000 gallons blended or traded for upward delegation. The 

commenter believes that the financial burden of anything below this point, especially in regards 

to annual reporting and technical requirements to manage transactions either themselves or 

through a third party, will have a tremendous impact on them. (1002/1002.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2155 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) 

Comment:

The commenter (2155.1) agrees with EPA’s proposed language to allow blenders handling less 

than 125,000 gallons of renewable fuels per year to transfer those attached RINs upstream. The 

commenter believes that this upward delegation exception should be limited to the small blender 

and not allowed for any other parties regulated under the RFS program for fear of market 

manipulation and erroneous supply agreements intended to coerce the buyer/blender to forfeit 

RINs. The small blender must have the first right of refusal. (2155.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) supports allowing parties directly upstream from small biofuels blenders 

to separate and trade RINs. Additionally, small biofuels blenders should be required to 

specifically identify the upstream party which will be responsible for registering and reporting 

their RIN activity. The commenter also supports EPA’s proposed 125,000 total gallons per year 

limit for defining these small biofuels blenders. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

To the extent EPA does not generally allow separation of RINs by renewable fuel producers, the 

commenter supports allowing upstream delegation of RINs by small blenders. In the Proposed 

Rule, EPA indicated it believes it may be appropriate, under the current requirements limiting 

separation of RINs to obligated parties, to permit blenders who only blend a small amount of 

renewable fuel to allow the party directly upstream to separate RINs on their behalf. The 

commenter agrees with this proposal as the cost of reporting and compliance is a tremendous 

financial hardship for many small blenders. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 30]] 

The commenter suggests that a specific allotment be given for small blenders who blend 

biodiesel and recommends that EPA increase this value to 250,000 gallons of biodiesel. 

Additionally, the commenter requests EPA to establish a specific carve out for biodiesel in the 

small blender provisions and believes that this is necessary as the majority of the renewable fuel 

5-12 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

that will be blended by small blenders will be ethanol, as ethanol is easier to blend than 

biodiesel. [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 30-31]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2314 

Organization: The New England Fuel Institute 

Comment:

The commenter (2134.1) supports the proposal in the NPRM that would permit the upward 

delegation of RIN separating responsibilities by small blenders who blend and sell less than 

125,000 gallons of renewable fuel per year. (2314.1, p.3) 

The commenter proposes that two approaches to upward delegation transactions be adopted in 

the final rulemaking; the first approach would allow the blender to enter into an annual 

authorization that applies to all volumes of renewable fuel transferred between the parties for a 

given year, as proposed in the NPRM; the alternative approach would allow small blenders to 

enter into arrangements with multiple suppliers on a transaction by transaction basis. The 

adoption of both these approaches is essential to ensure that small blenders, who have less 

leverage with suppliers than the large blenders with regard to contractual terms, are guaranteed a 

consistent supply of renewable fuel blendstock at a price that allows the best possible margins 

for the blender. (2134.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2328 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2328.1) supports the proposal that would permit the upward delegation of RIN 

separating responsibilities by small blenders who blend and sell less than 125,000 gallons of 

renewable fuel per year. The commenter believes that the upward delegation of RIN-separating 

responsibilities should be at the discretion of the blender and that such separation be mandatory 

on the supplier when requested. (2328.1, p.3) 

The commenter is concerned with the proposal requiring small blenders to enter into a contract 

with renewable fuel suppliers authorizing for the period of one year the upward delegation of all 

RINs transferred between the parties. This proposal would lock blenders into a supply contract 

with a single renewable fuel supplier and remove a blenders ability to “shop around” for 

competitive pricing. The commenter proposes that two approaches to upward delegation 

transactions be adopted in the final rulemaking: one approach would allow the blender to enter 

into an annual authorization that applies to all volumes of renewable fuel transferred between the 

parties for a given year as proposed in the NPRM; the second approach would allow small 

blenders to enter into arrangements with multiple suppliers on a transaction by transaction basis. 

(2328.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2393.1) believes that EPA should not allow small entities to delegate their RIN 

related responsibilities to parties directly upstream. [[Docket number 2393.1, pp. 11-12]] 

5-13 
Chapter 5: Program Changes and Flexibilities 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2172 

Organization: Minnesota Soybean Processors (MnSP) 

Comment: 

MnSP commented that it strongly supports the proposal to permit small blenders of renewable 

fuel to allow the party directly upstream to separate RINs on their behalf, but notes that if EPA 

agrees to allow renewable fuel producers the ability to separate and sell RINs apart from 

renewable fuel gallons, this proposal will not be needed. MnSP believes that EPA's enactment of 

rules allowing renewable fuel blenders to delegate their RIN separation to an upstream party will 

greatly enhance the availability of renewable fuels across the U.S. Additionally giving small 

blenders the ability to significantly reduce their compliance costs of blending renewable fuels 

greatly levels the economic playing field between large volume renewable fuel blenders and 

small volume renewable fuel blenders. 

MnSP recommends that if EPA allows small blenders to delegate the separation of RINs on their 

behalf as proposed in this rule, that a specific biodiesel volume carve out be created. The 

commenter noted that many petroleum jobbers that MnSP sold to sell approximately 5 million 

gallons of petroleum diesel fuel annually. The diesel fuel is obtained from obligated parties 

through signing of a supply contract(s) with an obligated party(ies). When these jobbers blend 

the 5 million gallons of petroleum diesel with biodiesel to produce a 5 percent biodiesel blend 

level, 250,000 gallons of B100 (neat) biodiesel is needed. Thus MnSP commented that it 

believes that the current 125,000 EPA suggested renewable fuel volume threshold to delegate 

RIN separation upstream is inadequate in volume for it to have a significant impact for most 

petroleum jobbers to blend biodiesel. In addition, because ethanol is easier for petroleum jobbers 

to blend with gasoline versus biodiesel blended into diesel, it is probable that petroleum jobbers 

will favor blending ethanol into gasoline. When faced with the ease of blending ethanol versus 

biodiesel, the small blender will choose to blend ethanol at the expense of blending biodiesel into 

diesel fuel, thus placing biodiesel blending at a disadvantage. As a result MnSP strongly 

suggests that EPA create a specific biodiesel carve out volume of 250,000 gallons for small 

biodiesel blenders so that upstream parties can separate RINs on behalf of small biodiesel 

blenders. 

MnSP also strongly requests that EPA create a special registration for those small renewable 

blenders of renewable fuel who delegate their RIN separation upstream which specifically 

exempts them from all existing RFS1 RIN compliance requirements other than registration. This 

registration would require the small blender to report the number of renewable fuel gallons 

purchased by the registrant to EPA on a quarterly basis. Should the small blender registrant 

exceed his small blender exemption of 250,000 gallons of biodiesel, any penalties incurred 

would flow to the small blender registrant and not to the biodiesel producer. MnSP would be 

supportive of a simple small blender gallons purchased reporting method to EPA (something 

similar to IRS' form 1099 reporting) annually reporting small blender registrant total purchased 

gallons to EPA and the registered party(ies) in order to validate the small blender registration. 

Our Response:

As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, in some cases a party who receives RINs 

with a volume of renewable fuel is required to either separate or retire those RINs (and, absent 

5-14 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

the RFS program, some parties would be subject to few if any EPA regulations governing fuels), 

but the affected party may purchase and/or use such small volumes of renewable fuel that it 

renders the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the RFS program a large burden. This 

situation will become more prevalent with the RFS2 rule, as EISA added diesel fuel to the RFS 

program. With the RFS1 rule, small blenders (generally farmers and other parties that use 

nonroad diesel fuel) blending small amounts of biodiesel were not covered under the rule as 

EPAct mandated renewable fuel blending for highway gasoline only. EISA mandates certain 

amounts of renewable fuels to be blended into all transportation fuels—which includes highway 

and nonroad diesel fuel. Thus, parties that were not regulated under the RFS1 rule who only 

blend a small amount of renewable fuel (and, as mentioned above, are generally not subject to 

EPA fuels regulations) will now be regulated by the RFS program. 

 Consequently, we believe it is appropriate, and thus we are finalizing as proposed, to 

permit blenders who only blend a small amount of renewable fuel to allow the party directly 

upstream to separate RINs on their behalf. Such a provision is consistent with the fact that the 

RFS program already allows marketers of renewable fuels to assign more RINs to some of their 

sold product and no RINs to the rest of their sold product. Further, this provision was designed 

to allow the sale of some renewable fuel with no RINs so that small renewable fuel purchasers 

could elect to purchase fuel without also assuming burdens associated with RFS2 compliance. 

We believe that this provision will also help to eliminate undue burden on small parties who 

would otherwise not be regulated by this program. This provision is solely for the case of 

blenders who blend and trade less than 125,000 total gallons of renewable fuel per year (i.e., a 

company that blends 100,000 gallons and trades another 100,000 gallons would not be able to 

use this provision) and is available to any blender who must separate RINs from a volume of 

renewable fuel under §80.1429(b)(2). 

With regard to comments suggesting that the 125,000 gallon limit should be higher, we 

are retaining this threshold as we believe that it strikes the correct balance between providing 

relief to small blenders, while still ensuring that non-obligated parties cannot unduly influence 

the RIN market. 

We are also finalizing, as stated in the preamble, that for upstream delegation, both 

parties must sign a quarterly written statement (which must be included with the reporting 

party’s reports) authorizing the upward delegation. Copies of these statements must be retained 

as records by both parties and reported to EPA quarterly. Thus, EPA will know which party will 

be responsible for the recordkeeping and reporting duties of another party. The supplier would 

then be allowed to retain ownership of RINs assigned to a volume of renewable fuel when that 

volume is transferred, under the condition that the RINs be separated or retired concurrently with 

the transfer of the volume. This statement would apply to all volumes of renewable fuel 

transferred between the two parties. Thus, the two parties would enter into a contract stating that 

the supplier has RIN-separation responsibilities for all transferred volumes between the two of 

them, and no additional permissions from the small blender would be needed for any volumes 

transferred. A blender may enter into such an agreement with as many parties as they wish. 

 With regard to comments requesting that EPA increase the small blender volume for 

biodiesel blending and/or allow a carve-out for biodiesel, we are not finalizing such provisions in 

5-15 
Chapter 5: Program Changes and Flexibilities 

the rule. We do not believe it is necessary to provide additional allowances for biodiesel 

blenders only, and we believe it could unnecessarily complicate the upward delegation provision 

to have different volume requirements for various types of renewable fuels. Further, the 125,000 

gallon limit is intended to identify parties whose operations are truly small, and for whom 

compliance with RFS2 recordkeeping and reporting requirements could likely be excessively 

burdensome. We believe that the 125,000 gallon limit is appropriate regardless of the fuel that is 

being blended. 

 

 Regarding comments on upward delegation agreements, we are in fact allowing blenders 

to enter into upward delegation contracts with multiple suppliers. We proposed that contracts 

would be valid for one year (and thus parties would need to re-submit their agreements with EPA 

annually), however we are not finalizing that requirement. Once two parties enter into a 

contract, they will not have to resubmit unless the blender’s registration status changes such that 

the blender would need to re-register with EPA. We are also not finalizing the requested 

provision that upward delegation be at the discretion of the blender such that separation be 

mandatory on the supplier when requested. Some suppliers may not want to perform RINrelated responsibilities for their customers, and EPA does not wish to require them to do so. 

 With respect to comments that a special registration should be provided for small 

blenders, we note that we are requiring that small blenders would still have to register with EPA 

even if they are delegating their RIN responsibilities upward. While these small blenders will 

not have to perform some of the compliance provisions such as reporting, they will still be 

required to register. 

5.3 Small Producer Exemption

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2425 

Organization: PetroAlgae 

Comment: 

The commenter (2425) believes the 10,000 gallon small producer exemption needs to be 

increased to a minimum of 50,000 gallons per year. The increase is based on the increase in 

renewable fuel requirement in RFS2 vs. RFS1, essentially increasing the de minims threshold. 

[[Docket number 2425.1, p. 7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) believes that the annual volume threshold should be 10,000 gallons of 

renewable fuel for refiners and importers who choose not to generate RINs. (2124.1, p.34) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API), Marathon Petroleum Company 

Comment:

5-16 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2393.1) supports less burdensome registration and recordkeeping requirements 

for small producers, but while they may not be subject to all the requirements of larger entities, 

the commenter supports requiring these entities to, at minimum, generate RINs for all qualifying 

renewables. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 12]] 

Our Response:

As discussed in section III.C of the preamble, we are maintaining the provision from the 

RFS1 rule that parties who produce or import less than 10,000 gallons of renewable fuel in a year 

are not required to generate RINs for that volume (even if they have the information available to 

demonstrate that the fuel is made from renewable biomass), and are permanently exempted from 

registering with the EPA if they do not take ownership of RINs generated by other parties. 

These producers and importers are also exempt from registration, reporting, recordkeeping, and 

attest engagement requirements. We note that while these parties are exempt from generating 

RINs, there may be small producers who choose to participate in the RIN program. 

We believe this will have only an insignificant impact on the overall volume of RINs in 

the marketplace, and is necessary to avoid placing the registration, recordkeeping, reporting, and 

other program related burdens on such small producers that might otherwise be forced to cease 

production. In addition to the permanent exemption for those producers and importers who 

produce or import less than 10,000 gallons of renewable fuel per year, we are also finalizing a 

temporary exemption for renewable fuel producers who produce less than 125,000 gallons of 

renewable fuel each year from new production facilities. These producers are not required to 

generate and assign RINs to batches of renewable fuel for a period of up to three years, 

beginning with the calendar year in which the production facility produces its first gallon of 

renewable fuel. Such producers are also exempt from registration, reporting, recordkeeping, and 

attest engagement requirements as long as they do not own RINs or voluntarily generate and 

assign RINs. This provision is intended to allow pilot and demonstration plants of new 

renewable fuel technologies to focus on developing the technology and obtaining financing 

during these early stages of their development without having to comply with the RFS2 

regulations. 

5.4 20% Rollover Cap 

5.4.1 Level of the Rollover Cap

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2537 

Organization: Musket Corporation 

Comment: 

EPA does identify, but does not recommend however, a change that could increase the flow of 

RINs from the RIN separator to obligated parties; that of reducing the 20% rollover cap to 10%. 

This change would significantly reduce the likelihood that an obligated party would withhold 

RINs in excess of their current year obligation. [[Docket number 2537, pp. 2-3]] 

5-17 
Chapter 5: Program Changes and Flexibilities 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1033 

Organization: Poet Ethanol Products 

Comment:

The commenter (1033.1) believes the cap is effective as it exists today and would not be in favor 

of moving it in either direction from 20%. (1033.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

The commenter (2101.1) noted that to address the threat of a RIN snow-ball effect and the use of 

paper credits instead of physical gallons by obligated parties, during RFS1 EPA proposed to set a 

cap on the number of RINs that could rollover from one year to another for use by obligated 

parties. While the commenter appreciated EPA’s effort to find a solution to address this RIN 

rollover risk, the commenter did not support the 20 percent rollover cap at that time. Instead, the 

commenter advised that the Agency comply with the 2005 Acts clear language calling for a 12-

month credit lifespan by applying a retrospective system to ensure that minimum volumes of 

renewable fuel are used on an annual basis. (2101.1, p.16) 

The commenter recommends that EPA revisit this issue and consider enforcing the original 

intent of the law to not allow RIN rollover. If EPA is unwilling to take this step, the commenter 

recommends the Agency reduce the cap from 20 percent to 10 percent to more adequately 

address rollover concerns. The Act provides for the use of physical gallons of renewable fuel to 

satisfy annual obligations. In light of this requirement, a reduced cap of 10 percent is more 

defensible and would more consistently ensure the purpose of the law is achieved. (2101.1, p.16) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2118 

Organization: CountryMark Cooperative, LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter (2118.1) recommends that for biodiesel as a minimum the 20% requirement be 

increased to 50% so prior year RINs can be counted toward obligation through June of the 

following year. (2118.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) believes that the current 20% cap on the use of last year’s RINs for 

RFS compliance should be increased to 40%. Increasing the rollover cap to 

40% allows these end-of-year renewable fuel volumes to be more readily incorporated into RFS2 

compliance strategies. The higher cap would also provide more flexibility given higher RFS2 

volume requirements. (2124.1, p.20-21) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

5-18 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2130) believes that rollover RINs should not be capped. Putting a cap on the 

use of following year rollover RINs distorts the RFS by removing legitimate renewable fuel use 

that should count toward meeting the mandatory FRS obligation. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 

11]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2145 

Organization: Flint Hills Resources 

Comment: 

The commenter (2145.1) supports increasing the rollover cap to 40%. To allow an obligated 

party to truly benefit from this provision as intended, the cap must be raised. (2145.1, p.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment:

The commenter (2154.1) noted that should EPA revise the definition of obligated party, the RIN 

carryover cap could remain in place or even increased some to account for the time lag in 

moving RINs through the system. However, the current RIN carryover cap exacerbates the 

problem when put in combination with the existing obligation structure. (2154.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that unneeded limitations on RIN carryover from one year to the next 

can only result in some renewable biofuel production not being credited toward the mandated 

volumes and some RINs would expire unused. Since meeting the RFS2 increasing mandated 

renewable biofuel requirements will be difficult, EPA must avoid situations where it arbitrarily 

destroys valuable RINs. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 13]] 

The commenter adds that EPA should also recognize that at the beginning of each new year, 

obligated parties and blenders use biofuels that have the previous year’s code. It is very possible 

for a blender or obligated party to have 10 to 20% of the total biofuels blended in a single year, 

produced in the previous year. While the commenter would argue that EPA should completely 

eliminate the RIN carryover cap, at a minimum, EPA should raise the cap to a level that allows a 

reasonable number of RINs actually generated in the previous year to be carried into the next 

year. If a 20% real RIN carryover is deemed advisable, then this 20% should be added to the 10-

20% previous year biofuel production that is blended in the current year. Thus the RIN carryover 

cap should at a minimum be in the 40% range. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 13]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

EPA retains the current provision that would allow an obligated party to use RINs generated in 

the prior year subject to a 20 percent cap. The commenter (2249.2) believes EPA should 

eliminate any potential for rollover and at a minimum, lower the cap, not increase it. [[Docket 

number 2249.2, p. 31 and docket number 2249.1, p. 5]] 

5-19 
Chapter 5: Program Changes and Flexibilities 

In addition, the commenter states that the 20 percent was based on an analysis of historical 

supply of ethanol, and one year in which supply was reduced by 20 percent due to a drought. 

Biodiesel capacity, however, exceeds the statutory mandates for Biomass-based Diesel, and 

alternative feedstocks are available to make up any potential loss of crops. As such, the rollover 

provision would only work to undermine the ability of biodiesel producers to sell actual volumes 

of biodiesel each year as intended by Congress. There is no support for needing a 20 percent 

carryover to address any potential shortfall for the biomass-based diesel requirement. Moreover, 

EPA should promote the use of other fuels that may be available to make up for potential losses. 

The commenter suggests that if some rollover is retained, a 10 percent cap should be more than 

sufficient, while limiting the potential reduction of actual volumes sold each year. [[Docket 

number 2249.2, p. 32]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

Regarding continuation of the 20 percent rollover cap for use in the RFS2 program, the 

commenter (2383) believes the ability to rollover some RINs provides flexibility and the 20 

percent cap helps insure annual generation of RINs. The commenter thus supports continuation 

of the 20 percent rollover cap. [[Docket number 2383.1, p. 61]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) notes that mandated renewable biofuels volumes in the RFS2 program 

are expected to quickly reach and exceed production in nearly every category. Under these 

circumstances, unneeded limitations on RIN carryover from one year to the next could result in 

some renewable biofuel production not being credited toward the mandated volumes and some 

RINs could then expire unused. Since meeting the RFS2 increased renewable biofuel mandate 

requirements will be difficult, EPA must avoid situations where it arbitrarily destroys valuable 

RINs because of an unnecessary carryover limitation. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 13]] 

The commenter suggests that a larger RIN carryover cap could become beneficial to stakeholders 

as the marketing year for U.S. corn straddles two calendar years and production of some 

important renewable fuels (such as Brazilian sugar-cane based ethanol) is seasonal. Increased 

flexibility could mitigate negative economic impacts during temporary periods of unfavorable 

renewable fuel economics. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 13]] 

The commenter urges EPA to recognize that at the beginning of each year, obligated parties and 

blenders must necessarily use biofuels that have the previous year’s code to ensure continuity of 

supply. The commenter believes that EPA should completely eliminate the RIN carryover cap. If 

EPA decides to retain the cap, at a minimum EPA should raise the cap to a level that allows a 

reasonable number of RINs actually generated in the previous year to be carried into the next 

year without reducing the carryover allowance. In addition, to accommodate the fact that 

beginning year inventories of biofuels blended into fuels sold in the current year could represent 

up to 10% or 20% of the previous year biofuel production, the RIN carryover cap should be 

raised from 20% to a minimum of 40%. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 13]] 

5-20 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2396 

Organization: CVR Energy

Comment:

The commenter (2396.1) requests that EPA provide a 50% rollover cap and the ability to 

interchangeably utilize RINs. (2396.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2400 

Organization: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2400.2) believes that eliminating the 20% RIN rollover cap would greatly 

compromise compliance measures put into place and free flowing activity in the RIN 

marketplace. The commenter recommends the 20% rollover cap be maintained at its current level 

or raised to a 30% rollover cap. Eliminating the rollover cap requires obligated parties to obtain 

their entire obligation in the current year which entails a potential obligation deficit. (2400.2, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2425 

Organization: PetroAlgae 

Comment: 

The commenter (2425) disagrees with the 20% RIN roll-over limit. There needs to be greater 

rollover flexibility based on the higher renewable fuel volume requirements. This is critical to 

provide more flexibility in the system. [[Docket number 2425.1, p. 7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The rollover cap should not be decreased under any circumstances. The rollover cap provides 

essential flexibility to meeting the mandates and allowing Obligated Parties to meet their RVOs. 

(2471.1, p.12) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) opposes EPA’s proposal to limit the carryover of RINs to 20%. If EPA 

must impose a cap on the amount of RINs that can be carried over, the commenter recommends 

40%. If EPA must establish a RIN rollover cap, the cap should be large enough to provide 

obligated parties with sufficient flexibility in the event the production of ethanol or other 

renewable fuels is significantly constrained in any given year. Increasing the roll over cap to 

40% would also help address a practical problem that has arisen due to the fact that RINs are 

assigned at the time that renewable fuel is produced. (2505.2,p .8) 

Our Response:

As described in Section III.D of the preamble, we continue to believe that a rollover cap is 

necessary to implement EISA's restriction on the life of credits. We proposed that the 20% cap 

established under RFS1 be maintained for RFS2, but took comment on values higher or lower than 

5-21 
Chapter 5: Program Changes and Flexibilities 

20%. The comments above highlight many of the same advantages and disadvantages of the 20% 

rollover cap that we discussed in the NPRM, as well as in the RFS1 FRM. Commenters suggested 

values ranging from 0% to 50%, with some suggesting that the cap be maintained at 20% and others 

suggesting that the cap be eliminated entirely. A discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of 

a higher or lower rollover cap can be found in Section III.D of the preamble. 

In light of the comments received, we believe that the 20% level continues to provide the 

appropriate balance between, on the one hand, allowing legitimate RIN carryovers and protecting 

against potential supply shortfalls that could limit the availability of RINs, and on the other hand 

ensuring an annual demand for renewable fuels as envisioned by EISA. Therefore, we are 

continuing the 20% rollover cap for obligated parties for the RFS2 program. 

5.4.2 Other Aspects of the Rollover Cap 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2047 

Organization: Terrabon 

Comment: 

Commenter [[2071]] states they also propose that the current 20% rollover cap on excess RINs 

would be modified to apply on a quarterly basis rather than an annual basis. They believe that 

measuring compliance on an annual basis creates too much opportunity for gamesmanship 

among the players in the renewable fuels industry. [[#2071.1 p.7]] 

Our Response:

 The rollover cap was put in place to effectuate the requirement in the CAA 211(o) that 

credits have a limited life. In essence, it prevents excess credits from being rolled over year after 

year and building up over time. This is an annual limitation under the statute, so applying it 

quarterly would go beyond the requirements of CAA 211(o). Furthermore, applying the 

restriction on a quarterly basis would require substantial changes and impose complicated 

restrictions to the RIN program, for no clear purpose. We are not aware of any “gamesmanship” 

going on as suggested by the commenter. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter (2471.1) agrees with EPA that the rollover cap should be separately applied to 

each of the four Obligated Party RVOs each year. 

Our Response:

5-22 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

5-23 

We agree that the rollover cap should be separately applied to each of the four RVOs. If 

the 20% rollover cap were applied only to the total renewable fuel RVO, an obligated party 

could build up credits over time for one of the other three RVOs that could far exceed 20%. 
EPA-420-R-10-003

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Summary and Analysis of 

Comments

Chapter 6

Assessment of Renewable Fuel Production 

Capacity and Use
6 ASSESSMENT OF RENEWABLE FUEL PRODUCTION CAPACITY AND USE

6.1 Control Case 6-1 

6.2 Renewable Fuel Production 6-5 

6.2.1 Biomass Feedstock Availability 6-5 

6.2.2 Setting the Cellulosic Biofuel Standard 6-8 

6.2.3 Imported Sugarcane Ethanol 6-14 

6.2.4 Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel 6-14 

6.3 Renewable Fuel Distribution 6-19 

6.3.1 Renewable Fuel Distribution and Storage Considerations Through the 

Petroleum Terminal Level 6-19 

6.3.2 E85 Refueling Facility Accommodations 6-25 

6.3.3 Misfueling of Non-Flex fuel Vehicles with E85 6-27 

6.3.4 Potential Need for High Vapor Pressure Gasoline Blendstocks at Terminals 

to Manufacture E85 6-29 

6.4 Ethanol Consumption and the Blendwall 6-30 

6.4.1 EPA Should Promote FFV/E85 Growth 6-30 

6.4.2 Getting Beyond the Blend Wall with Non-Ethanol Renewables 6-32 

6.4.3 Potential for Optimizing Vehicles for Increased Ethanol Use 6-33 

6.4.4 FFV Production and E85 Utilization Assumptions 6-34 

6.4.5 Retail Price Relationship of E10/E85 6-40 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

6 ASSESSMENT OF RENEWABLE FUEL PRODUCTION CAPACITY AND USE

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section correspond to Section V of the preamble to the proposed 

rule and address renewable fuel production capacity and use. A summary of the comments 

received and our response to those comments are located below. Our updated assessment of 

renewable fuel production and use can be found in Section IV of the preamble to the final rule. 

Note that comments received on the Reference Case, and our responses to those comments, are 

located in Chapter 7 of this Summary and Analysis of Comments Document. 

6.1 Control Case

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter believes that if EPA implements its proposal to allow animal fats and waste 

greases to be blended with vegetable oils to create a feedstock that will yield a vegetable oil 

Biodiesel that meets a 50% GHG emissions reduction (relative), then animal fats and waste 

greases will also be in high demand. If these regulations play out, the price of animal fats and 

waste greases may rise close to the price of soy oil. This will have significant impact in the feed 

market that uses animal fats and waste greases as animal feed. (0994.1, p.15) 

The commenter noted that the technology of an RD plant and the operating/management 

personnel in an RD plant are much more sophisticated than a Biodiesel plant. Facility cost for an 

RD plant is much more expensive than a Biodiesel facility. The commenter is aware of only one 

RD plant being built in the U.S. Because the economic cost of an RD plant is so high, the 

economic plant size is also quite large (50 - 75 million gal). This requires a large volume of 

animal fats and greases. Most processors/suppliers of animal fats and greases already have 

customers for these products. Pulling large volumes of these products away from existing 

customers is not particularly attractive, considering the precarious nature of the biofuels industry. 

On this basis we do not believe that there will be a large number of RD facilities built in the U.S. 

(0994.1, pp.15-16) 

The commenter also does not believe that co-processing of animal fats in petroleum refinery 

hydrotreaters will be a significant factor in the Biofuels mix. (0994.1, p.16) 

Our Response:

The commenter’s statement with respect to blending of animal fats and waste greases are 

no longer relevant given the lifecycle results for soy biodiesel in the final rule and the lack of a 

need for averaging with waste oils. 

6-1
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

In the final rulemaking, we are not projecting any co-processing of rendered fats or 

greases with petroleum for a variety of reasons, including the recent change in tax law that 

reduces the incentive to co-process relative to stand-alone processing, as well as the different 

operating parameters and pre-treatment demands of animal fats vs. petroleum that could make 

co-processing cumbersome from an engineering point of view. 

Our control case scenario conservatively projects only 150 MMgal/yr of RD production, 

which is consistent with the commenter’s statements about available feedstocks and capital costs. 

Our analysis suggests that per-gallon production costs will be very similar for RD vs. biodiesel 

produced from the same feedstock, despite the higher capital costs of the RD facility. The 

question remains whether the fuel products produced by the RD plant will be of sufficiently high 

value to favor construction of more RD plants in the long term that may displace biodiesel 

production from the same feedstock, or garner new sources. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment:

The commenter (2143) believes that biobutanol and other renewable fuels have greater potential 

than what the EPA’s analysis suggests. (2143.2, p.8) 

Our Response: 

We recognize that there are other fuels with the potential to enter the market. For the 

final rule we have modified our primary control case to model the impacts of increased 

renewable fuel use using greater volumes of non-ethanol renewable fuels. For some of our 

analyses where time permitted, we also assessed the impacts using a lower and a higher 

assumption with respect to the ethanol makeup of the future renewable fuel volume. We believe 

that for the purposes of assessing the impact of increased renewable fuels we chose a set of 

renewable fuels which are within the range of possible future predictions. As new technologies, 

feedstocks, and fuels emerge, our understanding of them will continue to evolve which may 

warrant new evaluations and projections of those fuels, feedstocks, and technologies. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2302 

Organization: UC Berkeley - Energy Biosciences Institute 

Comment: 

Commenter [[2302]] suggests reassessment of claims regarding possible impacts of Jatropha 

cultivation on food production or prices, and suggests using a conversion factor of at least 100 

gallons ethanol per ton for bagasse. [[#2302 p.6]] 

6-2
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response: 

We have revised our assessment and no longer suggest that Jatropha will impact food 

production or prices as we have not modeled its production at this time. We still include 

background discussion on the potential of the crop in the RIA, Chapter 1. 

We based our final rule ethanol conversion factors on work completed by the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), modeling 92.3 gallons per ton for all agricultural 

residues, switchgrass, and agricultural byproducts of processing such as bagasse and sweet 

sorghum pulp in 2022. Although this is less than suggested by the commenter, we believe the 

yield used is consistent across similar feedstocks and takes into account expert opinion on 

biofuel feedstock processing. The conversion factor for bagasse used in the NPRM was around 

70 gallons per ton based on previous assumptions and has since been revised. Table 1.5-46 of 

the draft RIA, “tons used column” was rounded to the nearest million tons, and explains the 

discrepancy noted by the commenter as states having different gallons per ton. In the table from 

the draft RIA, Texas is noted as producing 1 million tons (more accurately 0.6 million tons was 

projected to be used). If the more accurate number is used, yields for each state are actually 

much closer than suggested. Yield assumptions, among other parameters were updated in our 

agricultural modeling since the proposal and are further explained in the RIA, Chapter 1 and 5. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2336 

Organization: SG Biofuels 

Comment: 

The commenter (2336) states that jatropha curcas is largely undomesticated. Unlike soy, canola 

and corn, it has not been bred to maximize yields, minimize inputs and expand possible growing 

ranges. With modern science, the commenter believes they have a huge opportunity to improve 

this crop. Without addressing this key difference, EPA is comparing apples to oranges. Jatropha 

as it exists today is nothing like what it will be even a few years from now. EPA has an 

opportunity to encourage and speed the development of this crop, enabling significant reductions 

in GHG on a much shorter timeline, as well as accelerating the identification of cold-tolerant 

strains capable of thriving in southern regions of the United States. Even imports from Latin 

American-based production could result in GHG reductions over petroleum based energy. 

[[Docket number 2336.1, p. 1]] [[See docket number 2336.1, p. 1-5 for extensive discussion of 

this issue.]] 

The commenter disputes two statements (DRIA, 1.1.3.4.3 Jatropha Conclusions) 

 

- The section opens with the statement, ”It is unlikely that Jatropha curcas will be able to help the 

United States meet its energy needs in the future without disrupting current food crops, water 

resources, and other U.S. interests.” On the contrary, the undomesticated Jatropha curcas has 

huge potential to improve yields, reduce inputs, grow in more varied climates and further 

improve many traits, unlocking a significant renewable energy solution for the US. 

6-3
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

- The other statement the commenter disagrees with is ”Even under optimal conditions, Jatropha 

yields are unlikely to be radically different from that of other conventional oil plants thus, its 

possible impact on US energy supply is limited.” Even if yields are equivalent, there would be a 

significant impact on US energy supply, but as the commenter has shown the yields are much 

higher than other oil crops (50% to 245% higher). In addition, Jatropha is an undomesticated 

plant that has had very little effort applied towards breeding for improved yields and reduced 

inputs. Significant increases in the yields, cold tolerance, and other agronomically useful traits 

can be expected over the next several decades since we are starting from a largely unimproved 

base unlike soy and canola where all the easy gains have been already obtained. [[Docket 

number 2336.1, p. 5]] 

The commenter encourages EPA to include Jatropha oil in its analysis in order to encourage both 

U.S. and Latin American interests to further develop the potential of this undomesticated crop for 

energy use. Like any crop, Jatropha needs to be planted on the right land, in the right climate and 

with the right management. As these aspects are perfected and teams of scientists like ours 

conduct breeding and crop improvement programs, Jatropha will be even more successful. 

[[Docket number 2336.1, p. 5]] 

Our Response: 

Since the proposal, we have reassessed our statements on Jatropha and no longer suggest 

that Jatropha will impact food production or prices as we have not modeled its production at this 

time. We agree that since Jatropha is a relatively new crop in the U.S. there is a large potential 

for future improvements in many areas (e.g. yields, cold tolerance, etc.) and thus contribution 

towards fuel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter (0994.1) noted that in Section V.B.4, EPA states that the definition of Biodiesel 

is sufficiently broad to include both Renewable Diesel and true Biodiesel (fatty acid methyl 

ester). The commenter believes that this is a significant error. True Biodiesel is a fatty acid 

methyl ester and Renewable Diesel (RD) is a synthetic hydrocarbon. While both fuels work in 

diesel engines, they have different physical properties and are each defined in different ASTM 

specifications. RD is included in the Diesel Fuel Oil ASTM specification. Biodiesel has its own 

ASTM spec. RD as a petroleum product, can drop directly into the petroleum infrastructure such 

as utilizing pipelines for distribution. Biodiesel cannot drop into this infrastructure. Biodiesel has 

yet to be approved for distribution by pipeline because it is considered a contaminate that could 

get into pipeline- transferred jet fuel. The press has not yet caught on to the correct use of the 

terms Biofuels and Biodiesel, but it is important for EPA to support the distinction between the 

two products. If not, people will be saying that RFS2 has now created four categories of 

Biodiesel, when they mean four classes of biofuel. [[See Docket Number 0944.1, p.16]] 

6-4
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response: 

 When we refer to the definition of biodiesel being broad, we are referring to the 

definition under the Act established by Congress, which we are implementing through the RFS 

standards. We believe our discussions of biodiesel and renewable diesel are generally clear 

about the difference between methyl esters and the hydrocarbons made by RD processing, 

including mention of the differences in storage and shipment requirements. However, in cases 

where statutory language is broad enough to include both it is our intent to make compliance as 

inclusive as possible. 

6.2 Renewable Fuel Production 

6.2.1 Biomass Feedstock Availability 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment:

The commenter points out that EPA does not elaborate on a projected production path for 

cellulosic diesel and suggests that a detailed analysis of the expected production and distribution 

costs and benefits of cellulosic diesel be presented. [[See Docket Number 2143.2, p.8]] 

Our Response: 

We have included an analysis of the potential for cellulosic diesel for the final rule. Refer 

to Section 1.5.3 of the RIA for more information on current industry plans for cellulosic diesel, 

Section 4.1 for production costs, and Section 4.2 for distribution costs. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2021 

Organization: Fulcrum Energy 

Comment:

The commenter (2021.1) noted that EPA requested comments on how to estimate urban waste 

feedstock availability. This issue is discussed in detail in Attachment 1, a white paper entitled, 

“Advancing Waste-Derived Biofuels As A Significant And Sustainable Low Carbon Fuel 

Pathway: A Policy Brief.” [[See Docket Number 2021.1, p.44. Refer to pp. 47-55 for whitepaper 

on how to estimate urban waste feedstock availability]] 

Our Response: 

 We appreciate the comments provided on estimating urban waste feedstock availability. 

While our feedstock availability assessment for urban waste uses slightly different methodology, 

6-5
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

assumptions, and data sources than that provided by the commenter, both estimates suggest that 

urban wastes have a large potential towards providing fuel to meet the renewable fuels standard. 

In general, we assume more conservative assumptions on the total amount of urban waste 

generated, portion of that waste available after considering factors such as land filling, 

composition of feedstock, moisture, and potential contamination, and conversion yields. 

Therefore we estimate less available urban waste feedstock than suggested by the commenter. 

Even so, we believe our estimates are reasonable given the assumptions made. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2302 

Organization: UC Berkeley - Energy Biosciences Institute 

Comment: 

The commenter (2302.1) strongly suggests that EPA implement mechanisms for allowing each 

state to submit their assessment of their potential biomass resources, as most states are currently 

compiling or have compiled such assessments, and seek expert input from other relevant 

agencies. In all cases, real data should always take precedence over that predicted from models. 

[[See Docket Number 2302.1, p.4]] 

Our Response:

 The models employed in our assessments utilize data from states and other sources. We 

welcome any new assessments of potential biomass resources that are available on a state-bystate basis to be included in our future analyses. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2316 

Organization: University of Minnesota 

Comment: 

The commenter (2316.1) is concerned about the amount of corn stover and other crop residues 

potentially available for use as feedstocks for advanced and cellulosic biofuels. The current 

analysis as reported in this Proposed Rulemaking suggests that 444.4 million tons of corn stover 

will be available in 2022, that 122 million tons could be harvested sustainably in the top 12 corn 

producing states, and that 82 million tons could be harvested to produce 7.8 billion gallons of 

ethanol. These estimates are too high because of an error in correction for grain moisture and the 

use of outdated stover-to-grain ratios. Rather, it is more likely that 250.2 million tons of corn 

stover will be available in 2022, which would leave an insufficient amount sustainably 

harvestable to produce the goal of 7.8 billion gallons. Residues from other crops should also be 

adjusted accordingly. I am including a detailed description of these corrections and adjustments 

in Appendix B. [[See Docket Number 2316.1, p.2]] 

Our Response:

6-6
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

 We have updated our assessment for the final rule and project 4.9 ethanol-equivalent 

billion gallons will be derived from corn stover based on the FASOM model. This volume is 

less than that projected for the proposal (7.8 ethanol-equivalent billion gallons), resulting in 

fewer residues required to be collected for processing into fuel. We account for grain moisture 

as well as stover-to-grain ratios based on literature available to us at the time and have better 

clarified whether we are referring to dry or wet tons of residues available in our updated 

analyses. We are continually updating our analyses to take into account new data and 

assumptions for future analyses. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2493 

Organization: American Forest & Paper Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2493.1) states that utilities and independent power generators are likely to 

increase their use of wood biomass in response to state and national mandates/incentives 

regarding renewable energy and carbon emissions, and that this would present significant 

challenges in terms of woody biomass supply and forest sustainability. [[See Docket Number 

2493.1, p. 6]] 

Our Response:

We acknowledge that there could be competing needs for renewable biomass feedstocks 

as other requirements are put in place at the National, State, or local level for renewable 

electricity. However, we believe our projections of cellulosic biomass for producing renewable 

fuels are supportable even with such future competition. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2350 

Organization: BioEnergy Producers Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2350) believes that as non-food derived resources, carbon-based wastes 

represent the nation’s most promising and virtually untapped renewable energy resource—some 

500 million tons of which are readily available for conversion to energy. The commenter states 

that upcoming technologies could produce enough ethanol from these resources to eliminate the 

nation’s need to import petroleum. [[See Docket Number 2350, p. 1]] 

Our Response: 

 We agree that non-food derived resources will play a large role in helping our nation 

meet EISA. As suggested by the commenter and described in our analyses, potential feedstocks 

used for biofuel production may include agricultural residues, forestry biomass, certain 

6-7
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

renewable portions of municipal solid waste and construction and demolition waste, and energy 

crops. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0964 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment:

The commenter (0964) believes that the value placed in corn-based ethanol as a fuel additive is 

misguided. The commenter cites two federal studies and a Wall Street Journal editorial 

(“Ethanol’s Grocery Bill”, June 2, 2009). The commenter states that growing native grasses for 

ethanol would be a lot easier and cheaper than cultivating a domesticated crop such as corn. (P. 

1) 

Our Response:

 There are many potential benefits to the use of perennial grasses, such as reduced 

fertilizer inputs, higher total biomass yields per unit of land area than comparable annual species, 

and the ability for a perennial species roots to remain in the soil after harvesting above-ground 

biomass. Our analyses suggest that perennial grasses will play a major role as feedstocks 

necessary to help meet EISA’s cellulosic biofuel requirement of 16 billion gallons by 2022. 

 While the potential is there, there are still challenges that must be addressed before 

perennial species can be grown and harvested at a commercial scale (e.g., establishing contracts 

between farmers and biofuel producers, developing optimal harvest techniques and equipment). 

These challenges are currently being investigated by researchers at universities, industry groups, 

as well as government laboratories around the world. As such, it is important to recognize that 

many of our conventional crops that have already had many years of experience being grown and 

harvested will have some cost advantages over relatively newer feedstocks and are also likely to 

play a role in meeting the total renewable fuels requirement of 36 billion gallons by 2022. 

6.2.2 Setting the Cellulosic Biofuel Standard 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393.1) believes that the Agency analysis of the potential volumes of cellulosic 

fuels that it expects to be available in 2010 is far too optimistic and based on inadequate 

documentation. Internal commenter analysis suggests that less than 10 MMG will be produced in 

2010, but EPA is projecting almost 145 MMG of ethanol-equivalent fuels. The RFS2 mandates 

100 MMG of ethanol-equivalent fuels. Other independent assessments of the projected growth of 

cellulosic ethanol through 2022 indicate that domestic production is likely to be billions of 

6-8
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

gallons short of the EISA mandates. The commenter believes that the waiver decision for the 

following year should be based on demonstrated rated (existing continuous operation for at least 

three months) annual capacity as of the required November 30 notice. This is a concrete standard 

that is not subject to subjective projections. [[See Docket Number 2393.1 and refer to pp. 34-40 

for a more extensive discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2110 

Organization: Chevron 

Comment:

The commenter (2110.1) believes that EPA should adjust the cellulosic biofuel requirement 

under Section 202(e) of EISA to reflect a more credible estimate of fuel availability than was 

presented in the now outdated NPRM. The commenter believes that the volumes of cellulosic 

biofuel projected to be available in the NPRM are overly optimistic and inconsistent with the 

current state of the technology and commercial scale-up by the cellulosic biofuels industry. The 

commenter believes that the issuance of a cellulosic biofuel waiver under EISA section 

211(0)(7)(d) is essential for the first year of the RFS2, at the very least. The waivered amount 

should be no greater than the actual production as of November 30 of the previous year when, by 

statute, EPA must determine applicable percentages for the following year. [[See Docket 

Number 2110.1, p.4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130.1) states that EPA’s assessment of forward year cellulosic ethanol 

production capability must be realistic, and based on actual demonstrated commercial production 

capability. When assessing new technologies, EPA must adopt a higher standard that capability 

must be demonstrated both in terms of the actual fuel being produced and the capacity of the 

plant to operate reliably at some demonstrated operating capacity. Obligated parties must not be 

put in the position of being forced to carry deficits forward due to the unreliability of new 

technology or overly optimistic acceptance of new technology claims. [[See Docket Number 

2130.1, pp. 4 & 10]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2233.1) believes the Agency’s analysis of the potential volumes of cellulosic 

fuels that it expects to be available in 2010 is far too optimistic. Internal commenter analysis 

suggests that less than 10 MMG will be produced in 2010, but EPA is projecting almost 145 

MMG of ethanol-equivalent fuel. The RFS2 mandates 100 MMG of ethanol-equivalent fuels. 

The commenter goes on to explain that EPA’s NRPM assessment contains several errors in 

projected cellulosic capacity, including relying on Cello Energy for 78% of the volume. The 

commenter acknowledges that it is difficult to identify a credible path for rapid cellulosic 

production capacity growth that might meet the aggressive targets mandated in EISA. However, 

EPA cannot base its estimate of the next year’s cellulosic biofuels production on advertising, 

propaganda, or mere company statements of production intents. EPA must base its estimate on 

current year actual production. The commenter concludes by recommending that EPA 

6-9
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

immediately invoke the cellulosic waiver protocols for 2010 and 2011. The commenter’s 

analysis indicates that the EISA mandates are not going to be achieved at any time in the near- or 

mid-term (3-7 years). As such, EPA will need to routinely waive the existing EISA cellulosic 

mandates. EPA should do so in a manner that will not penalize gasoline blending companies 

because of the failure of the cellulosic ethanol industry to meet EISA goals. [[See Docket 

Number 2233.2, pp. 40-42]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2400 

Organization: Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2400.2) reiterates that “EISA requires in section 202(e) that the Administrator 

set the cellulosic biofuel standard each November for the next year based on the lesser of the 

volume specified in the Act or the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production for that 

year.” The commenter believes that EPA should avoid a situation that forces obligated parties to 

pay for the lack of investment by biofuel companies. The commenter recommends that the EPA 

calculate the standards as they set forth in section III.I.1. This will ensure that the obligations for 

cellulosic blending are based off attainable levels. [[See Docket Number 2400.2, p.7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2124.1) believes that it is critical when EPA is making its annual assessment of 

cellulosic biofuel capability that they rely on demonstrated production capability. As evidenced 

in this proposal, reliance on “planned” capability for such new and unproven technologies is 

fraught with great risk. EPA's reliance on plans by one potential cellulosic biofuel supplier to 

supply 70% of the 2010 cellulosic biofuel volume with as yet undemonstrated technology is not 

an appropriate evaluation of capability. As evidenced by recent publicity, Cello Energy is yet to 

demonstrate the production of any cellulosic biofuel and has had a judgment in the amount of 

$10.4 million entered against them by an Alabama jury that found their technology claims to be 

fraudulent. When assessing new technologies, EPA must adopt a higher standard that capability 

must be demonstrated both in terms of the actual fuel being produced and the capacity of the 

plant to operate reliably at some demonstrated operating capacity. Obligated parties must not be 

put in the position of being forced to carry deficits forward due to the unreliability of new 

technology, or EPA's overly optimistic acceptance of new technology capability claims. [[See 

Docket Number 2124.1, p. 19]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell and Motiva Enterprises 

Comment: 

According to the commenter (2505.1), although EPA has proposed not to waive the cellulosic 

renewable fuel requirement for 2010, EPA has not adequately evaluated whether there will in 

fact be 100 million gallons of production of cellulosic ethanol in 2010. The commenter is 

doubtful that there is in fact 100 million gallons of existing production capacity. Recent news 

articles about Cello are counter to the EPA’s assessment in the NPRM. EPA should do a 

thorough analysis of the availability of cellulosic ethanol and adjust the RFS2 standards 

accordingly. 

6-10
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2389 

Organization: BlueFire, Coskata, INEOS Bio and Fulcrum Bioenergy 

Comment: 

The commenters (2389.1) believe that the long‐term goal of 16 billion gallons per year of 

cellulosic biofuels is achievable but they do not believe that the industry will be capable of 

producing the volumes targeted for 2010. In no way should this be viewed as a failure of the 

RFS. The ambitious EISA targets are driving significant investments and speeding technology 

advancements in cellulosic ethanol production. As these technologies demonstrate their 

commercial viability, rapid deployment and scale up to meet the near and long‐term targets will 

occur. Congress showed great foresight in allowing EPA discretion to waive the annual targets to 

ensure compliance is met by obligated parties. Congress specifically instructed the Administrator 

to reduce volume to what is “available.” EISA Sec. 202 directs that the “Administrator shall 

reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel required under paragraph (2)(B) to the 

projected volume available during that calendar year”. This requirement addresses the prospect 

that the petroleum industry would be held to account for purchasing fuel that could not be 

produced in sufficient quantities. It is essential that the Administrator follow Congressional 

direction and reduce the cellulosic volume to a level in which there can be reasonable confidence 

of availability. This will relieve the petroleum industry of any obligation to purchase fuel that the 

cellulosic biofuel industry is not able to produce. Secondly, it will serve the larger Congressional 

objective of ensuring that any cellulosic biofuel that is produced will have a market. A critical 

third benefit of the Administrator taking this approach is to promote confidence in the ability of 

the RFS to function properly, which will provide political support for the regulation. [[See 

Docket Number 2389.1, pp. 1-2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2526 

Organization: Coskata 

Comment: 

The commenter (2526.1) believes that the annual cellulosic biofuel standards should be set 

prudently. The market conditions resulting from EPA’s implementation of a Sec. 202 waiver 

(and the corresponding credit provisions) will have a profound effect on the industry’s ability to 

meet Congressional targets for production in the middle and later stages of the RFS2 program. 

EPA’s approach could enable and accelerate the deployment of cellulosic biofuel production 

technology. Alternatively, if not properly implemented, it could destabilize the market for 

cellulosic biofuels and increase investment risk, delaying indefinitely the potential for these 

technologies to make significant contributions to the nation’s fuel supply. 

According to the commenter, the cellulosic biofuel industry is not likely to be capable of 

satisfying the ambitious targets Congress set for cellulosic production in the early years of the 

program. Congress anticipated this and established authorities in Sec. 202(e)(2)(D) to enable 

smooth implementation of the RFS while the industry develops to a degree that is capable of 

meeting the scale of production envisioned by EISA. To ensure that the RFS creates optimal 

market conditions for rapid deployment of cellulosic biofuels, the applicable volume for 

cellulosic biofuels should be set annually to reflect the volume of cellulosic biofuels that EPA 

has a high degree of confidence will be available the following year, while allowing an extra 

“stretch-goal” to induce new capacity growth. [[See Docket Number 2526.1, pp. 1-2]] 

6-11
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont 

Comment: 

The commenter (2146.1) acknowledges that EISA requires EPA to set the cellulosic biofuel 

standard each November for the following year, based on either the volume specified by the Act 

or the projected production volume for that year, whichever is lower. While many companies, 

including DDCE, are making progress toward bringing pilot- and commercial-scale production 

facilities on line, the commenter believes it is likely that the volumes of cellulosic ethanol 

available for blending into the US gasoline supply will fall short during the next 2-3 years. 

Therefore, we support the process proposed by EPA for conducting a yearly review and 

rulemaking process to determine cellulosic ethanol volumes, thereby both ensuring an outlet for 

the early cellulosic volumes produced and eliminating the requirement for the fuel industry to 

purchase volumes larger than those anticipated to be available for their purchase. [[See Docket 

Number 2146.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2248.1 

Organization: Iogen 

Comment: 

The commenter (2248.1) recommends that EPA maximize the benefits of the RFS by reducing 

the applicable volume for cellulosic ethanol (CE) based on the agency’s best assessment of 

available CE, and limit the use of EPA-issued cellulosic biofuel credits. The result will be a 

more favorable and predictable environment for businesses looking to commercialize CE. [[See 

Docket Number 2248.1, p. 2]] 

The requirement for EPA to reset annually the applicable volume for cellulosic ethanol based on 

the volume of CE that will be “available” addresses the prospect that the petroleum industry 

would otherwise be held accountable for purchasing a fuel that could not yet be produced in 

sufficient quantities. By directing the Administrator to reduce the applicable volume to the 

amount “available”, Congress established the volumes in EISA for cellulosic ethanol as targets, 

rather than mandates. It is essential that the Administrator follow Congressional direction and 

reduce the applicable volume to a level agency assessments suggest will be available. Setting 

reasonably accurate volumes will bolster private sector confidence that political support for this 

policy is stable, and will lead to an increased appetite to commit resources to developing the 

industry. Precise estimates of availability for the following year will not be achievable. The 

Administrator should produce a reasonable estimate based on production facilities in operation 

and projected start-up dates for facilities expected to become operational in the following year. 

[[See Docket Number 2248.1, p. 3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2329 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment: 

According to the commenter, Congress specifically limited EPA’s discretion to reduce the RFS 

volume mandates. Any reduction in volumes must comply with the waiver provisions in Section 

211(o)(7). 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(7). The circumstances warranting a waiver under Section 

211(o)(7), i.e., lack of domestic supply, are simply not present. 

6-12
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2047 

Organization: Terrabon 

Comment: 

The commenter (2047.1) objects to the EPA’s determination that the industry can produce 100 

million gallons of cellulosic biofuels in 2010. The commenter claims EPA is operating on 

erroneous information regarding the production of plants to meet the 100 million gallon 

cellulosic biofuel standard in 2010. According to the commenter, several of the plants EPA 

depended on for producing fuel will not be online when EPA expected, e.g., Cello Energy, 

Range Fuels, etc. [[See Docket Number 2047.1, pp. 9-10]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2137.1 

Organization: The Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2137.1) believes EPA is well prepared to finalize the RFS2 in a defensible 

posture in a manner that promotes Congress’ intent by addressing a number of issues including 

waiving the cellulosic biofuel requirements at this time to allow advanced biofuels to satisfy the 

cellulosic mandates. [[See Docket Number 2137.1, p. 13]] 

Our Response: 

 We agree with some of the concerns raised by refiners and biofuel producers with respect 

our preliminary assessment that that nation could meet the 100 million gallon cellulosic biofuel 

standard set by EISA in 2010. As explained in Section IV.B.3.b of the preamble, in the NPRM, 

we conducted an assessment of the cellulosic biofuel industry to arrive at the conclusion that it 

was possible to uphold the 100 million gallon standard based on current and anticipated 

production. At the time of our April 2009 NPRM assessment, we were aware of a handful of 

small pilot and demonstration plants that could contribute to meeting the 2010 standard, but the 

largest volume contributions were expected to come from Cello Energy and Range Fuels. We 

also included production from a number of companies with plans to bring small pilot or demo 

plants online in 2010. 

 Since our April 2009 industry assessment, there have been a number of changes and 

delays in production plans due to technological, contractual, financial and other reasons. Cello 

Energy and Range Fuels have delayed or reduced their production plans for 2010. And Range 

Fuels will begin operations at its commercial plant in Soperton, GA by producing methanol (not 

ethanol). In addition, some of the small plants expected to come online in 2010 have pushed 

back production to the 2011-2012 timeframe. However, we have also become aware of other 

potential suppliers of cellulosic biofuel in 2010. Based on our revised industry assessment and a 

supply estimate provided to us by EIA on October 29, 2009 (required under section 211(o)(3)(A) 

per EISA), we believe that a small amount of cellulosic biofuel could be produced and/or 

imported to the United States to contribute to the 2010 cellulosic biofuel standard. As this time, 

we believe the six most likely suppliers of cellulosic biofuel in 2010 are Cello Energy, DuPont 

Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol, Dynamotive, Enerkem, Fiberight and KL Energy (discussed in more 

detail in Section IV.B.3.b of the preamble and Section 1.5.3 of the RIA). As such, we are using 

our Cellulosic Biofuel Waiver Authority under section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) to finalize a reduced 6.5 

6-13
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

million gallon ethanol-equivalent standard based on EIA’s supply estimate, which we agree 

represents a reasonable volume of cellulosic biofuel that could potentially be produced and made 

commercially available in 2010. While we acknowledge there they is still uncertainty 

surrounding the industry’s ability to supply this volume of cellulosic biofuel, we believe a 6.5 

million ethanol-equivalent standard is defensible based on our recent supply assessment, EIA’s 

assessment, and also in-line with the intent of EISA. 

 As raised by several comments, EPA could have taken a more conservative approach and 

limited the cellulosic standard to only those facilities that were online and/or operating 

continuously for some period of time (e.g., three months) at the time of our assessment. 

However, we believe this strategy could hinder the growth of this up-and-coming industry. For 

example, consider a plant that came online in December after we set the standard for the 

following year in November. This producer could be excluded from having a market for its 

cellulosic biofuel for up to 13 months. Such action could hamper future investments in cellulosic 

biofuel. Furthermore, since we are setting a standard that we are reasonably confident can be 

met based on recent supply assessments (including meetings with a number of companies), we 

do not anticipate that obligated parties will be faced with the burden of carrying deficits forward 

or purchasing credits for a fuel that cannot be produced in sufficient quantities. 

6.2.3 Imported Sugarcane Ethanol 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2137 

Organization: Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2137.1) urges EPA, when looking at yields, to carefully consider Total 

Recoverable Sugars (TRS) yield (kilograms of sugars per ton of crop) increases as well as 

traditional yield measures (metric tons of crops per acre). In addition, the FAPRI model appears 

to ignore this essential aspect of sugarcane. [[Docket Number 2137.1, pp. 6-7]] 

Our Response: 

 In our assessment we look at both crop yields (tons/acre) as well as ethanol conversion 

yield projections (gallons/ton). We believe that by considering improvements in ethanol yield, 

we essentially consider improvements in TRS yields since greater sugars per ton generally means 

greater yields at the facility. 

6.2.4 Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2151 

Organization: Darling International Inc. 

6-14
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment: 

The commenter (2151.1) believes that there are sufficient amounts of waste animal fat and 

greases to fulfill the renewable fuel volume requirements and still support other uses. The 

commenter believes that a significantly higher portion than the 30% of rendered animal fats and 

recycled cooking oils suggested by EPA in the NPRM can be diverted without impacting the 

supply to these other customers. The commenter believes at least 52% of the rendered animal 

fats and recycled cooking oil supply is available for use in the biofuels sector. [[See Docket 

Number 2151.1, p.2. Refer to Attachment A (2151.2) for a more detailed discussion of the basis 

that there are sufficient waste animal fats and waste greases to meet both the non-feed and 

biofuels requirements.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2084 

Organization: Syntroleum 

Comment: 

The commenter (2084.1) states: the reason we expect limited impacts on domestic industry if 

animal fats are used for renewable diesel is that the U.S. currently exports roughly as much 

animal fat as would be needed to produce the renewable diesel. Approximately 2.8 billion 

pounds of animal fat would be needed to produce the renewable diesel, but the U.S. exported 2.4 

billion pounds. The remaining amount needed is relatively small given that the U.S. produces 

approximately 11 billion pounds of animal fat annually. [[See Docket Number 2084.1, p.4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2149 

Organization: Dynamic Fuels, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2149.1) expects limited potential impacts on domestic industry based on the use 

of animal fats for renewable diesel, both for the anticipated production volumes of biomassbased diesel and other advanced biofuel. The commenter believes that expanding the use of 

animal fats for biodiesel production, as a replacement for virgin oils, would likely have a severe 

negative impact on domestic industry. An additional 5 billion pounds of animal fats would be 

needed to produce the biodiesel volumes that EPA suggests may derive from virgin plant oils. 

(See Docket Number 2149.1, pp.4-5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2364 

Organization: Tyson Foods, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2364.1) noted that they expect limited impacts on domestic industry if animal 

fats are used for renewable diesel as the U.S. currently exports roughly as much animal fat as 

would be needed to produce the renewable diesel. However, the commenter does believe that 

expanding the use of animal fats for biodiesel production, as a replacement for virgin oils, would 

likely have a severe negative impact on domestic industry. [[See Docket Number 2364.1, p.5]] 

Our Response: 

 Our primary control case in the final rulemaking projects a total use of approximately 3 

billion lbs of rendered fat and grease feedstocks for biofuel by 2022. One factor in this decision 

is our revised expectation that corn oil extraction at dry mill ethanol plants will provide a 

6-15
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

significant amount of inexpensive feedstock for biofuel production by 2022; also we’re not sure 

it is reasonable to expect diversion of larger amounts of rendered fats (including exports) without 

other undesirable consequences in other markets. However, if it does become feasible, our 

program allows for it. 

 Use of this quantity of fats and greases for biofuels is consistent with a statement we 

received from the National Renderer’s Association during our drafting of the proposal, stating 

that it seemed possible for as much as 30% of supply of rendered materials (or about 3 billion 

lbs) to be diverted to biofuels without severe impacts on other domestic uses. After the proposal, 

we received comments and some analysis from Darling International also suggesting use of this 

quantity of material would be feasible. 

 We continue to project a significant amount of soy oil will be used for biodiesel 

production, as there is a close relationship between many soy processors and biodiesel producers 

(some companies do both operations). Despite any reduction of soy oil use in food products, its 

price has not declined in any sustained manner, likely due to its increasing use elsewhere in the 

world as a food product. Thus, the biodiesel industry has continued to seek out cheaper 

feedstocks to remain viable and competitive. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2106 

Organization: Endicott Biofuels II, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2106.1) suggests that EPA strongly consider setting more aggressive targets for 

biomass based diesel beginning in 2013 to provide the necessary pricing signals to the market to 

incent advancement of new technologies. The commenter’s analysis based upon a compilation 

of NREL, USDA, US Bureau of Labor & Statistics, and National Renderer’s Association data 

concludes there is enough energy dense fats and oils neutral and non-neutral materials to support 

over 2 billion gallons of biomass based diesel already in the marketplace in the U.S. If foreign 

sources are included, the total is much higher. Technology exists today to convert these 

feedstocks into high quality methyl esters. The commenter also suggests that the only barrier to 

utilization of these feedstocks is the price differential to crude oil and that the 30% suggested 

restriction is overly conservative. Therefore, we suggest the EPA target significantly greater 

than 1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel in 2013 and beyond. [[See Docket Number 2106.1, 

p. 5]] 

Our Response: 

 For our analyses for this final rulemaking, we have increased our projected quantity of 

biodiesel made from rendered fats and greases; we also project significant additional volume of 

biodiesel will be made oil extracted as a co-product of dry mill ethanol production. To the extent 

that other sources of fats, oils, and non-neutral feedstocks become available at good prices, we 

expect they will be used to generate RINs in the Advanced Biofuel category. We will continue to 

6-16
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

assess the market for biomass-based diesel and take that information into consideration in 

subsequent rulemaking actions to set standards for 2013 and beyond as required by the Act. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2110 

Organization: Chevron 

Comment:

The commenter (2110.1) believes that EPA should support the removal of barriers to the 

development of renewable diesel established in EISA which call into question EPA’s optimistic 

outlook. [[Refer to Docket Number 2110.1, p.5 for a more detailed discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response:

 As acknowledged by the commenter, the prohibition on inclusion of co-processed 

renewable diesel is part of the statutory language, and not something EPA can simply overlook. 

Consistent with this limitation and other factors, we have reduced the projected volume of 

renewable diesel to 150 MMgal/yr in this final rulemaking. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2010 

Organization: SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2010) says that in order to stay competitive in the petroleum diesel fuel 

marketplace, biodiesel plants have invested in pretreatment processes to allow for multifeedstock conversion to biodiesel. Looking to the future, biodiesel plants must be allowed to 

utilize a robust source of multiple feedstock options if the biomass-based diesel volume 

mandates are to be achieved. Moreover, spreading feedstock sources toward multiple options 

will not only be economically advantageous to the fuel market, but will relieve pressure on highprotein food industries by making available millions of more pounds of additional soybean meal. 

[[Docket number 2010.1, p. 10]] [[See docket number 2010.1, pp. 10-12 for discussion of 

feedstock utilization for biodiesel and renewable diesel.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2011 

Organization: Western Dubuque Biodiesel LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2011) says that in order to stay competitive in the petroleum diesel fuel 

marketplace, biodiesel plants have invested in pretreatment processes to allow for multifeedstock conversion to biodiesel. Looking to the future, biodiesel plants must be allowed to 

utilize a robust source of multiple feedstock options if the biomass-based diesel volume 

mandates are to be achieved. Moreover, spreading feedstock sources toward multiple options 

will not only be economically advantageous to the fuel market, but will relieve pressure on highprotein food industries by making available millions of more pounds of additional soybean meal. 

6-17
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

[[Docket number 2011.1, p. 10]] [[See docket number 2011.1, pp. 10-12 for discussion of 

feedstock utilization for biodiesel and renewable diesel.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2013 

Organization: Central Iowa Energy, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2013) says that in order to stay competitive in the petroleum diesel fuel 

marketplace, biodiesel plants have invested in pretreatment processes to allow for multifeedstock conversion to biodiesel. Looking to the future, biodiesel plants must be allowed to 

utilize a robust source of multiple feedstock options if the biomass-based diesel volume 

mandates are to be achieved. Moreover, spreading feedstock sources toward multiple options 

will not only be economically advantageous to the fuel market, but will relieve pressure on highprotein food industries by making available millions of more pounds of additional soybean meal. 

[[Docket number 2013.1, p. 10]] [[See docket number 2013.1, pp. 10-12 for discussion of 

feedstock utilization for biodiesel and renewable diesel.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2510 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2510) states that when their facilities were built, they invested in additional 

equipment that allows them to process not only “virgin” plant oils, but also animal fats, recycled 

plant oils, and used cooking oils from the food industry. This allows the commenter to utilize 

many feedstocks and helps recycle many pounds of products that would normally be discarded, 

buried, or inefficiently used for other purposes. When grains are process for eventual use in the 

food industry, vegetable oil is a by-product. If more corn and soybeans for food are grown, there 

will be more oil available which becomes available for biodiesel fuels and it creates value in the 

form of jobs, fuel to replace foreign oil, and more value to the grower and the distribution chain 

involved. [[Docket number 2510.1, p. 6]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2210 

Organization: e-biofuels, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2210) states that the biodiesel industry is developing alternative sources of 

feedstocks which will be more sustainable and have less of a negative environmental impact. 

These feedstocks will become more readily available as the industry progresses. The commenter 

adds that, as the biodiesel industry moves forward, the keys to growth lie in the development of 

sustainable and practical products that can be efficiently converted into a fuel that can be used 

for various energy applications. There are a lot of initiatives out there to find what will be the 

next breakthrough in biodiesel development, yet it is important to remember that we are dealing 

with a fuel that is very simple and it needs to stay that way. [[See Docket Number 2210, p. 1 and 

refer to pp. 1-2 for further discussion of the biodiesel industry.]] 

Our Response: 

 We recognize that biodiesel facilities have been increasing their ability to process a 

variety of feedstocks and therefore have assumed in the final rule that biodiesel plants will utilize 

6-18
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

a mix of virgin plant oils, animal fats and recycled oils, as well as potentially new sources such 

as algal oil in the future. Our primary control case projects a mix for 2022 of approximately 

40% virgin vegetable oil (primarily soy), 40% low-grade corn oil extracted from dry mill ethanol 

production, 15% animal fats and greases, and 5% algal oil or similar advanced feedstocks. (See 

RIA Chapter 1.1 for more details.) We expect biodiesel use to grow under the program outlined 

in this rulemaking, and a diversification of feedstocks will be an important factor for reducing 

swings in production cost and mitigating negative environmental impacts. 

6.3 Renewable Fuel Distribution 

6.3.1 Renewable Fuel Distribution and Storage Considerations Through the Petroleum 

Terminal Level 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2147 

Organization: Engine Manufacturers Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2147.1) recommends that EPA further evaluate the logistics required to 

coordinate the production and use of the renewable fuel requirements as specified by EISA. 

(Page 10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2103 

Organization: Association of American Railroads 

Comment:

The commenter (2103.1) noted that the preamble states that “it should be feasible for the 

distribution infrastructure upstream of the terminal to accommodate the additional freight 

associated with these RFS2 standards especially given the lead time available.” The commenter 

agrees with this assessment, as long as rail capacity needs are properly addressed. The capacity 

issue is so important that a further discussion of it is warranted. (2103.1, p.3) [[See Docket 

Number 2103.1, pp.3-5 for a detailed discussion of this issue]] 

The commenter also noted that the NPRM correctly noted that if unit trains are to be an option, 

smaller-capacity ethanol producers may need to store product until enough ethanol is ready to fill 

a unit train, or more than one producer may need to share a train. This is already happening at 

some locations. (2103.1, p.4) 

The commenter does not agree with the statement in the preamble that a “number of additional 

rail terminals are likely to be configured for receipt of unit trains of ethanol for further 

distribution by tank truck or other means to petroleum terminals. The placement of ethanol unit 

train receipt facilities at rail terminals would be particularly useful in situations where petroleum 

terminals might find it difficult or impossible to install their own ethanol rail receipt capability. 

We anticipate that ethanol storage will typically be installed at rail terminal ethanol receipt hubs 

over the long run. We do not anticipate that the rail industry will experience substantial 

difficulty in installing such ethanol-specific facilities once a clear long term demand for ethanol 

6-19
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

in the target markets has been established to justify the investment.” The commenter believes 

that railroads should not be viewed as responsible for providing, or likely to provide, ethanol 

receipt and storage capability, just as they generally do not provide receipt and storage capability 

for the commodities. (2103.1, p.4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2329 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter made some statements regarding analysis in the DRIA of the production and 

distribution of ethanol. With regards to the Overview of Ethanol Distribution section, the 

commenter noted that EPA stated that ethanol cannot be shipped by pipeline because it can cause 

stress corrosion cracking. This has not been established as applying to pipelines, and work is 

ongoing and various mitigation strategies are being investigated. (2329.1, p. 100) 

With regards to the Shipment of Ethanol to Petroleum Terminals section, the commenter noted 

that EPA assumes 50 percent of new unit train facilities will be located at petroleum terminals 

and 50 percent at rail terminals. But, it is highly unlikely that 50 percent of petroleum terminals 

would install unit train rail receipt capability. (2329.1, p. 100) 

With regards to the Rail Transportation System Accommodation section, the commenter noted 

that EPA referred to space at rail terminals which would be highly unlikely to accommodate 

truck traffic. EPA stated that “rail terminals” would hold minimal inventories believing 

petroleum terminals would hold the buffer inventory. Thus far it has been the hub distribution 

terminals that hold the buffer inventory. (2329.1, p. 100) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter expresses concerns about the renewable fuel distribution. [[Docket number 

2233.2, pp. 54-55]] 

The commenter states that driver shortages have impacted the overall trucking industry, and 

legislation currently under consideration to retire existing tank truck designs has the potential to 

reduce their availability. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 56]] 

The commenter expresses concerns related to the necessary system accommodations for rail, 

marine, and road transportation systems but concludes that despite the concerns, there are no 

obvious constraints to the distribution of biofuels, biofuel feedstocks, and biofuel byproducts. 

The commenter believes that EPA should monitor the market conditions for these transportation 

modes to ensure unexpected problems do not develop into problems that impact the ability to 

meet RFS volume requirements and believes that a full infrastructure study should be done to 

identify potential problems. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 55-57]] 

The commenter expresses concerns related to the current rail receipt capability at terminals, 

including: the limited receipt capability at existing terminals; the extent to which the installation 

of ethanol receipt facilities at rail terminals can help to meet the need to bring ethanol by rail to 

6-20
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

petroleum terminals; and the lack of available land at existing terminals on which to build new 

rail receipt capability. The commenter believes alternative transport methods need to be found 

and implemented to bring ethanol to petroleum terminals. Additionally, EPA makes assumptions 

regarding “cooperation” among terminals with and without rail receipt capability and increased 

truck traffic. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 57-58]] 

Regarding biodiesel distribution, the commenter notes that EPA fails to mention the precluding 

nature of biodiesel transport via pipeline, which serves to increase the likelihood that truck will 

be the dominant transport method for biodiesel. Jet fuel, commonly transported via pipeline, 

cannot currently be transported via any pipeline transporting biodiesel. For pipelines that 

transport jet fuel, the commenter believes that the risks of contamination to the jet fuel may be 

too high and carry too great a cost to justify any benefit. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 54-55]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2420 

Organization: Magellan Midstream Partners 

Comment:

The commenter (2420.1) disagrees with EPA’s conclusions with regards to pipelines and had 

hoped that that EPA would recognize the need to transform the traditional transportation system 

for ethanol to make it more efficient. The commenter noted that pipelines are the safest, most 

reliable and efficient way to transport large volume of liquid energy from where it’s produced to 

where it’s consumed. In addition, pipelines offer reduced GHG emissions when compared to 

traditional modes used to transport ethanol. (2420.1, p.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2345 

Organization: Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA) 

Comment:

Regarding the capacity of terminals to receive rail shipments, the commenter (2345) the 

commenter strongly disagrees that terminals could modify existing petroleum tanks to 

accommodate increased volumes of renewable fuels and does not believe that the addition of 

new ethanol storage tanks at existing rail terminals will help to address the storage problem. The 

commenter concludes that the increased renewable fuels will put additional strain on the 

distribution system and substantially increase the costs of the fuel [[Docket number 2345.1, pp. 

5-6]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

The commenter (2384) notes the unwarranted assumption that renewable fuels have the same 

physical and chemical characteristics as fossil fuels and gasoline/ethanol blends of up to 10% 

ethanol. In fact ethanol is significantly more corrosive than gasoline and E10 which is of direct 

importance to the suitability of storage and dispensing devices currently in place at retail fuel 

outlets. The commenter adds that it is know that there are compatibility issues with biodiesel in 

the fuel dispensing system. The commenter notes that Underwriters Laboratories has not yet 

certified a complete E85 refueling dispenser. [[Docket number 2384.1, pp. 7-8]] 

6-21
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

The commenter (2384) believes that until the necessary infrastructure material compatibility 

issues can be resolved, there will be an inadequate domestic supply of safe and legally compliant 

fuel to achieve the renewable fuel volume obligations. Until then, EPA should consider 

exercising its authority to waive the renewable fuel volume requirements in whole or in part if it 

receives a petition to do so or may do so on its own initiative. [[Docket number 2384.1, p. 10]] 

In addition the commenter urges EPA to conduct a through review of the retail fuel outlet 

infrastructure and the impact it will have on the industry’s ability to achieve the renewable fuel 

volume requirements [[Docket number 2384.1, p.1 10]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2362 

Organization: Canopy Prospecting, Inc. And Trinidad Dehydration Company, Limited 

Comment:

The commenter (2362.1) states that EPA’s draft rule fails to mention the improved continuity 

and security of supply that Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBI) ethanol dehydration 

plants offer in case of disruption of shipments from Brazil or from the U.S. Midwest to coastal 

U.S. destinations. In the event that U.S. or Brazilian produced ethanol delivery is delayed to 

coastal locations, CBI dehydrated ethanol will fill the gap until supply is restored. [[Docket 

number 2362.1, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter states that EPA appears to be unaware that EISA effectively prevents 

comingling of refinery-produced renewable diesel with petroleum-based diesel. Section V.C.3 

of the proposed rulemaking makes no mention of EISA Section 205 which requires retail 

labeling of the qualifying biomass-based diesel content of any blend over 5% by volume. 

Tracking from refinery to retail is not possible at present. Because of this impediment, the 

development of renewable diesel is severely hampered and EPA’s optimistic outlook is 

unjustified. Renewable gasoline is similarly disadvantaged. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 33]] 

 

The commenter provides additional detailed comments related to fuel distribution, including 

biodiesel distribution, necessary system accommodations for rail, marine, and road transportation 

systems, terminal rail receipt issues, and the need for additional E85 facilities. [[Docket number 

2393.1, pp. 57-61]] [[See docket number 2393.1, pp 57-61 and docket number 2393.5, 

Attachment 4 for a detailed discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response:

 

 We conducted an analysis of the fuel distribution infrastructure changes (and associated 

capital costs) that will be needed to support the transport of the volumes of biofuels needed to 

meet the RFS2 standards (see Sections 1.6 and 4.2 of the RIA). The accommodation by the rail 

transportation system of the increased freight load anticipated from the transport of biofuels is 

discussed in Sections 1.6.3 and 1.6.4 of the RIA. 

6-22
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

 In the NPRM, we projected that biofuel unit train receipt facilities would be located at 

petroleum terminals and existing rail terminals. Based on industry input regarding the logistical 

hurdles in citing unit train receipt facilities at petroleum/existing rail terminals, we now project 

that such facilities will be constructed on dedicated property with rail access that is as close to 

petroleum terminals as practicable.1 Thus, we believe that it is most appropriate to assume that 

all biofuel storage tanks needed at such facilities would be new construction. We recognize that 

there may be some opportunity for idled terminal storage facilities to be reactivated to provide 

biofuels storage. However, we have no information regarding the extent to which such facilities 

might exist and whether their location would suit the needs of a unit train receipt facility. We 

acknowledge that some unit train receipt facilities might be linked to petroleum terminals by 

pipeline, thereby limiting the amount of biofuel storage capacity needed at such facilities. 

However, due to uncertainties regarding the extent to which this would be possible, we opted to 

assume that all unit train receipt facilities would ship biofuels to petroleum terminals via tank 

truck. 

 In the NPRM we projected that trans-loading of biofuels from rail cars to tank trucks at 

rail terminals would be an interim measure until biofuel storage tanks were constructed at rail 

terminals.2

 Based on industry input, we now expect trans-loading will be a long-term means of 

transferring manifest rail car shipments of biofuels received at existing rail terminals to tank 

trucks for delivery to petroleum terminals. Therefore, we are projecting that rail terminals will 

handle biofuel manifest rail car shipments by trans-loading as they do today. The use of transloading eliminates the need for biofuel storage tanks at rail terminals to facilitate the transfer of 

biofuels from manifest rail cars to tank trucks. 

 We continue to believe that a substantial fraction of the biofuel storage capacity that we 

project will be needed at petroleum terminals to support the RFS2 volumes can be 

accommodated through the retrofitting of existing storage capacity currently used to store the 

volumes of petroleum fuels that biofuels will displace. As biofuel use ramps up over time 

thorough the projected increase in the use of E85 and cellulosic distillate fuel/renewable diesel 

fuel, less petroleum-based fuel will be needed as a fraction of the total volume of motor fuel 

used. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that some of the existing storage tanks will be 

available to be switched over to biofuel storage service. We understand that the storage capacity 

for petroleum-based fuels at terminals must be sufficiently large to permit the receipt of the 

minimum batch sizes shipped by petroleum pipelines. However, we do not believe that the 

projected transfer of the petroleum-based fuel storage capacity to biofuel service will be of 

sufficient magnitude to impede the continued receipt of pipeline batches of petroleum-based 

fuels. We estimated that it costs $5 per barrel of storage capacity to prepare a gasoline storage 

tank to make it suitable for storing ethanol. We project that cellulosic distillate fuel/renewable 

diesel will be compatible with existing petroleum fuel distribution infrastructure. Therefore, we 

assumed that the costs associated with preparing a diesel storage tank for cellulosic distillate 

fuel/renewable diesel fuel service will be negligible. 

 

1

 Existing unit train receipt facilities have primarily followed this model. See the US Development Group’s 

interactive map of their ethanol unit train receipt facilities at http://www.us-dev.com/terminals.htm 2

 Trans-loading refers to the direct transfer of the contents of a rail car to a tank truck without the intervening 

delivery into a storage tank. 

6-23
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

 We believe that the biofuel storage capacity that we project will be constructed at unit 

train receipt facilities may provide some buffer to lessen the amount of additional biofuel storage 

needed at terminals. In planning the construction of unit train facilities, discussions will take 

place between the unit train receipt facility’s owner and the petroleum terminals that the facility 

will serve. During these discussions a determination will be made regarding the delivery 

schedule for shipment of biofuels by tank truck to petroleum terminals. To the extent that 

petroleum terminals have difficulty in accommodating large volumes of biofuel storage capacity, 

it may be possible for unit train receipt facilities to deliver biofuels to petroleum terminals on 

more of a just-in-time basis than via large periodic deliveries. This would tend to displace the 

need for some of the biofuel storage volume that we projected would be needed at petroleum 

terminals to unit train receipt facilities. 

 To understand the impact of RFS2 volume requirements on transportation infrastructure, we 

commissioned an analysis by Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) to examine biofuel 

transportation, activity, and potential distribution constraints for North American waterways, 

roadways, and freight rail system. The analysis found that biofuels transport is expected to 

constitute a small portion of the total freight tonnage for all commodities transported through 

2022. The results suggest that it should be feasible for transportation infrastructure to 

accommodate the additional biofuels freight associated with the RFS2. 

We acknowledge that CBI ethanol dehydration plants represent an important segment of 

the nation’s ethanol supply system. A large percentage of our forecasted ethanol imports are 

projected to come through the CBI. 

 

 Based on our analysis of the number of tank truck drivers needed support shipment of 

biofuels to meet the RFS2 standard, we believe that the availability of tank truck drivers should 

not represent a serious issue. See Section 1.6.6 of the RIA. We do not believe that the changes 

to the specifications for tank trucks under consideration cited by the commenter will result in a 

shortage of available tank trucks for the shipment of biofuels. 

 We understand that various strategies are being investigated to mitigate the corrosion 

issues associated with shipping ethanol by pipeline. We noted in the RIA that a short pipeline in 

Florida apparently has resolved these issues and is shipping ethanol in batch mode in an existing 

pipeline which also ships gasoline. Other larger pipelines also hope to develop similar 

mitigation strategies which will allow the shipment of ethanol. However, the results of these 

investigative efforts are not yet in and concerns related to corrosion still prevent the vast majority 

of pipelines from shipping ethanol. We understand that jet fuel contamination concerns currently 

limit the ability to ship biodiesel by pipeline. Biodiesel blends are currently being shipped on 

some pipelines that do not handle jet fuel. We assumed that all biofuel transport would take 

place by rail car, barge, and tank truck due to uncertainties regarding the extent to which 

pipelines can play a greater role in biofuel transport in the future and the potential timetable 

when such a change may take place. We acknowledge that the efficiency and reliability of 

biofuel distribution would likely be significantly improved to the extent that pipelines can play 

an increasing role in biofuel transport. 

6-24
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

 Our analysis recognizes that there are special considerations associated with the 

distribution of ethanol and biodiesel due to difference in their chemical/physical nature compared 

to petroleum-based fuels. We acknowledged that ethanol storage tanks would need to be 

constructed of materials that are ethanol tolerant. We also projected the need for significant new 

retail storage and dispensing infrastructure at retail facilities to handle E85. We did not assume 

that any existing retail dispensing/storage equipment would be retrofitted to allow it to be used 

for E85 service. We acknowledged that biodiesel storage/blending/and transport vessels would 

need to be insulated and/or heated to prevent biodiesel gelling during cold conditions. Existing 

retail storage and dispensing equipment is suitable to handle biodiesel blends up to 5 volume 

percent provided that fuel meets accepted industry consensus fuel quality specifications. To the 

extent that there may be biodiesel fuel quality issues from certain manufacturers which may 

results fuel infrastructure compatibility issues, we believe that such issues can be addressed 

through industry consensus specifications such as those developed by ASTM and enforced at the 

State level. We believe that cellulosic distillate fuel and renewable diesel fuel will be confirmed 

to be sufficiently similar to petroleum-based diesel fuel so as to not result in any unique materials 

compatibility concerns in the fuel distribution system. 

 We understand that Underwriters Laboratories has yet to certify a complete E85 

dispenser. All dispenser parts other than the hose which connects the dispenser to the nozzle 

have passed the necessary testing. We believe that there is no technical barrier in finding a hose 

that would meet the testing requirements. Therefore, we believe that UL certifications for 

complete E85 dispensers will be achieved by fuel dispenser manufacturers in sufficient time to 

facilitate the installation of the E85 retail facilities that we project will be needed to support the 

RFS2 volumes. 

 While the pump labeling provisions required by EISA section 205 may constrain the use 

of renewable diesel fuel and/or biodiesel due to the difficulty of tracking in a fungible system the 

concentration of biomass-based diesel in the final product, we believe that it should still be 

possible for the biomass-based diesel volumes required by the EISA to be sold. 

 We believe that it may be possible for the necessary fuel distribution infrastructure to be 

put in place in time to support the use of the RFS2 volumes. To the extent that problems might 

arise in making the needed fuel distribution upgrades which jeopardize meeting the RFS2 

volumes, EPA may consider the need to waive a portion of the renewable fuel volume 

requirements. 

6.3.2 E85 Refueling Facility Accommodations 

 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) believes that EPA has greatly overestimated the likely success of E85. 

The commenter supports the incorporation of ethanol into existing gasoline grades that can be 

6-25
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

used in today’s vehicle fleet. EPA should recognize that at this time, E85 is only compatible 

with approximately three percent of motor vehicles, and generally requires dedicated storage 

tanks and dispensers constructed from materials that are compatible with E85. The commenter is 

concerned that widespread introduction of E85 alongside conventional gasoline grades will 

further increase supply chain complexity, which in turn may increase vulnerability to supply 

disruption, especially during times of regional or national crisis. [[Docket number 2505.2, p.16]]. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) does not believe E85 is a commercially viable fuel and does not believe 

sufficient volumes of E85 can be introduced without significant misfueling occurring. 

The commenter discusses the need for additional E85 facilities and EPA’s proposed estimates for 

retail facilities. The commenter also points out issues with the effectiveness of automatic tank 

gauges in E85 tanks due to the ability to E85 to absorb high quantities of water without inducing 

phase separation.[[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 59-60]] 

Finally, the commenter believes that EPA should clarify the legal status of Retail Blender pumps. 

[[Docket number 2233.2, p. 64]] .[[See docket number 2233.2, pp. 64-65 for further discussion 

of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2152 

Organization: Minnesota Coalition for Ethanol 

Comment: 

The commenter [2152] stated that one way to address the ethanol “blend wall” would be to 

expand the number of ethanol blender pumps available to consumers to support the sale of 

blends between E15 and E85 for use in FFVs. 

Our Response:

 

 We recognize that E85 requires dedicated retail storage and dispensers. We believe that 

it may be possible for retailers to provide sufficient access to E85 refueling facilities. See 

sections 1.6 and 4.2 of the RIA for a discussion of the accommodation of such facilities at retail 

and the associated costs. See section 6.4 of this document for a discussion of E85 pricing and 

flex-fuel vehicle considerations. 

 We understand that there are issues with maintaining the functionality of automatic tank 

gauges used with E85 underground storage tanks. We believe that such issues can be resolved so 

as not to impede the projected expansion in E85 refueling infrastructure to support the use of the 

RFS2 volumes. 

We believe that the main potential concern regarding how the more widespread use of 

E85 might complicate the fuel distribution system is associated with the potential need for 

special high vapor pressure petroleum-based blendstocks at terminals to manufacture E85 that 

meets ASTM minimum volatility specifications. We believe that industry is fully capable of 

6-26
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

addressing this issue through the ongoing ASTM processes. This could include new 

specifications for E85 (or introduce another specification for flex-fuel vehicle fuel) to allow such 

fuel to be manufactured with commonly-available gasoline blendstocks (by lowering the 

minimum ethanol content specification). Therefore, we believe that the more widespread use of 

E85 which we project will take place to help meet the RFS2 volumes will not substantially 

increase the vulnerability to supply disruption. 

To support the use of the volume of ethanol that we project would be used to meet the 

RFS2 standards, we modeled a scenario that is based on the addition of E85 refueling 

infrastructure to supply E85 to FFVs. Only FFVs are currently approved to use the >E10 ethanol 

fuel blends dispensed from blender pumps. Any use of blender pumps in lieu of our assumptions 

regarding FFV refueling from E85 dispensers would result in the need for additional FFV 

refueling facilities, additional FFVs, and increased FFV refueling frequency with >E10 blends. 

6.3.3 Misfueling of Non-Flex fuel Vehicles with E85 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233.2 

Organization: Marathon 

Comment:

The commenter states that EPA should drop the provisions covering E10+ labeling requirements 

when finalizing this rule. Since EPA is not proposing to approve an E10+ fuel at this time , it 

would be more appropriate and make more sense for EPA to establish the E10+ labeling 

requirements after they have approved an E10+ fuel. 

The commenter states that there are considerable misfueling concerns about rolling out large 

volumes of E85 in the same market as E10. E85 will have to be priced lower than E10, if a large 

volume of E85 is needed for mandate compliance. This lower price will probably encourage 

consumers to use E85 in vehicles that will be damaged by these fuels. 

The commenter states that EPA must undertake a robust public information campaign to educate 

the population about the potential effects of misfueling. Marathon supports an approach that 

addresses misfueling using both methods – advisory and preventative, as needed. Unintentional 

misfuelings will most likely rise as different fuels intended for a specific subset of the vehicle 

population enter the marketplace. These misfuelings may be adequately addressed using advisory 

methods, such as public education programs, color-coding nozzles, or tactile stimuli on the 

nozzle handle. However, a significant number of misfuelings that occur are intentional and 

therefore may not be necessarily mitigated by advisory methods. 

The commenter states that misfueling non-FFV vehicles with E85 may present significant 

misfueling concerns, but testing of the legacy fleet with E85 must be completed to determine 

how serious the potential problems may be so that a determination can be made as to whether 

advisory or preventive measures are required at retail. The commenter states that the likelihood 

of needing preventive measures for E85 misfueling would seem more probable than for mid6-27
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

level blends. If a preventative measure such as nozzle size differences is chosen, not only will 

pump nozzles need to be changed, but existing FFVs will also need to be retrofitted (as would 

the portion of the legacy fleet eligible to use mid-level blends if a nozzle size difference is 

needed as a preventive measure to prevent mid-level blend misfueling). Whether the preventive 

measure chosen is nozzle size differences, a card issued to the customer to enable the use of a 

unique fuel blend, or some interaction between the pump and customer, each option involves 

significant infrastructure and educational hurdles that must be addressed, with the help of the 

Federal Government, before any mid-level ethanol blend can be approved or the use of E85 

expanded significantly. 

Whether the options chosen are advisory or preventative misfueling measures, or both, if 

implemented as directed by the Federal Government, such measures must provide retailers and 

suppliers with liability protection should misfueling take place. Fuel retailers and suppliers 

cannot and should not be responsible for customers misfueling their vehicles in the presence of 

adequate, government directed measures to advise/prevent against its occurrence. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132.1 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter notes that they are pleased EPA has proposed to require a new warning label for 

marketers who sell, dispense or offers for sale ethanol blends containing more than 10% v/v 

ethanol. 

The commenter recommends adding information about the energy content of the fuel to the fuel 

dispenser label, for all fuels (including biodiesel-diesel fuel blends) containing an energy value 

that is 96% or less than that of the federal emission test fuel. The label should use BTU/gal (or 

KJ/liter, where liters are used) to compare with the federal test fuel and inform consumers about 

the estimated impact of the fuel on their volumetric fuel economy. Specifically, the pump label 

should advise consumers that using such a fuel will provide lower fuel economy than indicated 

on the Monroney (fuel economy) label that came with their new vehicle and is indicated in their 

owner’s manual. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143.2 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment:

The Department supports the proposed labeling requirements for gasoline-ethanol blends 

containing more than 10 volume percent ethanol (Proposed 40 CFR 80.1469). 

We support this labeling provision, but the exact wording will have to depend on the outcome of 

the E15 section 211(f) waiver review. While effective pump labels may do little to prevent 

intentional misfueling with blends greater than E10, they should provide significant 

environmental and consumer protection benefits by helping minimize accidental misfueling. 

Our Response:

We proposed labeling requirements for fuel dispensers that handle greater than 10 

volume percent ethanol blends which included the following text: For use only in flexible-fuel 

6-28
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

vehicles, May damage non-flexible-fuel vehicles, Federal law prohibits use in non-flexible-fuel 

vehicles. This proposal was primarily meant to help address concerns about the potential 

misfueling of non-flex-fuel vehicles with E85, in light of the anticipated increase in E85 sales 

volumes in response to the RFS2 program. All ethanol blends above 10 volume percent were 

included due to the increasing industry focus on ethanol blender pumps that are designed to 

dispense a variety of ethanol blends (e.g., E30, and E40) for use in flex-fuel vehicles. 

EPA is currently evaluating a petition to allow the use of up to 15 volume percent ethanol 

in non-flex fuel vehicles. One potential result of this evaluation might be for EPA to grant a 

partial waiver that is applicable only for a subset of the current vehicle population. Under such 

an approach, a label for E15 fuel dispensers would be needed that identifies what vehicles are 

approved to use the fuel. 

Based on the public comments and the fact that EPA has not completed its evaluation of 

the E15 waiver petition, we believe that it is appropriate to defer finalizing labeling requirements 

for >E10 blends at this time. This will afford us the opportunity to complete our analysis of what 

measures might be appropriate to prevent misfueling with >E10 blends before this may become a 

concern in the context of the RFS2 program. 

 

6.3.4 Potential Need for High Vapor Pressure Gasoline Blendstocks at Terminals to 

Manufacture E85 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) states that EPA is incorrect in its assumption that certified gasoline 

currently on hand at terminals can be used to make up the non-ethanol portion of E85; 

The commenter (2233) raises several E85 concerns including the commenter’s decision to stop 

all E85 sales; and the forthcoming ASTM revision of E85's specification. [[Docket number 

2233.2, pp. 23-24]] [[See docket number 2233.2, pp. 23-27.]] 

The commenter expresses concerns related to E85 terminal blending. The commenter believes 

that because of seasonal maximum vapor pressure specifications in ASTM D 4814, as well as 

EPA’s summertime RVP and RFG regulations, certified gasoline on hand at terminals cannot be 

used to blend E85 that consistently meets seasonal minimum vapor pressure specifications in 

ASTM D 5798. Therefore, EPA’s assumption that certified gasoline currently on hand at 

terminals can be used to make up the non-ethanol portion of E-85 is incorrect. The commenter 

adds that while ASTM activities may facilitate the outcome, there is no reason to assume the 

current ASTM activities will completely change this outcome. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 58]] 

Regarding butane/pentane blending, the commenter states that most companies currently have 

little or no butane/pentane blending capability. Of those member companies that have this 

6-29
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

capability, the butane/pentane blending capability exists at a small percentage of their terminals. 

The commenter adds that the primary objection to adding this capability at terminal sites is the 

lack of space for new storage infrastructure. Terminals are currently maximizing all available 

storage space. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 58-59]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter urges that EPA reanalyze the impact of manufacturing, distributing, and 

marketing E85 under the assumption that a third component will be needed to meet ASTM vapor 

pressure minima for E85. [[Docket number 2393.1, pp. 22-24]] [[See docket number 2393.1, pp 

21-24 for further discussion of issues associated with E85 blending.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) stated that they expect ASTM to resolve current issues related to 

difficulties in meeting E85 minimum volatility specifications by amending the ASTM 

specifications for E85. 

Our Response:

 It appears that ASTM may be successful in adjusting the specifications for E85 (or 

introducing an new specification for flex-fuel vehicle fuel) so that gasoline blendstocks 

commonly found at petroleum terminals can be used to blend E85 (and/or such a flex-fuel 

vehicle fuel) which complies with ASTM minimum volatility specifications.3

 If these ASTM 

efforts are not successful, butane or some other special gasoline blendstock would be needed to 

manufacture E85 that complies with ASTM minimum volatility specifications. We understand 

that few petroleum terminals currently have butane blending capability. We conducted a 

sensitivity analysis to assess the costs of supplying butane to petroleum terminals to assist in the 

manufacture of E85 which complies with minimum volatility specifications. The analysis found 

that such equipment can generally be installed for approximately $1.5 million per system. In 

instances in which blenders lack nearby space for new storage infrastructure, tankage for butane 

blending can be located more than 1,500 feet from the point of injection. See Sections 1.6.8 and 

4.2.1.1.10 of the RIA for a discussion of the potential need for special blendstocks at petroleum 

terminals for E85 blending and the associated costs. 

6.4 Ethanol Consumption and the Blendwall 

6.4.1 EPA Should Promote FFV/E85 Growth 

 

3

 One option under consideration by ASTM is to develop a new specification for “flex-fuel vehicle fuel”. The term 

“E85” would not be used in such a specification. The minimum ethanol content specification of such a “flex-fuel 

vehicle fuel” would be set sufficiently low to allow minimum ASTM volatility specifications without the need for 

high volatility gasoline blendstocks. A similar approach has been taken regarding the specifications for flex fuel 

vehicle fuel in Canada. 

6-30
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0897 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment:

One commenter (0897) asks EPA to do more to help the conversion to ethanol by encouraging 

GSA auto use of E85, starting a matching fund program for converting pumps to E85, and 

encouraging states to require new stations to offer E85. In addition, the commenter notes that 

EPA flex fuel car mileage estimates are wrong—the estimates use flat-rate estimates based on 

BTU content compared to gasoline, rather than gathering actual E85 data. [[See Docket Number 

0897, pp.1-2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2329 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA should continue to promote expansion of E85 use. 

Even health groups support the expansion in use of E85. As noted in testimony by Blake Early of 

the American Lung Association, E85 is seen an important benefit of the RFS because: flexible 

fuel vehicles must certify to the same emissions standards as gasoline; E85 is lower in 

evaporative emissions than gasoline; and, from a volume perspective, every gallon of E85 

consumes eight times more ethanol than E10. [[See Docket Number 2329.1, p. 106]] 

Our Response: 

Aside from being subject to government fleet alternative-fuel vehicle requirements, EPA 

does not have the authority to implement FFV mandates and/or E85 infrastructure requirements. 

The purpose of today’s rulemaking is not to promote or discourage E85 specifically but rather 

put in place the RFS2 program set by Congress in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 (EISA). While we acknowledge that there are several challenges associated with getting 

beyond the E10 blend wall, at the present time, E85 and FFVs are the only legal means for 

consuming more than 14-15 Bgal of ethanol and thus the focus of our biofuel consumption 

assessment. However, for the final rule, we have also considered the impact of more non-ethanol 

advanced biofuels. 

 With respect to the citizen’s comment that the FFV E85 usage calculations presented in 

Section 1.7.1.2.4 of the DRIA were based on average VMT and MPG estimates made for FFVs 

in the fleet in 2007. The intent was to compute the theoretical FFV E85 consumption potential if 

all FFVs in the fleet were to fuel on E85 100% of the time and compare it back to actual reported 

E85 consumption as a basis for discussing today’s low E85 refueling rates. We agree it might be 

helpful to apply actual FFV fuel economy data instead of fuel economy estimates based average 

fleet characteristics. However, we are not aware of any recent FFV fuel economy estimates that 

look at all 1998-current MY FFVs and compute a current fleet-average fuel economy. As such, 

we chose to rely on published or otherwise accepted industry data. For the FRM, we relied on 

FFV fleet characteristics consistent with information used in the proposed Light-Duty Vehicle 

GHG Rule. For more information, refer to Section 1.7.4 of the RIA. 

6-31
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

6.4.2 Getting Beyond the Blend Wall with Non-Ethanol Renewables 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment:

The commenter (2143.1) notes that in EPA’s impact analyses for the NPRM, ethanol remains the 

dominant renewable fuel. Purely hydrocarbon-based gasoline would be replaced by a 

combination of E10 and E85. The requisite quantity of ethanol flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) 

would be produced and sold and motorists would select the required volumes of E85 to meet the 

RFS2 standards. Cost-effective production methods for cellulosic ethanol would be invented and 

the needed production facilities brought on line (to the virtual exclusion of any other cellulosic 

product). Feedstock crop production would increase to meet fuel production demands. The 

commenter believes there are many alternative scenarios that are as likely, or more likely to 

occur, than the one depicted in the DRIA. We believe that EPA has overestimated the use of E85 

in FFVs and underestimated the use of intermediate blends in FFVs. [[See Docket Number 

2143.2, p. 8]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2241 

Organization: Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI); Alliance for a Safe 

Alternative Fuels Environment (AllSAFE) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2241.1) believes that EPA should explore the possibility of avoiding the blend 

wall through the use of non-ethanol cellulosic biofuels, and we encourage EPA to incentivize 

second and third-generation renewable fuels that are compatible with the existing fuels 

infrastructure and will benefit, rather than harm, air quality and products. (2241.1, p.20) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2310) encourages EPA to support another option for avoiding the ethanol blend 

wall that EPA explored in the preamble, namely the production of cellulosic biofuels other than 

ethanol. EPA specifically cited the potential of F-T fuels to deliver volumes that would avoid the 

ethanol blend wall and associated infrastructure issues. The commenter believes that F-T fuels 

can provide a critical solution to simultaneously meeting the mandates and protecting existing 

vehicles, equipment, and, most importantly, air quality. Thus, the commenter strongly 

encourages EPA to adopt a regulatory framework that will promote fuels that help engines, 

vehicles, and equipment run cleaner, more efficiently, and with reduced emissions across the 

board for all air pollutants. [[Docket number 2310.1, p. 2]] [[See docket number 2310.1, pp. 1-2 

for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

6-32
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

 We agree with the New York State Department of Conservation, OPEI, AllSAFE,, and 

the Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association that there are varying ways the RFS2 requirements 

could be met in the future, e.g., with increased ethanol, diesel fuel replacements, etc. For the 

NPRM, we based our impact analyses on a volume scenario which assumed the bulk of the RFS2 

standards (i.e., cellulosic biofuel standard) would be met with increased ethanol use. This was 

intended to be a simplifying assumption for analysis purposes, although consistent with the 

direction of many industry investments at the time. 

 For the final rule, as explained in Section IV.A of the Preamble and Sections 1.2.2 and 

1.2.3 of the RIA, we have analyzed the impact of many of our analyses on three potential 

renewable fuel growth scenarios, two of which assume considerably higher use of non-ethanol 

renewable fuels than the NPRM. While we are not suggesting that these are the only potential 

future outcomes, we believe it is beneficial to measure the impacts of varying levels of ethanol 

use ranging from 17.5 to 33.2 billion gallons in 2022. Our primary control case used throughout 

our analyses assumed 22.2 billion gallons of ethanol (corn, imported sugarcane, and cellulosic) 

in 2022. 

6.4.3 Potential for Optimizing Vehicles for Increased Ethanol Use 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2048 

Organization: BioPure Fuels 

Comment:

The commenter (2048.1) recommends that EPA look at possible incentives for optimizing the 

energy benefits from timing adjustments in flex fuel cars by determining if there are studies 

being done in Brazil evaluating the fuel economy of ethanol in new cars that have timing 

adjusted for ethanol vs. gasoline. This could be used to consider various incentives that could be 

offered to auto companies to get vehicles optimized for ethanol fuel efficiency in the event 

ethanol is much less expensive and readily available, as is now true in Brazil. These incentives 

could include mixed alcohol and bio-butanol. (2048.1, p.6) 

Our Response: 

 The assumption throughout the RFS2 rulemaking is that ethanol’s fuel economy is 

directly proportional to its energy density and its concentration in the fuel. Accordingly, an FFV 

refueling on E85 would get 22% worse fuel economy than the same FFV refueling on E10, or 

24% worse fuel economy than when refueling on conventional gasoline (E0).4

 As 

acknowledged in Section 4.4.1.5 of the RIA, some studies have suggested that ethanol’s de

in fuel economy may be less than its relative decrease in volumetric energy content of the

However, we believe the results could be premature and maybe even a function of how the 

crease 

 fuel. 

 

4

 Based on the assumption that E85 contains 74 vol% denatured fuel ethanol on average, E10 contains 10 vol% 

ethanol and ethanol and non-oxygenated gasoline have LHVs of 77,012 BTU/gal and 115,000 BTU/gal, 

respectively. 

6-33
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

testing was conducted than the true effect of ethanol on fuel economy. We intend to investigate 

this further as additional data becomes available. 

With respect to vehicles, we acknowledge that the majority of vehicles on the road were 

not optimized to burn ethanol with respect to engine design, controls and fuel delivery methods. 

Automakers could alter vehicle design to allow vehicles to more efficiently burn ethanol, namely 

optimize FFVs to handle E85. However, it is unlikely that automakers will optimize many new 

FFV product lines to handle E85 until they see an increase in E85 refueling rates and even less 

likely that in-use vehicles would be optimized in any way. As explained in Section 1.7.4 of the 

RIA, we estimate that FFVs with reasonable access to E85 in 2008 were only refueling on it 4% 

of the time on average. 

6.4.4 FFV Production and E85 Utilization Assumptions 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

With regards to FFV mandates, the commenter (2132.1) believes that the numbers of existing 

and planned FFVs are sufficient to achieve near-term ethanol consumption targets, and as the 

fuel infrastructure expands and becomes more established with consumer-friendly prices, market 

demand will drive additional FFV growth as it has elsewhere. (2132.1, p.26) [[See Docket 

Number 2132.1, pp.24-25 for a detailed discussion on FFV mandates]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2393) states that it is unreasonable for EPA to require obligated parties to blend 

more than can be sold as approved fuel blends for use in suitable vehicles and distributed through 

approved infrastructure. Obligated parties cannot be held responsible for activities outside of 

their control, and EPA should create reasonable mandates each year to ensure sufficient RIN 

availability to allow industry to comply with the RFS regardless of where EPA places the 

obligation. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 5]] 

The commenter (2393) states that there are essentially two solutions that have been proposed to 

move beyond the blend wall: increased use of E85 and mid-level blends. The commenter’s 

issues with E85 are the rapidity with which the number of FFVs in operation is increasing (and 

will increase in the future) and in the likelihood that FFV operators will use E85 fuel. Even if the 

domestic automakers meet public commitments to make 50% of their new vehicles as FFVs by 

2012, API does not believe that there will be a sufficient number of FFVs in operation to 

consume the volumes of renewable fuels required to meet the RFS2 mandate. The commenter 

incorporates by reference the Sierra Research Report included as Attachment 4 to their 

comments. [[See Docket Number 2523.1, p.17-18]] 

6-34
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter acknowledges that many states have adopted California vehicle emission 

standards. It is our understanding that FFVs have difficulty meeting these standards, particularly 

at the lower test temperatures required. Thus, FFV penetration into California and the other states 

may be hindered. The commenter also points out that if gasoline demand falls (as it is currently 

doing), there will be even less gasoline volume to absorb ethanol, and the blend-wall will likely 

come sooner. 

Even if the domestic automakers meet public commitments to make 50% of their new vehicles as 

FFVs by 2012, the commenter doubts that there will be a sufficient number of FFVs in operation 

through 2020 to address the problem. The commenter points out that EPA assumes in the NPRM 

that 25% of the new vehicle production of the non-domestic automakers will consist of FFVs by 

2017, an assumption which seems highly improbable given that only a few FFV models are 

offered by less than a handful of the import automakers today and the above-noted fact that FFVs 

are not yet certified to cold temperature California LEV standards. In addition, the phase-out of 

the CAFE credit for FFVs in the post 2015 timeframe that is currently scheduled is likely to 

serve as a powerful disincentive for further market penetration of this technology. 

The commenter concludes by saying, even if one were to accept EIA projections of the growth in 

the stock of FFVs through 2022 as a likely reality (per AEO 2009) and unrealistically assume 

that FFV owners/operators refuel on E85 100% of the time, it will not be enough to meet the 

EISA-mandated volumes of ethanol (i.e., 34.1 Bgal of ethanol, as analyzed in the NPRM). 

[[Docket number 2293.1, pp. 26-28]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP Products North America (BP) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2384) believes it is unreasonable for EPA to require obligated parties to blend 

more than the market place can absorb through the sale of approved fuel blends for use in 

suitable vehicles and distributed through approved infrastructure. [[Docket number 2384.1, p. 3]] 

Although FFVs can legally consume blends up to 85%, the commenter (2384.1) believes there 

are not yet enough vehicles on the road to reasonably achieve RFS2 compliance. The 

commenter is reasonably confident that RINs will provide the economic currency which enables 

parties to rationally offer E85 for sale to consumers near energy parity. However, many FFV 

owners may still not choose to refuel with E85 on a regular basis. EPA will need to make 

reasonable assumptions (based on real consumer behavior) to assess the market’s ability to 

consume biofuels when considering to exercise waiver authority. [[Docket number 2384, p. 12]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2147 

Organization: Engine Manufacturers Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2147.1) recommends that EPA undertake a marketing research study to identify 

why consumers with flex-fuel products and access to E85 do not purchase E85. They believe 

that the results of such study will indicate that consumers are not willing to (i) pay a premium for 

fuel with lower fuel efficiency (on a dollar per mile basis); and/or (ii) refuel more frequently. It 

is apparent that several ethanol proponents may have already come to the same conclusion and 

6-35
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

are investing capital into blender pumps with the intention of identifying what blend level (E40, 

E50, etc.) is preferred by the consumer. 

If EPA does not undertake such a market research study, the commenter recommends that the 

agency leverage the ethanol blend retail industry information in order to identify and select an 

alternative blend level to replace E85 that will increase the overall demand for such blend and 

thereby generate the capital investment required to support such blend in the market. (Page 9) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130) believes that EPA’s analysis of E85's potential needs updating and the 

use of realistic assumptions regarding FFV production as well as E85 use. EPA’s assumption for 

total annual vehicle sales predicates the current economic downturn – less than 16 million 

vehicles per year, and much of the decline has been in traditional FFV offerings. EPA’s 

assessment much be updated to reflect a slower penetration of FFVs into the nation’s vehicle 

inventory. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 12]] 

At some point in the future with ethanol production efficiency improvements and reduced 

feedstock costs from higher agricultural yields (or much higher crude oil market valuation) it is 

conceivable that E85 might become competitive with gasoline. However, reliance on such 

developments to promulgate a workable RFS program is problematic. 

The commenter points out EPA’s recently expressed intent to grant California’s request for a 

waiver to regulate vehicle GHG emissions and to adopt similar federal requirements also raises 

significant questions regarding E85’s viability as a solution. To date, few FFVs can meet the 

California emission standards and 13 additional states representing ~40% of gasoline demand 

have indicated that they will adopt the California vehicle standards. If FFVs cannot meet those 

standards, the potential penetration of FFVs and E85 will be further constrained. [[Docket 

number 2130.1, pp. 13-14]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2465 

Organization: Ford Motor Company 

Comment: 

The commenter (2465.1) supports a renewable fuel standard as an enabler for the biofuel 

industry to expand production and distribution to meet our common energy security, climate 

change and economic goals. The goals of the RFS2 program will require a coordinated effort 

that involves greatly increasing the availability of vehicles capable of operating on ethanol 

blends greater than E10 and up to E85. 

The commenter presents their comprehensive transportation energy use model (“Ford Model” 

and explains some of the model runs they’ve conducting. Their modeling relies on EIA’s AEO 

2008 to establish light-duty gasoline fuel demand and uses Ford’s assumptions with respect to 

future LDV sales, improvements in fuel economy over time, etc. 

6-36
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Analysis of the Ford Model suggests that FFVs would need to make up 21% of new vehicles 

entering the fleet after 2011 to provide sufficient ethanol-consuming capacity to meet the RFS2. 

However, this would require an E85 use rate of 100% in FFVs which, according to the 

commenter, could be unrealistic. If one assumes that FFVs owners use E85 at a lower rate, more 

FFVs would be needed. The commenter modeled an E85 use rate of 50% in FFVs, and 

determined the percentage of FFVs produced after 2011 would need to increase to 46%. And if 

the E85 use rate was 25%, the percentage of FFVs required would jump to 95%. 

In all scenarios, as the E85 use in FFVs differs, the number of FFVs in the fleet and the required 

FFVs sales would need to differ in an inversely proportional manner. Although one cannot 

expect quantum leaps in FFV production from one model year to the next, one could envision 

ramping up the production of FFVs gradually over time. [[See Docket Number 2465.1, pp. 6-7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233.1) agrees that for E85 to be competitive with E10, the price should reflect 

the relative BTU content of the fuel and compensate the consumer for the required time for 

additional fill ups. To ensure that consumers are aware of the presence of ethanol, we agree 

there will have to be significant efforts towards consumer awareness. The commenter believes 

that the government should be responsible for educating the consumer on the options and 

benefits of ethanol. Where a retailed decides to sell E85, it is that retailer’s responsibilities to 

advertise his specific product in his market. Additionally, automakers should reach out to all 

FFV owners in order to ensure that those consumers are aware of the types of fuel their vehicle 

can use. 

EPA discusses the potential implications of an FFV mandate to increasing ethanol usage in the 

NPRM. The commenter points out that increasing FFVs in the fleet does not change the relative 

economics or consumer acceptance of ethanol and gasoline. Putting more FFVs into the fleet 

will not change the relative prices of transportation fuels. Ethanol price will primarily depend 

upon the economics of the feedstock and conversion. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 27-28]] 

The commenter believes that EPA’s estimates of the future growth in E85 fuel consumption are 

based on assumptions that may not be realistic given historical trends and recent rulemakings. 

Even is the domestic automakers meet public commitments to make 50% FFVs by 2012, it is 

doubtful that there will be a sufficient number of FFVs in operation through 2020 to address the 

problem. The commenter points out that EPA assumes in the NPRM that 25% of the new 

vehicle production of the non-domestic automakers will consist of FFVs by 2017, an assumption 

which seems highly improbable given that only a few FFV models are offered by less than a 

handful of the import automakers today. In addition, the phase-out of the CAFE credit for FFVs 

in the post 2015 timeframe that is currently under consideration by EPA and NHTSA is likely to 

serve as a powerful disincentive for further market penetration of this technology. 

The commenter concludes by saying, even if one were to accept EIA projections of the growth in 

the stock of FFVs through 2022 as a likely reality (per AEO 2009) and conservatively assume 

that FFV owners/operators refuel on E85 100% of the time, there would not be enough FFVs in 

6-37
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

the fleet to consume all the E85 that would be required to meet the EISA-mandated volumes of 

ethanol. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 30-31]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: Sierra Research 

Comment:

The Sierra Research Report No. SR2009-09-01 entitled “Technical Review of 2009 EPA Draft 

Regulatory Impact Analysis For Non-GHG Pollutants due to Changes to the Renewable Fuel 

Standard” was prepared for API on September 29, 2009 and incorporated by reference into their 

comments (2393.7). A summary of the points raised with respect to fuel volumes, FFVs, and 

E85 is presented below. 

Critical Aspect 1 – The main findings of the review of the DRIA with respect to the first critical 

area—assumed renewable fuel types, volumes, and vehicle technology changes—are: 

 The volumes and types of renewable fuels, primarily ethanol in the form of E85, assumed 

in the DRIA are not consistent with those of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE), 

Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). 

 Relative to other current estimates, the DRIA analysis overestimates transportation 

energy demand, and therefore the feasibility of compliance with the volumetric 

renewable fuel requirements of the RFS2. 

 The DRIA analysis evaluates in detail only one “control case” for RFS2 compliance 

based on E10 and E85 rather than fully analyzing other potential control cases. 

 The DRIA analysis is based on a number of assumptions and input data from a variety of 

different sources that are inconsistent and there has been no apparent attempt made to 

reconcile these inconsistencies. 

 The DRIA assumes that the bulk of the renewable fuel required for compliance with the 

RFS2 will be consumed in the form of E85 by FFVs, but that assumption rests on what 

appear to be unreasonably optimistic assumptions regarding the number of FFVs that will 

be produced and the amount of E85 that will be consumed. 

Our Response: 

 As explained in Section 1.7.2 of the RIA, we have updated our light-duty vehicle 

projections to account for the dip in sales in response to the downturn in the economy. In 

addition, we have modified our FFV sales assumptions to account for the fact that it is unlikely 

that non-domestic automakers would ramp up FFV production in the future, absent an FFV 

mandate or other political measures. As explained above, for the final rule, we have established 

three control cases with varying levels of ethanol to measure the potential impacts of the RFS2 

program. Accordingly, we have established three potential FFV production scenarios with 

somewhat proportional sales projections. For our low-ethanol case (17.5 Bgal of ethanol by 

2022), we modeled FFV sales according to AEO 2009. For our primary mid-ethanol control 

case (22.2 Bgal of ethanol by 2022), we assumed GM, Ford and Chrysler would follow through 

with their voluntary commitment to produce 50% FFVs by 2012 (this is similar to the 

“Committed” FFV production scenario modeled for the NPRM). And finally, for our highethanol scenario (33.2 Bgal of ethanol by 2022), we modeled the impacts of a hypothetical 80% 

FFV mandate based on the Open Fuel Standard (OFS) legislature introduced in Congress. While 

6-38
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

we are not suggesting that Congress implement a national FFV mandate, given the downturn in 

the economy (resulting in reduced VMT, gasoline demand and vehicle sales), an FFV mandate 

could be the only viable means for consuming 33.2 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. If 

challenges in certifying FFVs in California continue in the future, then FFV sales, E85 retail 

stations and/or FFV E85 refueling rates would all have to be higher in the rest of the United 

States to compensate. In addition, if the phase-out of CAFE credits has a significant impact on 

total FFV sales, then E85 availability and FFV E85 refueling rates would need to be even higher. 

 In addition, we believe that E85 has the ability to be a viable fuel in the future provided 

crude oil prices track around $116/bbl as predicted by EIA in AEO 2009. In order for E85 to be 

competitive with $4/gal gasoline (E10) at retail5, we project that it should be priced about 25% 

lower, or around $3/gal considering its reduced energy density, additional time spent refueling, 

etc. In order for ethanol to be valuable to refiners as an E85 blendstock, the corresponding rack 

price would need to be less than or equal to around $2/gal. The current rack price for ethanol is 

abound $2.20/gallon. However, we agree with Exxon that ethanol production efficiency 

improvements and reduced feedstock costs could lower the price of ethanol in the future. 

We project that the average ethanol delivered price (volume-weighted average production cost of 

corn, cellulosic and imported ethanol plus distribution) will come down to around $1.67/gallon 

in 2022 under our mid-ethanol primary control case. Therefore, while gasoline refiners and 

markets will always have a greater profit margin selling ethanol in low-level blends to consumers 

based on volume, they should be able to maintain a profit selling it as E85 in the future. Refer to 

Sections 4.4 and 1.7.5 of the RIA for more information. 

 In response to some of Sierra Research’s more detailed comments, many of their 

suggested alternative data sources (e.g., FFV sales) have been reflected in our updated ethanol 

consumption analysis. However, a number of their comments relate to various assumptions made 

with respect to our projections of renewable fuel used for impact analyses. While we have made 

some changes in our assumption between the NPRM and FRM in this area, many different 

assumptions and estimates could have been made. However, we believe that the two reference 

cases and three control cases used for the final rule provide a reasonable foundation for assessing 

the potential impacts of the RFS2 program. Regardless, the RFS2 standards are dictated by 

statute and the results of the analyses will not change the magnitude or timing of the standards. 

We will continue to consider comments raised by Sierra Research in our ongoing assessments of 

the impacts of renewable fuel use. 

In response to statement that EPA should not hold obligated parties responsible for 

blending more renewable fuels into transportation fuel than can produced, distributed, and 

consumed, we note that these comments relate to potential future waivers of the RFS2 standards. 

As discussed in section 13.4.4, EISA provides general waiver authority for the RFS2 standards 

similar to that provided for the RFS1 standards under EPAct 2005, as well as waiver authority 

specific to the biomass-based diesel standard and the cellulosic biofuel standard. This waiver 

authority will be exercised in the future as necessary and appropriate, and the nature of any 

waiver action taken will be determined based on the specific situation at the time. 

 

5

 Refer to Section 4.4 of the RIA for more information on projected gasoline prices. 

6-39
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

6.4.5 Retail Price Relationship of E10/E85 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) points out that the NPRM indicates that the E10/E85 price relationship 

could be modified by the refining industry. It states that, “[o]ne potential action that refiners 

might take to ensure a sufficient RIN supply would be to subsidize the price of the ethanol used 

to manufacture E85. Such a subsidy might be financed by an increase in their selling price of 

gasoline. In addition refiners with marketing arms could adjust the retail price relationship of 

E10 in E85 in way that encourages E85 throughput while still maintaining the same average net 

profit. The NPRM requests comment on viable and cooperative ways refiners and gasoline 

retailers could promote E85 throughput to meet the proposed E85 requirements.” 

EPA appears to assume that a single refiner can set the price of its gasoline to ensure that there is 

equivalence between E10 and E85, and that the sale of the two fuels would allow that refiner to 

“maintain the same average net profit.” This assumption reflects a deep misunderstanding of the 

U.S. gasoline market. A refiner has no control over the price of crude oil, the price of the 

gasoline or the price of ethanol. Prices are ultimately based on the international supply and 

demand of crude oil, gasoline and blendstocks, and the supply and demand for the product that is 

being sold in a given geographical market. This is further exemplified by a refiner, obligated by 

production, which has no associated retail marketing. EPA has a deep misunderstanding of the 

impacts and linkages of ethanol import tariffs, ethanol production subsidies and volume 

mandates as these interact with obligated blending, discretionary blending, and new “D” codes 

for proposed RINs. [[Docket number 2523.1, p.24]] 

Further, it is simply not legal for a group of refiners or retailers to work in "cooperative ways to 

promote E85 throughput to meet the proposed E85 requirements" in the way the EPA apparently 

anticipates. Federal antitrust laws forbid agreements among competitors to set 26 

prices (whether "reasonable" or not), adjust outputs, or allocate markets; the penalties for such 

conduct are quite severe, involving corporate and personal criminal liability (up to 10 years in 

jail), large civil fines and the possibility of large triple-damage lawsuits by those harmed by the 

conduct. Hence, the EPA’s suggested approach, which appears to require the reduction or 

elimination of competition is simply unrealistic and unworkable. The NPRM indicates that some 

states waive or discount excise taxes on E85 and that this “helps contribute to a retail price 

relationship that favors E85 over conventional gasoline.” Waiving or discounting state or federal 

tax for E85 may, depending on market conditions, contribute to a closer price relationship 

between E85 and gasoline. Tax relief of this type should be weighed with caution though 

because it limits the funds that are available to maintain highways and bridges and picks winners 

and losers based upon application. Waiving the tax on E85 is also equivalent to offering another 

subsidy to ethanol. [[Docket number 2523.1, p.25-26]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

6-40
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment: 

According to the commenter (2130.1), EPA’s suggestion that somehow retail marketers could 

subsidize E85 sales by attractive pricing while seeking to recover the cost with E10 sales by 

raising the cost of E10 demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of petroleum product 

markets. Such markets are competitive, and an individual marketer cannot hope to succeed by 

acting at variance with the market direction. Customers with FFVs would take advantage of his 

lower E85 price by preferentially filling up their FFVs at his station, generating a financial loss 

on the E85 volume he sells. However, customers who need E10 could go elsewhere to avoid the 

higher cost of E10 he offers, since other marketers would be offering E10 that did not also carry 

the burden of an E85 subsidy recovery. Of course, anti-trust laws prevent a group of individual 

marketers from acting in “cooperative ways to promote E85 throughput to meet the proposed 

E85 requirements” as EPA seems to anticipate. EPA should not look to petroleum marketers to 

somehow create an incentive for customers to buy a non-cost-effective product like E85. Market 

factors preclude the viability of such a strategy. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 13]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comments: 

As stated in the NPRM, current federal and most state tax codes do not distinguish between 

ethanol sold as E10 and E85. The commenter acknowledges that waiving or discounting the 

federal tax for E85 will contribute to a close price relationship. However, it also limits the funds 

that are available to maintain highways and bridges. This type of tax relief should be weighted 

with caution. Waiving the tax on E85 is also equivalent to offering another subsidy to ethanol. 

The NPRM indicates that the E10/E85 price relationship could be modified by the refining 

industry. EPA appears to assume that a single refiner can set the price of his gasoline and thus 

ensure that this is equivalence between E10 and E85 and further that the sale of the two fuels 

would allow that refiner to “maintain the same average net profit.” According to the commenter, 

this assumption reflects a deep misunderstanding of the U.S. gasoline market. A refiner has no 

control over the price of crude oil and no control over the price of gasoline (or distillate). Prices 

are based on international supply and demand. Refiners and retailers cannot and do not set the 

price of their product. They must unilaterally use market information to determine asking price. 

Consequently, it is not possible for a refiner or retailer to “adjust the retail price relationship of 

E10 to E85 in such a way that encourages E85 throughput while maintaining the same average 

net profit.” The market is too complex for such an approach to work. Further, The Sherman Act 

specifically prohibits this type of activity and indicates that this type of violation could result in 

treble damages and personal liability. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 28-30]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2358 

Organization: Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the 

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) 

Comment:

Regarding EPA’s proposal on market pricing of E85 versus gasoline where the refiners reduce 

the price of E85 and increase the price of gasoline and whether refiners and retailer might work 

together to adjust the relative price of E85 and gasoline, the commenter believes these proposal 

are unsustainable and may violate antitrust laws. [[Docket number 2358.1, p. 14]] 

6-41
Chapter 6: Assessment Of Renewable Fuel Production Capacity and Use 

6-42

Our Response: 

 In our NPRM, we were mainly pointing out the fact that, due to the lower value of 

ethanol when sold on an energy basis compared to gasoline then on a volume basis, the price of 

E85 and of ethanol in the marketplace will have to adjust to compensate if the increased volumes 

of ethanol are to be sold as E85. The means by which this happens will have to be sorted out in 

the marketplace. If it isn’t, then it would push the market further and faster towards other 

solutions to meet the RFS2 standards, such as increased use of non-ethanol renewables, e.g., 

butanol, renewable hydrocarbons, etc. 
EPA-420-R-10-003

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Summary and Analysis of 

Comments

Chapter 7

Impacts of the Program on 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
7 IMPACTS OF THE PROGRAM ON GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS

7.1 Definition of Lifecycle GHG Emissions 7-3 

7.2 Methodology 7-4 

7.2.1 Scenario Description 7-18 

7.2.2 Scope of the Analysis 7-20 

7.2.2.1 Legal Interpretation of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions 7-23 

7.2.2.2 System Boundaries 7-29 

7.2.3 Modeling Framework 7-36 

7.2.4 Treatment of Uncertainty 7-109 

7.2.5 Components of the Lifecycle GHG Emissions Analysis 7-123 

7.2.5.1 Feedstock Production (Domestic & International Ag Sector 

Impacts) 7-130 

7.2.5.2 Land Use Changes 7-175 

7.2.5.3 Feedstock Transport 7- 330 

7.2.5.4 Processing 7-331 

7.2.6 Petroleum Baseline 7-332 

7.2.7 Energy Sector Indirect Impacts 7-349 

7.3 Fuel Specific GHG Emissions Estimates 7-356 

7.3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Relative to the 2005 Petroleum 

Baseline 7-357 

7.3.1.1 Corn Ethanol 7-369 

7.3.1.2 Imported Ethanol 7-376 

7.3.1.3 Cellulosic Ethanol 7-380 

7.3.1.4 Biodiesel 7-383 

7.3.2 Treatment of GHG Emissions over Time 7-405 

7.3.2.1 Time Horizon 7-409 

7.3.2.2 Discount Rate 7-420 

7.4 GHG Thresholds 7-428 

7.4.1 Advanced Biofuel 7-433 

7.4.2 Biomass-based Diesel 7-438 

7.5 Assignments of Pathways to Renewable Fuel Categories 7-443 

7.5.1 Assignments for Pathways Subjected to Lifecycle Analyses 7-446 

7.5.2 Assignments for Additional Pathways 7-450 

7.5.2.1 Ethanol from Starch 7-454 

7.5.2.2 Renewable Fuels from Cellulosic Biomass 7-459 

7.5.2.3 Biodiesel 7-461 

7.5.2.4 Renewable Diesel Through Hydrotreating 7-475 

7.5.2.5 Lifecycle Analysis Petition Process 7-475 

7.6 Total GHG Emission Reductions 7-479 

7.7 Lifecycle GHG Thresholds 7-483 

7.8 Peer Review 7-484

RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

7 IMPACTS OF THE PROGRAM ON GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section correspond to Section V of the preamble to the proposed 

rule and address impacts of the program on GHG emissions. A summary of the comments 

received and our response to those comments are located below. These topics are also largely 

considered in Section V of the preamble to the final rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1000 

Organization: Environmental Consultant 

Comment:

The commenter (1000) objects to the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions regulation as a part 

of the EPA proposal. The commenter states that the EISA of 2007 has no restrictions on 

greenhouse gas. The commenter also noted that a large body of scientific evidence has shown 

that anthropogenic emissions of GHG are not related to climate. The commenter recommends 

that all reference to GHG be removed from the subject regulations. (P.1) 

Our Response: 

 EISA includes specific greenhouse gas reduction thresholds for each type of renewable 

fuel mandated by the Act requiring a percentage improvement compared to a baseline of the 

gasoline and diesel used in 2005. The definition of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions is 

specifically provided in the statute. While these thresholds do not constitute a specific control on 

greenhouse gases for transportation fuels (such as a low carbon fuel standard), they do require 

that the volume mandates be met through the use of renewable fuels that meet certain lifecycle 

GHG reduction thresholds when compared to the baseline lifecycle emissions of petroleum fuel 

they replace. This final rule implements those requirements and therefore the references to GHG 

are appropriate and required. 

 This final rule does not, however, discuss the role of GHG emissions in climate change. 

EPA’s position on this topic is provided in a separate and unrelated action—see 

http:www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2308 

Organization: Environmental Defense Fund 

Comment:

The commenter (2308.1) believes additional measures are necessary to produce biofuels in a way 

that creates benefits for the climate and other natural resources, in particular with regard to 

reducing emissions from tropical deforestation, which EPA has identified as a significant source 

of indirect land use change emissions. (Page 2) 

7-1
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response: 

This final rule implements the greenhouse gas thresholds and renewable biomass 

restrictions in EISA and provides an analysis of the air and water quality impacts of expanded 

biofuels use. As noted by the commenter, additional measures (i.e., international frameworks) 

are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2466) comments that when the full lifecycle impacts of this ethanol are taken 

into account, including the effects of indirect land use change, substitution of this grandfathered 

ethanol for gasoline could result in a substantial increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The 

commenter strongly urges EPA to assess the above described impacts and establish antibacksliding provisions to forestall increases in emissions or alternatively consider waiving the 

volumetric requirements of the RFS in a given year to prevent significant increases in emissions. 

(2466.1.pdf, p7)

Our Response: 

As provided in EISA, renewable fuel from existing facilities is exempt from the lifecycle 

GHG emission reduction threshold of 20%. Today's final rule will implement this provision by 

exempting up to a baseline volume for such facilities, which will be established at the time of 

registration. The exemption from the 20% GHG threshold applies only to renewable fuel that is 

produced from facilities which commenced construction on or before December 19, 2007, or in 

the case of ethanol plants that use natural gas biomass, or a combination thereof for process heat, 

on or before December 31, 2009. EPA’s implementation of these provisions is described in 

detail in Section II.B.3 of the preamble. EISA created a new CAA section 211(v) concerning 

mitigation of adverse air quality impacts of the implementation of this program. In addition, 

EISA authorizes EPA to issue waivers of the volumetric renewable fuel requirements of the Act 

under various circumstances, including where EPA makes a finding that implementation of the 

requirements would severely harm the economy or environment of a State, a region, or the 

United States. However EPA is not taking action under either of these provisions in this 

rulemaking, and is not in a position to address comments concerning action under those 

authorities, assuming that is what the commenter is suggesting. EPA is currently conducting the 

study called for under CAA section 211(v)(1), and commenter has not presented any analysis to 

support their general request that EPA consider waiving volume requirements at some time. 

However, we note that our analysis of the GHG impacts of the final rule (which analyzes the 

difference between business as usual and the RFS2 volumes) includes some of the GHG impacts 

of grandfathered ethanol. 

As provided in EISA, renewable fuel from existing facilities is exempt from the lifecycle 

GHG emission reduction threshold of 20% up to a baseline volume for that facility that will be 

7-2
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

established at the time of registration. The exemption from the 20% GHG threshold applies only 

to renewable fuel that is produced from facilities which commenced construction on or before 

December 19, 2007, or in the case of ethanol plants that use natural gas or biodiesel for process 

heat, on or before December 31, 2009. EPA’s implementation of these provisions is described in 

detail in Section II.B.3 of the preamble. The waiver and antibacksliding provisions in EISA 

provide specific circumstances for the use of these provisions, which do not include addressing 

the GHG emissions resulting from grandfathered volumes. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2112.1) noted that the four fuel designations cannot be maintained and verified 

by EPA. EPA has illustrated repeatedly that insufficient data and analytical confidence exist to 

develop rules four renewable fuels standards. This is not a criticism of EPA. The analytical 

infrastructure does not exist to do what the EISA requested regarding the complex criteria for the 

emission impact of the three non-corn biofuel categories. (2112.1, p.4) 

Our Response: 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA 

7.1 Definition of Lifecycle GHG Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0951 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment:

One commenter (0951) states that the proposed changes to the RFS program must be based on 

science. This commenter believes that the “Searchinger, et al” and “Tilman” studies are not 

scientific examinations of the indirect land use issue and has been criticized by many legitimate 

scientists. The commenter also states that there is currently no scientifically based or empirical 

evidence that biofuels production causes any negative indirect land use changes at all. (Pp. 1-3) 

Our Response: 

7-3
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The lifecycle methodology developed by EPA, and explained in detail in this final rule, is 

based on the best available scientific techniques. It also relies on a body of scientific literature 

on this topic as well as an independent scientific peer review of EPA’s methodology. The peer 

review, the public comments we have received, and the analysis conducted for the proposal and 

final rule indicate that it is important to take into account indirect emissions. Through this 

evaluation, EPA also has determined that biofuels production leads to both negative and positive 

indirect land use changes. We also recognize the uncertainties inherent in this estimation and 

therefore have taken an approach that quantifies the uncertainty and presents the weight of 

currently available evidence in making our threshold determination. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2165 

Organization: Beckley Ag Products 

Comment: 

The commenter (2165.1) is concerned that while the law specifies that GHG emissions included 

direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use 

changes, as determined by the Administrator, they believe it is premature to adopt GHG criteria 

for indirect land use changes (ILUC). Specifically the commenter is concerned that there are no 

widely accepted methodologies or models for calculating ILUC resulting from increases in 

production of biofuels. 

Given the complexity and uncertainty of this issue, the commenter urges EPA to not include any 

calculations of ILUC in determining GHG emissions for biofuels at this time. (2165.1, p. 2) 

Our Response: 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. EPA has used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many 

modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers 

and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations described above. We plan to 

continue to improve upon our analyses, and will update it in the future as appropriate. 

7.2 Methodology 

What Commenters Said:

7-4
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0981 

Organization: Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research, Department of Agronomy 

and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Comment:

The commenter (0981) recommends that the biofuel LCA performed by EPA follow ISO and 

EPA guidelines and Federal law to the highest degree possible. The commenter believes that 

such practices will help to ensure the accuracy of the parameter values used and the resulting 

effectiveness and transparency of regulatory LCA applied to biofuels. (Pp. 12-14) 

Our Response:

EPA has used International Standards Organization (ISO) guidance on lifecycle analysis 

in developing its lifecycle analysis. We have drawn upon a suite of the most recent and 

advanced and peer-reviewed models, studies, and data to develop a methodology for lifecycle 

analyses of renewable fuel greenhouse gas emissions. As mandated in EISA, lifecycle GHG 

emissions of biofuels was compared to the lifecycle GHG emissions of a 2005 gasoline or diesel 

baseline. For both the biofuels and petroleum GHG lifecycle analysis, EPA has developed clear 

and consistent system boundaries (both physical and temporal) which are explicitly laid out in 

the Final Rulemaking. Further, we assessed uncertainty in the final analysis. EPA provides a 

complete description of the lifecycle analysis methodology and provides the data used in the 

analysis in the Final Rule Preamble, Regulatory Impact Assessment, and the Docket. 

EPA has followed EPA and federal regulatory procedures. In addition, EPA has 

extensively coordinated the development of our methodology and selection of inputs and models 

with outside experts and across the federal government. After EISA’s enactment in December 

2007, we met frequently with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy to share our analytical 

plan, request feedback on our key assumptions, and provide preliminary results as they became 

available. In many cases, we adopted the models, inputs, and assumptions suggested by these 

Departments. 

Lastly, EPA conducted a formal, external, independent peer review for the novel pieces 

developed for this lifecycle analysis following EPA and OMB guidance for third party, peer 

reviews. The names of the reviewers, charge questions, the original comments received from the 

reviewers as well as contractor summaries of the comments were made publically available in 

the docket. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1001, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1005, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-1010, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1011, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1012, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1025, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1029, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-

1043, et al. 

Organization: Kurzman Clean Tech Research & Kurzman Capital, LLC, Cotner 

Consulting Services, CC Gas Systems, LLC, Atlantic BioFuels, Glenwood Farms, Law Offices 

of David Wilcox, C.I.B.,University of Georgia Engineering Outreach Service, et al. 

7-5
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Comment:

The commenters noted that EPA’s methodology is not ready to be used for purposes of 

regulating biofuels. EPA’s method of lifecycle analysis is not widely accepted and should not be 

used to regulate biodiesel. 

The commenters understand that EPA’s lifecycle analysis is being peer reviewed and encourages 

EPA to include experts from the biodiesel industry in the peer review process. Throughout the 

peer review process, the commenters strongly encourage EPA to provide reviewers with 

additional independent studies and analyses that will help place the EPA lifecycle analysis in 

context and provide a holistic view of the debate over indirect effects. 

Our Response:

EPA recognizes that it has had to break new scientific ground in developing a lifecycle 

methodology as required by EISA. This is why the Agency employed a collaborative, 

transparent, and science-based approach. EPA took numerous measures to seek public comment 

on our approach—including extending the comment period for the proposed rule, holding a twoday public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, 

including the biodiesel community, through individual meetings, conferences and events. As 

noted by the commenter, EPA also initiated an independent peer review of specific areas of our 

work. The information we received through this process has led to the approach in this final rule 

which bases the GHG threshold compliance determinations on the weight of evidence currently 

available and quantifies the uncertainty about critical variables. 

Further, EPA recognizes the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area. 

While the Agency is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, the Agency is also committing to further 

reassess these determinations. As part of this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of 

the National Academy of Sciences as well as other experts. 

 With regard to the comment on the peer review process—the lifecycle review was 

conducted following the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) peer review guidance and 

according to EPA’s longstanding and rigorous peer review policies. In accordance with these 

guidelines, independent, third-party contractors autonomously developed their own list of expert 

reviewers. The reviewers selected are leading experts in their respective fields, including 

lifecycle assessment, economic modeling, remote sensing imagery, biofuel technologies, soil 

science, agricultural economics, and climate science. Contractors provided the expert reviewers 

with the material for review and charge questions developed by EPA. These questions, which 

were reviewed and edited by OMB, guided the review process. The peer reviewers worked 

independently and were not asked to reach a consensus decision. 

 More information on the peer review, including each of the peer review comments, is 

available at: http:www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/index.htm. The results of the peer review 

were included in the docket for public review and consideration during the public comment 

period for the proposal. 

7-6
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079 

Organization: AE Biofuels, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2079.1) believes that EPA’s method of lifecycle analysis is not widely accepted 

and is not consistent with standards for such analysis. Until a reasonable level of scientific 

consensus is achieved, the commenter believes that the methodology should not be used to 

regulate biofuels production. (2079.1, p.7) 

Our Response: 

EPA recognizes that it has had to break new scientific ground in developing a lifecycle 

methodology as required by EISA. This is why the Agency employed a collaborative, 

transparent and science-based approach. EPA took numerous measures to seek public comment 

on our approach—including extending the comment period for the proposed rule, holding a twoday public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, 

including the biodiesel community, through individual meetings, conferences and events. As 

noted by the commenter, EPA also initiated an independent peer review of specific areas of our 

work. The information we received through this process has led to the approach in this final rule 

which bases the GHG threshold compliance determinations on the weight of evidence currently 

available and quantifies the uncertainty about critical variables. 

Further, EPA recognizes the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area. 

While the Agency is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, the Agency is also committing to further 

reassess these determinations. As part of this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of 

the National Academy of Sciences as well as other experts. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2048 

Organization: BioPure Fuels 

Comment:

The commenter (2048.1) believes that the science behind indirect land use assumptions is weak 

and open to criticism. Clearly there is room for questioning the assumptions being made in 

including indirect land use in the regulations and this is perhaps the area where U.S. EPA is 

likely to obtain the greatest criticism (as evidenced by the recent hearing on indirect land use in 

Congress). (2048.1, p.3) 

With regards to the GREET model, the commenter is not in favor of any of the recommendations 

in the GREET model associated with indirect land use change, staff recommendations to include 

indirect land use change in carbon calculations and adoption of a rule that includes Indirect Land 

Use Change (ILUC). The commenter agrees with comments from stakeholders including the 

7-7
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

letter by 111 Ph.D. Scientists stating that the science used in determining these market mediated, 

indirect impacts is quite limited and highly uncertain. In addition, the selective enforcement of 

indirect land use impacts for biofuels over other fuels included in the LCFS violates the most 

basic principles of regulatory fairness. (2048.1, p.11) 

Our Response: 

EPA has clearly acknowledged that our lifecycle methodology required breaking new 

scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally recognized as 

state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the indirect impacts 

of biofuels. EPA took numerous measures to seek public comment on our approach—including 

extending the comment period for the proposed rule, holding a two-day public workshop on the 

lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, through individual meetings, 

conferences and events. EPA also initiated an independent scientific peer review of specific 

areas of our work. 

EPA has recognized that there are uncertainties associated with these estimates—

particularly with regard to indirect land use change—and has sought to develop an approach that 

manages these uncertainties. However, EPA rejects the view that the modeling relied upon in 

the final rule is too uncertain or untested to provide a credible and reasonable scientific basis for 

determining whether the aggregate lifecycle emissions exceed the thresholds. If the international 

land use impacts were so uncertain that their impact on lifecycle GHG emissions could not be 

adequately determined, this does not mean EPA could assume the international land use change 

emissions are zero. High uncertainty would not mean that emissions are small and can be 

ignored; rather it could mean that we could not tell whether they are large or small. If high 

uncertainty meant that EPA were not able to determine that indirect emissions from international 

land use change are small enough that the total lifecycle emissions meet the threshold, then that 

fuel could not be determined to meet the GHG thresholds of EISA and the fuel would necessarily 

have to be excluded from the program. The Agency has chosen an approach that includes 

biofuels with a significant international land use impact in this program. We also have chosen an 

approach that quantifies uncertainty and presents the weight of currently available evidence in 

making our threshold determinations. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2110 

Organization: Chevron 

Comment:

The commenter (2110.1) supports EPA’s overall approach to GHG life-cycle analysis (LCA) as 

it applies to biofuels but believes the agency must be flexible enough to adapt to the changing 

science of LCA. The commenter believes that EPA needs enough flexibility to respond to the 

evolving science of LCA and the unpredictable nature of advanced fuel technology development 

without causing investments made in good faith to be undermined. (2110.1, p.4) 

7-8
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter noted that despite the potential for negative life-cycle GHG impacts of using 

conventional biofuels, it is important that EPA avoid developing overly permissive life-cycle 

criteria or other mechanisms that enable them to meet category requirements that are otherwise 

unattainable. There are of the aes allowed under the law that would retain the use of good 

science. (2110.1, p.4) 

Our Response: 

EPA agrees with commenter that impacts from indirect land use change must be included 

in our lifecycle analysis. Further, we have taken steps in the final rule to account for 

uncertainties. 

EPA recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area, 

the lifecycle GHG assessments for a variety of fuel pathways will continue to change. 

Therefore, while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also 

committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this 

ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as 

other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new 

assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this 

final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. This new assessment could result in new determinations of threshold compliance 

compared to those included in this rule that would apply to future production (from plants that 

are constructed after each subsequent rule). 

EPA is basing its GHG threshold compliance determinations for this rule on an approach 

that considers the uncertainty in our assessments as well as other information available to the 

Agency. For fuel pathways with a significant land use impact, the evidence considered includes 

the best estimate as well as the range of possible lifecycle greenhouse gas emission results based 

on formal uncertainty and sensitivity analyses conducted by the Agency. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2112.1) believes that ignoring the fundamental principles of mathematics 

renders EPA estimates meaningless. The best data and methodologies do not meet quality 

necessary to serve the “force of law.” Professionals in the life cycle assessment (LCA) field can 

not agree on the proper methodology. Therefore, no legally defensible LCA methodology exists. 

In addition EPA took coefficients developed from radically different models and created new 

models that create hypothetical results that are far beyond the boundaries of the underlying 

original data. (2112.1, p.1) 

7-9
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response:

There is no legal requirement that there be a consensus of expert opinion before EPA 

may take action as required by the statute. Instead, EPA often is required to and does act in 

situations where the science is controversial and uncertain. In this case, EPA has conducted 

extensive outreach to obtain expert advice on the issues relevant to LCA, and used that advice to 

update the LCA. In general there was broad support for many of the methodological elements of 

EPA’s analysis, and in several areas EPA received constructive criticism and advice and updated 

our analysis consistent with that advice. EPA’s LCA analysis reflects the best available science, 

and is an adequate basis for the regulatory determination for which it is used – determining 

compliance with the GHG thresholds. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) supports periodic reevaluations and updates to the LCA (perhaps every 

three years, initially) to adjust the analysis as technology and modeling evolves. The commenter 

urges EPA to continue efforts with CARB to harmonize LCA methodologies to the extent 

possible, and be able to explain differences where authorizing documentation precludes 

harmonization. (2124.1, p.24) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

Regarding the LCA for RFS2, he commenter (2130) commends EPA for its scientific approach 

and diligence in examining the full gamut of potential impacts from the production and use of 

various biofuels. The commenter supports periodic reevaluations and updates to the LCA 

(perhaps every three years) to adjust the analysis as technology and modeling evolve and urges 

EPA to continue efforts with CARB to harmonize LCA methodologies. [[Docket number 2130.1, 

pp. 3-4 and pp. 18-20]] 

Our Response: 

EPA is committed to reassess the lifecycle estimates presented in this final rule. As part 

of this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as 

well as other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a 

new assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in 

this final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. 

7-10
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Throughout the development of the lifecycle methodology EPA has worked closely with 

the State of California. While each agency’s statutory requirements necessitate some differences 

(as noted by the commenter) in general, CARB and EPA have developed the same 

methodological approach to assessing the lifecycle impacts of biofuels. EPA will continue to 

coordinate with CARB as we implement the RFS2 program and reassess the lifecycle estimates. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2234 

Organization: Energy & Resources Group University of California 

Comment: 

The commenter states that the use of the FASOM model for domestic agricultural market and 

GHG analysis adds a great deal of complication to this modeling effort, but the payoffs appear to 

be meager. The inconsistencies between FASOM and FAPRI are troubling, and the GHG 

accounting in FASOM remains poorly documented and in some cases, incorrect. We would 

therefore prefer to see a single, consistent approach (i.e., FASOM plus emission factors) applied 

to all regions. [[2234.1 p.2]] 

Our Response: 

While FASOM is an excellent model, it focuses on agricultural production within the 

U.S. For international impacts on agriculture, FAPRI was used. Common parameters between 

the models were aligned to help assure consistent results. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2435 

Organization: R.W. Heiden Associates LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2435) states that the lifecycle GHG methodology for biodiesel is flawed and 

should not be used to regulate the biofuels industry. The commenter is concerned with the 

uncertainty and speculation associated with the analysis of biofuels, including the methodology 

relating to significant indirect emissions. [[Docket number 2435.1, p. 3]]

The commenter notes that EPA’s lifecycle analysis is being peer reviewed and encourages EPA 

to include experts from the biodiesel industry in the process. Based on the number of lifecycle 

analysis being completed by different levels of government and by a multitude of countries, the 

commenter’s industry has developed an intimate working knowledge of many lifecycle models 

and methodologies and believes they could contribute to the development of an appropriate 

system that can be used in the future. [[Docket number 2435.1, p. 5]]

Our Response: 

7-11
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA. 

Regarding the comment on EPA’s approach to LCA, EPA has clearly described its 

analytical techniques, the models used and the sources of data. We believe these represent the 

best tools and information available and there appropriate use for biofuel modeling was 

confirmed by peer review and other comments. These models (as well as other models evaluated 

for their projections of land use impact) confirm that indirect land use impacts are significant and 

cannot be ignored. 

To ensure the Agency made its decisions for this final rule on the best science available, 

EPA conducted a formal, independent peer review of key components of the analysis. The 

reviews were conducted following the Office of Management and Budget’s peer review guidance 

that ensures consistent, independent government-wide implementation of peer review, and 

according to EPA's longstanding and rigorous peer review policies. In accordance with these 

guidelines, EPA used independent, third-party contractors to select highly qualified peer 

reviewers. The reviewers selected are leading experts in their respective fields, including 

lifecycle assessment, economic modeling, remote sensing imagery, biofuel technologies, soil 

science, agricultural economics, and climate science. 

The commenter’s industry can contribute to the development of an appropriate system 

that can be used in the future in a number of ways in addition to providing comment for this 

rulemaking including through ongoing EPA stakeholder outreach. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2612 

Organization: Citizen (sample of 478 comment letters received from mass comment 

campaign sponsored by American Soybean Association) 

The commenter (2612) identified 8 “vital flaws and concerns with the RFS2 proposed rule”: 

1) Indirect Land Use - Flawed and immature assumptions and methodology utilized to measure 

the indirect land use impacts of U.S. soy biodiesel production. 

2) Feedstock Certification – Unnecessary and onerous feedstock certification requirements. 

3) Nitrogen – The EPA methodology contains a major error pertaining to the direct emission 

calculations for nitrogen in soybean production. 

4) Co-Products - The EPA did not account for glycerine as a co-product. 

5) Biodiesel Energy Balance - EPA inaccurately assesses the energy balance of biodiesel. 

6) Biodiesel Pathway - The proposed pathway of using a 52-48 feedstock ratio of biodiesel 

feedstocks is not workable in practice. 

7-12
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

7) GHG Calculations Must Account for Improved Agriculture Yields and Efficiency 

8) Petroleum Baseline - EPA’s analysis compares estimated, future direct and indirect GHG 

emissions for biodiesel to only direct emissions for petroleum. 

More broadly, the commenter (2612) notes that, “[With] corrected values for nitrogen emissions, 

co-products, and the energy balance from biodiesel production would result in soy biodiesel 

GHG emissions that are over 60% better than petroleum, easily exceeding the 50% GHG 

threshold called for under the RFS2 biomass-based diesel schedule. An appropriate indirect land 

use analysis would further enhance soy biodiesel’s value relative to petroleum diesel.” (2612 p.2) 

Specific comments are listed under the appropriate heading.

Our Response: 

(1): EPA continues to believe that compliance with the EISA mandate — determining 

“the aggregate GHG emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, including both direct emissions 

and significant indirect emissions such as land use changes” — makes it necessary to assess 

those direct and significant indirect impacts that occur not just within the United States, but also 

those that occur in other countries. 

(2) Feedstock certification comments are addressed in Section 3.3 of this Summary and 

Analysis of Comments. In brief, EPA has determined that an aggregate compliance approach is 

appropriate for renewable biomass that is defined as planted crops and crop residue from the 

United States. See the Preamble Section II.B.4.c for further details on feedstock compliance for 

all feedstocks. 

(3): The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application 

and nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

The N2O emission factors used in the proposal overestimated N2O emissions from 

nitrogen fixing crops, because they were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting. 

As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed such that biological nitrogen fixation was 

removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of significant emissions 

arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that the N2O emissions induced by the 

growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function of the above-ground and 

below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This change effectively reduces the 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 

to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

7-13
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

(4): Glycerin is a co-product of biodiesel production. Our proposal analysis did not 

assume any credit for this glycerin product. The assumption for the proposal was that by 2022 

the market for glycerin would be saturated due to the large increase in biodiesel production in 

both the U.S. and abroad and the glycerin would therefore be a waste product. We agree with 

the comments that we should be factoring in a co-product credit for glycerin as there would be 

some valuable use for this product in the market. Therefore, we have included for the final rule 

analysis that glycerin would displace residual oil as a fuel source on an energy equivalent basis. 

This is based on the assumption that the glycerin market would still be saturated in 2022 and that 

glycerin produced from biodiesel would not displace any additional petroleum glycerin 

production. However, the biodiesel glycerin would not be a waste and a low value use would be 

to use the glycerin as a fuel source. The fuel source assumed to be replaced by the glycerin is 

residual oil. This inclusion of a co-product credit for glycerin reduces the overall GHG impact 

of biodiesel compared to the proposal analysis. 

(5): The EISA mandates setting up fuel GHG thresholds do not require the EPA to do site 

specific GHG analysis but rather determine for specific fuel pathways if they meet the thresholds 

for the different fuel categories. Therefore, we have developed an average energy use value for 

biodiesel production. As part of the final rule we updated the energy use assumptions for 

biodiesel production to be in line with the latest energy balance reports from USDA and the 

University of Idaho. Therefore, the final rule assumes lower energy use for biodiesel production 

compared to the proposal analysis. 

(6): For the final rule analysis soybean biodiesel meets the 50% lifecycle GHG reduction 

threshold for biomass-based diesel. Therefore, the averaging of different feedstocks is not 

required and is not part of the final rule. 

(7): Our analysis does account for improving yields and efficiencies over time. For 

example we have soybean yields increasing in our models out to 2022 which is the year we base 

the analysis on. So our results do account for improving yields. Furthermore, we have 

performed a high yield sensitivity analysis as part of this rulemaking to test the impact that 

assumption has on the overall results. 

(8): The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule 

and the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

7-14
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA.

With all the changes made to the modeling since the proposal, soybean biodiesel qualifies 

under the biomass based diesel standard with a 57% reduction in GHG emissions. 

7-15
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2620 

Organization: Citizen (sample of 7,440 comment letters received from mass comment 

campaign sponsored by National Biodiesel Board (NBB)) 

Comment:

The commenter (2620) notes that, “The lifecycle greenhouse gas methodology for biodiesel is 

flawed.” (2620 p. 2)

Our Response: 

For the FRM, biodiesel results from soy were significantly updated in response to new 

data and industry comment. Results also included an analysis of uncertainty which was 

considered in determining compliance with the GHG threshold. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2622 

Organization: Citizen (sample of 18 comment letters received from mass comment 

campaign sponsored by National Biodiesel Board (NBB)) 

Comment:

The commenter (2622) notes that it is necessary for EPA to “Review iLUC models that could 

take soybean oil-based biodiesel out of the demand mix.” (2622 p. 1)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2625 

Organization: Citizen (sample of 400 comment letters received from mass comment 

campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment:

The commenter (2625) notes that, “EPA’s method of lifecycle analysis, which utilizes various 

models and incorporates indirect emissions from land use changes, is not widely accepted. As 

such, and until a reasonable level of scientific consensus is achieved, the methodology should not 

be used to regulate biodiesel.” (2625 p. 2)

Further, the commenter (2625) notes that inaccurate data and assumptions were used in 

developing the lifecycle analysis including, “Global market drivers for feedstocks, like soybeans 

are not included.” (2625 p. 2)

Our Response: 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determination in this final rule based on a 

methodology that includes an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions 

related to international land-use change. As described in more detail in the Preamble, EPA has 

used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many modifications to its 

7-16
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers and developing 

science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant components of its 

analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with international land 

use change. EPA has updated and refined its modeling approach since proposal in several 

important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions associated with 

international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and scientifically robust basis 

for making threshold determinations. For the final rule analysis EPA has determined that 

soybean biodiesel qualifies under the biomass based diesel threshold. EPA plans to continue to 

improve upon its analyses, and will update it in the future as appropriate. 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA Regarding the specific comment of market drivers, EPA 

clearly recognizes there are a number of market drivers affecting agricultural decisions and has 

acknowledged this in the preamble and RIA. We also indicate that we are using historical data 

for the purpose of establishing a land use trend which assumes the market drivers affecting land 

use in the past will continue through 2022. 

While recognizing the ground breaking nature of using lifecycle analysis in regulation, 

EPA also notes that it has used the best tools currently available (as supported by peer review 

and public comment) and the most up to date information. The FRM analyses including the use 

of uncertainty analysis, allows EPA to make a reasoned assessment of lifecycle GHG impacts of 

biofuels compared to the petroleum fuels they are replacing, consistent with the mandates of 

EISA. 

The models EPA has used take into account the global demands and interactions for 

feedstocks. Data used are the best currently available and reflect the inputs and coordination 

with industry, USDA and other experts. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2390 

Organization: Governors’ Biofuels Coalition 

Comment:

The commenter is disappointed by EPA’s failure to adequately recognize the impacts of the 

impressive technology advances that have already been implemented, and will continue to occur, 

at both the direct and indirect level. The vast majority of U.S. ethanol production now comes 

from plants built after 2005, and their improvements in energy and water efficiencies are well 

demonstrated. Both corn and soybean yields will continue to increase because of technological 

innovations. There is no question that biofuels will get cleaner in the years to come, and 

7-17
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

conventional and unconventional oil will get dirtier, but EPA’s static modeling does not capture 

these trend lines in any way. (2390.1, p.2) 

Our Response: 

EPA recognizes that advancements in technological progress will take place over time. 

In this respect, EPA disagrees that the modeling analysis conducted for this rulemaking is static. 

Rather, it takes into account various expectations for increases in technology throughout the 

renewable fuel manufacturing process, both in the field and in the plants. Accordingly, EPA’s 

analysis of the agriculture sector includes crop yield projections that increase over time which 

are consistent with USDA’s projections. EPA also takes into account current and future 

projected energy and technology improvements at biofuel production facilities. The lifecycle 

GHG results for the different biofuels are based on 2022 values which accounts for the 

agricultural and process technology improvements 

7.2.1 Scenario Description 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) noted that EPA’s analysis evaluates the incremental impact of 

renewable fuel facilities built in 2022. The commenter believes that this procedure 

underestimates GHG emissions from biofuel facilities before 2022 and introduces uncertainty 

through use of projected factors instead of validated data. It would be better to base the analysis 

on a near-term date using actual data and to then update as needed if data indicates improvement. 

(2124.1, p.47) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2393) notes that to quantify the incremental lifecycle GHG emissions 

associated with the increase in biofuels mandated by EISA, EPA develops a “Control Case” 

projection of lifecycle GHG emissions for the biofuel volumes assumed to be produced in 2022 

in accordance with EISA. This projection is compared with a 2022 “Reference Case” projection 

of lifecycle emissions for biofuel volumes assumed to be produced in the absence of EISA. The 

commenter believes that basing LCA GHG benefits on a single future calendar year (2022) 

magnifies uncertainty; it would be far better for EPA to base its analysis on a near-term date 

using actual data and to update as needed if data indicates improvement. [[Docket number 

2393.1, p. 49]]

Our Response:

7-18
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

We continue to focus our final rule analyses on 2022 results for two main reasons. First, 

it would require an extremely complex assessment and administratively difficult implementation 

program to track how biofuel production might continuously change from month to month or 

year to year. Instead, it seems appropriate that each biofuel be assessed a level of GHG 

performance that is constant over the implementation of this rule, allowing fuel providers to 

anticipate how these GHG performance assessments should affect their production plans. 

Second, it is appropriate to focus on 2022, the final year of ramp up in the required volumes of 

renewable fuel as this year. Assessment in this year allows the complete fuel volumes specified 

in EISA to be incorporated. This also allows for the complete implementation of technology 

changes and updates that were made to improve or modeling efforts. For example, the inclusion 

of price induced yield increases and the efficiency gains of DGs replacement are phased in over 

time. Furthermore, these changes are in part driven by the changes in earlier years of increased 

biofuel use. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment:

The commenters (2129.1) believe that the basic structure of EPA’s GHG lifecycle assessment as 

well as the assessment of ILUC is reasonable and workable. The final rule should clarify that 

periodic review and assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions analysis and resulting fuelspecific GHG emissions estimates is mandatory and should occur every three years. EPA must 

insert a new section in the final rules regulatory text setting forth the review requirements. 

(2129.1, pp.6-7) 

Our Response:

EPA has indicated in the preamble its intention to continue to develop improvements to 

lifecycle assessment of biofuels and to periodically update its analyses, consistent with EISA. It 

is inappropriate and unnecessary to include regulatory text directed at EPA future actions. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2383) believes that EPA’s regulations should create incentives to encourage 

reductions in “direct” greenhouse gas emissions beyond the minimum requirements of EISA. 

The commenter also believes that a voluntary, verifiable program involving appropriate 

compliance assurance measures for corn ethanol manufacturers whose facilities and processes 

7-19
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

outperform industry average levels, or the minimum GHG reduction requirements set by the 

RFS2 requirements, is the appropriate mechanism to assure the availability of credits. [[Docket 

number 2383.1, p. 18]] [[See docket number 2383.1, pp. 18-19 for further discussion of this 

issue.]] 

Our Response: 

EPA has distinguished performance across various pathways for corn ethanol production, 

focusing on differences in processing technology and treatment of co-products. We have also 

adopted a petition process whereby additional technical innovations can be evaluated and 

recognized in our LCA assessments. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2508 

Organization: Environmental Working Group (EWG) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2508) finds that the basic structure for EPA’s assessment of the overall LCA as 

well as the assessment of ILUC is reasonable and workable. The commenter supports the 

general methodology that EPA has used for modeling the indirect land-use impacts. It is 

ecologically and legally necessary for EPA to include ILUC in this assessment and the 

commenter applauds EPA for doing so. (2508, pp.2-3) (See Docket Number 2508, p.3 for more 

discussion on this issue) 

Our Response:

EPA agrees with commenter that it is legally necessary for EPA to include international 

land use emissions in its assessments. 

7.2.2 Scope of the Analysis 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1001, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1005, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-1010, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1011, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1012, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1025, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1029, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-

1043, et al. 

Organization: Kurzman Clean Tech Research & Kurzman Capital, LLC, Cotner 

Consulting Services, CC Gas Systems, LLC, Atlantic BioFuels, Glenwood Farms, Law Offices 

of David Wilcox, C.I.B.,University of Georgia Engineering Outreach Service, et al. 

Comment:

The commenters noted that EPA’s GHG emissions methodology contains a major error 

regarding direct emission calculations for nitrogen. The 2006 Guidelines for National 

7-20
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

concludes that nitrogen fixed in soil by soybeans should not be considered a GHG emission. 

EPA, however, does not incorporate the IPCC’s updated nitrogen findings and thus attributes 

excess nitrogen emissions to soybean cultivation. The commenters noted that this error reduces 

the GHG score for soy biodiesel by more than 20 percent. (1043.1, p.3) 

Our Response:

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

The N2O emission factors used in the proposal overestimated N2O emissions from nitrogen 

fixing crops, because they were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting. As an 

update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed such that biological nitrogen fixation was removed 

as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of significant emissions arising from 

the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that the N2O emissions induced by the growth of 

legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function of the above-ground and belowground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This change effectively reduces the N2O 

emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 to 

2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for our final 

rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O emissions from 

soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for soybean 

biodiesel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2249.2) states that an analysis of international indirect land use change should 

not be used to regulate the U.S. biofuels industry. The commenter believes that the methodology 

for assessing indirect emissions from international indirect land use change is not ready to be 

used for purposes of regulating biofuels. In addition, the method used by EPA to estimate 

indirect land use is new and untested. There are currently no generally accepted economic or 

scientific methods for estimating indirect land use change. The commenter further states that 

utilizing various models and incorporating indirect emissions from land use changes, is not 

widely accepted for inclusion in a lifecycle analysis, and is not consistent with standards for such 

7-21
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

analysis. As such, and until a reasonable level of economic or scientific consensus is achieved, 

the commenter believes that the methodology should not be used to regulate biodiesel. [[Docket 

number 2249.2, p.51]] 

The commenter also states that if implemented as proposed by EPA, biodiesel produced from 

domestically produced vegetable oils are disqualified from the Biomass-based Diesel program, 

based on wholly unrelated land use decisions in South America, which will make it difficult to 

meet the volume goals established by statute, despite the abundance of biodiesel available. To 

realize the potential benefits of the RFS2, the commenter believes that it is imperative that the 

regulation be guided by sound economics and science; together with, a transparent analysis. 

[[Docket number 2249.2, p.51]] [[See docket number 2249.2, pp. 51-53 and docket number 

2232.1, Attachments 4, 5, and 6 for additional discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response:

EPA recognizes that it has had to break new scientific ground in developing a lifecycle 

methodology as required by EISA. This is why the Agency employed a collaborative, 

transparent and science-based approach. EPA took numerous measures to seek public comment 

on our approach—including extending the comment period for the proposed rule, holding a twoday public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, 

including the biodiesel community, through individual meetings, conferences and events. EPA 

also initiated an independent peer review of specific areas of our work. 

Further, EPA recognizes the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area. 

While the Agency is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, the Agency is also committing to further 

reassess these determinations. As part of this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of 

the National Academy of Sciences as well as other experts. EPA will request that the National 

Academy of Sciences over the next two years evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the 

underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in particular indirect land use change, and make 

recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on this subject. 

EPA has made the GHG threshold determinations based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. EPA has used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many 

modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers 

and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

the proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG 

emissions associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations. Based on the Agency’s 

analyses, EPA has determined that biodiesel and renewable diesel from soy oil or waste oils, fats 

and greases will exceed the 50% threshold for biomass-based diesel compared to the 2005 

petroleum diesel baseline. 

7-22
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

7.2.2.1 Legal Interpretation of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2463.2 

Organization: National Farmers Union 

Comment: 

The commenter (2463) states that the statute, as passed by Congress, does not mandate that EPA 

consider international land use change as part of its lifecycle analysis. Instead, the statute 

requires consideration of direct emissions and significant indirect emissions as determined by the 

Secretary. Given the lack of a Congressional mandate to include the impact of international land 

use impacts, the question turns on whether indirect land use change impacts can be proven to be 

a result of ethanol production stemming from the RFS2. NFU believes that EPA has failed to 

meet this threshold. 

Including international land use impacts is within the discretion of the administration. As such, 

EPA should be required to prove with a high level of certainty that domestic ethanol production 

is the cause of international indirect land use before it inhibits future domestic ethanol production 

and undermines Congressional intent in expanding renewable fuel usage in the United States. 

We do not believe that EPA has done so. (2463.2 Pg. 4). 

Our Response:

Overall, EPA is confident that it is appropriate to consider indirect emissions, including 

those from both domestic and international land use changes, as “related to” the full fuel 

lifecycle, based on the results of our modeling. These results form a reasonable technical basis 

for the linkage between the full fuel lifecycle of transportation fuels and indirect emissions, as 

well as for the determination that these emissions are significant. EPA believes that while 

uncertainty in the resulting aggregate GHG estimates should be taken into consideration, it 

would be inappropriate to exclude indirect emissions estimates from this analysis. The use of 

reasonable estimates of these kinds of indirect emissions allows EPA to conduct a reasoned 

evaluation of total GHG impacts, which is needed to promote the objectives of this provision, as 

compared to ignoring or not accounting for these indirect emissions. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2249.2) states that Congress places limits on what emission should be included 

in the lifecycle analysis adding that there is no evidence that Congress intended to address 

international indirect land use changes through the RFS program. Moreover, the limits Congress 

did place on EPA’s authority to assess such emission evidences an intent not to include such 

attenuated and speculative emissions. The commenter adds that the goal of the RFS was to assist 

7-23
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

this country’s efforts to move away from its dependence on foreign oil, so it would be 

nonsensical for Congress not to have anticipated direct emissions from foreign production and 

transportation of oil would be included in the analysis. [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 64-66]] 

The commenter also believes that Congress required that there be “significant” indirect 

emissions from “significant” land use changes. The uncertainty and lack of evidence make it 

speculative that any such changes occur as a result of U.S. biofuel production much less that 

such changes would rise to the level of significance as to be required to be included in the 

lifecycle analysis. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 66]] 

Our Response 

EPA believes that a complete analysis of the aggregate GHG emissions related to the full 

lifecycle of renewable fuels includes the significant indirect emissions from international land 

use change that are predicted to result from increased domestic use of agricultural feedstocks to 

produce renewable fuel. The statute specifically directs EPA to include in its analyses 

significant indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes. EPA has not 

ignored either the terms “significant” or “life cycle.” It is clear from EPA’s assessments that the 

modeled indirect emissions from land use changes are “significant” in terms of their relationship 

to total GHG emissions for given fuel pathways. Therefore, they are appropriately considered in 

the total GHG emissions profile for the fuels in question. EPA has not ignored the term “life 

cycle.” The entire approach used by EPA is directed to fully analyzing emissions related to the 

complete lifecycle of renewable and baseline fuels. 

Although the definition of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in Section 211(o) does not 

specifically mention international emissions, it would be inconsistent with the intent of this 

section of the amended Act to exclude them. The definition of lifecycle GHG emissions makes 

it clear that EPA is to determine the aggregate emissions related to the “full” fuel lifecycle, 

including “all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution.” Thus, EPA could not, as 

a legal matter, ignore those parts of a fuel lifecycle that occur overseas. 

Drawing a distinction between GHG emissions that occur inside the U.S. as compared to 

emissions that occur outside the U.S. would result in a lifecycle analysis that bears no apparent 

relationship to the purpose of this provision. The purpose of the thresholds in EISA is to require 

the use of renewable fuels that achieve reductions in GHG emissions compared to the baseline. 

Ignoring international emissions, a large part of the GHG emission associated with the different 

fuels, would result in a GHG analysis that bears no relationship to the real world emissions 

impact of transportation fuels. The baseline would be significantly understated, given the large 

amount of imported crude and imported finished gasoline and diesel used in 2005. Likewise, the 

emissions estimates for imported renewable fuel would be grossly reduced in comparison to the 

aggregate emissions estimates for fuels made domestically with domestically-grown feedstocks, 

simply because the impacts of domestically produced fuels occurred within the U.S. EPA does 

not believe that Congress intended such a result. 

Excluding international impacts means large percentages of GHG emissions would be 

ignored. This would take place in a context where the global warming impact of emissions is 

7-24
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

irrespective of where the emissions occur. If the purpose of thresholds is to achieve some 

reduction in GHG emissions in order to help address climate change, then ignoring emissions 

outside our borders interferes with the ability to achieve this objective. Such an approach would 

essentially undermine the purpose of the provision, and would be an arbitrary interpretation of 

the broadly phrased text used by Congress. 

Further, EPA does not agree that including international indirect emissions in EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis exercises regulatory authority over activities that occur solely outside the U.S., 

nor does it raise questions of extra-territorial jurisdiction. EPA’s regulatory action involves an 

assessment of products either produced in the U.S. or imported into the U.S. EPA is simply 

assessing whether the use of these products in the U.S. satisfies requirements under EISA for the 

use of designated volumes of renewable fuel, cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and 

advanced biofuel. Considering international emissions in determining the lifecycle GHG 

emissions of the domestically-produced or imported fuel does not change the fact that the actual 

regulation of the product involves its use solely inside the U.S. 

Lastly, as to the comment that matters that could appropriately be considered part of a 

food lifecycle (new land clearing for overseas grain production as a result of decreased U.S. 

grain exports) should not be considered part of a renewable fuel lifecycle. However, the 

suggested approach would mean that EPA would fail to account for the significant indirect 

emissions that relate to renewable fuel production. EPA believes this would be counter to 

Congressional intent. Although a life cycle analysis of foreign food production may also take 

into account a given land use change, this does not mean that the same land use change should 

not be considered in evaluating its ultimate cause, which may be renewable fuel production in 

the United States. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2383) believes that EPA’s regulations for conventional biofuels from new 

facilities cannot properly attribute “significant indirect” greenhouse gas lifecycle emissions 

impacts to compliance with the proposed standards without first developing scientifically 

credible methods of analyzing such indirect effects. The commenter makes two points. First, it 

must be recognized that the only indirect emissions impacts that EPA needs to address in the 

RFS2 rulemaking are those that the statute requires it to address. Second, EPA must recognize 

that the statute certainly gives it the authority to engage in “bifurcated” rulemaking, meaning, in 

this context, the publication of a Final Rule addressing all issues other than the indirect emissions 

assessment for biofuels that are subject to LCA requirements. [[Docket number 2383.1, pp. 19 

and 20]] [[See docket number 2383.1, pp. 19-20 for extensive discussion of these points.]] 

The commenter states that “Indirect” emissions, as the term is defined by EPA, involve a far 

more complex analytical framework. While the NPRM at one juncture makes the claim that 

“indirect land use change linkages are generally close, and not extended or overly complex,” that 

7-25
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

is not the position of EPA’s peer reviewers nor, in fact, of the authors of several of the key 

predictive econometric models deployed by EPA in the rulemaking process. [[Docket number 

2383.1, p. 22]] [[See docket number 2383.1, pp. 22-23 and docket number 2379.1, the 

declaration of Bruce E. Dale.]] 

The commenter believes that least four threshold issues involving indirect effects need to be 

considered. The first is what type of causal link must exist between (i) compliance with the 

RFS2 using fuels subject to the 20 percent GHG reduction target, and (ii) land use change 

domestically or overseas. The second is whether the statute directs or permits EPA to treat 

international land use change differently from land use change in the United States. The third is 

whether it is appropriate, or permitted by the statute, to “discount” GHG emissions reductions 

and increases based on when the GHG reductions or increases occur. The fourth (which is a 

product mainly of the peer review process and the economic literature) is whether GHG 

emissions are to be considered and valued based on anything other than their mass and relative 

global warming potential. [[Docket number 2383.1, pp. 22-23]] [[See docket number 2383.1, pp. 

22-34 for a detailed discussion of each of the four issues.]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2372 

Organization: Illinois Corn Growers Association, Iowa Corn Growers Association, 

Minnesota Corn Growers Association, Missouri Corn Growers Association, and Illinois 

Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment: 

The commenters requested that EPA bifurcate the rulemaking docket into two separate dockets: 

keep the existing docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161) as Docket A to establish GHG footprints 

for each category of renewable fuel and petroleum without consideration of ILUC; and open a 

new Docket B to develop verifiable and consistent international data and a reliable model for 

ILUC, and establish a timetable for any necessary studies and subsequent rulemaking action. 

The commenters stated that, based on the record created, there are no currently available means 

for accurately determining the nature and quantity of ILUC or its GHG emissions, or for relating 

ILUC and its emissions to U.S. biofuel production. Bifurcation of the rulemaking creates an 

avenue by which EPA can revisit the ILUC impacts of biofuels as accurate and consistent data 

and models become available. The commenters stated that they believe the crux of the ILUC 

problem (as summarized by the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities in a letter to 

Congressmen Peterson and Lucas): “...the scientific data aren’t currently available on a global 

basis to be able to accurately determine the extent to which biofuel production causes land use 

changes in remote locations or the greenhouse gas emission that might exist.” 

The commenters suggested that EPA move forward with its rulemaking duty, but should not 

include assumed, inaccurate ILUC emissions in the GHG emission footprints. The commenters 

further stated that, given the highly level of error forecasted by EPA, indicated by various 

comments submitted on the rule, doing something is not better than doing nothing (and it is not a 

better alternative than creating a separate docket to develop a sound scientific basis for 

determining ILUC impacts). The commenters thus believe that bifurcation is the best option in 

this case because it will: 1) allow the RFS2 program to proceed as quickly as possible to achieve 

EISA’s goals; 2) avoid applying an arbitrary penalty to U.S. biofuels; 3) allow the record on 

7-26
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

ILUC GHG emissions to continue to be developed on a separate track as data and new models 

become available; and 4) reduce the likelihood that the RFS2 standards will be appealed, stayed, 

and vacated. 

The commenters stated that they believe the ILUC component of the NPRM will not survive the 

Clean Air Act’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review. Additionally, the commenters 

noted that bifurcation provides an avenue for completing the rulemaking consistent with 

statutory directives and with the evidence in the record, while also recognizing the need for 

additional study of the ILUC component on a separate tract, as consistent with the approach 

adopted in the Peterson Amendment to HR 2454 and the EU’s conclusion that additional study 

of ILUC is necessary. The commenters further stated that bifurcation is consistent with EPA 

precedent, as EPA has previously bifurcated rulemaking proceedings and/or deferred 

consideration of elements of a rule when it determines that a portion of the rule is not supported 

by scientific or other factual information in the record. 

The commenters stated that they also believe bifurcation is necessary because the key models 

used to forecast the emissions, FASOM and FAPRI, are not publicly available and their 

assumptions and inputs have not been available for public review, and thus cannot be finalized in 

the existing docket. The commenters also stated that additional currently available information 

will not remedy the deficiencies in the ILUC data and models—they believe the additional 

studies commissioned by EPA may improve the data, but will not change the fact that basic 

information on international land use is not available and the inputs on modeling are not 

consistent for domestic and international land use. 

Our Response: 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. EPA has used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many 

modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers 

and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations described above. 

The advice and information received through EPA’s peer review are reflected throughout 

the final rule. The reviewers also provided recommendations that have helped to inform the 

larger methodological decisions presented in the final rule. For example, the reviewers in 

general supported the importance of assessing indirect land use change and determined that EPA 

used the best available tools and approaches for this work. However, the review also recognized 

that no existing model comprehensively simulates the direct and indirect effects of biofuel 

production both domestically and internationally, and therefore model development is still 

evolving. The uncertainty associated with estimating indirect impacts and the difficulty in 

developing precise results also were reflected in the comments. The results of the peer review, 

7-27
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

and the feedback we have received from the comment process, supported the value of conducting 

an uncertainty analysis to help quantify the magnitude of this uncertainty and its relative impact 

on resulting lifecycle emission estimates. Therefore, working closely with other government 

agencies as well as incorporating feedback from experts who commented on the rule, we have 

quantified the uncertainty associated specifically with the international indirect land use change 

emissions associated with increased biofuel production. 

EPA recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area, 

the lifecycle GHG assessments for a variety of fuel pathways will continue to change. 

Therefore, while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also 

committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this 

ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as 

other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new 

assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this 

final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. This new assessment could result in new determinations of threshold compliance 

compared to those included in this rule that would apply to future production (from plants that 

are constructed after each subsequent rule). 

EPA believes the final methodology addresses each of the threshold issues identified by 

the commenters. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2519 

Organization: Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade 

Comment: 

The commenter (2519) believes that given the current state of biofuels trade between Canada and 

the U.S., the Government of Canada would like to emphasize the need for regulatory alignment 

on the lifecycle issue given that some of the aspects of the proposed EPA GHG assessment could 

create a technical trade barrier for future Canadian biofuels exported to the U.S. [[Docket 

number 2519.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response: 

The regulations finalized for RFS2 determine GHG threshold compliance on the basis of 

fuel pathways, irrespective of the country where the feedstock or the fuel was produced. 

EPA establishes in the final rulemaking a petition process whereby a party can petition 

the Agency to consider new pathways for GHG reduction threshold compliance. We welcome 

parties, both domestic and foreign, to utilize the petition process described below to request EPA 

7-28
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

to examine additional pathways. EPA will process these petitions as expeditiously as possible. 

A full description of the petition process can be located in the Preamble Section V.C. 

 Regarding regulatory alignment, EPA technical staff has had informal technical 

exchanges with their counterparts in Canada on lifecycle emissions assessment of transportation 

fuels and expect to continue those technical exchanges. 

7.2.2.2 System Boundaries 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) noted that EPA’s analysis does not comply with ISO standards on 

lifecycle analysis. The commenter also noted that EPA provided no explanation of how its 

methodology attempts to comport with the ISO Standard. (2329.1, p.31) 

EPA’s claim that its analysis of international land use changes complies with the ISO 

standards is wrong, and it is absolutely clear that substantially more work is needed to obtain 

better data and to understand the numerous factors that affect land use decisions and their 

interaction. These factors are: 

-The analysis fails to use consistent system boundaries in conducting its comparisons between 

renewable fuels and the baseline petroleum. 

-The analysis suffers from a lack of reliable and updated data, and it cannot be validated. 

-The analysis is not transparent and cannot be reproduced. 

-The analysis fails to provide sufficient explanation of the uncertainties involved in evaluating 

international indirect land use changes. (2329.1, pp.31-33) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp.31-

33 for a more detailed discussion of this issue]] 

Our Response 

EPA has used International Standards Organization (ISO) guidance on lifecycle analysis 

in developing its lifecycle analysis. We have drawn upon a suite of the most recent and 

advanced and peer-reviewed models, studies, and data to develop a methodology that 

appropriately incorporates indirect land use change into renewable fuels lifecycle analyses. As 

mandated in EISA, lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuels was compared to the lifecycle GHG 

emissions of a 2005 gasoline or diesel baseline. For both the biofuels and petroleum GHG 

lifecycle analysis, EPA has developed clear and consistent system boundaries (both physical and 

temporal) which are explicitly laid out in the Final Rulemaking. Further, we assessed 

uncertainty in final analysis. EPA provides a complete description of the lifecycle analysis 

methodology and provides the data used in the analysis in the Final Rule Preamble, Regulatory 

Impact Assessment, and the Docket. 

7-29
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

EPA conducted a formal, external, independent peer review for the novel pieces 

developed for this lifecycle analysis following EPA and OMB guidance for third party, peer 

reviews. The names of the reviewers, charge questions, the original comments received from the 

reviewers as well as contractor summaries of the comments were made publically available in 

the docket. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1052 

Organization: Pennsylvania Energy Resources Group (ERG) 

Comment:

The commenter (1052) believes that EPA’s analysis compares estimated, future direct AND 

INDIRECT GHG emissions for biodiesel to only direct emissions for petroleum is a violation of 

sound science. Comparative analysis must contain the same comparative criteria, and should not 

be an “apples to oranges” comparison. Congress recognized this and from our discussions with 

members, it is clearly the intent to compare alternative fuels with fossil fuels on an even playing 

field. Such comparison is a specific requirement of the International Standards Organization 

(ISO) 14040 standard for lifecycle analysis. [[Docket number 1052.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response:

The reason the threshold assessment in the proposed rule and the final rule did not 

include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the definition of “baseline 

lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. The definitions of the 

different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold analysis be compared to 

baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to be 

only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow for 

a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

7-30
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment:

The commenters (2129.1) believe that it is inappropriate for EPA to set the starting point it uses 

for the period of the analysis of GHG emissions from biofuels in 2022 given that the GHGs are 

emitted in the present as the feedstock and fuel is produced and combusted. The commenters ask 

that EPA shift the baseline year for analysis from 2022 to a year that better reflects the average 

performance of the RFS, such as 2012, with a commitment to update the analysis regularly to 

7-31
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

reflect documented changes in technologies and practices as well as better information on trends 

in land-use and associated emissions. (2129.1, p.6) 

The commenters are supportive of including all direct emissions and indirect emissions that are 

shown to be significant in the baseline for gasoline and diesel fuel. (2129.1, p.6) 

Our Response: 

We continue to focus our final rule analyses on 2022 results for two main reasons. First, 

it would require an extremely complex assessment and administratively difficult implementation 

program to track how biofuel production might continuously change from month to month or 

year to year. Instead, it seems appropriate that each biofuel be assessed a level of GHG 

performance that is constant over the implementation of this rule, allowing fuel providers to 

anticipate how these GHG performance assessments should affect their production plans. 

Second, it is appropriate to focus on 2022, the final year of ramp up in the required volumes of 

renewable fuel as this year. Assessment in this year allows the complete fuel volumes specified 

in EISA to be incorporated. This also allows for the complete implementation of technology 

changes and updates that were made to improve or modeling efforts. For example, the inclusion 

of price induced yield increases and the efficiency gains of DGs replacement are phased in over 

time. Furthermore, these changes are in part driven by the changes in earlier years of increased 

biofuel use. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2168 

Organization: First United Ethanol, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2168) noted that EPA’s suggested process of measuring the lifecycle is based 

on flawed and outdated data that is often politically skewed. The chosen scientific methods must 

be based on current, accurate information that has undergone unbiased peer review. If a process 

is without precedent, it most often is not without error. (2168, p.2) 

Our Response:

EPA has drawn upon a suite of the most recent and advanced and peer-reviewed models, 

studies, and data to develop a methodology that appropriately incorporates indirect land use 

change into renewable fuels lifecycle analyses. Further, EPA conducted a formal peer review of 

new pieces included in the lifecycle analysis. In accordance with OMB and EPA peer review 

guidance, EPA used independent, third-party contractors to conduct this external peer review by 

experts in relevant fields. The names of the reviewers, charge questions, the original comments 

received from the reviewers as well as contractor summaries of the comments were made 

publically available in the docket. 

What Commenters Said:

7-32
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2249.2) states that Congress did not specify the level of “science” required, but 

EPA guidance and international standards require that any lifecycle analysis be based on sound 

scientific principles and at this point, it is undisputed that an analysis of indirect land use changes 

cannot meet these principles. The commenter refers to Federal government and ISO guidance, as 

well as other information [[See docket number 2232.1, Attachments 8, 9, 11, and 12]] to support 

their position. [[docket number 2249.2, p. 54]] 

The commenter adds that it is simply insufficient to claim that indirect land use changes should 

be included in the lifecycle methodology simply because there are some models available. EPA 

must also provide sufficient support to indicate the models are reasonable to be used in this case. 

The lack of scientific and economic validity of the models used for purposes on which to base a 

regulatory rule is undisputed, which renders the entire methodology as wholly unreasonable and 

unreliable. [[docket number 2249.2, p. 61]] 

 [[See docket number 2249.2, pp. 54-61 for a comprehensive discussion of this issue. Also see 

docket number 2232.1, Attachments 8, 9, and 10]] 

Our Response:

EPA has used International Standards Organization (ISO) guidance on lifecycle analysis 

in developing its lifecycle analysis. We have drawn upon a suite of the most recent and 

advanced and peer-reviewed models, studies, and data to develop a methodology for lifecycle 

analyses of renewable fuel greenhouse gas emissions. As mandated in EISA, lifecycle GHG 

emissions of biofuels was compared to the lifecycle GHG emissions of a 2005 gasoline or diesel 

baseline. For both the biofuels and petroleum GHG lifecycle analysis, EPA has developed clear 

and consistent system boundaries (both physical and temporal) which are explicitly laid out in 

the Final Rulemaking. Further, we assessed uncertainty in the final analysis. EPA provides a 

complete description of the lifecycle analysis methodology and provides the data used in the 

analysis in the Final Rule Preamble, Regulatory Impact Assessment, and the Docket. 

EPA has followed EPA and federal regulatory procedures. In addition, EPA has 

extensively coordinated the development of our methodology and selection of inputs and models 

with outside experts and across the federal government. After EISA’s enactment in December 

2007, we met frequently with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy to share our analytical 

plan, request feedback on our key assumptions, and provide preliminary results as they became 

available. In many cases, we adopted the models, inputs, and assumptions suggested by these 

Departments. 

EPA also conducted a formal, external, independent peer review for the novel pieces 

developed for this lifecycle analysis following EPA and OMB guidance for third party, peer 

reviews. The names of the reviewers, charge questions, the original comments received from the 

7-33
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

reviewers as well as contractor summaries of the comments were made publically available in 

the docket. 

EPA recognizes that it has had to break new scientific ground in developing a lifecycle 

methodology as required by EISA. This is why the Agency employed a collaborative, 

transparent and science-based approach. EPA took numerous measures to seek public comment 

on our approach—including extending the comment period for the proposed rule, holding a twoday public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, 

including the biodiesel community, through individual meetings, conferences and events. As 

noted by the commenter, EPA also initiated an independent peer review of specific areas of our 

work. The information we received through this process has led to the approach in this final rule 

which bases the GHG threshold compliance determinations on the weight of evidence currently 

available and quantifies the uncertainty about critical variables. 

Further, EPA recognizes the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area. 

While the Agency is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, the Agency is also committing to further 

reassess these determinations. As part of this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of 

the National Academy of Sciences as well as other experts. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2367 

Organization: New Fuels Alliance (NFA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2367) believes that EPA’s carbon accounting methodologies should adhere to 

the fundamental principles of a fair and balanced LCA, starting with common LCA System 

boundaries. [[Docket number 2367.1, p. 2]] 

The commenter is concerned that the proposed RFS2 program would debit biofuels for direct and 

indirect carbon emissions, but would only debit petroleum for direct carbon emissions. The 

commenter believes this approach would establish an unbalanced carbon accounting metric that 

would distort the environmental benefits associated with producing and using biofuel. In 

addition, this approach is clearly to the benefit of petroleum, as the fuel being penalized for 

fewer general categories of carbon emissions, which runs counter to the overarching policy goals 

of EISA07 to reduce our dependence on petroleum fuel. [[Docket number 2367.1, p. 4]] 

[[See docket number 2367.1, pp. 2-10 for a detailed discussion of this issue.]] 

The commenter also believes that EPA should credit biofuels with an indirect “Avoidance 

Credit” for mitigating petroleum indirect effects [[Docket number 2367.1, p. 27]] [[See docket 

number 2367.1, pp. 27-29 for discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response:

7-34
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

7-35
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2425 

Organization: PetroAlgae 

Comment: 

The commenter (2425) urges EPA to be more clear about the indirect emissions that need to be 

included in a LCA. The statement that the aggregate quantity of GHG emissions includes direct 

emissions and significant indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes 

can be very misleading. How does a company determine what is significant? Without clarity, 

there will be gaming in the system. The commenter recommends a clear list of both direct and 

indirect sources simply be supplied by EPA. [[Docket number 2425.1, p. 6]] 

Our Response:

In the preamble, RIA, and other supporting documentation, EPA has detailed what is 

included in its LCA assessments including the boundary conditions for the assessment and 

impacts on land use. We note, however, that individual companies need not calculate their own 

LCA as EPA does this as part of its GHG threshold compliance assessment. We do not believe 

our methodology promotes “gaming of the system.” However, we also note that the 

methodology and data inputs will be reviewed and updated as appropriate by EPA with updates 

reflected in subsequent rulemakings. 

7.2.3 Modeling Framework 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2339 

Organization: Illinois Com Growers Association (IGCA) 

Comment: 

The commenter states that EPA has used a single well-known model, GREET, to determine the 

lifecycle emissions for gasoline and diesel as well as the direct GHG emissions for renewable 

fuels. In contrast, for indirect emissions from renewable fuels, EPA has pieced together the 

output of a number of different models which were developed for entirely different purposes. 

While the GREET Model is up-to-date, the ICGA is concerned that the models used to calculate 

7-36
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

indirect emissions may contain out-of-date information on matters such as state-of -the-art 

ethanol technology and processes, increased crop yields, and other new and evolving agricultural 

practices. Further, ICGA is concerned that the assumptions, confidence levels, and inputs for the 

models vary in general. [[#2339 p.3]] 

Our Response: 

EPA disagrees with the comment that the GREET model inputs are more up to date than 

the inputs used in our rulemaking analysis. Rather, our analysis takes into account various 

expectations for increases in technology throughout the renewable fuel manufacturing process, 

both in the field and in the plants. Accordingly, EPA’s analysis of the agriculture sector includes 

crop yield projections that increase over time which are consistent with USDA’s projections. 

EPA also takes into account current and future projected energy and technology improvements at 

biofuel production facilities. The lifecycle GHG results for the different biofuels are based on 

2022 values which accounts for the agricultural and process technology improvements. 

Furthermore, EPA does not use the GREET model for the direct impacts of biofuel production, 

accounting for biofuel lifecycle GHG emissions are done with the use of agricultural sector 

models. 

While the GREET model has been used extensively in the past to determine lifecycle 

GHG emissions from transportation fuels, it was not sufficient for the lifecycle modeling 

required for this rulemaking. The EISA mandate specifically required the assessment of indirect 

impacts of biofuel production, the GREET model does not include indirect impacts and therefore 

could not be solely used for this rulemaking analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2320.1 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2415.1 

Organization: Informa for Growth Energy 

Organization: Informa for Renewable Fuels Association, Illinois Corn Marketing Board 

and National Corn Growers Association 

Comment:

There remained a significant difference in U.S. commodity price impacts of RFS2 despite 

attempts to harmonize U.S. export volumes of major commodities between FASOM and FAPRI 

models. The commenter asserts that this differential likely has a significant impact on land use 

change in other countries (2320.1, p1,11-12) 

Informa suggests allowing ethanol yields per bushel to continue to increase instead of being 

static as assumed in FASOM. (2320.1, p3,13) 

EPA crop yields are too low, Informa projects exceeding 200 bushels per acres for corn in 2022 

and almost 52 bushels per acres of soybean yields by 2022. (2320.1,p32/33) (2415.1,p14/15) 

Our Response: 

7-37
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Although the FASOM and FAPRI models serve a largely similar purpose in the RFS2 

analysis, which is to model the economic impacts of the rule on the agriculture sector, they are 

fundamentally two different models. FASOM is a long-term model that analyzes the U.S. 

agriculture sector in five year time steps, where as FAPRI analyzes the global agriculture sector 

in annual time steps, taking world trade, consumption and production interactions into account. 

The differences in commodity price changes between the two models, as noted by the 

commenter, are primarily due to the fact that the FAPRI model allows for increased renewable 

fuel production in other countries, thereby muting price impacts worldwide and in the U.S. 

While the EPA analysis for the proposed rulemaking has specifically attempted to harmonize as 

many assumptions between the two models as possible (e.g., corn and soybean yields based on 

USDA projections), a number of additional assumptions have been coordinated between both 

models for the final rulemaking analysis. These include modeling the same levels of renewable 

fuels expected to fulfill the RFS2 requirements by 2022 (e.g., corn ethanol, soy oil biodiesel, 

corn oil biodiesel, etc.), distillers grains replacement rates of corn and soybean meal in animal 

feed (based on research by Argonne National Laboratory), and others. With this additional 

coordination, combined with a number of improvements to the models (e.g., the addition of the 

forestry sector in the FASOM model, and the addition of the regional Brazil Module in the 

FAPRI model) EPA believes that its analysis of the global agriculture sector is more consistent, 

refined, and detailed as a result. For details on the improvements to the FASOM and FAPRI 

models, as well as the assumptions used in each model, please refer to Chapter 5 of the RIA. 

The corn ethanol conversion yields (2.71 gallons/bushel for dry mill ethanol and 2.5 

gallons/bushel) used in our agricultural sector modeling represent the average yields for all 

ethanol mills in production. These yields reflect the lower yields achieved by older existing 

plants, as well as higher yields expected in future plants. The average ethanol yield used in our 

modeling is higher than the current industry average, therefore it implicitly reflects anticipated 

increases in efficiency in the future. As a point of clarification, the ethanol yields cited in the 

Informa report appear to be for 5% denatured corn ethanol, which must be converted to pure 

ethanol for an equivalent comparison. 

Our crop yield projections are based on USDA’s most recent forecasts through 2018, and 

then extrapolated out through 2022. We believe these projections represent a feasible future 

scenario. However, we have also included a sensitivity analysis that increases corn and soybean 

yields by approximately 25% by 2022. The results of this analysis are included in the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2320.1 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2415.1 

Organization: Informa for Growth Energy 

Organization: Informa for Renewable Fuels Association, Illinois Corn Marketing Board 

and National Corn Growers Association 

Comment:

7-38
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

FASOM used an unrealistically low level of soybean oil as feedstock in its reference case. 

(2320.1, p2,18,34) (2415.1, p16) 

Our Response: 

Based on comments we have received, for the final rulemaking, we have revised our 

reference case to include higher volumes of soybean oil as a biodiesel feedstock. However, since 

our analysis normalizes the greenhouse gas emissions impacts on a per BTU basis, the effect of 

using different volumes in our calculations is minimized. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2320.1 

Organization: Informa for Growth Energy 

Comment:

Informa was unable to run the FAPRI models independently as only staff members at Iowa State 

University can operate and solve the model. (2320.1, p1) 

The time period in estimating key coefficients within equations in FAPRI could not be 

determined. There appears to be no peer review of the adjustments made to these coefficients 

outside of CARD. (2320.1, p19) 

Informa conducted a “backcast” with the FASOM model and found that historical and current 

export estimates from FASOM did not match or come close to actual historical exports. The 

soybean oil and meal exports simulated by FASOM for the 2000-2004 period are more than 

double the actual levels occurred. This is important because soybean oil is used in biodiesel. 

(2320.1, p1,9-11) 

Our Response: 

The FASOM and FAPRI models were used for the economic agricultural analysis. EPA 

has provided in the docket a number of materials explaining how the models work and how they 

produced the results in the proposal as well as the results provides in the final rule, including: the 

release of data from these models that are used in the analysis; detailed documentation in the 

form of the preamble, RIA, and technical reports; and making the models themselves available to 

the extent possible. This, in combination with EPA’s outreach to stakeholders throughout the 

analytical process, hosting a public forum on the lifecycle analysis methodology, and the 

publication of a peer review of the methodology used, EPA believes that the information 

provided in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is consistent with Agency and OMB 

guidelines on information quality and provides a comprehensive source of information allowing 

robust opportunity for public comment. See the related response to Document Number EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 for additional information on this topic. 

7-39
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

EPA recognizes that the FAPRI model can not be run by others without obtaining the 

services of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) staff at Iowa State 

University. While this makes it harder for commenters to have the model run for themselves, 

that does not mean they have not been provided adequate information and opportunity to 

comment on EPA’s proposal. There are other rulemaking situations where EPA relies on 

information in a proposal that is not automatically replicable by commenters, and this does not 

mean EPA may not rely on it or that commenters are not provided an adequate opportunity to 

comment. For example, in some rulemakings EPA relies on peer reviewed studies of health 

effects associated with air pollution, and commenters may or may not have access to the 

underlying data in the study, hence may not be able to replicate the study themselves. However 

that does not mean EPA may not rely on relevant and credible studies, or that EPA has not 

provided an adequate opportunity to comment on the basis for EPA’s proposal, including 

comment on the pros and cons of that study or other studies or modeling that also shed light on 

the same issue. In this case, EPA provided a comprehensive variety of information that explains 

in detail the analysis and modeling underlying the proposal and final rule. Commenters have 

commented on many of these elements of EPA’s work, and have in some cases referred EPA to 

other relevant modeling results or studies. EPA has provided all of the information it could 

about the basis for its modeling, and commenters have had a full opportunity to comment on it. 

Any inability to have the FAPRI model run for the commenter themselves, whether to replicate 

EPA’s results or run variations on them, does not preclude comemnters from providing comment 

on the results of that modeling and all of the underlying information provided by EPA related to 

it, and to obtain other information they deem relevant to support their comments. 

The FAPRI model as used for the NPRM analysis was made available on the docket in a 

“solved” model state for one of the volume scenarios analyzed. This allows the public to view 

all of the elements of the model, and includes all formulas, assumptions, and elasticities used. 

These factors apply to all volume scenarios run through the FAPRI model. EPA will also 

provide the updated version of the model in a “solved” state on the docket for the final 

rulemaking analysis. In addition, all data used for the lifecycle analysis is available on the 

docket. This includes data for all sensitivity analysis (e.g., “high yield” scenarios). Also, a 

technical report authored by those who “run” the models, CARD staff at Iowa State University, 

is available on the docket, and provides details on assumptions used, how the model functions, 

and results from the model. 

EPA disagrees that the FAPRI model is not reviewed outside of staff at CARD at Iowa 

State University. In regards to a review of the FAPRI model, FAPRI (which consists of both the 

Center for National Food and Agriculture Policy at the University of Missouri-Columbia, and 

CARD at Iowa State University) conducts an annual baseline review and publishes their baseline 

projections for the U.S. agricultural sector and international commodity markets. These 

published baseline projections are known as FAPRI Outlooks. These baseline projections are 

extensively reviewed by several groups prior to publication, including USDA, various 

international organizations, other academic institutions, and other industry experts. Comments 

and recommendations from these groups are taken into account for the final baseline projection 

published in the FAPRI Outlook each year. EPA’s analysis of the global agriculture sector is 

based on the latest FAPRI baseline available, taking into account assumptions used in the EPA 

analysis, as well as the adding to the model’s capabilities where appropriate, such as the addition 

7-40
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

of the regional Brazil Module. All adjustments made to the FAPRI model for EPA’s analysis is 

thoroughly documented in the RIA and items in the docket mentioned above. Additional 

information on the review of the FAPRI model, baseline projection review, and publications of 

the FAPRI Outlook can be found on FAPRI’s website. 

It should also be noted that the results of these models will not exactly reflect historical 

observations when “backcasting” is conducted. To analyze each renewable fuel feedstock, EPA 

analyzes the effect of an increase in demand for each particular renewable fuel, holding all other 

factors constant. Through this method, all changes that occur in the model are attributable to this 

change in demand. However, this evaluation will not reflect historical data patterns, as there are 

several varying factors occurring simultaneously in history. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2320.1 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2415.1 

Organization: Informa for Growth Energy 

Organization: Informa for Renewable Fuels Association, Illinois Corn Marketing Board 

and National Corn Growers Association 

Comment:

Both FASOM and FAPRI use oversimplified assumptions regarding the amounts of corn and 

soybean meal displaced by DGs. Informa considers the update of Dr. Jerry Shurson in March of 

2009 of the Argonne report to be the best available for determining corn and soybean meal 

displacement, which calls for 0.895 and 0.334 for corn and soybean meal displacement ratios, 

respectively. (2415.1,p10 Appendix H) The FASOM and FAPRI models should assume that one 

pound of distillers grains displaces 1.23 lbs of corn and soybean meal combined. (2320.1, p2) 

The FASOM model understates distillers grains production. There appears to be a discrepancy in 

the model to cause a shortfall in number of tons produced. Also, FASOM’s distillers grain yield 

is lower than that used by USDA. (2320.1, p15) 

Our Response: 

For the final rulemaking analysis, distillers grains replacement rates of corn and soybean 

meal in animal feed have been updated based on the latest research by Argonne National 

Laboratory in both the FASOM and FAPRI models. These replacement rates are higher and 

more efficient than those used in the proposal’s analysis. It should be noted that replacement 

rates vary by animal in the Argonne report, and have been implemented as such in EPA’s 

analysis. This method provides a more accurate analysis than the replacement rates for corn and 

soybean meal suggested by the commenter, which are weighted averages across different animal 

types. Details on these assumptions can be found in the RIA and the technical reports for each 

respective model. EPA believes that this is an important part of the agriculture sector analysis, 

and will continue to monitor the scientific progress made on this topic. As updated scientific 

data becomes available in, EPA will update its assumptions accordingly in future analyses. 

7-41
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Between the analysis for the proposal and the final rulemaking, we also recognized the 

discrepancy in the amount of distillers grains produced. We have updated the FASOM model to 

reflect the appropriate amount of distiller grains production. 

 What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2320.1 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2415.1 

Organization: Informa for Growth Energy 

Organization: Informa for Renewable Fuels Association, Illinois Corn Marketing Board 

and National Corn Growers Association 

Comment:

Informa believes that corn-based ethanol production will reach 17 billion gallons in a reference 

case by 2022 due to continued corn yield improvements and global economic growth will 

support high energy prices so that corn-based ethanol volumes are over the RFS2 level to be 

produced. (2415.1,p7 Appendix H) 

Informa suggests using AEO 2008 early release version rather than AEO2007 as the basis for 

reference case volumes. Land use change is likely overstated during the 2012 and 2017 periods 

due to differences between the two AEO cases. (2320.1, p3,13) 

Our Response: 

Even if corn ethanol volumes in the reference case would have been higher using either 

the AEO 2008 early release volumes or Informa’s projections, we disagree that our analysis 

overstates land use change impacts. The threshold analysis mandated by EISA requires EPA to 

determine the impacts of the different biofuels production which requires us to consider two 

scenarios with differing volumes of biofuels. So regardless of what volume might or might not 

actually be produced, our threshold analysis would still be based on two different volume 

scenarios and production of any amount of biofuels would still have an impact. Furthermore, 

since our analysis normalizes the greenhouse gas emissions impacts on a per BTU basis, the 

effect of using different volumes in our calculations is minimized. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2463.2 

Organization: National Farmers Union 

Comment: 

The commenter (2463) states that there is little certainty that international land use changes will 

occur, and if so, that they are the result of U.S. corn ethanol production. The significant lack of 

transparency and inability of stakeholders to replicate EPA’s results severely undermines the 

confidence in the proposed rule’s findings. (2463.2 Pg. 4). 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

7-42
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (0952.1) noted that even though EPA indicated it is being transparent with 

respect to its lifecycle analysis, the information that has been provided is wholly insufficient. 

Based on the information currently provided in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Regulatory 

Impact Analysis, and supporting and related materials posted to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161 as of May 29, 2009, third parties are unable to replicate the results of EPA’s biofuels 

lifecycle modeling for proposed changes to the RFS program. While certain inputs, outputs, and 

documentation for independent models are made available on the docket, stakeholders are unable 

to assemble these disparate components in a way that would reasonably allow replication of the 

EPA modeling process. (0952.1, p.2) 

The commenter noted that it is important that stakeholders have the ability to replicate EPA’s 

results for several reasons: 1.) To allow stakeholders to understand the structure of the modeling 

framework and the impact of certain parameters on the modeling outcomes; 2.) To validate the 

accuracy and precision of EPA’s analysis; 3.) To allow stakeholders to perform independent 

analyses using alternative assumptions and inputs. (0952.1, p.2) 

The commenter believes that the inaccessibility of these models and the lack of clear, detailed 

documentation on how the various models and data sets were integrated appears to violate EPA’s 

guidance regarding transparency. (0952.1, p.2) 

The commenter requested the following items: 

1. EPA should provide public access to the FAPRI system of models as configured for the 

RFS analysis. This should include all assumptions, inputs, price and demand elasticities 

used, outputs for all scenarios and sensitivity cases, and other pertinent information. 

2. EPA should provide public access to the FASOM model as configured for the RFS 

analysis. This should include all assumptions, inputs, price and demand elasticities used, 

outputs for all scenarios and sensitivity cases, and other pertinent information. 

3. EPA should provide the version of the GREET model it used for the RFS analysis along 

with all assumptions and inputs that differ from GREET defaults. Further, the ASPENbased model used by EPA should be made available with documentation describing how 

the model was used to generate 2022-era performance assessments. 

4. EPA should provide detailed documentation describing exactly how all of the various 

models used (FAPRI, FASOM, GREET, ASPEN, etc.) were integrated and what 

adjustments were made to each to enable amalgamation. For example, there is no 

documentation available on how the emissions data provided by Winrock Corp. Was 

applied to the FAPRI model results. A thorough description of how all of the inputs and 

outputs from each model were reconciled and harmonized is absolutely essential. 

(0952.1, pp.2-3) 

 

On August 4, the commenter submitted comments expressing their concerns that there is still 

insufficient information for the public to adequately comment on the proposal and, therefore, 

meaningfully participate in the rulemaking process. Of particular concern, and the focus of this 

letter, is the inability of the public to replicate EPA’s analysis with respect to international ILUC. 

(1042.1, p.1) 

7-43
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

One of the specific concerns outlined in the commenter’s June comments was that the Food and 

Agriculture Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) system of models as configured and used by EPA 

was not available for public use. Therefore, stakeholders were unable to replicate EPA’s work. 

The commenter had requested that the FAPRI model itself and all associated materials be made 

available so that stakeholders could “run” the model to replicate EPA’s results and to conduct 

sensitivity analyses. Several dozen spreadsheets and documents containing model inputs and 

results were posted to the docket during the first week of June 2009. The information provided 

by EPA does not allow the public to replicate EPA’s findings. According to the docket, the 

FAPRI model is contained on a CD with the ID # of EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-967. Upon 

receipt, the CD was found to contain 10 Microsoft EXCEL files, but no other documentation. 

Upon opening each file, the EXCEL program immediately generated an error message stating 

that additional information was needed from other workbooks. Examination of these missing 

links determined that none of the listed files and spreadsheets was included on the CD. Indeed, 

some of these files were even referenced by inaccessible web addresses. Since these auxiliary 

files are missing, EXCEL only allows the user to “Edit”, “Update”, or “Ignore” these links. In 

this situation, the “Edit” and “Update” options are invalid, since the required files are simply not 

available. Selecting the “Ignore” option leaves each spreadsheet in a quasi-finished state, with 

many incomplete cells and equations, broken executables (macros), etc. Consequently, the 

FAPRI system, as delivered on the CD, is inoperable and insufficient to explain how EPA 

reached its results. (1042.1, p.2-3) 

The commenter also commented on a subsequent document posted to the docket (EPA-HQOAR-2005-0161-1020) entitled “Solving the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute 

Model”, which provided a broad overview of the FAPRI modeling system. Unfortunately, the 

document does not give any information regarding how to set up or run the spreadsheets, what 

data needs to be shared between them, or how to determine when the system has reached 

“equilibrium.” As a result, the FAPRI system is still inoperable by stakeholders. In investigating 

the issue further and discussing the model’s configuration with professors at Iowa State 

University, the commenter learned that due to the structural nature of the FAPRI model, no one 

outside of the FAPRI/CARD system can actually “run” the model in the way that it was run for 

EPA’s analysis. Thus, it appears the only way to conduct independent FAPRI model runs and 

sensitivity analysis is to establish a contract with FAPRI/CARD. This is a great concern to the 

commenter. (1042.1, p.3) 

 

The commenter noted that because the model is inaccessible to run by anyone other than current 

FAPRI/CARD staff in the same manner that it was run for EPA, the FAPRI model results cannot 

be verified and, moreover, lack corroboration and validity. While the commenter is not 

questioning the integrity or acumen of the FAPRI modelers who conducted the EPA analysis, the 

results do not have the same level of validity that they would if someone outside of the 

CARD/FAPRI system were able to replicate the results. The inability to replicate EPA’s FAPRI 

model results greatly weakens the capacity of stakeholders to provide meaningful comment. 

Further, the inability of stakeholders to conduct sensitivity runs is particularly problematic 

because EPA did not conduct any sensitivity analyses of its own on the effects of various inputs 

on land use emissions with the FAPRI model. In addition to providing sufficient information to 

allow the public to replicate EPA’s analysis, EPA also must “apply especially rigorous 

7-44
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

robustness checks to analytical results and carefully document all checks that were undertaken.” 

The commenter requests that robust sensitivity analysis of the impacts of various input variables 

on land use emissions be conducted. The commenter also requests that EPA provide the results 

of these sensitivity runs to the public for their review and comment, as well as any changes to its 

analysis and results that EPA anticipates for the final rule. At a minimum, the commenter 

believes sensitivity runs should be conducted and provided to the public on the following major 

factors: 

- Projected domestic and international crop yields 

- Distillers grains (DG) displacement ratios and ingredients displaced 

- Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and cropland pasture land inventories 

- Pasture stocking rates in Brazil (1042.1, pp.3-4) 

[[A more thorough description of these factors and others, as well as the desired EPA sensitivity 

analysis is can be found on pp. 6-7 of Docket Number 1042.1.]] 

The commenter also believes that the FASOM and FAPRI models being used by EPA to assess 

indirect land use changes were not intended for the purposes in which they are being used by 

EPA. These are economic models that attempt to assess the impacts of changes in policy and 

economic parameters on prices and agricultural commodities, and were not intended to forecast 

absolute levels of exports. (2329.1, p.27). [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp.27-29 for a detailed 

discussion of this issue]] 

The commenter noted that even though they support the California Air Resources Board’s 

(CARB) analysis of emissions from indirect land use change, CARB’s disparate results 

compared to EPA show the high uncertainty in using economic models. The widely disparate 

results coming from EPA, CARB, and others is further evidence that the results are highly 

sensitive to a number of exceedingly uncertain input parameters and assumptions. (2329.1, 

pp.33-34) 

The commenter also noted that comparing the results to the real world shows that the economic 

models are not reasonable to assess emissions attributable to ethanol. The commenter noted that 

agricultural markets in the real world frequently contradict economic theory and highlight the 

need to exercise caution when interpreting the results of economic models. (2329.1, pp.34-35) 

Our Response: 

The FASOM and FAPRI models were used for the economic agricultural analysis. EPA 

has provided in the docket a number of materials explaining how the models work and how they 

produced the results in the proposal as well as the results provides in the final rule, including: the 

release of data from these models that are used in the analysis; detailed documentation in the 

form of the preamble, RIA, and technical reports; and making the models themselves available to 

the extent possible. This, in combination with EPA’s outreach to stakeholders throughout the 

analytical process, hosting a public forum on the lifecycle analysis methodology, and the 

publication of a peer review of the methodology used, EPA believes that the information 

provided in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is consistent with Agency and OMB 

7-45
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

guidelines on information quality and provides a comprehensive source of information allowing 

robust opportunity for public comment. 

EPA recognizes that the FAPRI model can not be run by others without obtaining the 

services of the CARD staff at Iowa State University. While this makes it harder for commenters 

to have the model run for themselves, that does not mean they have not been provided adequate 

information and opportunity to comment on EPA’s proposal. There are other rulemaking 

situations where EPA relies on information in a proposal that is not automatically replicable by 

commenters, and this does not mean EPA may not rely on it or that commenters are not provided 

an adequate opportunity to comment. For example, in some rulemakings EPA relies on peer 

reviewed studies of health effects associated with air pollution, and commenters may or may not 

have access to the underlying data in the study, hence may not be able to replicate the study 

themselves. However that does not mean EPA may not rely on relevant and credible studies, or 

that EPA has not provided an adequate opportunity to comment on the basis for EPA’s proposal, 

including comment on the pros and cons of that study or other studies or modeling that also shed 

light on the same issue. In this case, EPA provided a comprehensive variety of information that 

explains in detail the analysis and modeling underlying the proposal and final rule. Commenters 

have commented on many of these elements of EPA’s work, and have in some cases referred 

EPA to other relevant modeling results or studies. EPA has provided all of the information it 

could about the basis for its modeling, and commenters have had a full opportunity to comment 

on it. Any inability to have the FAPRI model run for the commenter themselves, whether to 

replicate EPA’s results or run variations on them, does not preclude comemnters from providing 

comment on the results of that modeling and all of the underlying information provided by EPA 

related to it, and to obtain other information they deem relevant to support their comments. 

In regards to the items specifically requested by the commenter: 

1. The FAPRI model as used for the NPRM analysis was made available on the docket in a 

“solved” model state for one of the volume scenarios analyzed. This allows the public to 

view all of the elements of the model, and includes all formulas, assumptions, and 

elasticities used. These factors apply to all volume scenarios run through the FAPRI 

model. EPA will also provide the updated version of the model in a “solved” state on the 

docket for the final rulemaking analysis. In addition, all data used for the lifecycle 

analysis is available on the docket. This includes data for all sensitivity analysis (e.g., 

“high yield” scenarios). Also, a technical report authored by those who “run” the models, 

CARD staff at Iowa State University, is available on the docket, and provides details on 

assumptions used, how the model functions, and results from the model. 

2. The FASOM model, as used for the NPRM analysis, was made available on the docket in 

the form of a CD. The updated version of the model used for the final rulemaking 

analysis will also be available on the docket, as well as the data from the model used for 

the analysis, and a technical report that provides details on assumptions used, how the 

model functions, and results from the model. 

3. The GREET model used in the analysis was provided in the Docket, the RIA documents 

any changes made to the assumptions in GREET. The spreadsheets used in our analysis 

are available in the Docket as well and they provide, along with documentation in the 

RIA, all the assumptions used regarding process energy use. 

7-46
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

4. Details regarding the assumptions made for each model, as well as how the models were 

used together to complete the lifecycle analysis is discussed in the RIA. In addition, the 

docket contains detailed technical reports for the FASOM and FAPRI models which 

document how the models work, as well as a discussion of the assumptions used and 

results from the RFS2 analysis. 

One of the technical difficulties associated with replication of the FAPRI model is that it is a 

complex set of models that does not rely on an automated process. Rather, it requires experts at 

CARD to run the complete set of FAPRI models. Documentation on the general structure and 

operation of the FAPRI models is available on the docket. This documentation is not intended to 

be a set of instructions. Rather, it is intended to reveal how the models actually operate in an 

effort to be as transparent as possible 

 

Although the FAPRI model cannot be operated by any third parties, EPA has provided all 

data from FAPRI runs used in the lifecycle analysis, as well as those for sensitivity analyses, on 

the docket. In addition, EPA quantified in the uncertainty in our evaluation of GHG emissions 

impacts from biofuel-induced land use changes. These uncertainty ranges, and the procedures 

used to calculate them, are presented and discussed in preamble Section V and in additional 

detail in RIA Chapter 2. 

Regarding alternative scenarios, the analysis for the final rulemaking includes a sensitivity 

run with higher domestic and international yields for corn and soybean. These results will be 

available on the docket. In regards to the other requests for sensitivity runs, a number of other 

updates have been made to the FASOM and FAPRI models that affect these factors. Namely, 

distillers grains replacement rates for corn and soybean meal in animal feed are updated to reflect 

the latest research by Argonne National Laboratory in both the FASOM and FAPRI models, and 

the FAPRI Brazil module includes livestock production and pasture acres on a regional basis 

within Brazil. Each region allows for livestock intensification on pasture land in response to 

competition for other land uses, demand for livestock production, and other factors. Additional 

detail on these updates can be found in the RIA and the technical reports for each respective 

model. 

Throughout the rulemaking process, EPA consulted with numerous experts and stakeholders 

in industry, academia, and government in regards to all aspects of the analysis. Based on 

feedback received through this consultation process, but also through the publicly available peer 

review of EPA’s lifecycle methodology, EPA has received support for the use of economic 

agricultural models (FASOM and FAPRI) to estimate changes in cropland worldwide based on 

changes in demand for renewable fuel. EPA also received feedback on the use of general 

equilibrium models, such as GTAP, to estimate land use change. However, partial equilibrium 

economic models used for the lifecycle analysis (FASOM and FAPRI) provide more refined 

detail than a general equilibrium model is able to. In order to further explore how these two 

types of models compare with one another, using similar assumptions, EPA has provided a 

complementary analysis of the RFS2 using the GTAP model. Details on the use of the GTAP 

model, and how it compares to the FAPRI models used in the lifecycle analysis, can be found in 

the RIA. 

7-47
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

It should be noted that the results of these models will not exactly reflect historical 

observations. To analyze each renewable fuel feedstock, EPA analyzes the effect of an increase 

in demand for each particular renewable fuel, holding all other factors constant. Through this 

method, all changes that occur in the model are attributable to this change in demand. However, 

this evaluation will not reflect historical data patterns, as there are several varying factors 

occurring simultaneously in history. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0953 

Organization: Great River Energy 

Comment:

The commenter (0953.1) believes that user- friendly models and metrics are needed for industry 

participants to understand how a wide variety of technologies will be evaluated under Net 

Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions. (P.1) 

Our Response: 

The models chosen to evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions for a particular renewable 

fuel feedstock are among the most recommended models that can be used for their particular 

purpose. How each model was used, and how each model interacted with another, is thoroughly 

documented through the RIA and a series of technical reports provided on the docket, written by 

the creators/implementers of the models. The data used for analysis is also provided, and when 

possible, the models themselves have been made available to the public to evaluate how the 

models applied. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0981 

Organization: Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research, Department of Agronomy 

and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Comment:

The commenter ((0981) states that the LCA in the RFS2 is excessively complicated, and 

particularly as the basis for regulation. It employs such a large number of excessively complex 

models that regulated entities and researchers will have limited abilities to evaluate the accuracy 

of the estimations. The commenter adds that the RFS2 LCA methodology must approach 

complete transparency of methods, data, and references used. Achieving adequate transparency 

of assumptions and data employed in LCAs for regulation of biofuels is best achieved using only 

one or a few models, but comprehensive evaluation in the LCA of indirect effects requires 

multiple complicated models. The commenter asks if transparency and comprehensive 

evaluation are mutually exclusive, and if so, suggests it may be justified to concentrate the first 

round of RFS2 LCA methodology on direct emission only. (Pp. 5-7) 

Our Response:

7-48
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA recognizes that it has had to break new scientific ground in developing a lifecycle 

methodology as required by EISA. This is why the Agency employed a collaborative, 

transparent and science-based approach. EPA took numerous measures to seek public comment 

on our approach—including extending the comment period for the proposed rule, holding a twoday public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, 

including the biodiesel community, through individual meetings, conferences and events. As 

noted by the commenter, EPA also initiated an independent peer review of specific areas of our 

work. The information we received through this process has led to the approach in this final rule 

which bases the GHG threshold compliance determinations on the weight of evidence currently 

available and quantifies the uncertainty about critical variables. 

Further, EPA recognizes the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area. 

While the Agency is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, the Agency is also committing to further 

reassess these determinations. As part of this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of 

the National Academy of Sciences as well as other experts. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0981 

Organization: Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research, Department of Agronomy 

and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Comment:

The commenter recommends that all values and corresponding units for primary data inputs used 

in the proposed LCA framework be provided and clearly linked to the supporting documentation. 

Preference should be given to documentation taken from peer-reviewed publications or other 

widely accessible databases. If acceptable transparency can not be reached, the EPA should 

consider forgoing analysis of secondary indirect effects, while focusing on direct emission in the 

interim. (P. 7) 

Our Response:

The FASOM and FAPRI models were used for the economic agricultural analysis. EPA 

has provided in the docket a number of materials explaining how the models work and how they 

produced the results in the proposal as well as the results provides in the final rule, including: the 

release of data from the models that are used in the analysis; detailed documentation in the form 

of the preamble, RIA, and technical reports; and making the models themselves available to the 

extent possible. This, in combination with EPA’s outreach to stakeholders throughout the 

analytical process, hosting a public forum on the lifecycle analysis methodology, and the 

publication of a peer review of the methodology used, EPA believes that the information 

provided in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Final rule is consistent with 

Agency and OMB guidelines on information quality and provides a comprehensive source of 

information allowing robust opportunity for public comment. 

7-49
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

EPA recognizes that the FAPRI model can not be run by others without obtaining the 

services of the CARD staff at Iowa State University. While this makes it harder for commenters 

to have the model run for themselves, that does not mean they have not been provided adequate 

information and opportunity to comment on EPA’s proposal. There are other rulemaking 

situations where EPA relies on information in a proposal that is not automatically replicable by 

commenters, and this does not mean EPA may not rely on it or that commenters are not provided 

an adequate opportunity to comment. For example, in some rulemakings EPA relies on peer 

reviewed studies of health effects associated with air pollution, and commenters may or may not 

have access to the underlying data in the study, hence may not be able to replicate the study 

themselves. However that does not mean EPA may not rely on relevant and credible studies, or 

that EPA has not provided an adequate opportunity to comment on the basis for EPA’s proposal, 

including comment on the pros and cons of that study or other studies or modeling that also shed 

light on the same issue. In this case, EPA provided a comprehensive variety of information that 

explains in detail the analysis and modeling underlying the proposal and final rule. Commenters 

have commented on many of these elements of EPA’s work, and have in some cases referred 

EPA to other relevant modeling results or studies. EPA has provided all of the information it 

could about the basis for its modeling, and commenters have had a full opportunity to comment 

on it. Any inability to have the FAPRI model run for the commenter themselves, whether to 

replicate EPA’s results or run variations on them, does not preclude comemnters from providing 

comment on the results of that modeling and all of the underlying information provided by EPA 

related to it, and to obtain other information they deem relevant to support their comments. 

Specifically, the FAPRI model as used for the NPRM analysis was made available on the 

docket in a “solved” model state for one of the volume scenarios analyzed. This allows the 

public to view all of the elements of the model, and includes all formulas, assumptions, and 

elasticities used. These factors apply to all volume scenarios run through the FAPRI model. 

EPA will also provide the updated version of the model in a “solved” state on the docket for the 

final rulemaking analysis. In addition, all data used for the lifecycle analysis is available on the 

docket. This includes data for all sensitivity analysis (e.g., “high yield” scenarios). Also, a 

technical report authored by those who “run” the models, CARD staff at Iowa State University, 

is available on the docket, and provides details on assumptions used, how the model functions, 

and results from the model. 

The FAPRI model is a complex set of models that does not rely on an automated process. 

Rather, it requires experts at CARD to run the complete set of FAPRI models. Documentation 

on the general structure and operation of the FAPRI models is available on the docket. This 

documentation is not intended to be a step-by-step set of instructions. Rather, it is intended to 

reveal how the models actually operate in an effort to be as transparent as possible. 

The FASOM model, as used for the NPRM analysis, was made available on the docket in 

the form of a CD. The updated version of the model used for the final rulemaking analysis will 

also be available on the docket, as well as the data from the model used for the analysis, and a 

technical report that provides details on assumptions used, how the model functions, and results 

from the model. 

7-50
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0981 

Organization: Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research, Department of Agronomy 

and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Comment:

The commenter also recommends that default parameter values and emission factors for each 

individual fuel type in the GREET model undergo rigorous external peer review managed by the 

EPA, and a summary list of all internal parameters and supporting citations be included with 

GREET for each fuel type. The commenter points to the EBAMM and BESS [Biofuel Energy 

Systems Simulator] LCA emissions models and their associated documentation of primary data 

as examples of appropriate transparency and disclosure. (P. 9)

Our Response:

EPA conducted an external peer review of the lifecycle analysis used in the RFS2 

proposed rule. This peer review included consideration of the use of GREET emission factors 

for fertilizer production, petroleum fuel use, electricity production, and fuel and feedstock 

transport. The peer reviewers concluded that the GREET factors were adequate for our 

analyses. In addition, the GREET parameters used for our lifecycle analyses are all available in 

Chapter 2 of the RIA of this final rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1001, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1005, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-1010, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1011, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1012, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1025, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1029, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-

1043, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079, et al. 

Organization: Kurzman Clean Tech Research & Kurzman Capital, LLC, Cotner 

Consulting Services, CC Gas Systems, LLC, Atlantic BioFuels, Glenwood Farms, Law Offices 

of David Wilcox, C.I.B., University of Georgia Engineering Outreach Service, AE Biofuels, Inc., 

et al. 

Comment: 

The commenters noted that much of the data and assumptions contained within the nine models 

used by EPA are inaccurate. Examples of errors include: 

-Energy balance data used by EPA is out of date. 

-Co-product allocations for glycerin were not incorporated. 

-Global market drivers for feedstocks, like soybeans are not included. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1051, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2435, et al. 

Organization: Aberdeen Development Corp., R.W. Heiden Associates LLC, et al. 

Comment: 

The commenters believe EPA’s methodology is not ready to be used for purposes of regulating 

biofuels. They stated that EPA’s method of lifecycle analysis, which utilizes various models and 

incorporates indirect emissions from land use changes, is not widely accepted and is not 

7-51
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

consistent with standards for such analysis. As such, and until a reasonable level of scientific 

consensus is achieved, the methodology should not be used to regulate biodiesel. [[Docket 

number 2435.1, p. 3]] 

The commenters also believe much of the data and assumptions contained within the nine 

models used by EPA are inaccurate. Examples include: Energy balance data used by EPA is out 

of date, co-product allocations for glycerine were not incorporated, Global market drivers for 

feedstocks, like soybeans are not included. [[Docket number 2435.1, p. 4]] 

Our Response: 

To the maximum extent possible, we have continued to review and update the data and 

assumptions underlying our modeling tools. As part of the final rule we updated the energy use 

assumptions for biodiesel production to be in line with the latest energy balance reports including 

the University of Idaho Study. Therefore, the final rule assumes lower energy use for biodiesel 

production compared to the proposal analysis. In addition, we have revised our analysis to 

assume that glycerin will displace residual oil as an energy source for this final rulemaking. We 

disagree, however, that global market drivers for feedstocks are not included in our models. For 

example, our partial equilibrium agricultural sector models FASOM and FAPRI both take into 

account that approximately 80% of the soybean is meal, whereas approximately 20% of the 

soybean is oil. Profit maximization that takes into account both streams of ree is included in the 

projected planting decisions of farmers. In addition, both agricultural sector models take into 

account changes in macroeconomic conditions over time, such as increases in income and 

population that also affect world markets for feedstocks. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1015, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2010, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-2011, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2013, et al. 

Organization: Renewable Energy Group, SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC, Western Dubuque 

Biodiesel LLC, Central Iowa Energy, LLC, et al. 

Comment: 

The commenters stated that the renewable fuels industry is experiencing economic challenges 

that necessitate creativity and innovation to ensure marketplace viability. However, credit 

market uncertainty is exacerbated due to the EPA’s use of LCA that does not conform to ISO 

LCA standards and EPA guidelines for LCA use. EPA’s Information Quality Guidelines define 

environmental model use. 

Regarding LCA on biofuels, the commenter believes that EPA has not provided complete, 

transparent, and relevant information to the extent practicable for comprehensive review. 

ISO LCA principles and framework are long standing and well tested. Again, EPA has allowed 

the data quality requirements to be dated and the use of partial equilibrium models that were not 

specifically designed for the outcome intended by Congress. The commenters pointed to other 

weaknesses, as noted by peer reviewer Dr. Wang. 

7-52
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA states in the preamble that it has utilized the best science available in reference to analyzing 

renewable fuels GHG threshold compliance, but the response to the draft rules demonstrates the 

inadequacy of the best science available. The commenters believe that additional analysis must 

proceed before regulatory measures are finalized, otherwise, the commenter asks will we instead 

replace imported foreign oil with imported foreign renewable fuel? Is this outcome the intent of 

policy makers? The commenters believe EPA should implement interim rules and proceed with 

the mandated gallons on 1/1/10, but not attribute GHG thresholds until further scientific analysis 

can be completed.

Our Response: 

EPA has used International Standards Organization (ISO) guidance on lifecycle analysis 

in developing its lifecycle analysis. We have drawn upon a suite of the most recent and 

advanced and peer-reviewed models, studies, and data to develop a methodology for lifecycle 

analyses of renewable fuel greenhouse gas emissions. As mandated in EISA, lifecycle GHG 

emissions of biofuels was compared to the lifecycle GHG emissions of a 2005 gasoline or diesel 

baseline. For both the biofuels and petroleum GHG lifecycle analysis, EPA has developed clear 

and consistent system boundaries (both physical and temporal) which are explicitly laid out in 

the Final Rulemaking. Further, we assessed uncertainty in the final analysis. EPA provides a 

complete description of the lifecycle analysis methodology and provides the data used in the 

analysis in the Final Rule Preamble, Regulatory Impact Assessment, and the Docket. 

EPA has followed EPA and federal regulatory procedures. In addition, EPA has 

extensively coordinated the development of our methodology and selection of inputs and models 

with outside experts and across the federal government. After EISA’s enactment in December 

2007, we met frequently with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy to share our analytical 

plan, request feedback on our key assumptions, and provide preliminary results as they became 

available. In many cases, we adopted the models, inputs, and assumptions suggested by these 

Departments. 

EPA conducted a formal, external, independent peer review for the novel pieces 

developed for this lifecycle analysis following EPA and OMB guidance for third party, peer 

reviews. The names of the reviewers, charge questions, the original comments received from the 

reviewers as well as contractor summaries of the comments were made publically available in 

the docket. 

With regard to domestically and foreign-produced fuel, the regulations finalized for RFS2 

determine GHG threshold compliance on the basis of fuel pathways, irrespective of the country 

where the feedstock or the fuel was produced. 

Lastly, with regard to Dr. Wang’s comments summarized in the comment letter: For the 

LCA analysis done for this rulemaking EPA has built into the models used activities and 

technologies for the pathways considered. As part of the threshold analysis needed for this 

rulemaking we do not need to identify individual plant or location specific profiles but rather 

average values for specific fuel and feedstock pathways. As new technologies become available 

7-53
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

we have a number of ways of incorporating those into our analysis going forward. EPA provides 

a petition process in the FRM through which fuel pathways not included in the FRM can be 

analyzed and provided a compliance determination by EPA. Furthermore, EPA is committed to 

periodic updates that will take into account in the modeling new activities and technologies. 

EPA's approach of using agriculture economic models like FASOM and FAPRI to model 

biofuel production are specifically designed to simulate the use of different agricultural sector 

products and co-products. The models consider the markets and value of the different products 

and the interactions in these markets with the production and use of different products and coproducts. So for biodiesel production, the markets for soybean meal and soybean oil are 

specifically captured and the changes in these markets with more or less soybean meal produced 

and more or less soybean oil used for biodiesel are captured. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1669 

Organization: Environmental Intelligence, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1669.1) noted that some research has stated that the GREET model, upon which 

some federal policy analysis is based, overstates the energy required to produce soybeans and 

other crops. RFS2 should be delayed to allow completion of a multi-year study (with a 

statistically significant study population) of the energy inputs to row crop production. Some 

other research has stated that the GREET model also overstates energy requirements for ethanol 

processing. (1669.1, p.1)

Our Response: 

EPA disagrees with this comment, as described in the proposal and final rule, we do not 

rely on GREET factors and inputs for energy required for row crop production or for energy used 

at ethanol facilities. The values we do use in the FASOM model on row crop production are 

based on USDA and State data on production and it varies by management practice and region. 

For foreign production our input data was based on FAO and IEA data and were peer reviewed 

as part of this rulemaking process. 

Ethanol energy use was based on a study by the University of Illinois at Chicago Energy 

Resource Center and assumes efficiency improvements over time. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1722 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment: 

The commenter (1722) noted that EPA repeatedly noted that “the best science available” is used, 

yet the models used do not meet the standards that EPA uses for findings, such as the science 

7-54
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

cited in EPA’s recent determination regarding the six greenhouse gases that cause or contribute 

to endangerment of health and welfare. (1722, p.3) 

Our Response: 

The lifecycle methodology developed by EPA, and explained in detail in this final rule, is 

based on the best available scientific techniques. It also relies on a body of scientific literature 

on this topic as well as an independent scientific peer review of EPA’s methodology. The peer 

review, the public comments we have received, and the analysis conducted for the proposal and 

final rule indicate that it is important to take into account indirect emissions. Through this 

evaluation, EPA also has determined that biofuels production leads to both negative and positive 

indirect land use changes. We also recognize the uncertainties inherent in this estimation and 

therefore have taken an approach that quantifies the uncertainty and presents the weight of 

currently available evidence in making our threshold determination. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2002 

Organization: Novozymes North America, Inc. (Novozymes) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2002) has serious concerns with the “pasture replacement method”, which the 

EPA has developed as an add-on to the modeling of international land use change in the FAPRl 

Model. The commenter makes the following recommendations: 

1. The agency should give further consideration to the mechanisms that lead to conversion of 

grassland/savanna to pasture land and incorporate that in the modeling for the final rule.

2. EPA may consider using the GTAP Model to quantify the level of livestock intensification and 

encourages EPA to align pasture replacement and livestock intensification with the changes in 

livestock production predicted by the FAPRI Model in order to ensure consistency.

3. EPA should reconsider not just the amount of land being affected by pasture replacement but 

also the types of land (the biomes) being affected. [[Docket number 2002.1, pp. 2-3]]

Our Response: 

1. For the final rule we made several improvements in our analysis of land converted to 

pasture. 

As explained in preamble Section V, one of the major changes made to the FAPRI model 

between the NPRM and FRM includes the more detailed representation of Brazil through a new 

integrated module. The Brazil module was developed by Iowa State with input from Brazilian 

agricultural sector experts and we believe it is an improvement over the approach used in the 

proposal. The new Brazil module also explicitly accounts for changes in pasture acres, therefore 

accounting for the competition between crop and pasture acres. Furthermore, the Brazil module 

explicitly models livestock intensification, the practice of increasing the number of heads of 

cattle per acre of land in response to higher commodity prices or increased demand for land. 

7-55
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

In addition to modifying how pasture acres are treated in Brazil, we also improved the 

methodology for calculating pasture acreage changes in other countries. We received several 

comments through the public comment period and peer reviewers supporting a better analysis of 

the interaction between crops, pasture, and livestock. In the NPRM, although we accounted for 

GHG emissions from livestock production (e.g., manure management), we did not explicitly 

account for GHG emissions from changes in pasture demand. In response to comments received, 

our new methodology accounts for changes in pasture area resulting from livestock fluctuations 

and therefore captures the link between livestock and land used for grazing. Based on regional 

pasture stocking rates (livestock per acre), we now calculate the amount of land used for 

livestock grazing. The regional stocking rates were determined with data on livestock 

populations from the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and data on pasture area 

measured with agricultural inventory and satellite-derived land cover data. As a result of this 

change, in countries where livestock numbers decrease, less land is needed for pasture. 

Therefore, unneeded pasture acres are available for crop land or allowed to revert to their natural 

state. In countries where livestock numbers increase, more land is needed for pasture, which can 

be added on abandoned cropland or unused grassland, or it can result in deforestation. We 

believe this new methodology provides a more realistic assessment of land use changes, 

especially in regions where livestock populations are changing significantly. For additional 

information on the pasture replacement methodology, see RIA Chapter 2. 

2. For the reasons discussed in preamble Section V, we considered the use of the GTAP 

model, but based on the input we received from commenters and expert reviewers, we did not 

rely on GTAP in our analysis for this rulemaking. Instead, we opted to use the GTAP model to 

inform the range of potential GHG emissions associated with land use change resulting from an 

increase in biofuels. As the commenter states, GTAP does attempt to explicitly model pasture 

area and the potential for pasture intensification and extensification. 

As described in more detail in RIA Chapter 2, the quantity of total acres converted to 

crop land projected by GTAP were generally consistent with the FAPRI results when normalized 

on a per BTU basis, although there were differences in the regional distribution of these changes. 

The land use changes projected by GTAP were smaller than land use changes predicted by 

FAPRI, which is most likely due to two differences in the modeling frameworks. First, demand 

for other uses of land are explicitly captured in GTAP, which puts downward pressure on the 

amount of land that can be converted to crops from pasture or forest. Second, none of the peerreviewed versions of GTAP currently contain unmanaged cropland, thereby omitting additional 

sources of land. The GTAP model also predicted larger increases in forest conversion than the 

FAPRI/Winrock analysis, in part because the GTAP model includes only three types of land (i.e., 

crops, pasture, forest). As discussed in the FAPRI/Winrock section, there are many other 

categories of land which may be converted to pasture and crop land. 

As the GTAP model results are sensitive to the key parameter values, it was also useful 

for developing a set of confidence intervals around the projected land use changes using a 

systematic sensitivity analysis. Several key parameters were identified that have a significant 

impact on the land use change projections, including the yield elasticity (i.e., the change in yield 

that results from a change in that commodity’s price), the elasticity of transformation of land 

supply (i.e., the measure of how easily land can be converted between forest, pasture, and crop 

7-56
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

land), and the elasticity of transformation of crop land (i.e., the measure of how easily land can 

be converted between crops). Although the confidence intervals are relatively large, in most 

cases the ranges do not bracket zero. Therefore, we conclude that the impacts of the corn ethanol 

and soybean biodiesel mandates on land use change are statistically significant. Additional 

information on the GTAP results is discussed in RIA Chapter 2. 

3. Among the most important revisions to our international analysis, in terms of their net 

effect on GHG emissions, were improvements that we made in our modeling of the interactions 

between livestock, pasture, crops and unused, or underutilized, grasslands globally. In the 

NPRM we made the broad assumption that international crop expansion would necessarily 

displace pasture, which would require an equivalent amount of pasture to expand into forests and 

shrublands. In the FRM analysis as discussed above, we have linked international changes in 

livestock production with changes in pasture area to allow for pasture abandonment in regions 

where livestock production decreases as a result of biofuel production. We also incorporated the 

ability of pasture to expand onto unused, or underutilized, grasslands and savannas which on a 

global basis reduced the amount of forest conversion compared to the proposal. For more details 

on our revised analysis of the types of land affected by pasture conversion, see RIA Chapter 2. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2016 

Organization: Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2016.10 believes that the latest data must be use in models used. The data in 

Table VI.B5-1 of the proposal preamble for the Winrock Model are outdated being from 2001 to 

2004 and do not reflect the latest trend. The percentage of land converted from forest in Malaysia 

(74%) appears to be misleading and may include replanting of old oil palm trees. (2016.1, p.2) 

Our Response: 

EPA strongly agrees with the commenter that the latest data and models should be used 

for lifecycle GHG analysis. Throughout the development of EPA’s lifecycle analysis, the 

Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based approach. In order to 

maximize stakeholder outreach opportunities, the comment period for the proposed rule was 

extended to 120 days. In addition to this formal comment period, EPA made multiple efforts to 

solicit public and expert feedback on our approach. Beginning early in the NPRM process and 

continuing throughout the development of this final rule, EPA held hundreds of meetings with 

stakeholders, including government, academia, industry, and non-profit organizations, to gather 

expert technical input. Our work was also informed heavily by consultation with other federal 

agencies. For example, we have relied on the expert advice of USDA and DOE, as well as 

incorporating the most recent inputs and models provided by these Agencies. Dialogue with the 

State of California and the European Union on their parallel, on-going efforts in GHG lifecycle 

analysis also helped inform EPA’s methodology. As described below, formal technical 

exchanges and an independent, formal peer review of the methodology were also significant 

7-57
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

components of the Agency’s outreach. A key result of our outreach effort has been awareness of 

new studies and data that have been incorporated into our final rule analysis. 

EPA also agrees with the commenters’ recommendation that the most recent satellite 

imagery should be incorporated. All of the expert peer reviewers agreed that the version 4 

MODIS data set used in the proposed rule, which covers 2001-2004 with one square-kilometer 

(1km) spatial resolution, was appropriate for our analysis given the goals of the study at the time. 

However, almost all of the reviewers strongly recommended using a data set covering a longer 

time period. The reviewers argued that the 3-year time period from 2001-2004 was too short to 

capture the often gradual, or sequential, cropland expansion that has been observed in the tropics. 

The short time period may also show unusual or temporary trends in land use caused by shortterm policy changes or market influences. The reviewers suggested that remote sensing 

observations covering 5-10 years would be adequate to address these problems. The reviewers 

also recommended that remote sensing observations should be as recent as possible in order to 

capture current land use change drivers and patterns (e.g., political systems, infrastructure, and 

protected areas). To use the best available data and respond to the peer reviewers’ 

recommendations, the analysis was updated to include the most recent MODIS data set, version 

5, which covers the time period 2001-2007. MODIS land cover products are not available for 

years prior to 2001, so it is not currently possible to analyze a time period longer than six years 

(i.e., 2001-2007) with a single, or consistent, data set. Thus, consistent with the peer review 

recommendations, we are now using the most recent global data set which covers at least 5 years. 

There are other advantages to using the version 5 MODIS data, such as improved spatial 

resolution, and robust data validation. MODIS V5 provides 4-times better spatial resolution than 

the data used in our proposed rule analysis. Based on this improved data set, and our validation 

results, which are discussed further in the Section V of the preamble and Chapter 2.4.4 of the 

RIA, our updated estimate of the percentage of new cropland from forest in Malaysia is 52%, 

with 27% coming from mixed land (which is a mosaic of savanna, grassland, forest and 

cropland) and 13% coming from savanna. While we think this represents a much improved 

estimate compared to our analysis for the proposed rule, we are still aware of the uncertainty in 

this part of our analysis. For example, we acknowledge that satellite imagery could confuse 

forest land and oil palm plantations in Malaysia. Therefore, for the final rule, we quantified the 

uncertainty in these estimates and presented a range of results. Furthermore, to narrow the 

uncertainty, we utilized data validation from NASA, which compared the satellite land cover 

classifications to on the ground surveys. This data validation helped us to correct the original 

data set for systematic classification errors, such as the potential issues raised by the commenter. 

Finally, it should be noted we have not directly analyzed land use change impacts from 

U.S. consumption of biodiesel derived from palm oil. For such an analysis, we would want to 

consider additional data sources to determine the areas where palm oil production would be most 

likely to expand in that particular scenario. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2048 

7-58
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: BioPure Fuels 

Comment:

The commenter (2048.1) recommends that U.S. EPA staff follow the recommendations of 

UNICA in re-adjusting the GREET model to update it to the more realistic situation in 

production of sugar cane in the current production now centered in Sao Paulo and other southern 

states. (2048.1, p.10) (See Docket Number 2048.1, pp.9-10 for a detailed discussion of this issue) 

Our Response: 

For the final rule we have updated our imported sugarcane ethanol analysis based on 

those comments submitted by UNICA as well as recommendations from Brazilian researchers. 

Changes since the proposal include assuming the additional production of electricity due to the 

collection of sugarcane trash, phase out of sugarcane burning in the future, mechanization of 

harvesting, and updates in feedstock and ethanol transport. These changes reflect the 

improvements expected to be possible by 2022. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2112.1) noted that the economic modeling can not meet the ISO standards for 

the following reasons: 

- Country specific data is required, but rarely exists. 

- Models are based on insights, assumptions, simplifications, and many subjective judgment 

calls. 

- EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) are using economic policy decision 

models (FAPRI and GTAP) to make billion dollar regulatory laws. 

- Model accuracy is not high enough to achieve EISA mandate objectives. (2112.1, p.7)

Our Response: 

EPA has used International Standards Organization (ISO) guidance on lifecycle analysis 

in developing its lifecycle analysis. We have drawn upon a suite of the most recent and 

advanced and peer-reviewed models, studies, and data to develop a methodology for lifecycle 

analyses of renewable fuel greenhouse gas emissions. As mandated in EISA, lifecycle GHG 

emissions of biofuels was compared to the lifecycle GHG emissions of a 2005 gasoline or diesel 

baseline. For both the biofuels and petroleum GHG lifecycle analysis, EPA has developed clear 

and consistent system boundaries (both physical and temporal) which are explicitly laid out in 

the Final Rulemaking. Further, we assessed uncertainty in the final analysis. EPA provides a 

complete description of the lifecycle analysis methodology and provides the data used in the 

analysis in the Final Rule Preamble, Regulatory Impact Assessment, and the Docket. 

EPA has followed EPA and federal regulatory procedures. In addition, EPA has 

extensively coordinated the development of our methodology and selection of inputs and models 

7-59
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

with outside experts and across the federal government. After EISA’s enactment in December 

2007, we met frequently with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy to share our analytical 

plan, request feedback on our key assumptions, and provide preliminary results as they became 

available. In many cases, we adopted the models, inputs, and assumptions suggested by these 

Departments. 

EPA conducted a formal, external, independent peer review for the novel pieces 

developed for this lifecycle analysis following EPA and OMB guidance for third party, peer 

reviews. The names of the reviewers, charge questions, the original comments received from the 

reviewers as well as contractor summaries of the comments were made publically available in 

the docket. 

Lastly, throughout the development of the lifecycle methodology EPA has worked 

closely with the State of California. While each agency’s statutory requirements necessitate some 

differences (as noted by the commenter) in general, CARB and EPA have developed the same 

methodological approach to assessing the lifecycle impacts of biofuels. EPA will continue to 

coordinate with CARB as we implement the RFS2 program and reassess the lifecycle estimates. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2119 

Organization: National Sorghum Producers 

Comment:

The commenter (2119.1) believes that the assumption in the FASOM model that grain sorghum 

only produces 2.281 gallons of ethanol per bushel of grain sorghum needs to be changed to 

reflect actual use of sorghum in the ethanol industry. (2119.1, p.2) 

Our Response: 

EPA has clearly acknowledged that there are uncertainties associated with these 

estimates--particularly with regard to indirect land use change--and has sought to develop an 

approach that manages these uncertainties. However, EPA rejects the view that the modeling 

relied upon in the final rule is too uncertain or untested to provide a credible and reasonable 

scientific basis for determining whether the aggregate lifecycle emissions exceed the thresholds. 

If the international land use impacts were so uncertain that their impact on lifecycle GHG 

emissions could not be adequately determined, this does not mean EPA could assume the 

international land use change emissions are zero. High uncertainty would not mean that 

emissions are small and can be ignored; rather it could mean that we could not tell whether they 

are large or small. If high uncertainty meant that EPA were not able to determine that indirect 

emissions from international land use change are small enough that the total lifecycle emissions 

meet the threshold, then that fuel could not be determined to meet the GHG thresholds of EISA 

and the fuel would necessarily have to be excluded from the program. EPA has chosen an 

approach that includes biofuels with a significant international land use impact in this program. 

We also have chosen an approach that quantifies uncertainty and presents the weight of currently 

available evidence in making our threshold determinations 

7-60
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2119 

Organization: National Sorghum Producers 

Comment:

The commenter (2119.1) believes that the assumption in the FASOM model that grain sorghum 

only produces 2.281 gallons of ethanol per bushel of grain sorghum needs to be changed to 

reflect actual use of sorghum in the ethanol industry. (2119.1, p.2) 

The commenter also believes that the FASOM assumption of grain sorghum trend yield 

only increasing 0.09% per year needs to be updated. Based upon grain sorghum yields since 

1988, the trend yield would be 0.8% per year. By increasing the trend yield to 0.8% per year, 

GHG reduction would increase by 2.2%. Increasing the trend yield to 1.3% (the commenter’s 

recommendation) would result in 3.6% more GHG reduction. By setting the ethanol conversion 

rate to 2.66 gallons per bushel and increasing the trend yield to 1.3%, grain sorghum’s GHG 

reduction would be 64.1% for a dry mill facility fueled with natural gas. (2119.1, p.3) 

The commenter believes that the assumptions on the input elasticities of grain sorghum 

need to be corrected. The current FASOM assumptions for grain sorghum input elasticities are 

much higher than compared to corn, the closest other feedgrain in the model. FASOM has the 

sorghum input elasticity for both nitrogen and potassium at six times the input elasticity of corn. 

This penalizes sorghum due to the GHG emissions from producing nitrogen and potassium 

fertilizers. (2119.1, pp.3-4) 

The commenter also believes that FASOM assumptions for sweet sorghum to ethanol 

yields should be increased to a minimum of 11 gallons per wet ton on first crop sweet sorghum 

and 13 gallons per wet ton of rattooned sorghum. (2119.1, p.4) 

The commenter noted that the term “energy sorghum” is now being used for high tonnage 

hybrid forage sorghum that can be used in the making of cellulosic biofuel. Energy sorghum was 

not included in the proposed rule, but the latest version of FASOM does include energy 

sorghum. (2119.1, p.6) 

Our Response: 

EPA appreciates the provision of data by the commenter and welcomes continued input. 

We recognize that a number of possible renewable feedstocks are not evaluated in the current 

analysis. EPA anticipates modeling grain sorghum ethanol, woody pulp ethanol, and palm oil 

biodiesel after this final rule and including the determinations in a rulemaking within 6 months. 

EPA established in the final rulemaking a petition process whereby parties can petition EPA to 

evaluate fuel pathways that have not been modeled for this rule. 

What Commenters Said:

7-61
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment:

1. The commenters (2129.1) recommendation on the modeling of agricultural markets is to 

follow the guidance of the peer reviewers. A clear message from the peer review process was 

that the basic modeling approach pursued by EPA is appropriate. The commenters recommend 

that EPA updates its analysis based on actual data on U.S. and international land-use changes. 

(2129.1, p.7) [[See Docket Number 2129.1, pp.7-8 for a detailed discussion on modeling of 

agricultural markets]] 

2. The commenter said that the peer reviewers supported the use of partial equilibrium models 

because they can incorporate greater detail in the agricultural sector than general equilibrium 

models. However, it is important the EPA heed peer review concerns about potential 

inconsistencies from the dual use of the FAPRI and FASOM models. According to the 

commenters, Dr. Wang and Mr. Searchinger pointed to inconsistencies in this approach. Dr. 

Banse pointed out that it is logically possible to meld models but only if they are used iteratively. 

The commenters recommended that EPA explore the viability of this iterative approach. The 

commenters also suggested that adopting FAPRI as a single model would be an appropriate way 

to resolve the inconsistencies. 

3. The commenters generally agree that the approach used by EPA to model indirect land use 

change outside of the U.S. is scientifically and legally appropriate in light of the data and 

modeling tools currently available to EPA. (2129.1, pp.8-9) [[See Docket Number 2129.1, pp.8-

9 for a detailed discussion on modeling of international land-use changes]] 

Our Response: 

1. EPA agrees with the commenters that the language in EISA requires EPA to include 

indirect land use impacts. EPA also agrees with the commenters that the expert peer reviewers 

provided valuable guidance for international agricultural modeling. We also agree that the 

independent peer reviewers generally supported EPA’s analytical approach as scientifically 

justifiable, however the expert reviewers pointed out problematic areas in our analysis and 

suggested many new studies and data sources for consideration. Consistent with the reviewers’ 

guidance, we maintained our overall modeling approach, but we also took a number of specific 

steps to improve our analysis based on the peer reviewers’ recommendations. 

2. Although we have used the partial equilibrium (PE) models FASOM and FAPRI as 

the primary tools for evaluating whether individual biofuels meet the GHG thresholds, as part of 

the peer review process, we explicitly requested input on whether the general equilibrium (GE) 

models should be used. None of the comments recommended using a GE model as the sole tool 

for estimating GHG emissions, given the limited details on the agricultural sector contained in 

most GE models. The peer reviewers generally supported the use of the FASOM and FAPRI 

7-62
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

models for our GHG analysis given the level of detail included in the PE models, however 

several comments suggested incorporating GE models into the analysis. Given these 

recommendations, we opted to use the GTAP model to inform the range of potential GHG 

emissions associated with land use change resulting from an increase in biofuels. Our 

consideration of the GTAP model is described in preamble Section V. 

We also received comments on the combined use of FASOM and FAPRI. Several 

comments and peer reviewers questioned the benefit of using two agricultural sector models. 

Specifically reviewers pointed to some of the inconsistencies in the FASOM and FAPRI 

domestic results. For the final rule analysis we worked to reconcile the two model results. We 

apply the same set of scenarios and key input assumptions in both models. For example, both 

models were updated to apply consistent treatment of DGs in domestic livestock feed 

replacement and consistent assumptions regarding DG export. 

Some reviewers questioned the benefits of using FASOM and suggested we rely entirely 

on the FAPRI model for the analysis. However, we continue to believe there are benefits to the 

use of FASOM. Specifically, the fact that FASOM has domestic land use change interactions 

between crop, pasture, and forest integrated into the modeling is an advantage over using the 

domestic FAPRI model that only tracks cropland. 

3. One of the main comments we received on our choice of models was the issue of 

transparency. Several comments were concerned that the results of EPA’s modeling efforts can 

not be duplicated outside the experts who developed the models and conducted the analysis used 

by EPA in the proposal. Upon the release of the proposal, EPA requested comment on the use of 

these various models. EPA conducted a number of measures to gather comments, including the 

public comment period upon release of the NPRM analysis, holding a public workshop on the 

lifecycle methodology, and conducting a peer review of the lifecycle methodology. Specifically, 

one of the major tasks of the peer review of EPA’s lifecycle GHG methodology was to review 

and comment on the use of the various models and their linkages. The response we received 

through the peer review is supportive of our use of the FASOM and FAPRI models, affirming 

that they are the strong and appropriate tools for the task of estimating land use changes 

stemming from agricultural economic impacts due to changes in biofuel policy. 

In addition, in an effort to garner as useful comments as possible and to be as transparent 

as possible about the modeling process, EPA supplied in the docket technical documents for the 

FASOM and FAPRI models, the output received by EPA from each model, and the models 

themselves such that the public and commenters could learn and examine how each model 

operates. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

7-63
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The commenter believes the use of FASOM and FAPRI to model ILUC is appropriate and that 

linking the models is also appropriate and allows the analytical strengths of both models to be 

utilized. The commenter also supports examination of GTAP as an alternative modeling 

platform with global scope. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 19]] 

Our Response: 

We appreciate comments provided by ExxonMobil supporting our use of FASOM and 

FAPRI to determine indirect land use change. As recommended by ExxonMobil and others, we 

have also explored the option of incorporating the GTAP model into our modeling framework, 

and have included the results of this analysis in the Chapter 2 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2133 

Organization: The Brazilian Vegetable Oil Industry Association (ABIOVE) and the 

Brazilian Biodiesel Union (UBRABIO) 

Comment:

1. The commenter (2133) believes that the integration of long-term projections based on 

deterministic models, which did not consider the peculiarities of the oilseed complexes and the 

new agricultural research that will lead to increased productivity, produces results not connected 

to the real economy and market projections. [[Docket number 2133.1, p. 25]] [[See docket 

number 2133.1, pp. 5-8 for extensive discussion of this issue.]] 

The economic incentives are all focused on these objectives. Attributing all the increase in 

biodiesel production to soy is to ignore the real economic determinants of oilseed production and 

that biodiesel will incentivate raw material diversification and agricultural research. (2133.1, p.8) 

2. Brazil grows an average of only one head of beef cattle per hectare of pasture, according to the 

results of IBGE’s Agriculture-Livestock Census. This number can increase to eight head of 

cattle per hectare, using adequate handling and crop-livestock rotation, thus freeing up a gigantic 

area for agriculture and not putting pressure on areas of native vegetation. However, even a very 

conservative estimate shows the potential for taking advantage of Brazil’s pastures. Increasing 

the Brazilian average from 1 to 1.4 head per hectare (for the state of São Paulo) will make 33 

million hectares available for agriculture, equivalent to 70% of Brazil’s grain acreage. This is 

more than sufficient to meet all Brazil’s needs for domestic consumption and exports, especially 

in view of the growth potential for agricultural productivity and the possibility of growing two or 

even three grain harvests in the same area every year. (2133.1, p.11) 

The commenter says the model does not consider the national statistics bases for land use, 

agriculture, and deforestation, which is another mistake since Brazil is internationally recognized 

for its competence in production of information of this nature. [[Docket number 2133.1, p. 25]] 

3. The commenter believes that the use of remote sensory techniques creates another uncertainty 

due to the low resolution and incorrect date of the images used for analysis of land use changes. 

7-64
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

In addition, the Winrock International model commits a serious mistake in adopting the 

hypothesis that only part of the pastures is available for allocation to agriculture. To calculate 

forgone sequestration, the model again overestimated emission as it did not consider the initial 

hypothesis that deforestation occurs in areas of mature native vegetation. [[Docket number 

2133.1, p. 25]] [[See docket number 2133.1, pp. 9-12 for extensive discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

1. To estimate lifecycle indirect impacts of biofuel production requires the use of 

economic modeling to determine the market impacts of using agricultural commodity feedstocks 

for biofuels. The use of economic models and the uncertainty of those models to accurately 

predict future agricultural sector scenarios was one of the main comments we received on our 

analysis. While the comments and specifically the peer review supported our need to use 

economic models to incorporate and measure indirect impacts of biofuel production, they also 

highlighted the uncertainty with that modeling approach, especially in projecting out to the 

future. 

However, it is important to note that while there are many factors that impact the 

uncertainty in predicting total land used for crop production, making accurate predictions of 

many of these factors are not relevant to our analysis. For example different assumptions about 

economic growth rates, weather, and exchange rates will all impact future agricultural 

projections including amount of land use for crops. However, we are interested only in the 

difference between two biofuel scenarios holding all other changes constant. So the absolute 

values and projections for crops and other variables in the model projections are not as important 

as the difference the model is projecting due to an increase in biofuels production. This limits 

the uncertainty of using the economic models for our analysis. 

Furthermore, one of the key uncertainties associated with our agricultural sector 

economic modeling that impacts land use change results is the assumptions around crop yields. 

In addition to including an assessment of the commodity price impact on international crop 

yields, as discussed in preamble Section V.A.2, we conducted sensitivity analysis around 

different future yield assumptions for cron and soy in our analysis. 

Therefore, because of the fact that we are only using the economic models to determine 

the difference between two projected scenarios and the fact that we are conducting sensitivity 

analysis around the yield assumptions we feel it is appropriate and acceptable to use economic 

models in our analysis of determining GHG thresholds in our final rule analysis. 

Our modeling does not attribute all of the biodiesel increase to soybeans. The biodiesel 

standard in 2022 is one billion gallons. In our modeling we assume that this biodiesel will be 

produced with a variety of feedstocks, with soybeans accounting for approximately 660 million 

gallons. Furthermore, the FASOM and FAPRI models which we used do account for the soy 

meal co-product. For crops with by-products, behavioral equations for the by-products are 

included (e.g., soybean meal, soybean oil and biodiesel from soybeans). For each commodity, a 

market-clearing price is achieved by equating quantity supplied to quantity demanded. The 

7-65
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

market linkages imply that changes in one commodity sector will have impacts on the other 

sectors. 

2. A significant improvement in our modeling was the incorporation of FAPRI’s 

improved Brazil model, which is based on the high-quality statistics collected by the Brazilian 

Government. The Brazil module was developed by Iowa State with input from Brazilian 

agricultural sector experts and we believe it is an improvement over the approach used in the 

proposal. In the NPRM, we requested additional data for countries outside the U.S. We received 

comments encouraging us to use regional and country specific data where it was available. We 

also received comments encouraging us to take into account the available supply of abandoned 

pastureland in Brazil as a potential source of new crop land. The new Brazil module addresses 

these comments. Since the Brazil module contains data specific to six regions, this additional 

level of details allows FAPRI to more accurately capture real-world responses to higher 

agricultural prices. For example, double cropping (the practice of planting a winter crop of corn 

or wheat on existing crop acres) is a common practice in Brazil. Increased double cropping is 

feasible in response to higher agricultural prices, which increases total production without 

increasing land use conversion. The new Brazil module also explicitly accounts for changes in 

pasture acres, therefore accounting for the competition between crop and pasture acres. 

Furthermore, the Brazil module explicitly models livestock intensification, the practice of 

increasing the number of heads of cattle per acre of land in response to higher commodity prices 

or increased demand for land. 

In addition to modifying how pasture acres are treated in Brazil, we also improved the 

methodology for calculating pasture acreage changes in other countries. We received several 

comments through the public comment period and peer reviewers supporting a better analysis of 

the interaction between crops, pasture, and livestock. In the NPRM, although we accounted for 

GHG emissions from livestock production (e.g., manure management), we did not explicitly 

account for GHG emissions from changes in pasture demand. In response to comments received, 

our new methodology accounts for changes in pasture area resulting from livestock fluctuations 

and therefore captures the link between livestock and land used for grazing. Based on regional 

pasture stocking rates (livestock per acre), we now calculate the amount of land used for 

livestock grazing. The regional stocking rates were determined with data on livestock 

populations from the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and data on pasture area 

measured with agricultural inventory and satellite-derived land cover data. As a result of this 

change, in countries where livestock numbers decrease, less land is needed for pasture. 

Therefore, unneeded pasture acres are available for crop land or allowed to revert to their natural 

state. In countries where livestock numbers increase, more land is needed for pasture, which can 

be added on abandoned cropland or unused grassland, or it can result in deforestation. We 

believe this new methodology provides a more realistic assessment of land use changes, 

especially in regions where livestock populations are changing significantly. 

3. All five of the expert peer reviewers that reviewed our use of satellite imagery agreed 

that our general approach was scientifically justifiable. However, all of the peer reviewers 

qualified that statement by describing relevant uncertainties and highlighting revisions that 

would improve our analysis. Some of the public commenters supported EPA’s use of satellite 

imagery, while other expressed concern. In general, both sets of public commenters—those in 

7-66
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

favor and opposed—outlined the same criticisms and suggestions as the expert peer reviewers. 

Among the many valuable suggestions for satellite data analysis provided in the expert peer 

reviews and public comments, several major recommendations emerged: EPA should use the 

most recent satellite data set that covers a period of at least 5 years; EPA should use higher 

resolution satellite imagery; EPA's analysis should consider a wider range of land categories; 

EPA should improve it’s analysis of the interaction between cropland, pasture and unused or 

underutilized land; and EPA's analysis should include thorough data validation and a full 

assessment of uncertainty. In preamble Section V, we describe these and other recommendations 

and how we addressed each of them to improve our analysis. Based on the peer reviewers 

agreement that our general approach is scientifically justifiable, and in light of the significant 

improvements made, we think that our approach represents the best available analysis of the 

types of land affected internationally. 

In the proposed rule, to estimate annual forgone forest sequestration, we used IPCC 

default data for the growth rates of forests greater than 20 years old. The expert peer reviewers 

noted that these estimates could be refined with more detailed information from the scientific 

literature. Many of the public commenters were also concerned that EPA’s approach 

overestimated foregone sequestration because it did not adequately account for natural 

disturbances, such as fires and disease. To address these comments, our analysis has been 

updated with peer reviewed studies of long-term growth rates for both tropical and temperate 

forests. These estimates are based on long-term records (i.e., monitoring stations in old-growth 

forests for the tropics and multi-decadal inventory comparisons for the temperate regions) and 

reflect all losses/gains over time. These studies show that the old-growth forests in the tropics 

that many once assumed to be in “steady state” (i.e., carbon gains equal losses) are in fact still 

gaining carbon. In summary, our analysis now includes more conservative foregone forest 

sequestration estimates that account for natural gains and losses over time. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2136 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFS) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2320.1 

Organization: Informa, for Growth Energy 

Comment:

The commenter (2136) states that if the Agency’s combination of models was correctly 

forecasting the international linkages and impacts of increased biofuels production in the future, 

they would also be able to accurately “backcast” the same linkages and impacts. However, the 

real world data does not even remotely support this conclusion. [[Docket number 2136.1, p. 3]] 

[[See docket number 2136.1, pp. 3-4 for additional discussion of this issue.]]

Informa conducted a “backcast” with the FASOM model and found that historical and current 

export estimates from FASOM did not match or come close to actual historical exports. The 

soybean oil and meal exports simulated by FASOM for the 2000-2004 period are more than 

double the actual levels occurred. This is important because soybean oil is used in biodiesel. 

(2320.1, p1,9-11) 

7-67
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response: 

For the evaluation of domestic and international cropland change, the FASOM and 

FAPRI models were used, respectively. Both models incorporate elasticities and assumptions 

based on historical data trends. However, for the purpose of evaluating a particular renewable 

fuel, each feedstock is analyzed by examining the result of only increasing the volume demanded 

of that particular renewable fuel, ceteris parabis. Through this method, all changes that occur in 

the model are attributable to this change in demand. This evaluation will not reflect historical 

data patterns, as there are several varying factors occurring simultaneously in history. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2137 

Organization: Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2137.1) recognizes the complexity of completing the lifecycle analysis and in 

general believes that it was carefully done and captured many of the complexities of agriculture, 

land use and biofuel production worldwide. At the same time, the commenter also believes that 

further refinement is warranted and necessary for the final rule. The commenter identifies the 

necessary changes to EPA’s “direct” lifecycle calculation (including the need to incorporate the 

anticipated changes to the sugarcane ethanol pathway through 2022 as well as to include 

emissions credits for the surplus bioelectricity that displaces other more carbon-intensive energy 

sources in Brazil) and addresses the “indirect” calculations, with a particular focus on the need to 

incorporate a Brazil-specific land use model into EPA’s calculations.[[Docket number 2137.1, 

pp. 17-18]] [[See docket number 2137.1, pp 18-34 for details of this discussion.]]

Our Response: 

For the final rule we have incorporated many of the suggestions for the direct lifecycle 

calculations for the sugarcane pathway in our analyses. First, we now account for the expected 

phase-out of sugarcane harvest burning in the future. Secondly, we have included an increase in 

mechanical harvesting. Thirdly, we have included emissions credits for surplus electricity from 

the use of sugarcane trash and efficiency improvements at mills as expected by 2022. In 

addition, we support the method of assuming marginal electricity (i.e., natural gas) as the 

electricity being displaced when accounting for surplus electricity generated at the sugarcane 

ethanol facility. 

Several clarifications were also requested by the commenter. First, we have corrected 

our assessment to include a scenario where sugarcane straw is assumed to be collected at 40% 

(i.e., 56 kg dry leaves and tops per metric ton of cane). Straw is assumed to have a moisture 

content of 50% or 140 kg of dry leaves and tops per metric ton of cane. Please refer to Section 

2.4.3.5 of the RIA for more detail on sugarcane burning. Secondly, we did not double-count 

transport emissions in the United States. The misunderstanding is due to a mislabeling of the 

items “Fuel Production” and “Other (fuel and feedstock transport)”. “Fuel Production” 

7-68
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

mistakenly included ethanol transport outside the U.S. (for travel from Brazil to U.S.) whereas 

“Other (fuel and feedstock transport)” only included the ethanol transport within the U.S. We 

have for the final rule corrected this error and aggregated all ethanol transport emissions along 

with feedstock transport emissions for better clarification so that the “Fuel Production” category 

is correctly represented. Thirdly, we have used the suggestion to assume negligible “haul back” 

shipping emissions for ethanol transport from Brazil to the U.S. Lastly, the Agency uses the 

Global Warming Potential (GWP) values from IPCC’s Second Assessment Report. These GWP 

values have been agreed upon in the international framework for addressing climate change and 

are used in EPA’s Endangerment Finding for greenhouse gases and for the official U.S. GHG 

Inventory. 

Furthermore, in terms of the indirect impacts, we have included a Brazil component of 

our international agricultural sector modeling. 

EPA recognizes the importance of accurately modeling the land use change in Brazil. 

For the final rulemaking analysis, EPA has worked with FAPRI to incorporate a separate Brazil 

module which analyzes Brazil through six geographic regions, providing extensive information 

on land used for cropland and livestock production in each region. This is the first non-U.S. 

country modeled on a regional basis in the FAPRI model, and includes analysis of other 

variables. For example, double cropping (the practice of planting a winter crop of corn or wheat 

on existing crop acres) is a common practice in Brazil. Increased double cropping is feasible in 

response to higher agricultural prices, which increases total production without increasing land 

use conversion. The new Brazil module also explicitly accounts for changes in pasture acres, 

therefore accounting for the competition between crop and pasture acres. Furthermore, the 

Brazil module explicitly models livestock intensification, the practice of increasing the number 

of heads of cattle per acre of land in response to higher commodity prices or increased demand 

for land. EPA believes that this will provide a much more detailed and accurate representation 

of land use change in Brazil. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) noted that while EPA’s analysis is a major attempt at bringing together 

multiple inputs and models, the commenter is concerned that several of the individual models 

used were not developed with these applications in mind, but rather were intended to capture / 

analyze agricultural economic decisions and their impacts. (2146.1, p.4) [[See Docket Number 

2146.1, pp.4-5 for a detailed discussion of the commenter’s problem with the models]] 

Our Response: 

While the models we have used to measure lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions may not 

have been explicitly developed to capture indirect land use change, both the FASOM and FAPRI 

models were designed to analyze the impacts of government policies in the agricultural sector. 

7-69
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

FASOM has been used for over a decade to analyze the impacts of economy-wide greenhouse 

gas policies on the agricultural and forestry sector in the U.S. In addition, the FAPRI model has 

been used extensively over the last 25 years to analyze the agricultural sector impacts of policies 

designed to increase biofuel demand and other agricultural policy questions. 

Both the FASOM and FAPRI models are best suited for analyzing the impact of a policy 

relative to a predetermined baseline, not for projecting absolute future levels. Because we 

recognize this limitation, we have structured our analysis to rely on the change in prices and 

quantities as a result of renewable fuel volumes required by the RFS2, which reduces the 

sensitivity of the results on any single future level of production, exports, or acreage projections. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2174 

Organization: Illinois Soybean Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2174) noted that Under the Energy Independence & Security Act (EISA) of 

2007, to be eligible for the new RFS2, biodiesel must meet a 50% greenhouse gas (GHG) 

reduction relative to petroleum diesel. Under the existing GREET model (Greenhouse gases, 

Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation) used by the EPA and the U.S. 

Department of Energy, biodiesel achieves a 78% GHG reduction relative to petroleum diesel. 

(2174, p.1) 

Our Response: 

Under EISA biodiesel must meet a 50% reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions including 

significant indirect emissions. The GREET analysis cited does not include indirect emissions. 

Therefore, EPA had to do our own analysis including indirect impacts in order to determine if 

biodiesel met the threshold requirements of biomass based diesel. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) believes a collaborative effort to develop agreed upon models is needed. 

Before the models are incorporated into regulation, all stakeholders must accept the science 

behind them. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 46]] 

The commenter discusses issues related to EPA’s use of FASOM/FAPRI models plus Winrock 

data. The commenter is concerned that EPA methodology lacks transparency in a number of 

respects including the lack of data to replicate and verify EPA’s results. The commenter also 

believes that EPA needs to use complete versions of each model (FAPRI and FASOM) with 

appropriate parameters, and EPA needs to calibrate models to a more consistent Reference Case. 

7-70
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter notes that the FASOM model results in a corn price increase in 2022 of 4.6% 

compared to the baseline looks low, especially given some recent historical corn price changes. 

[[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 49-51]]

Our Response: 

Throughout the rulemaking process, EPA consulted with numerous experts and 

stakeholders in industry, academia, and government in regards to all aspects of the analysis. In 

addition, EPA hosted a public forum on lifecycle analysis and our methodology, welcoming 

participation and discussion with outside stakeholders. This, in combination with the release of 

all data used in the analysis; detailed documentation in the form of the draft preamble, RIA, and 

technical reports; the availability of models on the docket to the extent possible; and the 

publication of a peer review of the lifecycle methodology; EPA believes that the information 

provided in the NPRM is consistent with Agency and OMB guidelines on information quality

and provides a comprehensive source of information allowing robust opportunity for public 

comment. Following the release of the NPRM analysis, EPA received helpful feedback on 

assumptions and methodology used in the analysis as well as support for the use of various 

models in the analysis and how they are used together. 

For the final rulemaking analysis, EPA worked to ensure that the assumptions used in the 

FASOM and FAPRI models are more consistent, and expanded the amount of detail each model 

provides. For instance, the FASOM model now incorporates both the forestry and agricultural 

sectors of the model, showing the dynamic interaction between the two sectors in terms of land 

competition and other factors. Also, the FAPRI model now includes a Brazil module which 

analyzes Brazil in terms of six geographical regions, providing extensive information on land 

used for cropland and livestock production in each region. EPA believes that these model 

improvements provide a more complete, refined, and accurate lifecycle analysis. 

In regards to corn prices, the change in the price of corn estimated in the FASOM model 

is only the result of an increased demand for renewable fuel. Historical changes in prices that are 

subject to a number of varying factors and is not directly comparable to model estimates. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2234 

Organization: University of California Energy & Resources Group 

Comment: 

1. The commenter [[2234]] lists major concerns as: The lack of forestry in FASOM (as run for 

the NPRM) prevents any domestic conversion of forests to cropping. FASOM predicts less 

domestic land conversion than does the domestic FAPRI model, yet the latter drives the 

international LUC estimates, resulting in an underestimate of total land conversion. 

2. MODIS underestimates forest and wetland conversion, resulting in low emission factors. (See 

detailed comments by Ralph Heimlich.) 

7-71
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

3. The use of a 2022 rather than a near-term baseline, with very high projected crop and 

biorefining yields predicted with no sound prediction model reduces the quantity of land required 

to replace land used to produce any fixed quantity of biofuels relative to that required in the near 

term.

4. Summing emission flows rather than considering radiative forcing fails to properly account for 

the early release of CO2 from LUC (O’Hare, Plevin et al. 2009). We note that several peer 

reviewers raised this issue. Displacing soybeans with corn earns a spurious N2O “benefit” in 

FASOM. (We have been unable to ascertain the rationale for this benefit.) The GHG benefits of 

conversion to no-till cultivation appear to be overstated. [[2234.1 p.3] 

Our Response: 

1. Following the publication of the NPRM analysis, EPA worked to expand the coverage 

of the FASOM model. For the final rulemaking analysis, the FASOM model includes both the 

forestry and agricultural sectors. These two sectors dynamically interact with one another in 

terms of land competition over time. In addition, the FASOM model now provides a detailed 

accounting of various types of land in the U.S., including cropland, pasture, forestland, rangeland 

and developed land. 

We recognize that FASOM and FAPRI do not provide identical land use change results 

as a result of an increase of renewable fuel demand. However, for the purposes of lifecycle 

analysis, results from these two models are analyzed on a normalized basis, minimizing 

distortionary effects from using two models. It should also be noted that EPA has coordinated 

numerous assumptions between the two models, and relies on each model for its relative 

analytical strength. For instance, FASOM provides valuable detail for several land types in the 

U.S., as well as the incorporation of various greenhouse gas factors. The strength of using the 

model is to provide a detailed analysis of international cropland use, as affected by changes in 

world trade of commodities (price and quantity) following changes in U.S. demand for 

renewable fuel. 

Information on the assumptions used in both models, as well as details on the operation 

of each model can be found in the Preamble, RIA, and technical reports included in the docket. 

2. One benefit of using the MODIS data set is that it is routinely and extensively 

validated by NASA’s MODIS land validation team. NASA uses several validation techniques 

for quality assurance and to develop uncertainty information for its products. NASA’s primary 

validation technique includes comparing the satellite classifications to data collected through 

field and aircraft surveys, and other satellite data sensors. The accuracy of the version 5 MODIS 

land cover product was assessed over a significant set of international locations, including 

roughly 1,900 sample site clusters covering close to 150 million square kilometers. The results 

of these validation efforts are summarized in a “confusion matrix” which compares the satellite’s 

land classifications with the actual land types observed on the ground. We used this information 

to assess the accuracy and systematic biases in the published MODIS data. In general, the 

validation process found that MODIS version 5 was quite accurate at distinguishing forest from 

7-72
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

cropland or grassland. However, the satellite was more likely; for example, to confuse savanna 

and shrubland because these land types can look quite similar from space. 

Using the data validation information from NASA about which types of land MODIS 

tends to confuse which each other, our Monte Carlo analysis was able to account for systematic 

misclassifications in the MODIS data set. We did not know how these improvements would 

affect the final results, but, as the commenters suggested, our updated analysis shows that the 

MODIS data used in our proposed rule analysis underestimated the percentage of land converted 

from forest in many of the regions analyzed. 

The reviewers specifically recommended the addition cropland/natural vegetation 

mosaic, permanent wetlands, and barren or sparsely vegetated land, all of which are now 

included in our analysis. Consistent with these recommendations, there are 9 aggregate land 

categories in our revised analysis: barren, cropland, excluded (e.g., urban, ice, water bodies), 

forest, grassland, mixed (i.e., cropland/natural vegetation mosaic), savanna, shrubland and 

wetland. These land cover categories capture all significant types of land affected by agricultural 

land use changes. As described below in Section V.B.2.b.iii, we also estimated carbon 

sequestrations for all of these land categories. 

As the commenters’ point out, wetlands were not included in the proposed rule analysis. 

The expert reviewers specifically recommended the addition cropland/natural vegetation mosaic, 

permanent wetlands, and barren or sparsely vegetated land, all of which are now included in our 

analysis. Consistent with these recommendations, there are 9 aggregate land categories in our 

revised analysis: barren, cropland, excluded (e.g., urban, ice, water bodies), forest, grassland, 

mixed (i.e., cropland/natural vegetation mosaic), savanna, shrubland and wetland. We found a 

relatively small share of agricultural land converted from wetlands. The region with the largest 

share of wetlands converted to cropland was Bangladesh, where 5% of new cropland was 

projected to come from wetlands. 

3. We project our analysis and economic modeling through the life of the program. We 

then consider the impacts of an increase of biofuels on the agricultural sector in 2022 as the basis 

for our threshold analysis. This was an area that we received numerous comments on 

highlighting that this approach adds uncertainty to our results because we are projecting 

uncertain technology and other changes out into the future. One of the recommendations was to 

base the lifecycle GHG assessments on a near term time frame and update the analysis every few 

years to capture actual technology changes. 

We continue to focus our final rule analyses on 2022 results for two main reasons. First, 

it would require an extremely complex assessment and administratively difficult implementation 

program to track how biofuel production might continuously change from month to month or 

year to year. Instead, it seems appropriate that each biofuel be assessed a level of GHG 

performance that is constant over the implementation of this rule, allowing fuel providers to 

anticipate how these GHG performance assessments should affect their production plans. 

Second, it is appropriate to focus on 2022, the final year of ramp up in the required volumes of 

renewable fuel as this year. Assessment in this year allows the complete fuel volumes specified 

in EISA to be incorporated. This also allows for the complete implementation of technology 

7-73
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

changes and updates that were made to improve or modeling efforts. For example, the inclusion 

of price induced yield increases and the efficiency gains of DGs replacement are phased in over 

time. Furthermore, these changes are in part driven by the changes in earlier years of increased 

biofuel use. 

4. EPA accounts for GHG emission impacts based on the GWPs of the emissions 

considered. The EISA language specifically states that GHG emissions should be weighted 

based on GWPs. The definition of “Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions” in EISA specifies 

that: 

“ the mass values for all greenhouse gases are adjusted to account for their relative global 

warming potential.” 

Furthermore, peer reviewers generally supported EPA’s approach of using GWPs and 

highlighted several areas where the Fuel Warming Potential (FWP) approach that considers 

radiative forcing could be improved upon before applying it to this type of analysis. 

In the proposal analysis for this rulemaking displacing soybeans with corn in FASOM did 

generate an N2O benefit because of the assumptions concerning soybean N2O emissions. The 

proposal analysis used outdated N2O emission factors for soybeans that overestimated emissions; 

therefore, replacing soybeans with corn generated N2O reductions. The N2O emission factors for 

soybeans have been updated as part of the final rulemaking analysis. 

The GHG emissions associated with conversion to no-till cultivation has also been 

updated as part of the final rulemaking analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2245 

Organization: Illinois Corn Growers Association, et.al. 

Contributors to this comment letter include: Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Soybean 

Association, Illinois Soybean Association, Illinois Renewable Fuels Association, Kentucky 

Soybean Association, Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, Missouri Corn Growers 

Association, Missouri Soybean Association, Monsanto, the National Corn to Ethanol Research 

Center, Nebraska Corn Board, Nebraska Soybean Association, Novozymes, Ohio Soybean 

Association, South Dakota Soybean Association, University of Illinois Chicago, Energy 

Resources Center, University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana plant breeding, animal nutrition and 

agronomy, DuPont, Ethanol Technologies, John Deere, and the U.S. Grains Council 

Comment:

1. The commenters (2245.1) recommend that a detailed peer review of global corn export 

demand be conducted to help improve and validate the FAPRI model results. (2245.1, p.23) 

The commenters believe that FAPRI is unable to address changes in international pasture. There 

are a number of errors that exist in EPA’s attempt to identify changes in international pasture. 

7-74
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

First, the use of MODIS satellite data from 2001 and 2004 to predict future land use change 

designations that is not able to identify pasture as a land use category, second, the use of an EPA 

add on to the FAPRI model in an unvalidated attempt to predict pasture displacement, third, no 

recognition of pasture intensification in Brazil which has been repeatedly highlighted by 

Brazilian experts in EPA workshops, and finally, the assumption that any displaced pastureland 

is re-established on forest or scrubland. The EPA should defer the recommendations on this 

approach to specifically commissioned experts with the appropriate technical expertise to 

provide accurate, in country, ground up assessments of land use change. (2245.1, p.26) 

2. The commenters also believe that EPA used dated or inadequate data for components of its 

proposed rule. This data needs to be made current and kept current. EPA needs to update its 

direct GHG determinations for corn based ethanol to reflect current, versus dated, operational 

performance data. EPA also needs to update its base GHG values for current, versus historic 

fertilizer usage. The baseline data used by GREET also needs to be updated to reflect current 

technology adoption and a mechanism needs to be created for annual updates. It is not 

appropriate to hold these assumptions constant until 2022. (2245.1, pp.26-27) 

3. The commenters would like EPA to provide to the public all inputs and all assumptions, the 

source of all inputs and assumptions, a mechanism by which the public can access and run all 

modeling scenarios, and scenarios demonstrating model sensitivities. (2245.1, p.28) 

Our Response: 

1. A significant improvement in our modeling was the incorporation of FAPRI’s 

improved Brazil model, which is based on the high-quality statistics collected by the Brazilian 

Government. The Brazil module was developed by Iowa State with input from Brazilian 

agricultural sector experts and we believe it is an improvement over the approach used in the 

proposal. In the NPRM, we requested additional data for countries outside the U.S. We received 

comments encouraging us to use regional and country specific data where it was available. We 

also received comments encouraging us to take into account the available supply of abandoned 

pastureland in Brazil as a potential source of new crop land. The new Brazil module addresses 

these comments. Since the Brazil module contains data specific to six regions, this additional 

level of details allows FAPRI to more accurately capture real-world responses to higher 

agricultural prices. For example, double cropping (the practice of planting a winter crop of corn 

or wheat on existing crop acres) is a common practice in Brazil. Increased double cropping is 

feasible in response to higher agricultural prices, which increases total production without 

increasing land use conversion. The new Brazil module also explicitly accounts for changes in 

pasture acres, therefore accounting for the competition between crop and pasture acres. 

Furthermore, the Brazil module explicitly models livestock intensification, the practice of 

increasing the number of heads of cattle per acre of land in response to higher commodity prices 

or increased demand for land. 

In addition to modifying how pasture acres are treated in Brazil, we also improved the 

methodology for calculating pasture acreage changes in other countries. We received several 

comments through the public comment period and peer reviewers supporting a better analysis of 

the interaction between crops, pasture, and livestock. In the NPRM, although we accounted for 

7-75
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

GHG emissions from livestock production (e.g., manure management), we did not explicitly 

account for GHG emissions from changes in pasture demand. In response to comments received, 

our new methodology accounts for changes in pasture area resulting from livestock fluctuations 

and therefore captures the link between livestock and land used for grazing. Based on regional 

pasture stocking rates (livestock per acre), we now calculate the amount of land used for 

livestock grazing. The regional stocking rates were determined with data on livestock 

populations from the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and data on pasture area 

measured with agricultural inventory and satellite-derived land cover data. As a result of this 

change, in countries where livestock numbers decrease, less land is needed for pasture. 

Therefore, unneeded pasture acres are available for crop land or allowed to revert to their natural 

state. In countries where livestock numbers increase, more land is needed for pasture, which can 

be added on abandoned cropland or unused grassland, or it can result in deforestation. We 

believe this new methodology provides a more realistic assessment of land use changes, 

especially in regions where livestock populations are changing significantly. 

Another important addition to our analysis was consideration of the types of land affected 

by changes in pasture area, and the interaction of pasture land with cropland. In the proposed 

rule, we made a broad assumption that the total land area used for pasture would stay the same in 

each country or region. Thus, in the proposed rule, we assumed that any crop expansion onto 

pasture would necessarily require an equal amount of pasture to be replaced on forest or 

shrubland. We received a large number of comments questioning these assumptions, and the 

expert peer reviewers encouraged us to develop a better representation of the interactions 

between cropland and pasture land. The results from the FAPRI model are now used to 

determine pasture area changes in each country or region. In regions where we project that 

pasture and crop area both increase, the land types affected by pasture expansion are determined 

using the same analysis used for crop expansion. This new approach accounts for the ability of 

pasture to expand on to previously unused, or underutilized, grasslands and savanna. In regions 

where we project that crop and pasture area will change in opposite directions (e.g., crop area 

increases and pasture decreases) we assume that crops will expand onto abandoned pasture, and 

vice versa. Our analysis also now accounts for carbon sequestration resulting from crop or 

pasture abandonment. We used our satellite analysis, which shows the dominant ecosystems and 

land cover types in each region, to determine which types of ecosystems would grow back on 

abandoned agricultural lands in each region. 

We believe that our analysis incorporates the best available data on pasture stocking rates 

on a globally consistent basis. However, we recognize that this is an area for further work, and it 

is one of the issues that we specifically intend to recommend for study by the National Academy 

of Sciences as part of its review of our analysis for this rulemaking. 

2. EPA disagrees with this comment. For the proposal, one of the key sources of 

information on energy use for corn ethanol production was a study from the University of Illinois 

at Chicago Energy Resource Center. Between proposal and final rule, the study was updated, 

therefore, we incorporated the results of the updated study in our corn ethanol pathways process 

energy use for the final rule. We also updated corn ethanol production energy use for different 

technologies in the final rule based on feedback from industry technology providers as part of the 

7-76
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

public comment period. This analysis assumes energy efficiency gain out to 2022 and does not 

rely on current energy use data. 

Fertilizer use data is based on values in the FASOM model on row crop production which 

are based on USDA and State data on production, values vary by management practice and 

region. Our agricultural sector modeling includes projections out to 2022 and not relying on 

current data for threshold determinations. 

 

3. Accompanying the Preamble and RIA in the release of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA provided on the docket the model data used for the analysis, detailed 

technical reports of the models used, as well as access to the models to the extent possible. In 

addition, EPA hosted a public forum on lifecycle analysis and our methodology, welcoming 

participation and discussion with outside stakeholders; published a peer review of the lifecycle 

methodology; and consulted with numerous experts and stakeholders in industry, academia, and 

government in regards to all aspects of the analysis. Following the release of the NPRM 

analysis, EPA received helpful feedback on assumptions and methodology used in the analysis. 

For the final rulemaking analysis, EPA provided updated documentation on the 

methodology used with updated assumptions. Correspondingly, all data used for the final 

analysis, as well as data used for sensitivity analyses, has been provided. Lastly, the models used 

for this analysis have been provided to the extent possible on the docket.

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

1. The commenter (2249.2) states that while FASOM and FAPRI are well-known, they were not 

intended to be used in the manner EPA has proposed. FASOM and FAPRI are economic models 

that attempt to assess the impacts of changes in policy and economic parameters on prices and 

agricultural commodities. These economic models were not intended to forecast absolute levels 

of exports, and the inherent assumptions of the models trend the findings toward overestimating 

exports compared to actual data. In addition, these models were not meant to be used to calculate 

land use decisions for regulatory purposes. Economic forecasting using models as tools to 

identify policy is fundamentally different than assessing emissions for regulatory purposes. 

[[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 53-54]] [[Also see docket number 2232.1, Attachments 6 and 7 for 

additional information.]] 

The commenter adds that EPA and others claim that the FAPRI model is appropriate because it 

has been used by numerous government entities to inform agricultural policy decisions, largely 

economic policies that may influence agricultural prices, but there are no examples of FAPRI 

being used to identify a specific score to be used for regulatory purposes. EPA was required to 

make adjustments to both models, which are highly dependent on inputs and assumptions used. 

[[Docket number 2249.2, p. 54] 

7-77
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

2. The commenter believes there are also numerous flaws in the models that make their 

application to the lifecycle analysis here questionable. (A more detailed analysis of the 

weaknesses of these models and EPA’s methodology is included as Attachment 7 [[docket 

number 2232.1]] (John M. Urbanchuk, Review of Models Used By EPA to Estimate Indirect 

Land Use Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard (Sept. 7, 2009) and Attachment 6 [[docket 

number 2232.1]] (Nelson Report).) Significantly, the models are limited in analyzing other 

market factors. In addition, the commenter states that EPA also fails to provide sufficient 

information as to the coordination between the two models. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 54]] 

3. The commenter adds that the mere fact that models were peer reviewed is not sufficient to 

ensure the validity of an approach. The commenter refers to OMB and EPA guidance and peer 

review reports to support their position, noting a lack of consensus among the peer reviewers. 

[[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 61-64]]

Our Response: 

1. To estimate lifecycle indirect impacts of biofuel production, as specified in EISA, 

requires the use of economic modeling to determine the market impacts of using agricultural 

commodity feedstocks for biofuels. The complexity and uncertainty inherent in this work made 

it extremely important that we seek the advice and input of a broad group of stakeholders. 

EPA’s multiple efforts to solicit public and expert feedback are described in preamble Section V. 

Based on the all of the feedback received by the agency through the public-comment 

process and from the expert peer reviewers we determined that FASOM and FAPRI are the best 

available models for this analysis. This determination was based on several factors. For one, the 

expert peer reviewers generally agreed that EPA’s approach of linking partial equilibrium 

models was preferable to using a general equilibrium model, especially given the fact that no 

single existing model comprehensively simulates the direct and indirect effects of biofuel 

production both domestically and internationally. Support for FASOM and FAPRI was based, in 

part, on the level of detail included in the models and the fact that the models were designed to 

project physical quantities (as opposed to ex-post conversion of economic units into physical 

units). Furthermore, we made a number of improvements to these models to incorporate 

new/supplemental data, and to address specific concerns. These improvements, discussed in 

preamble Section V, include FAPRI’s updated Brazil model, updated DDG displacement rates 

incorporated into both models, consideration of price-induced yields in the FAPRI modeling 

structure, and improved treatment of international pasture modeling. 

Even with all of the improvements made to our analysis, we recognize inherent 

uncertainty in the use of economic models to accurately predict future agricultural sector 

scenarios. However, it is important to note that while there are many factors that impact the 

uncertainty in predicting total land used for crop production, making accurate predictions of 

many of these factors are not relevant to our analysis. For example different assumptions about 

economic growth rates, weather, and exchange rates will all impact future agricultural 

projections including amount of land use for crops. However, we are interested only in the 

difference between two biofuel scenarios holding all other changes constant. So the absolute 

values and projections for crops and other variables in the model projections are not as important 

7-78
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

as the difference the model is projecting due to an increase in biofuels production. This limits 

the uncertainty of using the economic models for our analysis. 

As described in the proposal, to estimate lifecycle indirect impacts of biofuel production 

requires the use of economic modeling to determine the market impacts of using agricultural 

commodity feedstocks for biofuels. The use of economic models and the uncertainty of those 

models to accurately predict future agricultural sector scenarios was one of the main comments 

we received on our analysis. While the comments and specifically the peer review supported our 

need to use economic models to incorporate and measure indirect impacts of biofuel production, 

they also highlighted the uncertainty with that modeling approach, especially in projecting out to 

the future. 

However, it is important to note that while there are many factors that impact the 

uncertainty in predicting total land used for crop production, making accurate predictions of 

many of these factors are not relevant to our analysis. For example different assumptions about 

economic growth rates, weather, and exchange rates will all impact future agricultural 

projections including amount of land use for crops. However, we are interested only in the 

difference between two biofuel scenarios holding all other changes constant. So the absolute 

values and projections for crops and other variables in the model projections are not as important 

as the difference the model is projecting due to an increase in biofuels production. This limits 

the uncertainty of using the economic models for our analysis. 

Furthermore, one of the key uncertainties associated with our agricultural sector 

economic modeling that has the biggest impact on land use change results is the assumptions 

around crop yields. As discussed in preamble Section V.A.2, we are conducting sensitivity 

analysis around different yield assumptions in our analysis. 

Therefore, because of the fact that we are only using the economic models to determine 

the difference between two projected scenarios and the fact that we are conducting sensitivity 

analysis around the yield assumptions we feel it is appropriate and acceptable to use economic 

models in our analysis of determining GHG thresholds in our final rule analysis. 

2. Several comments and peer reviewers questioned the benefit of using two agricultural 

sector models. Specifically reviewers pointed to some of the inconsistencies in the FASOM and 

FAPRI domestic results. For the final rule analysis we worked to reconcile the two model 

results. We applied the same set of scenarios and key input assumptions in both models. For 

example, both models were updated to apply consistent treatment of DGs in domestic livestock 

feed replacement and consistent assumptions regarding DG export. 

Some reviewers questioned the benefits of using FASOM and suggested we rely entirely 

on the FAPRI model for the analysis. However, we continue to believe there are benefits to the 

use of FASOM. Specifically, the fact that FASOM has domestic land use change interactions 

between crop, pasture, and forest integrated into the modeling is an advantage over using the 

domestic FAPRI model that only tracks cropland. 

7-79
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The RIA provides a detailed look on the coordination between the two models, namely 

ensuring that the assumptions used and the scenarios analyzed are the same. Further information 

on how these assumptions and scenarios were analyzed in each model can be found in the 

technical documentation for each model in the docket. 

3. To ensure the Agency made its decisions for this final rule on the best science 

available, EPA conducted a formal, independent peer review of key components of the analysis. 

The reviews were conducted following the Office of Management and Budget’s peer review 

guidance that ensures consistent, independent government-wide implementation of peer review, 

and according to EPA's longstanding and rigorous peer review policies. In accordance with 

these guidelines, EPA used independent, third-party contractors to select highly qualified peer 

reviewers. The reviewers selected are leading experts in their respective fields, including 

lifecycle assessment, economic modeling, remote sensing imagery, biofuel technologies, soil 

science, agricultural economics, and climate science. They were asked to evaluate four key 

components of EPA’s methodology: (1) land use modeling, specifically the use of satellite data 

and EPA’s proposed land conversion GHG emission factors; (2) methods to account for the 

variable timing of GHG emissions; (3) GHG emissions from foreign crop production (both the 

modeling and data used); and (4) how the models EPA relied upon are used together to provide 

overall lifecycle estimates. 

The advice and information received through this peer review are reflected throughout 

this section. EPA’s use of higher resolution satellite data is one example of a direct outcome of 

the peer review, as is the Agency’s decision to retain its reliance upon this data. The reviewers 

also provided recommendations that have helped to inform the larger methodological decisions 

presented in this final rule. For example, the reviewers in general supported the importance of 

assessing indirect land use change and determined that EPA used the best available tools and 

approaches for this work. However, the review also recognized that no existing model 

comprehensively simulates the direct and indirect effects of biofuel production both domestically 

and internationally, and therefore model development is still evolving. The uncertainty 

associated with estimating indirect impacts and the difficulty in developing precise results also 

were reflected in the comments. In the long term, this peer review will help focus EPA’s 

ongoing lifecycle analysis work as well as our future interactions with the National Academy of 

Science and other experts. 

The peer review was one of many efforts by EPA to seek the advice and input of a broad 

group of stakeholders. In order to maximize stakeholder outreach opportunities, the comment 

period for the proposed rule was extended to 120 days. In addition to this formal comment 

period, EPA made multiple efforts to solicit public and expert feedback on our approach. 

Beginning early in the NPRM process and continuing throughout the development of this final 

rule, EPA held hundreds of meetings with stakeholders, including government, academia, 

industry, and non-profit organizations, to gather expert technical input. Our work was also 

informed heavily by consultation with other federal agencies. For example, we have relied on 

the expert advice of USDA and DOE, as well as incorporating the most recent inputs and models 

provided by these Agencies. Dialogue with the State of California and the European Union on 

their parallel, on-going efforts in GHG lifecycle analysis also helped inform EPA’s 

methodology. As described below, formal technical exchanges and an independent, formal peer 

7-80
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

review of the methodology were also significant components of the Agency’s outreach. A key 

result of our outreach effort has been awareness of new studies and data that have been 

incorporated into our final rule analysis. 

Altogether, the many and extensive public comments we received to the rule docket, the 

numerous meetings, workshops and technical exchanges, and the scientific peer review have all 

been instrumental to EPA’s ability to advance our analysis between proposal and final and to 

develop the methodological and regulatory approach for this rulemaking. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2317 

Organization: National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) 

Comment:

1. The commenter (2317) urges EPA to make its models available to the public so that they can 

evaluate the impact of accurate corn yield projections on the modeled GHG impacts and meet its 

commitment to transparency and the requirements of the Information Quality Act. [[Docket 

number 2317.1, p. 17]] [[See docket number 2317.1, pp. 17-20 for extensive discussion of this 

issue.]]

2. The commenter believes that because the Winrock analysis has been shown to be inaccurate, 

any model that relies on it is likely to be inaccurate as well. 

3. Given that EPA uses models in combination for its analysis, erroneous inputs to FASOM and 

FAPRI based on Winrock modeling multiplies the errors in the results of the analysis. [[Docket 

number 2317.1, p. 24]] [[See docket number 2317.1, pp. 24-26 for extensive discussion of this 

issue.]] 

4. Even if Winrock’s analyses were accurate, which the commenter believes is not the case, the 

problem with EPA’s approach is that it simply does not follow that the social, political and 

economic forces that led to particular land use shifts in 2001-2004 would be replicated over the 

next 20 to 30 years under the RFS2 program. EPA has provided no support in the docket or 

explanation in the Proposed Rule as to why it believes the land use patterns of 2001-2004 are 

representative of the land use shifts that will occur in the future. While this may be the only data 

that EPA has, that is not a sufficient basis to use it. EPA must show that such land use 

conversion patterns are relevant to what will happen as a result of implementation of the RFS2. 

It is not surprising that such an analysis is not provided in the proposal because it is highly 

unlikely that the same forces that affected land use change in 2001-2004 will be replicated in the 

future (23117.1, p.26). 

5. In addition, there appears to be another error in the Winrock analysis (making the leap that 

earlier social, economic and political forces will be replicated in the future), the failure of 

Winrock to estimate the rate of conversion of cropland back to pasture or forest. We know this 

occurs as the 1 billion acres of abandoned cropland in the world attests. Winrock should have 

provided the net rate of conversion of forest to cropland, if any, rather than assuming that once 

7-81
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

forest was converted to cropland, it would always stay in cropland and would never revert to 

forest or pasture, both of which store large amounts of carbon and simultaneously tie up 

nitrogen. 

Our Response: 

1. The FASOM and FAPRI models were used for the economic agricultural analysis. 

EPA has provided in the docket a number of materials explaining how the models work and how 

they produced the results in the proposal as well as the results provides in the final rule, 

including: the release of data from these models that are used in the analysis; detailed 

documentation in the form of the preamble, RIA, and technical reports; and making the models 

themselves available to the extent possible. This, in combination with EPA’s outreach to 

stakeholders throughout the analytical process, hosting a public forum on the lifecycle analysis 

methodology, and the publication of a peer review of the methodology used, EPA believes that 

the information provided in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is consistent with 

Agency and OMB guidelines on information quality and provides a comprehensive source of 

information allowing robust opportunity for public comment. 

EPA recognizes that the FAPRI model can not be run by others without obtaining the 

services of the CARD staff at Iowa State University. While this makes it harder for commenters 

to have the model run for themselves, that does not mean they have not been provided adequate 

information and opportunity to comment on EPA’s proposal. There are other rulemaking 

situations where EPA relies on information in a proposal that is not automatically replicable by 

commenters, and this does not mean EPA may not rely on it or that commenters are not provided 

an adequate opportunity to comment. For example, in some rulemakings EPA relies on peer 

reviewed studies of health effects associated with air pollution, and commenters may or may not 

have access to the underlying data in the study, hence may not be able to replicate the study 

themselves. However that does not mean EPA may not rely on relevant and credible studies, or 

that EPA has not provided an adequate opportunity to comment on the basis for EPA’s proposal, 

including comment on the pros and cons of that study or other studies or modeling that also shed 

light on the same issue. In this case, EPA provided a comprehensive variety of information that 

explains in detail the analysis and modeling underlying the proposal and final rule. Commenters 

have commented on many of these elements of EPA’s work, and have in some cases referred 

EPA to other relevant modeling results or studies. EPA has provided all of the information it 

could about the basis for its modeling, and commenters have had a full opportunity to comment 

on it. Any inability to have the FAPRI model run for the commenter themselves, whether to 

replicate EPA’s results or run variations on them, does not preclude comemnters from providing 

comment on the results of that modeling and all of the underlying information provided by EPA 

related to it, and to obtain other information they deem relevant to support their comments. 

The FAPRI model is a complex set of models that does not rely on an automated process. 

Rather, it requires experts at CARD to run the complete set of FAPRI models. Documentation 

on the general structure and operation of the FAPRI models is available on the docket. This 

documentation is not intended to be a step-by-step set of instructions. Rather, it is intended to 

reveal how the models actually operate in an effort to be as transparent as possible 

7-82
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

For the final rulemaking analysis, EPA will provide updated documentation on the 

methodology used with updated assumptions. Correspondingly, all data used for the final 

analysis, as well as data used for sensitivity analyses (including from model runs conducted for a 

higher corn and soybean yield scenario), will be provided. Lastly, the models used for this 

analysis will be provided to the extent possible on the docket. 

2. The proposed rule included a detailed description of the FAPRI/Winrock approach 

used to determine the type of land affected internationally. This approach uses satellite data 

depicting recent land conversion trends in conjunction with economic projections from the 

FAPRI model (an economic model of global agricultural markets) to determine the type of land 

converted internationally. In the proposed rule we described areas of uncertainty in this 

approach, illustrated the uncertainty with sensitivity analyses, and discussed other potential 

approaches for this analysis. To encourage expert and stakeholder feedback, EPA specifically 

invited comment on this issue, held public hearings and workshops, and sponsored an 

independent peer-review, all of which specifically highlighted this part of our analysis for 

feedback. While there were a wide range of views expressed in these forums, the feedback 

received by the Agency generally supported the FAPRI/Winrock approach as appropriate for this 

analysis. For example, all five experts that peer reviewed EPA’s use of satellite imagery agreed 

that it is scientifically justifiable to use historic remote sensing data in conjunction with 

agricultural sector models to evaluate and project land use change emissions associated with 

biofuel production. Additionally, the peer reviewers and public commenters highlighted 

problematic areas and suggested revisions to improve our analysis. In preamble Section V, we 

describe the key revisions that were implemented which have significantly improved our analysis 

based on the feedback received. 

As discussed above, all five of the expert peer reviewers that reviewed our use of satellite 

imagery for this analysis agreed that our general approach was scientifically justifiable. 

However, all of the peer reviewers qualified that statement by describing relevant uncertainties 

and highlighting revisions that would improve our analysis. Some of the public commenters 

supported EPA’s use of satellite imagery, while other expressed concern. In general, both sets of 

public commenters—those in favor and opposed—outlined the same criticisms and suggestions 

as the expert peer reviewers. Among the many valuable suggestions for satellite data analysis 

provided in the expert peer reviews and public comments, several major recommendations 

emerged: EPA should use the most recent satellite data set that covers a period of at least 5 years; 

EPA should use higher resolution satellite imagery; EPA's analysis should consider a wider 

range of land categories; EPA should improve it’s analysis of the interaction between cropland, 

pasture and unused or underutilized land; and EPA's analysis should include thorough data 

validation and a full assessment of uncertainty. In preamble Section V, we describe these and 

other recommendations and how we addressed each of them to improve our analysis. Based on 

the peer reviewers agreement that our general approach is scientifically justifiable, and in light of 

the significant improvements made, we think that our approach represents the best available 

analysis of the types of land affected internationally. 

3. As explained in preamble Section V, none of the satellite data analysis or emissions 

factors that EPA developed with Winrock was used as inputs into the FASOM or FAPRI 

modeling used in our analysis. 

7-83
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

4. As discussed in preamble section V, our assessment of satellite data uncertainty did 

not try to fully quantify the uncertainty of using historical data to make future projections about 

the types of land that would be affected internationally. However, we think it is reasonable to 

assume that in general, recent land use change patterns will continue in the future absent major 

economic or land use regime shifts caused, for example, by changes in government policies. 

Thus, our uncertainty assessment provides a reasonable estimate of the variability in land use 

change patterns absent any fundamental shifts in the factors that affect land use patterns. 

However, our uncertainty assessment does not attempt to fully quantify the probability of major 

shifts in land use regimes, such as the implementation of effective international policies to curb 

deforestation. Although, the likelihood of these changes was not fully quantified, we conducted 

sensitivity analysis illustrating potential scenarios (e.g., if all or none of the land use changes 

affected forests) and how they could affect lifecycle GHG emissions from each biofuel. 

5. The satellite data is used to determine what types of land would be affected by 

agricultural expansion or reversion as projected by the economic models used. The rate of 

conversion of croplands to other land types is therefore not relevant in our analysis. However, 

the satellite data showing these rates is available on the public docket. 

Furthermore, as an improvement in our land use modeling framework, we now capture 

the possibility that an indirect effect of biofuel production could be crop or pasture abandonment 

in certain regions. For example, in countries where we project that livestock numbers decrease 

as a result of biofuel production, less land is needed for pasture. Therefore, unneeded pasture 

acres are available for crop land or allowed to revert to their natural state. In countries where 

livestock numbers increase, more land is needed for pasture, which can be added on abandoned 

cropland or unused grassland, or it can result in deforestation. We believe this new methodology 

provides a more realistic assessment of land use changes. Our analysis of the types of land that 

would grow back on abandoned agricultural land, and the resulting carbon uptake, is discussed in 

more detail RIA Chapter 2. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2353 

Organization: Iowa Soybean Association 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2353]] states that soybeans are raised in a rotation with corn. Since soybeans 

fix nitrogen from the air, the nitrogen nodules on their roots help fertilize the next crop, reducing 

both fertilizer use and tillage. Nitrogen fertilizer is not used on soybeans. [[#2353 p.2]]

Our Response: 

EPA’s analysis takes into account the fact that soybeans fix nitrogen. The crop budgets 

included in the FASOM model include data on input use that varies by crop, management 

practices, and region. There is often considerable variation in the inputs used per acre. Crop 

budgets are based on USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data and crop 

7-84
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

budgets developed by university extension offices. More information on this can be found in the 

FASOM documentation in the Docket. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2360 

Organization: Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2360.1) believes that EPA should provide a mechanism for site specific fuel 

assessment and pathway creation. (2360.1, p.6) 

Our Response: 

EPA has provided a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA to 

evaluate specific technologies or operating processes that distinguish their biofuel production 

LCA GHG impacts from those already considered by EPA. These new technologies or operating 

processes can then receive an alternative GHG threshold assessment, if appropriate. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2383) states that the case law, ISO criteria and EPA protocols establish clear 

requirements for predictive models that EPA must apply in order to determine any indirect 

impacts of compliance with the RFS2 regulation on GHG emissions. The commenter adds that 

the lifecycle emissions analysis presented in the NPRM relies upon an unusually complex chain 

of predictive models. EPA’s use of such models must comply with the standards of transparency 

and reliability established by the Clean Air Act, as well the standards set by EPA and the Office 

of Management and Budget. The Agency cannot rely on data or analysis known only to itself 

and its contractors. Moreover, the right and need for the public to participate in the rulemaking 

process requires that agencies like EPA in this rulemaking follow a simple path. The commenter 

is concerned that the current approach being taken by EPA to the complex issue of international 

indirect land use change and GHG emissions too often deviates from that path. [[Docket number 

2383.1, pp. 34-35]] [[See docket number 2383.1, pp. 34-37 and 2380.1 p. 2 for a detailed 

discussion of this issue.]]

The commenter also states that EPA’s current analytical methods do not permit it to determine 

that conventional biofuels from new facilities in the united states will cause “significant“indirect 

GHG emissions increases, adding that there are strong reasons to be skeptical of the type of LCA 

analysis on which the NPRM relies to project international land-use change. The commenter 

points to the declaration of Bruce E. Dale. [[Docket number 2382.1, p. 37]] [[See docket number 

2382.1, pp. 37-40 and docket number 2379.1, declaration of Bruce E. Dale for a detailed 

discussion of this issue.]] 

7-85
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Additionally, the commenter states that EPA is not permitted to rely on models that lack 

adequate transparency and that have not been peer reviewed. The inability of the public (and 

EPA’s peer reviewers) to examine adequately the FAPRI and FASOM models is documented in 

a report by Informa Economics for Growth Energy, and has been described in the commenter’s 

recent letter to EPA. The commenter believes that FASOM fails basic tests for model reliability 

and therefore cannot be used in estimating land use change. The commenter also believes that 

FAPRI’s design is ad hoc and lacks objectivity and consistent boundaries. [[Docket number 

2382.1, pp. 40-44]] [[See docket number 2382.1, pp. 40-44 for a detailed discussion of these 

issues.]] 

The commenter believes that EPA is not relying on the “Best Available Science” for key factors 

in its land use change analysis. Also EPA has not procured and published systemic sensitivity 

analyses for its economic modeling. The LCA analysis does not apply consistent system 

boundaries, contrary to the requirements of the Statute. Based on current documentation, EPA’s 

analysis does not permit it to allocate property land use and land-cover change among relevant 

causes, and does not include important sensitivity analyses. Finally, the commenter states that 

portions of EPA’s analysis appear to violate a basic law of science. [[Docket number 2382.1, pp. 

44-51]] [[See docket number 2382.1, pp. 44-51 and docket number 2379.1, declaration of Bruce 

E. Dale for a detailed discussion of these issues.]] 

The commenter explains that after considerable effort, experts retained by the commenter were 

unable to operate the FAPRI models. This means that they could not replicate the models’ 

results, conduct sensitivity analyses, or test the credibility of the outputs produced. The 

commenter believes that other stakeholders similarly have not been able to operate the FAPRI 

models. [[Docket number 1959.1, p. 1]] 

Our Response: 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA. As part of this effort we made publically available detailed 

descriptions of the models used, data sources and assumptions including a fuel description of the 

FAPRI model and its algorithms and provided copies of outputs of the model including 

underlying outputs that affected the final results. This level of information is sufficient to 

provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment. 

The FASOM and FAPRI models were used for the economic agricultural analysis. EPA 

has provided in the docket a number of materials explaining how the models work and how they 

produced the results in the proposal as well as the results provides in the final rule, including: the 

release of data from these models that are used in the analysis; detailed documentation in the 

7-86
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

form of the preamble, RIA, and technical reports; and making the models themselves available to 

the extent possible. This, in combination with EPA’s outreach to stakeholders throughout the 

analytical process, hosting a public forum on the lifecycle analysis methodology, and the 

publication of a peer review of the methodology used, EPA believes that the information 

provided in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is consistent with Agency and OMB 

guidelines on information quality and provides a comprehensive source of information allowing 

robust opportunity for public comment. 

EPA recognizes that the FAPRI model can not be run by others without obtaining the 

services of the CARD staff at Iowa State University. While this makes it harder for commenters 

to have the model run for themselves, that does not mean they have not been provided adequate 

information and opportunity to comment on EPA’s proposal. There are other rulemaking 

situations where EPA relies on information in a proposal that is not automatically replicable by 

commenters, and this does not mean EPA may not rely on it or that commenters are not provided 

an adequate opportunity to comment. For example, in some rulemakings EPA relies on peer 

reviewed studies of health effects associated with air pollution, and commenters may or may not 

have access to the underlying data in the study, hence may not be able to replicate the study 

themselves. However that does not mean EPA may not rely on relevant and credible studies, or 

that EPA has not provided an adequate opportunity to comment on the basis for EPA’s proposal, 

including comment on the pros and cons of that study or other studies or modeling that also shed 

light on the same issue. In this case, EPA provided a comprehensive variety of information that 

explains in detail the analysis and modeling underlying the proposal and final rule. Commenters 

have commented on many of these elements of EPA’s work, and have in some cases referred 

EPA to other relevant modeling results or studies. EPA has provided all of the information it 

could about the basis for its modeling, and commenters have had a full opportunity to comment 

on it. Any inability to have the FAPRI model run for the commenter themselves, whether to 

replicate EPA’s results or run variations on them, does not preclude comemnters from providing 

comment on the results of that modeling and all of the underlying information provided by EPA 

related to it, and to obtain other information they deem relevant to support their comments. 

The FAPRI model is a complex set of models that does not rely on an automated process. 

Rather, it requires experts at CARD to run the complete set of FAPRI models. Documentation 

on the general structure and operation of the FAPRI models is available on the docket. This 

documentation is not intended to be a step-by-step set of instructions. Rather, it is intended to 

reveal how the models actually operate in an effort to be as transparent as possible. 

Although the FAPRI model cannot be operated by any third parties, EPA has provided all 

data from FAPRI runs used in the lifecycle analysis, as well as those for sensitivity analyses, on 

the docket. In addition, EPA quantified in the uncertainty in our evaluation of GHG emissions 

impacts from biofuel-induced land use changes. These uncertainty ranges, and the procedures 

used to calculate them, are presented and discussed in preamble Section V and in additional 

detail in RIA Chapter 2. 

What Commenters Said:

7-87
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter is also concerned about the method used to translate the FAPRI models into 

estimates of how the RFS2 program would affect land use and land cover. EPA has not provided 

to the public the specific protocols used in interpreting and applying the satellite data. In 

addition, EPA has not explained with any specificity some very important assumptions about the 

release of carbon during the predicted land-use changes. [[Docket number 1959.1, pp. 1-2]] 

Our Response: 

The proposed rule included a detailed description of the FAPRI/Winrock approach used 

to determine the type of land affected internationally. This approach uses satellite data depicting 

recent land conversion trends in conjunction with economic projections from the FAPRI model 

(an economic model of global agricultural markets) to determine the type of land converted 

internationally. EPA explained the reasoning for every assumption used our analysis in the 

Section VI of the preamble to the proposed rule and in Draft RIA Chapter 2. In the proposed 

rule we described areas of uncertainty in this approach, illustrated the uncertainty with sensitivity 

analyses, and discussed other potential approaches for this analysis. Furthermore, every single 

data input and calculation that EPA used to translate the FAPRI model estimates into land cover 

and GHG emissions impacts were made publicly available in memoranda and spreadsheets in the 

public docket (see document numbers: 0938, 0945, 0949, and 0891). 

To encourage expert and stakeholder feedback, EPA specifically invited comment on this 

issue, held public hearings and workshops, and sponsored an independent peer-review, all of 

which specifically highlighted this part of our analysis for feedback. While there were a wide 

range of views expressed in these forums, the feedback received by the Agency generally 

supported the FAPRI/Winrock approach as appropriate for this analysis. For example, all five 

experts that peer reviewed EPA’s use of satellite imagery agreed that it is scientifically justifiable 

to use historic remote sensing data in conjunction with agricultural sector models to evaluate and 

project land use change emissions associated with biofuel production. Additionally, the peer 

reviewers and public commenters highlighted problematic areas and suggested revisions to 

improve our analysis. In preamble Section V, we describe the key revisions that were 

implemented which have significantly improved our analysis based on the feedback received. 

Based on the peer reviewers agreement that our general approach is scientifically justifiable, and 

in light of the significant improvements made, we think that our approach represents the best 

available analysis of the types of land affected internationally. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter also expresses concern about the Agency’s apparent determination to consider 

the results of one or more additional modeling systems in the land-use change analysis in the 

7-88
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Final Rule. The public cannot comment effectively on these additional modeling approaches 

without concrete information. The commenter suggests actions that will make the lifecycle 

analyses more transparent. [[Docket number 1959.1, p. 2]] [[See docket number 1959.1, pp. 2-3 

for suggested actions.]] 

[[Also see Attachment at docket number 1959.1 for explanation of commenter’s concerns with 

certain aspects of the process by which EPA is developing its biofuels lifecycle analysis.]] 

Our Response:

Again, the Agency has been transparent in its use of the different models and how these 

models inter-relate. We have also provided in the RIA details of sensitivity analyses conducted 

by the Agency as part of the documentation supporting this rule. These include results from 

GTAP modeling, an alternative modeling framework which we did not use directly for our 

lifecycle GHG assessments but the results of which we believed were informative in assessing 

the reliability of the modeling results directly used. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2387 

Organization: Ensus Ltd 

Comment: 

The commenter (2387) expresses concern about the level of transparency of the macroeconomic models. The commenter explains that in order to check the validity of a modeling 

approach, or to understand why different models give different results, it is important to know 

the justification for the modeling approaches that are adopted, the data fitting processes and data 

that have been used to determine parameters, for example elasticities, in the model. In many 

cases this is lacking in current ME models. [[Docket number 2387.1, p. 3]] [[See docket number 

2387.1, pp. 4-5 for further discussion of this issue.]]

Our Response: 

EPA has gone to great and appropriately reasonable lengths to detail the design of models 

used, the input parameters, sources of data, outputs of individual analyses and has included 

uncertainty assessments and sensitivity analyses about key parameters likely to have the most 

significant impacts on results. To the extent possible, these were documented in the public 

docket and made available to the public before close of comment. Additionally, we conducted a 

public workshop during the comment period in which we explained the models and data sources 

used and responded to comments and questions in order to assure full understanding of the 

analyses conducted for the proposal and thus to help assure complete and informed comments. 

We also held dozens of meetings with industry and others to understand their concerns, explain 

our analyses, receive updated information and otherwise benefit from comments. Further we 

have conducted a peer review of the models used and data sources and have reflected the results 

of those peer reviews in its final rule assessments. For this final rule, we have included detailed 

information of the models used and the outputs of individual models including the 

7-89
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

macroeconomic models. We remain cond that we have used the best data and analytical tools 

available and have appropriately used these tools and data in constructing the final rule analyses. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) notes that EPA employed a suite of tools and analytical procedures to 

model domestic and international agricultural sector impacts. This “synthesizing” of models and 

analytical procedures is particularly problematic in that it is an approach that lacks transparency. 

[[Docket number 2393.1, p. 45]] [[See docket number 2393.1, pp. 45-47 for further discussion of 

this issue.]] 

The commenter adds that use of biomass to generate electricity in general provides much larger 

GHG benefits than does the conversion of biomass to fuel. Therefore the commenter 

recommends that EPA evaluate cellulosic ethanol on an electricity neutral basis in order to 

isolate the GHG impact of the biofuel activity from that of electricity generation. The commenter 

states that no-till farming should not be tied directly to stover collection. Under many scenarios 

corn stover could lead to soil carbon depletion instead of accumulation. [[Docket number 2393.1, 

pp. 47-48]] 

Regarding the modeling of direct and indirect nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural sources, 

the commenter urges EPA to exercise caution in using the DAYCENT model outputs as inputs to 

FASOM. Concerns have been raised to the effect that the DAYCENT model reportedly 

overestimates N2O emissions by more than a factor of two for some types of corn farming 

applications. How has EPA addressed this potential for overestimation in making the 

determination to use DAYCENT model output to update the N2O factors in FASOM? If a model 

output that is subject to such a large degree of error is used as an input to another model, what 

will be the impact on the uncertainty associated with the overall biofuel lifecycle GHG 

calculation? The commenter believes that EPA should subject DAYCENT to careful scrutiny so 

that its contribution to the lifecycle GHG associated with producing a biofuel can be properly 

understood and evaluated.[[Docket number 2393.1, p. 48]] 

Our Response: 

We have made models and results available in the docket, used the same set of 

assumptions in both sets of models, and performed an uncertainty analysis around results. 

Regarding the commenter’s statements about the use of biomass the generate electricity, 

we are evaluating only the RFS2 biofuel policy, not other GHG policies that could impact the 

use of biomass for electricity. In terms of the biofuel production we do evaluate cellulosic 

biofuel pathways that do not produce excess electricity, for example the thermochemical ethanol 

pathway and the F-T diesel pathway. 

7-90
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

No-till is not directly linked to corn stover production. The model does assume that with 

no-tll practices farmers could remove more stover from the field. Therefore, based on economics 

as stover becomes more profitable it is more economical for farmers to switch to no-till practices 

in order to remove more stover from the field. 

Regarding the commenter’s concern about the DAYCENT model, the main difference 

between using IPCC factors directly as opposed to relying on DAYCENT modeling is that IPCC 

provides default factors by crop by country, while DAYCENT models N2O emissions by crop 

but also by region within the US, accounting for different soil types and weather factors. For the 

final rule we still rely on the DAYCENT modeling results as we believe them to be more 

accurate. For example, the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory as reported annually by the U.S. 

to the Framework Convention on Climate Change uses the DAYCENT model to determine N2O 

emissions from domestic fertilizer use as opposed to using default IPCC factors as the 

DAYCENT modeling is recognized to be a more accurate approach. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2425 

Organization: PetroAlgae 

Comment: 

The commenter (2425) notes that EPA references the Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, 

and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) model. The commenter states that the GREET 

model is very limited on feedstock pathways and does not include any pathways associated with 

algae or other non-food biomass such as micro-crops. Further analysis of this model and its 

applicability to micro-crops needs to be closely evaluated. Without this model, the commenter 

asks what will EPA accept to support the LCA. [[Docket number 2425.1, p. 6]]

Our Response: 

EPA agrees that the GREET model does not have and algae pathway, therefore for the 

final rule analysis EPA conducted our own analysis of algae to biodiesel production. EPA 

worked with NREL to develop process information for algae to biofuel production process. This 

analysis indicated that algae would qualify as an advanced biofuel. 

Furthermore, for the final rule we have set up a petition process where fuel providers can 

provide information to EPA if their specific process is not captured by EPA’s current analysis or 

rulemaking. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2486 

Organization: Primafuel, Inc. 

Comment: 

7-91
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The commenter (2486) believes that land-use change is only one of many indirect/marketmediated effects of the fuels industry. Other market mediated environmental impacts include 

water use, urban sprawl, etc. The focus on land-use change as the ONLY indirect/marketmediated impact considered in EPA’s modeling results in an unreasonable focus on biofuels. 

While indirect land use changes of petroleum fuels have been considered, other market mediated 

impacts have not. EPA must therefore consider analogous market-mediated impacts from 

conventional petroleum fuels in the event that biofuels are NOT used. For example, the increased 

demand for crude oil would drive crude oil prices up. There are a number of detrimental 

environmental consequences caused by higher oil prices, expanded conventional drilling, 

expanded tar-sands mining, rising commodity prices, rising food prices. All these rising prices 

cause widespread expansion of extractive industries and agriculture, well documented through 

the last oil super spike in 2008. To assume that these impacts are negligible is effectively 

subsidizing the largest polluters. [[Docket number 2486.1, p. 2]] [[See docket number 2486.1, p. 

3 for examples provided for EPA’s consideration.]]

Our Response:

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule did 

not include indirect emissions from petroleum production was to be consistent with the goals and 

scope of the analysis as defined by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). 

The text of EISA specifies that the lifecycle threshold analysis for the different renewable 

fuel categories be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. EISA defines 

baseline lifecycle GHG emissions as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum co7-92
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

products, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2497 

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Comment: 

The commenter (2497.1) believes that EPA did not analyze other types of renewable 

fuels/blendstocks, such as cellulosic diesel or gasoline, biogas, biofuels from e.g., algae, or other 

biomass-to-liquids (BTL). The modeling should describe the impacts of the production and/or 

use of these renewable fuels on air quality and model the impacts, if deemed appropriate. 

(2497.1, p.2) 

The commenter also noted that the Midwest currently is and will likely continue to be a 

significant production center and user of renewable biofuels. The commenter believes that the 

modeling should acknowledge this by focusing sufficient resources to conduct the needed 

modeling in this region. The commenter requests that the needed modeling and information 

gathering be completed within two years of the rule becoming final (i.e., November 2011). If 

EPA does not have the resources to complete the required modeling in a timely manner, 

assistance from other credible entities, such as LADCO, should be utilized. (2497.1, p.2) 

The commenter also requests that the modeling take into consideration the ongoing, regular 

reviews of existing criteria pollutant and toxics rules. The modeling should include an 

7-93
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

evaluation of the broader implications of rule implementation, including the full suite of 

renewable fuels, on the standards and objectives of the Clean Air Act and impacts/affects to land 

use. (2497.1, p.2)

Our Response: 

EPA has updated its analyses for the final rule and has included a number of additional 

pathways including cellulosic diesel and algae as recommended by the commenter. We have 

modeled all those pathways we expect will be significant contributors of biofuel in the 

foreseeable future. We note however that for some of these pathways such as for cellulosic 

diesel and biofuels using algae oil as feedstock, the technologies remain under development and 

assessment of GHG performance may need to be updated to reflect this ongoing development. 

EPA has indicated its plans to continue assessment of biofuels including emerging pathways and 

will incorporate these in subsequent rulemakings as soon as practicable. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2500 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment: 

The commenter (2500.1) noted that the use of the FASOM and FAPRI models in the manner 

used is not justifiable by any principle of modeling, and “after the fact” jiggling with models to 

address the most visible inconsistencies is as much a cause for concern as a sign of progress. 

(2500.1, p.2)

Our Response: 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA. The adjustments made to the FASOM and FAPRI models 

were intended to provide consistency of assumptions across the models. EPA believes making 

these adjustments for consistency is warranted and appropriate. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2500 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment: 

7-94
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter noted that one of the greatest opportunities for inconsistency lies in the differing 

modeling treatments of switchgrass ethanol. FASOM uses one set of tools that predict one set of 

lands will be used to produce cellulosic ethanol, which will in turn generate large reductions in 

the amount of cropland devoted to a range of other crops. An increase of slightly more than 2 

million acres of switchgrass results in a reduction of roughly 1.8 million acres of other croplands 

and hay. There are large reductions in agricultural production emissions in the U.S. However, 

FAPRI predicts only around 1.3 million acres of increased agricultural production abroad. The 

large differences in the predicted exports highlight the discrepancies and appear to lead to a 

significant underestimation of emissions. (2500.1, p.2) (See Docket Number 2500.1, pp.2-3 for a 

detailed discussion of this issue)

Our Response: 

For the final rule analysis EPA has updated the treatment of switchgrass ethanol in 

FASOM and FAPRI. For the final rule EPA took the projected domestic crop acre changes 

impacted by increased switchgrass from the FASOM model and applied those acre and crop 

impacts to the domestic component of the FAPRI model. We then determine the international 

impacts of those domestic changes in the FAPRI model. This is a more consistent approach for 

measuring the impacts of switchgrass production. We are also working with FAPRI to get 

switchgrass specifically added to the model for future analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2500 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment: 

The commenter also noted that the broad categories of biofuels do not provide a sound basis for 

estimating future greenhouse gas emissions because they incorporate large numbers of pure 

assumptions. A better approach would derive a simple model from its other model results of key 

assumed factors that drive the results and establish categories based on future actual experience. 

For example, EPA can estimate the type of land use change likely to rely from the use of land of 

particular productivity, which can then be turned into variable emissions per unit based on 

switchgrass yields and conversion efficiencies in plants. (2500.1, p.3)

Our Response: 

The requirements from EISA do not require EPA to develop specific GHG estimates per 

gallon of fuel produced. The thresholds are per categories of fuels so EPA can develop average 

GHG emission estimates per pathway for the different categories. EPA will continue to update 

our analysis based on future actual analysis. Furthermore, if a fuel producer has a process or 

feedstock that is not specifically modeled by EPA they could provide their own information as 

part of a petition process to have their fuels analyzed. 

What Commenters Said:

7-95
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2508 

Organization: Environmental Working Group (EWG) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2508) approves of EPA’s proposal to move to the Daycent model for nitrous 

oxide emissions, however until there is a new approach to estimating indirect emissions that is 

better than using the IPCC parameters, the commenter recommends use of those IPCC 

parameters. (2508, p.4) 

Our Response: 

The difference between using IPCC factors directly vs. the DAYCENT model is that 

IPCC provides default factors by crop by country, while DAYCENT models N2O emissions by 

crop but also by region within the US, accounting for different soil types and weather factors. 

For the final rule we still rely on the DAYCENT modeling results for domestic N2O emissions as 

we believe them to be more accurate. For example, the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory as 

reported annually by the U.S. to the Framework Convention on Climate Change uses the 

DAYCENT model to determine N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer use as opposed to using 

default IPCC factors as the DAYCENT modeling is recognized to be a more accurate approach. 

For international N2O emissions we use IPCC default factors by crop. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2512 

Organization: Conservation International 

Comment: 

The commenter (2512.1) asserts that it is not appropriate to use a weighted average approach for 

estimating the type of land is converted to crop land at the national level. The commenter 

believes this is an important shortcoming of the current models, and crops should be assessed 

regionally, as the agricultural models do for domestic crop production. If the Winrock land type 

classes are also assessed uniformly for each country (as it appears they are), this is also a 

problem for this assessment. The commenter suggests that, for large countries at a minimum, 

sub-national units be used for modeling. (2512.1, pp.5-6) 

The commenter believes that where the degree of blending for market-traded commodities is 

such that no region of origin can be proscribed, a weighted average should be assigned to regions 

which produce the commodity, based on the percentage of national production each represents. 

This would allow the assessments to more accurately reflect the impact of biofuel production on 

emissions and other factors. (2512.1, p.6) 

The commenter noted that while the strongly supports the inclusion of potential impacts of 

biofuel development on biodiversity in the models, the commenter did not see biodiversity 

referenced elsewhere in RFS2. If EPA is going to include in the analysis, the commenter would 

appreciate seeing further details. (2512.1, p.11) 

7-96
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response: 

We agree with the commentor that details on where land conversion takes place at a subnational level would be preferable, particularly for large countries. This is one of the reasons we 

have include the Brazil module in our FAPRI analysis for the final rulemaking. Since the FAPRI 

model now quantifies changes in acreage at a sub-national level in Brazil, we are able to use 

Winrock data to classify the type of land that is converted at a sub-national level. While we plan 

to continue to add this level of detail to the FAPRI model for other countries over time, we do 

not yet have the capability to estimate acreage changes at the sub-national level outside of the 

U.S. and Brazil. 

We were not able to include an analysis of the biodiversity impacts of the renewable 

standard for this rulemaking. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2525 

Organization: Embassy of Brazil 

Comment:

The commenter (2525) requests that special emphasis be placed on the following issues: 

1. The application of deterministic economic models for predicting outcomes from single value 

parameters is disputable. Minor parameters variations can generate output discrepancies leading 

to enormous margins of error. 

2. A proposed biofuels lifecycle analysis must be undertaken in a comparable base of fossil fuels 

lifecycle analysis. 

3. While Brazil has a large volume of data to inform carbon content calculations, this will not be 

the case for several other developing countries. Little accuracy carbon content calculations 

model, with an average margin of error between 75 and 90%, represents an additional challenge 

to the reliability of aggregating such data to the overall analysis. 

4. Cogeneration of electricity from sugarcane bagasse - already acknowledged in the Californian 

LCFS - is not currently contemplated on EPA’s lifecycle analysis model. [[Docket number 2525, 

p.1]] 

[[Also see docket number 2525.1, the annex transcript, that contains 5 hours of the discussions 

containing assessments and considerations from Brazilian specialists to the lifecycle analysis 

model preliminary developed by EPA.]] 

Our Response: 

1. The peer review, the public comments we have received, and the analysis conducted 

for the proposal and updated here for the final rule, indicate that it is important to take into 

account indirect emissions when looking at lifecycle emissions from biofuels. It is clear that, 

especially when considering commodity feedstocks, including the market interactions of biofuel 

demand on feedstock and agricultural markets is a more accurate representation of the impacts of 

7-97
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

an increase in biofuels production on GHG emissions than if these market interactions are not 

considered. 

However, it is also clear that there are uncertainties associated with these estimates, 

particularly with regard to indirect land use change and the use of economic models to project 

future market interactions. Reviewers highlighted the uncertainty associated with our lifecycle 

GHG analysis and pointed to the inherent uncertainty of the economic modeling. 

In the proposal, we asked for comment on whether and how to conduct an uncertainty 

analysis to help quantify the magnitude of this uncertainty and its relative impact on the resulting 

lifecycle emissions estimates. The results of the peer review, and the feedback we have received 

from the comment process, supported the value of conducting such an analysis. Therefore, 

working closely with other government agencies as well as incorporating feedback from experts 

who commented on the rule, we have quantified the uncertainty associated specifically with the 

international indirect land use change emissions associated with increased biofuel production. 

Although there is uncertainty in all portions of the lifecycle modeling, we focused our 

uncertainty analysis on the factors that are the most uncertain and have the biggest impact on the 

results. For example, the energy and GHG emissions used by a natural gas-fired ethanol plant to 

produce one gallon of ethanol can be calculated through direct observations, though this will 

vary somewhat between individual facilities. The indirect domestic emissions are also fairly 

well understood, however these results are sensitive to a number of key assumptions (e.g., 

current and future corn yields). The indirect, international emissions are the component of our 

analysis with the highest level of uncertainty. For example, identifying what type of land is 

converted internationally and the emissions associated with this land conversion are critical 

issues that have a large impact on the GHG emissions estimates. 

Therefore, we focused our efforts on the international indirect land use change emissions 

and worked to manage the uncertainty around those impacts in three ways: (1) getting the best 

information possible and updating our analysis to narrow the uncertainty, (2) performing 

sensitivity analysis around key factors to test the impact on the results, and (3) establishing 

reasonable ranges of uncertainty and using probability distributions within these ranges in 

threshold assessment. 

For this final rule we have incorporated a statistical analysis of uncertainty about critical 

variables in our pathway analysis. This uncertainty analysis is explained in detail in preamble 

Section V and is consistent with the specific recommendations received through our peer review 

and public comments on the proposal. The uncertainty analysis focused on two aspects of 

indirect land use change - the types of land converted and the GHG emission associated with 

different types of land converted. In particular, our uncertainty analysis focused on such specific 

sources of information as the satellite imaging used to inform our assessment of land use trends 

and the specific changes in carbon storage expected from a change in land use in each 

geographic area of the world modeled. We have also performed additional sensitivity analyses 

including analysis of two yield scenarios for corn and soy beans to assess the impact of changes 

in yield assumptions. 

7-98
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

This uncertainty analysis provides information on both the range of possible outcomes for 

the parameters analyzed, an estimate of the degree of confidence that the actual result will be 

within a particular range (in our case, we estimated a 95% confidence interval) and an estimate 

of the central tendency or midpoint of the GHG performance estimate. 

2. The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule 

and the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

7-99
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

3. For the final rule our evaluation of biofuel lifecycle GHG emissions specifically 

considered the geographic variability in land cover carbon content data quality and quantity. 

For all countries analyzed, we followed the 2006 IPCC Agricultural Forest and Other 

Land Use Guidelines (AFOLU) and used the best available data in the scientific literature. In 

addition to seeking comment on our analysis in the proposed rule, EPA organized public 

hearings and workshops, and an expert peer review specifically eliciting feedback on this part of 

the lifecycle analysis. All of the expert peer reviewers generally felt that our analysis followed 

IPCC guidelines and was scientifically justifiable; however, they did make several suggestions of 

new data sources and recommended areas that could benefit from additional clarification. Based 

on the detailed comments we received, we worked with Winrock to make a number of important 

revisions, which have significantly improved this part of our analysis. These improvements 

include the incorporation of a higher resolution soil map of the world, several new studies on 

biomass carbon stocks, and new studies on annual forest carbon uptake by old-growth forests. 

All of these improvements are discussed in more detail in preamble Section V. 

As discussed in preamble Section V, we conducted a full assessment of the uncertainty in 

international land use change emissions factors consistent with 2006 IPCC guidance.1

 This 

analysis considers the uncertainty in the every parameter used in our emissions factor estimates. 

Standard deviations for each parameter were estimated based on the quality and quantity the 

underlying data for each. For example, in our analysis the standard errors (as a percent of the 

mean) tend to be smallest for forest carbon stocks in Brazil, because a large amount of high 

quality/resolution data was considered to estimate that parameter. Standard errors are largest for 

parameters that were estimated by scaling other data, or applying IPCC defaults, e.g., savanna 

carbon stocks in Yemen. 

4. For the proposal we did include cogeneration of electricity from sugarcane bagasse. 

However, it was brought to our attention to also consider the use of sugarcane trash to generate 

additional electricity credit. For the final rule we have incorporated the use of sugarcane trash 

and other anticipated improvements by 2022 into our analyses. 

 

1

 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 1: General Guidance and Reporting, 

Chapter 3: Uncertainties, available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol1.html 

7-100
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2541 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment: 

The commenter (2541) noted that while they support modeling efforts of the type solicited by the 

EPA, they do not believe that the particular applications are appropriate. The commenter noted 

that these models just are not designed to provide the details needed. Much more country by 

country research would be required. (2541, p.1) 

Our Response: 

We have significantly updated our modeling analyses since the proposal including our 

assessments of international impacts which now include more country specific information.. As 

explained in both the proposal and the final rule, we believe econometric models such as 

FASOM and FAPRI are essential in evaluating the agricultural industry’s response to increase 

demand for biofuel feedstock. The specific use of these two models is supported by their related 

use in other government assessment of agricultural industry response. Their use for biofuel 

feedstock assessment is support by peer review and other comments. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

[The following is from Growth Energy’s late supplemental comment document-a document 

number has not been assigned yet]: 

The commenter reviewed comments submitted by ICONE on what ICONE calls the Brazilian 

Land Use Change Model (BLUM) (See docket number 1958.1). The commenter does not 

believe that the predictive models adapted for use in BLUM are appropriate for use in attempting 

to estimate the environmental impacts of compliance the RFS2 regulation. 

Our Response: 

The Brazil module (an early version of which was used in the ICONE’s analysis) was 

developed by Iowa State University with input from Brazilian agricultural sector experts and we 

believe it is an improvement over the approach used in the proposal. In the NPRM, we requested 

additional data for countries outside the U.S. We received comments encouraging us to use 

regional and country specific data where it was available. We also received comments 

encouraging us to take into account the available supply of abandoned pastureland in Brazil as a 

potential source of new crop land. The new Brazil module addresses these comments. Since the 

Brazil module contains data specific to six regions, this additional level of details allows FAPRI 

to more accurately capture real-world responses to higher agricultural prices. For example, 

7-101
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

double cropping (the practice of planting a winter crop of corn or wheat on existing crop acres) is 

a common practice in Brazil. Increased double cropping is feasible in response to higher 

agricultural prices, which increases total production without increasing land use conversion. The 

new Brazil module also explicitly accounts for changes in pasture acres, therefore accounting for 

the competition between crop and pasture acres. Furthermore, the Brazil module explicitly 

models livestock intensification, the practice of increasing the number of heads of cattle per acre 

of land in response to higher commodity prices or increased demand for land. 

ICONE’s analysis uses BLUM by itself based on the assumption that sugarcane ethanol 

production in Brazil has no effect or interactions with agricultural markets in other countries. 

We did not think this was a valid assumption, so instead of modeling Brazil in isolation we 

integrated updated Brazil module into FAPRI’s global modeling framework. We used this 

modeling structure to analyze all of the renewable fuels assessed with FAPRI in this rulemaking. 

What Commenters Said:

The commenter is not aware of any means by which the public can fully understand and test 

BLUM, and doubts that EPA can do so either, because the necessary documentation is 

unpublished. 

Our Response: 

As was done for the NPRM analysis, EPA will be making available on the docket 

documentation of the agriculture sector models used, including FAPRI and the use/integration of 

the Brazil Module, in the RIA as well as a detailed technical report authored by CARD staff that 

operated the FAPRI model for EPA’s analysis. In addition, a “solved” Reference Case version 

of the FAPRI model used for EPA’s analysis will be available on the docket as well. In 

combination, this should provide sufficient information to the public about how the FAPRI 

model (with the Brazil Module) was used in EPA’s analysis, and how various assumptions are 

incorporated into the modeling analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

The commenter has been unable to locate any indication that BLUM has experienced the type of 

review required by EPA’s March 2009 Guidance on the Development, Evaluation and 

Application of Environmental Models. This omission is not explained in ICONE’s filing. Is it 

apparent from other materials placed on the docket by ICONE and affiliated organizations that 

ICONE has been at work on BLUM for many months, and could have sought evaluation of 

BLUM using the March 2009 protocols. Even if all the necessary documentation were available 

to EPA, it would not be consistent with EPA’s goals of transparency nor with the Clean Air Act 

for EPA to rely on results of a model that has not been made available for full public review and 

that has not been fully and publicly evaluated in the manner required by the March 2009 

Guidance on modeling. 

7-102
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response 

EPA has followed EPA and federal regulatory procedures. EPA described as part of the 

proposal working to build a Brazil specific module in the FAPRI framework. In addition, EPA 

has extensively coordinated the development of our methodology and selection of inputs and 

models with outside experts and across the federal government. After EISA’s enactment in 

December 2007, we met frequently with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy to share our 

analytical plan, request feedback on our key assumptions, and provide preliminary results as they 

became available. In many cases, we adopted the models, inputs, and assumptions suggested by 

these Departments. The Brazil module as also part of the discussions of the lifecycle workshop 

held during the comment period. 

In regards to a review of the FAPRI model, FAPRI (which consists of both the Center for 

National Food and Agriculture Policy at the University of Missouri-Columbia, and CARD at 

Iowa State University) conducts an annual baseline review and publishes their baseline 

projections for the U.S. agricultural sector and international commodity markets. These 

published baseline projections are known as FAPRI Outlooks. These baseline projections are 

extensively reviewed by several groups prior to publication, including USDA, various 

international organizations, other academic institutions, and other industry experts. Comments 

and recommendations from these groups are taken into account for the final baseline projection 

published in the FAPRI Outlook each year. EPA’s analysis of the global agriculture sector is 

based on the latest FAPRI baseline available, taking into account assumptions used in the EPA 

analysis, as well as the adding to the model’s capabilities where appropriate, including the 

addition of the regional Brazil Module. All adjustments made to the FAPRI model for EPA’s 

analysis are thoroughly documented in the RIA and items in the docket mentioned above. 

Additional information on the review of the FAPRI model, baseline projection review, and 

publications of the FAPRI Outlook can be found on FAPRI’s website. 

What Commenters Said:

The materials placed in the docket by ICONE do not appear to provide complete references for 

important assumptions about area elasticities for various crops, or to explain why those 

elasticities are different from those used in the models that EPA used in the proposed rule. There 

is also no complete explanation for the inclusion of pasture elasticity in BLUM; such an 

elasticity is not found in EPA’s version of the FAPRI models. 

Our Response: 

The Brazil Module of FAPRI was developed by the Center for Agriculture and Rural 

Development at Iowa State University, with input from Brazilian agricultural sector experts, and 

utilizes data collected by the Brazilian Agriculture Census. The Brazil Module was not 

completely developed in time for use in the Proposal’s analysis, but was available for use in the 

final rulemaking analysis. Technical documentation for the FAPRI model as used in the final 

rulemaking analysis provides additional information behind the development of the Brazil 

Module and the data sources used. 

7-103
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

BLUM makes unexplained assumptions about land conversion in different area in Brazil. For 

example, in the Southeast Region defined by BLUM, all expansion of crop land is assumed to 

occur in the Cerrado. 

Our Response: 

As explained in preamble Section V, we used the results from the global FAPRI model, 

which incorporated the new Brazil module, to project the amount of crop and pasture area 

changes in each country or region. The new Brazil module explicitly projects crop and pasture 

area in 6 distinct regions in Brazil. To determine the types of land affected by these land use 

changes, we did not use the same assumptions as ICONE. Instead, we used the FAPRI/Winrock 

satellite data analysis explained in preamble Section V. This approach uses satellite data 

depicting recent land conversion trends to determine the type of land converted internationally. 

As explained in preamble Section V, all of the expert peer reviewers that reviewed EPA’s use of 

satellite data agreed that in general EPA’s approach is scientifically justifiable. 

What Commenters Said:

ICONE also has not fully explained why it assumed a higher carbon uptake for sugar cane than 

proposed by EPA. 

Our Response: 

The land conversion emissions estimates used in our analysis consider the carbon stored 

in crop biomass. In the proposed rule, we used the IPCC default biomass sequestration factor of 

5 metric tons of carbon per hectare for annual crops, and applied this value to all crops globally. 

The final rule analysis now distinguishes between annual and perennial crops, with separate 

sequestration estimates for sugarcane and oil palm determined from the scientific literature. 

Carbon stocks in sugarcane after one year of growth were assumed to be 44 t CO2e/ha. 

(Carbon stocks for long-lived tree species such as oil palm accumulate carbon more slowly in the 

early phases of growth.) The value for sugarcane was derived from estimates of carbon stocks in 

sugarcane in aboveground biomass (17 t C ha-1 or 62 t CO2, Amaral et al. 2008)i

 and in 

belowground biomass (7 t C/ha or 26 t CO2/ha, Smith et al. 2005)ii for a total of 88 t CO2e/ha. 

We assumed a growth period of two years to achieve full carbon stocks, therefore the carbon 

stock in sugarcane after one year of growth was assumed to be 44 t CO2/ha. 

What Commenters Said:

7-104
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Growth Energy believes that EPA should complete the portion of the RFS2 rulemaking 

necessary to implement volumetric requirements for renewable fuels for calendar year 2010, and 

to complete work on other portions of the May 2009 regulatory proposal at a later point. If the 

Agency adopts that approach, Growth Energy recommends that EPA publish in the Federal 

Register a “Notice of Data and Availability” concerning the BLUM model, and any other 

additional models that PEA might include in the Notice, and invite public comment. This would 

permit ICONE to address the issues presented in this letter and otherwise to supplement their 

earlier filing in order to permit effective consideration of its analysis. It would also permit all 

interested parties to comment on BLUM and any other materials covered by such as Notice. 

Our Response: 

EPA believes it has sufficient information on which to base its lifecycle GHG 

assessments through 2022 for the fuel pathways included in this final rule. It has thoroughly 

documented the sources of data and models used for this final rule 

What Commenters Said:

The commenter includes a draft paper, submitted for publication in a peer-review journal, by 

scientists at the Oak Ride National Laboratory (ORNL), supported by the U.S. Department of 

Energy. The work by the ORNL scientists included the following: (i) an examination of the 

basic methodological issues presented by the indirect land use change (ILUC) theory, (ii) an 

evalutation of the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) models, and (iii) results of the indirect 

emissions impacts estimated using a version of GTAP developed at ORNL. 

The commenter states that the ORNL scientists have concluded that the quantitative results of 

land use change models “requires more data and more detailed land-use modeling,” if it is to be 

used to support regulatory action. Their work is obviously important if EPA is considering using 

the GTAP modeling framework for purpose of a Final Rule analysis. Their work is also 

important in assessing the ILUC by means of any other modeling framework, including the 

much-criticized alternatives to GTAP that are discussed in EPA’s proposed rule. The ORNL 

scientists’ paper contains analyses that “apply equally well to non-GTAP simulations of U.S. 

biofuels policy.” 

The commenter also calls attention to a number of “critical flaws” in other GTAP simulations 

raised in the ORNL paper. First, the commenter asserts that prior estimates of the impact of an 

“ethanol shock” on land use should be attributed to the impacts of oil prices. The paper also 

asserts that GTAP’s substitution of land types is not reflective of how land is actually substituted 

among different uses. The ORNL study concludes that appropriate adjustments are made, the 

impacts of increased biofuels use outside the United States “are quite small” (See enclosed 

ORNL study for details). Growth Energy therefore recommends that EPA rely on the ORNL 

scientists’ work, rather than other simulations using less accurate versions of GTAP or the 

models discussed in the May 2009 Federal Register, if the Agency is obliged to proceed with 

ILUC analysis at this point. 

7-105
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response: 

EPA reviewed the ORNL study and identified three major criticisms of the GTAP model 

in the study. EPA also found several criticisms of Searchinger et al. (2008) in the ORNL study. 

As discussed below, while the ORNL researchers raise some important issues associated with 

modeling, we disagree that these criticisms apply equally well to other simulations (e.g., our 

lifecycle analysis for this rulemaking.) Furthermore, we have also identified several 

methodological concerns with their modifications to the GTAP model, and therefore disagree 

that it is the most appropriate model for measuring indirect land use change at this time. 

First, the ORNL study argues that previous GTAP simulations inappropriately shock oil 

prices in order to shock ethanol production. The study also argues that Searchinger et al. (2008) 

also used this methodology, which ORNL authors argue is invalid. This criticism is not relevant 

to EPA’s analysis for this rulemaking because we exogenously specified the oil prices and 

biofuel volumes in our simulation scenarios with the FASOM and FAPRI models. In other 

words, we only shocked the level of biofuel production, and held oil prices constant. In our 

GTAP scenarios, we also exogenously required an increase in biofuel volumes between our 

reference case and our policy case, therefore the land use changes observed are a direct result of 

the change in biofuel volumes. We therefore believe this criticism is not applicable to our 

analysis for this rulemaking. 

Second, the ORNL study changes the original GTAP elasticities of substitution between 

renewable fuels and petroleum products to zero implying that both the fuels are consumed in 

fixed proportions and cannot act as substitutes. This assumption does not accurately reflect 

transportation fuel markets, since it assumes that consumers cannot choose to substitute 

renewable fuels (e.g., E-85) for petroleum products if the relative prices change. 

Third, the ORNL study argues that previous GTAP simulations inappropriately excluded 

so-called “unmanaged land” from its modeling of land cover changes. This criticism does not 

apply to EPA’s FAPRI/Winrock modeling, because our modeling framework does not exclude 

unmanaged natural ecosystems from the land resource that could be used for agricultural 

purposes. As discussed in preamble Section V, we agree that one of the current limitations of the 

GTAP model is that it does not allow some of the land that is currently classified as 

“unmanaged” (e.g., grassland and savannah) to be transferred into crop or pastureland. 

However, the nested model structure made by ORNL to address this issue raises several 

important methodological concerns. ORNL equates the percentage change in effective land with 

the percentage change in physical land implying that all lands are equally productive. While a 

percentage change approach is commonly used in computable general equilibrium (CGE) 

modeling due to linearization, we believe it is problematic when determining land use changes, 

since the total amount of land is not held constant as a result of policy changes (e.g., total 

physical land will not be forced to add up). Furthermore, this approach does not make any 

productivity adjustments based on new land that is brought into crop production, which is an 

important factor to consider. It is inappropriate to include the physical land hectares directly in a 

constant elasticity of transformation (CET) land supply function, as the share weighted percent 

change in hectares would not sum to zero. In addition, the ORNL study also adapts the elasticity 

7-106
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

of transformation (ETRAE1) across land covers as -0.1 compared to -0.2 in the EPA studies. 

This would result in lower land cover change as reflected in our systematic sensitivity analyses. 

Fourth, the ORNL study claims that “the GTAP models exclude more than 300 million 

hectares of land in the U.S. (about one third of total U.S. land area) and the ORNL study includes 

this area.” However, their entire work is based on the data base provided by the GTAP. Our 

studies indicate that GTAP data base in fact has 2.14 billion acres of land which is very close the 

actual U.S. land area of 2.3 billion acres. This indicates that there is a critical flaw in the way the 

ORNL study has utilized the GTAP land use data base. 

Fifth, the ORNL study argues that GTAP is a static model so that it cannot properly 

model technological improvements, such as increasing crop yields over time. The ORNL study 

also argues that Searchinger et al. (2008) did not appropriately account for future crop yield 

increases. These criticisms do not apply to EPA’s modeling for this rulemaking. We used 

dynamic models that account for technological advancements over time. As discussed in 

preamble Section V, throughout the rulemaking process EPA made this issue a priority and 

employed an open, collaborative and science-based approach to determine the appropriate 

technological improvement rates to include in our modeling. 

For the reasons cited above, EPA disagrees with the commenter that we should use the 

ORNL version of the GTAP model. We believe it is premature to use this version of the model 

since it has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, nor has it undergone peer-review 

through the Center for Global Trade Analysis at Purdue University, which is the coordinating 

center for the GTAP model. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2339 

Organization: Illinois Com Growers Association 

Comment: 

The commenter states that EPA has used a single well-known model, GREET, to determine the 

lifecycle emissions for gasoline and diesel as well as the direct GHG emissions for renewable 

fuels. In contrast, for indirect emissions from renewable fuels, EPA has pieced together the 

output of a number of different models which were developed for entirely different purposes. 

While the GREET Model is up-to-date, the ICGA is concerned that the models used to calculate 

indirect emissions may contain out-of-date information on matters such as state-of-the-art 

ethanol technology and processes, increased crop yields, and other new and evolving agricultural 

practices. Further, ICGA is concerned that the assumptions, confidence levels, and inputs for the 

models vary in general. [[#2339 p.3]] 

Our Response: 

EPA disagrees with the comment that the GREET model inputs are more up to date than 

the inputs used in our rulemaking analysis. Rather, our analysis takes into account various 

expectations for increases in technology throughout the renewable fuel manufacturing process, 

7-107
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

both in the field and in the plants. Accordingly, EPA’s analysis of the agriculture sector includes 

crop yield projections that increase over time which are consistent with USDA’s projections. 

EPA also takes into account current and future projected energy and technology improvements at 

biofuel production facilities. The lifecycle GHG results for the different biofuels are based on 

2022 values which accounts for the agricultural and process technology improvements. 

Furthermore, EPA does not use the GREET model for the direct impacts of biofuel production, 

accounting for biofuel lifecycle GHG emissions are done with the use of agricultural sector 

models. 

While the GREET model has been used extensively in the past to determine lifecycle 

GHG emissions from transportation fuels, it was not sufficient for the lifecycle modeling 

required for this rulemaking. The EISA mandate specifically required the assessment of indirect 

impacts of biofuel production, the GREET model does not include indirect impacts and therefore 

could not be used for this rulemaking analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-3084) 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

We carefully examined the proposed RFS2 rule for any evidence that EPA evaluated FASOM’s 

predictions of corn and soybean meal production and their sensitivity to the distillers grains feed 

replacement assumptions, but found no sensitivity analyses. Therefore, we asked Air 

Improvement Resource, Inc. (AIR) to run sensitivity analysis of FASOM results The commenter 

ran three scenarios: 

1. Default DG: used the DG replacement rates used in EPA’s proposed rule analysis 

2. RFA DG: scaled-up the DG replacement rates based on research from University of 

Minnesota 

3. Zero DG: assumed DG does not replace feed at all 

There are three findings from this analysis: 

1. The model shows that DG use does reduce land devoted to soybeans, and also reduces 

soybean production. 

2. The model shows that DG use does reduce land devoted to corn, but for some unidentifiable 

reason, does not reduce corn production. 

3. The model does not reduce corn and soybean acreage in response to increased DG 

displacement to the degree our external calculations suggest should reasonably occur. The 

reasons for this are not clear. 

Since DGs have a significant effect on net land use for corn ethanol, we think these FASOM 

modeling issues should be carefully examined by EPA before finalizing the RFS2. While the 

7-108
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

directional effects of increasing DG substitution inside the FASOM model appear correct, the 

magnitude of the effects appears grossly understated. The reasons for this should be investigated. 

Based on the apparent gross understatement of the land impact of increasing DG substitution, it 

appears the FASOM model may possibly be flawed in how it translates changes in DG 

substitution rates into acreage impacts. 

Our Response: 

There are many factors that are impacted in a detailed agricultural sector economic model 

like FASOM when a factor is changed. When the efficiency of DGS use is changed this could 

have impacts on many other factors like the value (and price) of corn, soybean meal, livestock, 

etc. These changes will all have ripple effects on the amounts and types of crops grown. 

The commenter bases their finding on “back of the envelope” calculations of the 

differences in corn and soybean acreage that they expected a priori between the RFA DG and 

Zero DG scenarios. These back of the envelope calculations include no accounting for market 

responses, which, as discussed above are essential to understand the impacts of agricultural 

technology or policy changes. Furthermore, the “Zero DDG” case is such a radical departure 

from the current reality of corn ethanol production that we can not respond to the results of that 

simulation without more information. In summary, we do not think that “back of the envelope” 

calculations that make no attempt to consider market responses can be used as a basis to validate 

the efficacy of complex economic models such as FASOM. 

In the proposed rule EPA discussed DGS replacement rates and specifically requested 

comment on this input into our modeling. For the final rulemaking analysis, both the FASOM 

and FAPRI models have incorporated updated distillers grains replacement rates for corn and 

soybean meal in animal feed. These updated assumptions are based on recent research 

conducted by Argonne National Laboratory. These assumptions, however, are applied to all 

volume scenarios analyzed in the FASOM and FAPRI models for this rulemaking. Therefore, an 

increase in demand for renewable fuel under these circumstances still results in land use. Our 

modeling is described in more detail in preamble Section V. 

7.2.4 Treatment of Uncertainty 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

1. The commenter (0952.1) believes that EPA should provide the results of formal uncertainty 

analysis (if such an analysis was conducted) including confidence intervals and probability 

distributions. Uncertainty analysis is necessary so that decision makers can reasonably 

understand the degree of confidence they can place in the model results. (09582.1, pp.3) 

7-109
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

2. As of September 24, 2009, the commenter is not aware that EPA has neither conducted nor 

provided to the public such analyses. The lack of reproducibility of EPAs results (with respect to 

FAPRI), and the lack of analysis as to robustness of these results, calls into question whether the 

FAPRI or FASOM models rise to the level of scientific validity, utility, objectivity or integrity 

that can be reasonably used in this type of rulemaking process. The commenter beleives that it is 

inappropriate at this time to use either model to establish point estimates for international indirect 

land use change emissions in this rulemaking. (2329.1, 24) 

Our Response: 

1. The peer review, the public comments we have received, and the analysis conducted 

for the proposal and updated here for the final rule, indicate that it is important to take into 

account indirect emissions when looking at lifecycle emissions from biofuels. It is clear that, 

especially when considering commodity feedstocks, including the market interactions of biofuel 

demand on feedstock and agricultural markets is a more accurate representation of the impacts of 

an increase in biofuels production on GHG emissions than if these market interactions are not 

considered. 

However, it is also clear that there are uncertainties associated with these estimates, 

particularly with regard to indirect land use change and the use of economic models to project 

future market interactions. Reviewers highlighted the uncertainty associated with our lifecycle 

GHG analysis and pointed to the inherent uncertainty of the economic modeling. 

In the proposal, we asked for comment on whether and how to conduct an uncertainty 

analysis to help quantify the magnitude of this uncertainty and its relative impact on the resulting 

lifecycle emissions estimates. The results of the peer review, and the feedback we have received 

from the comment process, supported the value of conducting such an analysis. Therefore, 

working closely with other government agencies as well as incorporating feedback from experts 

who commented on the rule, we have quantified the uncertainty associated specifically with the 

international indirect land use change emissions associated with increased biofuel production. 

Although there is uncertainty in all portions of the lifecycle modeling, we focused our 

uncertainty analysis on the factors that are the most uncertain and have the biggest impact on the 

results. For example, the energy and GHG emissions used by a natural gas-fired ethanol plant to 

produce one gallon of ethanol can be calculated through direct observations, though this will 

vary somewhat between individual facilities. The indirect domestic emissions are also fairly 

well understood, however these results are sensitive to a number of key assumptions (e.g., 

current and future corn yields). The indirect, international emissions are the component of our 

analysis with the highest level of uncertainty. For example, identifying what type of land is 

converted internationally and the emissions associated with this land conversion are critical 

issues that have a large impact on the GHG emissions estimates. 

Therefore, we focused our efforts on the international indirect land use change emissions 

and worked to manage the uncertainty around those impacts in three ways: (1) getting the best 

information possible and updating our analysis to narrow the uncertainty, (2) performing 

sensitivity analysis around key factors to test the impact on the results, and (3) establishing 

7-110
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

reasonable ranges of uncertainty and using probability distributions within these ranges in 

threshold assessment. 

For this final rule we have incorporated a statistical analysis of uncertainty about critical 

variables in our pathway analysis. This uncertainty analysis is explained in detail in preamble 

Section V and is consistent with the specific recommendations received through our peer review 

and public comments on the proposal. The uncertainty analysis focused on two aspects of 

indirect land use change - the types of land converted and the GHG emission associated with 

different types of land converted. In particular, our uncertainty analysis focused on such specific 

sources of information as the satellite imaging used to inform our assessment of land use trends 

and the specific changes in carbon storage expected from a change in land use in each 

geographic area of the world modeled. We have also performed additional sensitivity analyses 

including analysis of two yield scenarios for corn and soy beans to assess the impact of changes 

in yield assumptions. 

This uncertainty analysis provides information on both the range of possible outcomes for 

the parameters analyzed, an estimate of the degree of confidence that the actual result will be 

within a particular range (in our case, we estimated a 95% confidence interval) and an estimate 

of the central tendency or midpoint of the GHG performance estimate. 

2. The FASOM and FAPRI models contain a number of updates for the final rulemaking 

analysis that incorporate several of the items cited by the commenter. Namely, distillers grains 

displacement rates of corn and soybean meal in animal feed have been updated based on the 

latest research by Argonne National Laboratory in both models. In addition, a sensitivity 

analysis of higher projected yields of corn and soybeans was conducted in both the FASOM and 

FAPRI models. The FAPRI model also includes a new Brazil module, which analyzes the 

country of Brazil on a 6-geographic region basis. The Brazil module includes various data for 

cropland, pasture land, and livestock production rates in each region, and allows for livestock 

intensification on pasture land in response to competition for other land uses, demand for 

livestock production, and other factors. Details on these updates can be found in the RIA and the 

technical reports for each respective model. In addition, all data from the FASOM and FAPRI 

models from the base analysis and sensitivity runs, as well as the models themselves (to the 

extent possible), are available on the docket. 

The FASOM and FAPRI models were used for the economic agricultural analysis. EPA 

has provided in the docket a number of materials explaining how the models work and how they 

produced the results in the proposal as well as the results provides in the final rule, including: the 

release of data from these models that are used in the analysis; detailed documentation in the 

form of the preamble, RIA, and technical reports; and making the models themselves available to 

the extent possible. This, in combination with EPA’s outreach to stakeholders throughout the 

analytical process, hosting a public forum on the lifecycle analysis methodology, and the 

publication of a peer review of the methodology used, EPA believes that the information 

provided in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is consistent with Agency and OMB 

guidelines on information quality and provides a comprehensive source of information allowing 

robust opportunity for public comment. 

7-111
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

EPA recognizes that the FAPRI model can not be run by others without obtaining the 

services of the CARD staff at Iowa State University. While this makes it harder for commenters 

to have the model run for themselves, that does not mean they have not been provided adequate 

information and opportunity to comment on EPA’s proposal. There are other rulemaking 

situations where EPA relies on information in a proposal that is not automatically replicable by 

commenters, and this does not mean EPA may not rely on it or that commenters are not provided 

an adequate opportunity to comment. For example, in some rulemakings EPA relies on peer 

reviewed studies of health effects associated with air pollution, and commenters may or may not 

have access to the underlying data in the study, hence may not be able to replicate the study 

themselves. However that does not mean EPA may not rely on relevant and credible studies, or 

that EPA has not provided an adequate opportunity to comment on the basis for EPA’s proposal, 

including comment on the pros and cons of that study or other studies or modeling that also shed 

light on the same issue. In this case, EPA provided a comprehensive variety of information that 

explains in detail the analysis and modeling underlying the proposal and final rule. Commenters 

have commented on many of these elements of EPA’s work, and have in some cases referred 

EPA to other relevant modeling results or studies. EPA has provided all of the information it 

could about the basis for its modeling, and commenters have had a full opportunity to comment 

on it. Any inability to have the FAPRI model run for the commenter themselves, whether to 

replicate EPA’s results or run variations on them, does not preclude comemnters from providing 

comment on the results of that modeling and all of the underlying information provided by EPA 

related to it, and to obtain other information they deem relevant to support their comments. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0981 

Organization: Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research, Department of Agronomy 

and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Comment:

The commenter (0981) states that the current RFS2 methodology does not accurately represent 

the actual GHG emission performance of biofuel producers relative to petroleum producers. The 

RFS2 methodology for the LCA of biofuels relies heavily on hypothetical data derived from 

complex models. (Pp. 1-4) 

The commenter recommends that EPA perform a baseline LCA of the most prevalent biorefinery 

types of the corn-ethanol industry as it has operated in 2007-2010, and use these estimates as the 

benchmark for refining LCA methodology of other biofuels. The LCA of biofuel producers 

should be determined for operational biorefineries and cropping systems based on relevant 

statistics, on an annual or biannual basis. The full impact of the RFS2 should be estimated based 

on projections from the current status of the industry, where possible. (P. 4) 

Our Response: 

It is possible to perform an LCA of corn ethanol based on measured and collected data 

from biofuel refineries and cropping practices to produce the corn used for the ethanol. 

However, this is not an accurate assessment of the full lifecycle impacts as it does not account 

7-112
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

for any indirect impacts. As mandated by EISA EPA needs to account for significant indirect 

impacts of biofuel production in the lifecycle assessment. This necessitates the use of economic 

modeling as was done for the proposal and final rule assessment. 

This being said we do use to most up to date data on biofuel processing and recent data 

from crop production practices in the models used in this analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1051 

Organization: Aberdeen Development Corp. 

Comment:

The commenter (1051) states that the Lifecycle GHG methodology for biodiesel is flawed. The 

commenter’s primary concern is the uncertainty and speculation associated with EPA’s lifecycle 

GHG analysis of biofuels, including the methodology relating to significant indirect emissions. 

[[Docket number 1051.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response: 

Throughout the development of EPA’s lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a 

collaborative, transparent, and science-based approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as 

developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking new scientific ground and using analytical 

tools in new ways. The work was generally recognized as state of the art and an advance on 

lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the indirect impacts of biofuels. 

The Agency also has clearly acknowledged that there are uncertainties associated with 

the lifecycle estimates, particularly with regard to indirect land use change and the use of 

economic models to project future market interactions. In the proposal, we asked for comment 

on whether and how to conduct an uncertainty analysis to help quantify the magnitude of this 

uncertainty and its relative impact on the resulting lifecycle emissions estimates. The results of 

the peer review, and the feedback we have received from the comment process, supported the 

value of conducting such an analysis. Therefore, working closely with other government 

agencies as well as incorporating feedback from experts who commented on the rule, the final 

rule quantifies the uncertainty associated specifically with the international indirect land use 

change emissions associated with increased biofuel production. 

EPA focused our uncertainty analysis on international indirect land use change emissions 

(the component of our analysis we found to have the highest level of uncertainty). We have 

worked to manage the uncertainty around those impacts in three ways: (1) getting the best 

information possible and updating our analysis to narrow the uncertainty, (2) performing 

sensitivity analysis around key factors to test the impact on the results, and (3) establishing 

reasonable ranges of uncertainty and using probability distributions within these ranges in 

threshold assessment. The following sections outline how we have incorporated these three 

approaches into our analysis. 

7-113
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment:

With respect to the level of uncertainty associated with the EPA’s modeling approach, the 

commenters (2129.1) believe that many aspects of the analysis have the effect of lowering the 

estimate of ILUC. Aspects of the proposal that have the effect of lowering ILUC estimates 

include, but are not limited to: the lack of forestry data in FASOM; the difference in the amounts 

of land conversion projected by FASOM and FAPRI; the tendency of MODIS to underestimate 

the amount of forest and wetland conversion, and the resulting use of generally low emissions 

factors; the use of a future year baseline along with the expected but as of yet unrealized 

improvements for the analysis; and the decision to sum emission flows rather than consider 

radiative forcing (thus ignoring the residence time of climate-forcing pollutants). The net effect 

of these elements may result in an underestimate of the total lifecycle emissions. (2129.1, p.7) 

Our Response: 

Regarding Uncertainty In Our Analysis:

It is clear that there are uncertainties associated with indirect emissions estimates, 

particularly with regard to indirect land use change and the use of economic models to project 

future market interactions. Reviewers highlighted the uncertainty associated with our lifecycle 

GHG analysis and pointed to the inherent uncertainty of the economic modeling. 

In the proposal, we asked for comment on whether and how to conduct an uncertainty 

analysis to help quantify the magnitude of this uncertainty and its relative impact on the resulting 

lifecycle emissions estimates. The results of the peer review, and the feedback we have received 

from the comment process, supported the value of conducting such an analysis. Therefore, 

working closely with other government agencies as well as incorporating feedback from experts 

who commented on the rule, we have quantified the uncertainty associated specifically with the 

international indirect land use change emissions associated with increased biofuel production. 

Although there is uncertainty in all portions of the lifecycle modeling, we focused our 

uncertainty analysis on the factors that are the most uncertain and have the biggest impact on the 

results. For example, the energy and GHG emissions used by a natural gas-fired ethanol plant to 

produce one gallon of ethanol can be calculated through direct observations, though this will 

vary somewhat between individual facilities. The indirect domestic emissions are also fairly 

well understood, however these results are sensitive to a number of key assumptions (e.g., 

current and future corn yields). The indirect, international emissions are the component of our 

analysis with the highest level of uncertainty. For example, identifying what type of land is 

7-114
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

converted internationally and the emissions associated with this land conversion are critical 

issues that have a large impact on the GHG emissions estimates. 

Therefore, we focused our efforts on the international indirect land use change emissions 

and worked to manage the uncertainty around those impacts in three ways: (1) getting the best 

information possible and updating our analysis to narrow the uncertainty, (2) performing 

sensitivity analysis around key factors to test the impact on the results, and (3) establishing 

reasonable ranges of uncertainty and using probability distributions within these ranges in 

threshold assessment. The following sections outline how we have incorporated these three 

approaches into our analysis. 

EPA recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area, 

the lifecycle GHG assessments for a variety of fuel pathways will continue to change. 

Therefore, while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also 

committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this 

ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as 

other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new 

assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this 

final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. This new assessment could result in new determinations of threshold compliance 

compared to those included in this rule that would apply to future production (from plants that 

are constructed after each subsequent rule). 

Regarding the Specific Points Raised By Commenters:

First, in our response we assume that the commenter intended to say that the items listed 

would increase (as opposed to lower) the ILUC estimates. 

As discussed in preamble Section V, the forest component of FASOM has now been 

incorporated into our analysis. 

Regarding the combined use of FASOM and FAPRI, several commenters and peer 

reviewers questioned the benefit of using two agricultural sector models. Specifically reviewers 

pointed to some of the inconsistencies in the FASOM and FAPRI domestic results. For the final 

rule analysis we worked to reconcile the two model results. We apply the same set of scenarios 

and key input assumptions in both models. For example, both models were updated to apply 

consistent treatment of DGs in domestic livestock feed replacement and consistent assumptions 

regarding DG export. Some reviewers questioned the benefits of using FASOM and suggested 

we rely entirely on the FAPRI model for the analysis. However, we continue to believe there are 

benefits to the use of FASOM. Specifically, the fact that FASOM has domestic land use change 

interactions between crop, pasture, and forest integrated into the modeling is an advantage over 

using the domestic FAPRI model that only tracks cropland. In our judgment these benefits 

outweigh any uncertainty added by generating two model results. 

7-115
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Regarding potential problems in the MODIS satellite data used in our analysis, we used 

data validation studies conducted by NASA to evaluate the accuracy of the satellite data and to 

correct systematic errors. In general, the validation process found that MODIS version 5 was 

quite accurate at distinguishing forest from cropland or grassland. However, the satellite was 

more likely; for example, to confuse savanna and shrubland because these land types can look 

quite similar from space. We did not know how these improvements would affect the final 

results, but, as the commenters suggest, our updated analysis shows that the MODIS data used in 

our proposed rule analysis underestimated the percentage of land converted from forest in many 

of the regions analyzed. We also conducted a quantitative uncertainty assessment of our use of 

satellite imagery. More information about the satellite data validation and uncertainty 

assessment is provided above and in preamble Section V. 

As the commenters’ point out, wetlands were not included in the proposed rule analysis, 

but they have been added to the final rule analysis. We found a relatively small share of 

agricultural land converted from wetlands. The region with the largest share of wetlands 

converted to cropland was Bangladesh, where 5% of new cropland came from wetlands. 

As discussed in Section V.A.2, the uncertainty of land use change emissions is an 

important consideration in EPA’s threshold determinations as part of this rulemaking. 

We conducted a full assessment of the uncertainty in international land use change emissions 

factors consistent with 2006 IPCC guidance.2

 This analysis considers the uncertainty in the 

every parameter used in our emissions factor estimates. Standard deviations for each parameter 

were estimated based on the quality and quantity the underlying data. Following IPCC guidance, 

the uncertainties in individual parameters of an emissions factor were combined using a Tier 2 

Monte Carlo simulation approach. 

We continue to focus our final rule analyses on 2022 results for two main reasons. First, 

it would require an extremely complex assessment and administratively difficult implementation 

program to track how biofuel production might continuously change from month to month or 

year to year. Instead, it seems appropriate that each biofuel be assessed a level of GHG 

performance that is constant over the implementation of this rule, allowing fuel providers to 

anticipate how these GHG performance assessments should affect their production plans. 

Second, it is appropriate to focus on 2022, the final year of ramp up in the required volumes of 

renewable fuel as this year. Assessment in this year allows the complete fuel volumes specified 

in EISA to be incorporated. This also allows for the complete implementation of technology 

changes and updates that were made to improve or modeling efforts. For example, the inclusion 

of price induced yield increases and the efficiency gains of DGs replacement are phased in over 

time. Furthermore, these changes are in part driven by the changes in earlier years of increased 

biofuel use. 

Finally, we evaluated the aggregated quantity of GHG emissions adjusted to account for 

their relative global warming potential (GWP). We used the 100-year GWP’s developed by the 

 

2

 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 1: General Guidance and Reporting, 

Chapter 3: Uncertainties, available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol1.html 

7-116
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

IPCC and listed in their Second Assessment Report. The 100-year GWP’s were used for the 

biofuels as well as the petroleum baseline. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2136 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFS) 

Comment:

The commenter (2136) believes that several uncertainty assumptions related to plant efficiencies, 

crop yield projections, coproduct credits, and nitrogen emissions from soybean production fed 

into the ILUC models that they believe need major adjustment. The commenter urges the 

Agency to fully consider other, more in-depth, submissions in this area from national biofuels 

associations. [[Docket number 2136.1, p. 5]] [[See docket number 2136.1, pp. 5-8 for a 

discussion of each of the assumptions.]] 

Our Response: 

As part of the final rulemaking EPA has updated our analysis to include new data for 

soybean biodiesel production energy use, we have included a sensitivity analysis on higher crop 

yields, we have included a co-product credit for the glycerin produced from biodiesel production, 

and we have updated the N2O emissions factors for soybean production. These updates were 

based in part on all of the data submissions we received. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2157) notes that EPA did not assume a statistical distribution of uncertainty in 

their input data to perform the standard Monte Carlo analysis. EPA instead used point values. 

This is contrary to lifecycle analysis principles. EPA justifies the use of a point value by 

claiming that they do not know how these data are statistically distributed (normal vs. Poisson, 

vs. log normal, etc). This is not an acceptable response. It would be more appropriate for EPA 

to determine the effect of assuming various distribution functions through such analyses. (2157 

p.55)

Our Response: 

For the final rule analysis EPA has performed an uncertainty analysis around the key 

components of indirect land use change modeling. These include types of land impacted and the 

emission factors from this land conversion. The uncertainty around these factors is based on 

actual information on data variation. EPA still believes that it is difficult to include an 

uncertainty on all input data for the same reasons stated in the proposal, the lack of data on the 

covariance of all factors and information on factor variation. 

7-117
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) states that the uncertainty analysis is lacking throughout the analysis. 

EPA claims to have addressed uncertainty in part by conducting sensitivity analyses of with the 

FASOM and FAPRI models using 4 different types of feed stocks. However, this is not a real 

uncertainty analysis. The commenter recommends that EPA do much more to quantify the 

sources of uncertainty in its modeling results. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 52]] 

Our Response: 

For the final rule analysis EPA has done more to quantify the uncertainty in our modeling 

results. Although there is uncertainty in all portions of the lifecycle modeling, we focused our 

uncertainty analysis on the factors that are the most uncertain and have the biggest impact on the 

results. For example, the energy and GHG emissions used by a natural gas-fired ethanol plant to 

produce one gallon of ethanol can be calculated through direct observations, though this will 

vary somewhat between individual facilities. The indirect domestic emissions are also fairly 

well understood, however these results are sensitive to a number of key assumptions (e.g., 

current and future corn yields). The indirect, international emissions are the component of our 

analysis with the highest level of uncertainty and have particularly significant impact on our 

overall assessment results. For example, identifying what type of land is converted 

internationally and the emissions associated with this land conversion are critical issues that have 

a large impact on the GHG emissions estimates. 

Therefore, we focused our efforts on the international indirect land use change emissions 

and worked to manage the uncertainty around those impacts in three ways: (1) getting the best 

information possible and updating our analysis to narrow the uncertainty, (2) performing 

sensitivity analysis around key factors to test the impact on the results, and (3) establishing 

reasonable ranges of uncertainty and using probability distributions within these ranges in 

threshold assessment. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2234 

Organization: Energy & Resources Group University of California 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2234]] states that two key distinct, though related, uncertainty analyses that 

can be performed: 1. Uncertainty importance analysis (global sensitivity analysis) identifies 

which parameters are important contributors to the uncertainty in model outputs. This analysis 

doesn’t require precise distributions since the results are essentially qualitative: a list of the key 

factors and their relative contribution to uncertainty. This analysis helps isolate the parameters 

7-118
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

for which more precise probability distributions should be developed. 2. Uncertainty propagation 

characterizes the overall uncertainty in model outputs, given the uncertainties in model inputs. 

An accurate assessment does require accurate input probability distributions and parameter 

correlations, but these are not required to estimate the order of magnitude of the uncertainty in 

the result. Moreover, sensitivity analysis can be performed on the key distributions and 

parameter correlations identified in the uncertainty importance analysis, to bound the range of 

results for the output probability distributions. In its NPRM and DRIA, EPA has failed to 

address (i), and has largely punted on (ii), opting instead for a one-at-a-time sensitivity analysis. 

[[2234.1 p.10-11]] 

Our Response: 

For the final rule analysis EPA has performed an uncertainty analysis around the key 

components of indirect land use change modeling. These include types of land impacted and the 

emission factors from this land conversion. The uncertainty around these factors is based on 

actual information on data variation. EPA has also included sensitivity analysis around key 

components such as crop yields. EPA still believes that it is difficult to include an uncertainty on 

all input data for the same reasons stated in the proposal, the lack of data on the covariance of all 

factors and information on factor variation. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2245 

Organization: Illinois Corn Growers Association, et al. 

Contributors to this comment letter include: Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Soybean 

Association, Illinois Soybean Association, Illinois Renewable Fuels Association, Kentucky 

Soybean Association, Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, Missouri Corn Growers 

Association, Missouri Soybean Association, Monsanto, the National Corn to Ethanol Research 

Center, Nebraska Corn Board, Nebraska Soybean Association, Novozymes, Ohio Soybean 

Association, South Dakota Soybean Association, University of Illinois Chicago, Energy 

Resources Center, University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana plant breeding, animal nutrition and 

agronomy, DuPont, Ethanol Technologies, John Deere, and the U.S. Grains Council 

Comment:

The commenters (2245.1) believe that EPA needs to include error propagation such that we can 

all understand the accuracy of their land use prediction and thus the accuracy associated with 

their GHG predictions for various fuel types. It is not clear from the analysis the EPA has 

presented on RFS2 how accurately existing econometric models are able to predict land usage. 

Model validation is an important facet to ensure RFS2 regulations are made based upon accurate 

predictions. The commenters believe that there is a need to reduce the errors associated with land 

use calculations by improving and validating input assumptions, particularly crop yield 

projections. There is also a need to validate the sensitivity of the land use change models to 

changes in macroeconomic assumptions. (2245.1, p.21) 

The commenters believe that EPA should run sensitivity analyses for key input variables The 

commenters noted that it is readily assumed, but has not been proven that errors in 

7-119
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

macroeconomic and policy forecasting between the reference and control cancel themselves out. 

EPA should validate this assumption by running the following scenarios: 

- A case where crop yields increase globally - due to changes in technology and / or attributable 

to yield responses to higher demand. 

-A case where the key macroeconomic policy variables, including factors such as energy price, 

value of the dollar in relation to other currencies and in particular to the real, population growth 

and GDP growth. (2245.1, p.22)

Our Response: 

Throughout the rulemaking process, EPA consulted with numerous experts and 

stakeholders in industry, academia, and government in regards to all aspects of the analysis. 

Based on feedback received through this consultation process, but also through the publicly 

available peer review of EPA’s lifecycle methodology, EPA has received support for the use of 

economic agricultural models (FASOM and FAPRI) to estimate changes in cropland worldwide 

based on changes in demand for renewable fuel. 

We recognize that deterministic models (i.e., FASOM and FAPRI) do not reflect the 

range of potential values for key parameters. For this final rulemaking, we have incorporated 

uncertainty analysis where possible in order to help bracket the potential margin of error around 

key variables. For example, we have conducted an uncertainty analysis around the classification 

errors that may arise from the interpretation of satellite data and around the parameters used in 

the emission factor estimates. 

For the final rulemaking analysis, a sensitivity analysis of higher projected yields of corn 

and soybeans was conducted in both the FASOM and FAPRI models. Data from the base 

analysis, as well as for the sensitivity analysis, runs can be found on the docket. A discussion of 

these results is included in the RIA and the technical reports written for each model on the 

docket. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

The commenter (2384) supports the need for periodic assessment of the LCA methodology and 

the acknowledged high level of uncertainty warrants an initial review as early as 3 years. 

[[docket number 2384.1, p. 6]] 

Our Response: 

EPA recognizes that the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area and 

is committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this 

ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as 

other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new 

7-120
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this 

final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. This new assessment could result in new determinations of threshold compliance 

compared to those included in this rule that would apply to future production (from plants that 

are constructed after each subsequent rule). 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2387 

Organization: Ensus Ltd 

Comment: 

Regarding the validation of models used, the commenter (2387) states that for predictions to be 

trusted, the ME models need to be validated, by demonstrating that their predictions of past 

perturbations in crop land areas, trade flows etc satisfactorily match those observed. It is not 

clear whether the ME models have been validated in this way. Docket number 2387.1, p. 4]] 

[[See docket number 2387.1, pp. 12-13 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

While the comments and specifically the peer review supported our need to use economic 

models to incorporate and measure indirect impacts of biofuel production they also highlighted 

the uncertainty with that modeling approach, especially in projecting out to the future. 

However, it is important to note that while many factors impact the certainty in predicting 

total land used for crop production, making accurate predictions of many of these factors are not 

relevant to our analysis. For example different assumptions about economic growth rates, 

weather, and exchange rates will all impact future agricultural projections including amount of 

land use for crops. However, we are interested only in the difference between two biofuel 

scenarios holding all other changes constant. So the absolute values and projections for crops, 

etc. in the model projections are not as important as the difference the model is projecting due to 

an increase in biofuels production. This limits the uncertainty of using the economic models for 

our analysis. 

The main factors impacting the economic modeling and land use results due to biofuels 

are overall crop / commodity demand and yields (and the responsiveness of these parameters to 

price changes). To examine the impact of changes in yield on the overall biofuel lifecycle GHG 

results, we have made two main changes in the economic modeling used for the proposal. In 

order to update our analysis and reduce uncertainty we have included a price induced yield 

impact, as discussed in the RIA Chapter 5. Furthermore we also include a sensitivity analysis of 

a high yield scenario to test the impact of higher yields on the results, as discussed in the RIA 

Section 2.6.2. 

7-121
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

1. The commenter (2393) notes that EPA does not consider the impact of multiple, simultaneous 

parameter perturbations in its approach to evaluate the uncertainty in biofuels LCA assessments. 

Rather, EPA uses a one-at-a-time (OAT) analysis, which fails to account for the many 

interactions between model parameters in non-linear models. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 49]] 

The commenter believes EPA should perform two key distinct, though related, uncertainty 

analyses on each of the individual model components of its LCA modeling system: 1) 

uncertainty importance analysis, and 2) Uncertainty propagation. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 

50]]

Our Response: 

1. Through technical outreach, the peer review process, and the public comment period, 

EPA received and reviewed a significant amount of data, studies, and information on our 

proposed lifecycle analysis approach. Through this process we were able to identify the factors 

that have the largest impact on lifecycle GHG emissions estimates. Crop yields, the length of the 

time period for analysis, and the types of land affected by agricultural expansion were identified 

as being among the most important factors in our analysis. 

For this final rule we have incorporated a statistical analysis of uncertainty about critical 

variables in our pathway analysis. This uncertainty analysis is explained in detail in preamble 

Section V and is consistent with the specific recommendations received through our peer review 

and public comments on the proposal. The uncertainty analysis focused on two aspects of 

indirect land use change - the types of land converted and the GHG emission associated with 

different types of land converted. In particular, our uncertainty analysis focused on such specific 

sources of information as the satellite imaging used to inform our assessment of land use trends 

and the specific changes in carbon storage expected from a change in land use in each 

geographic area of the world modeled. These sources of uncertainty were quantified with Monte 

Carlo following IPCC Tier 2 guidelines for propagation of errors. 

We have also performed additional sensitivity analyses including analysis of two yield 

scenarios for corn and soy beans to assess the impact of changes in yield assumptions. 

This uncertainty analysis provides information on both the range of possible outcomes for 

the parameters analyzed, an estimate of the degree of confidence that the actual result will be 

within a particular range (in our case, we estimated a 95% confidence interval) and an estimate 

of the central tendency or midpoint of the GHG performance estimate. 

What Commenters Said:

7-122
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2408) suggests that EPA utilize flexible ranges so as to afford the opportunity 

for newer technologies to demonstrate and comply with the greenhouse gas (“GHG“) reduction 

requirements under the rule. (2408.1, pp.1-2) 

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has adopted a petition process whereby biofuel producers can 

request EPA review of new process technologies. Additionally, EPA has indicated its intention 

to periodically update its analyses to reflect new data and information including the development 

of new technologies. We believe this should address the commenter’s concerns. 

7.2.5 Components of the Lifecycle GHG Emissions Analysis 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1036 

Organization: Vision FL I, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (1036.1) proposes the addition of Sweet Sorghum Ethanol to Section II.A.3 of 

the Preamble. Sweet sorghum much like switchgrass can be grown on marginal lands that do not 

compete with domestic or international commodity crop production as food or feed crops. More 

importantly, it can be grown year round as a true “energy crop” in areas of central and southern 

Florida. The processing of sweet sorghum into ethanol utilizes the exact same techniques that 

have been in practice for the last thirty five years in Brazil. This gives the sweet sorghum model 

a solid advantage over cellulosic ethanol because the processing of the ethanol has been 

commercially pushed through the learning curve due to the experience of Brazilian operations. 

This is a crop with the potential to create roughly 2 billion gallons of advanced biofuel, and has 

lifecycle GHG emission reductions far greater than 60% compared to the 2005 petroleum 

baseline. (1036.1, p.3) 

The three charts (1036.1, pp.4-6) have been created by combining the GHG modeling 

information from documents EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0938.3, and 0938.6, modified to best 

represent a domestic sweet sorghum ethanol facility using standard technologies and standard 

yields. These charts are just recaps showing the expected GHG lifecycle reductions for a sweet 

sorghum ethanol project and the detailed documents can be found in Attachments 1036.3, 

1036.4, and 1036.5. (1036.1, p.3) 

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA determined it did not have sufficient information on which to 

base a lifecycle GHG assessment for sweet sorghum. However, EPA has adopted a petition 

process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA review of new process technologies and 

7-123
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

feedstock sources. Additionally, EPA has indicated its intention to periodically update its 

analyses to reflect new data and information including the development of new technologies and 

feedstock sources. We anticipate that as emerging pathways approach commercialization, 

sufficient information can be made available to allow EPA to conduct an appropriate LCA. 

While the data available today may be insufficient to allow LCA, such data for sweet sorghum 

should be able to be developed and thus this pathway included through these mechanisms. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2112.1) noted that Bruce Dale, Professor, Chemical Engineering, Michigan 

State University, and pioneer in LCA analyses was concerned with many of the choices made in 

the RFS2 analyses. Some of his concerns are: 

- High profile guessing is still guessing (referring to the Searchinger, et. al and Crutzen, et. al. 

papers). 

- Lifecycle Analyses (LCA) must follow certain rules to be effective. The following rules were 

not followed: 

 - Use the most recent/most accurate data possible. 

 - Select the reference system: what exactly are we comparing? 

 - Make it easy for others to check your data and methods‘ transparency 

 - Set clear system boundaries (physical & temporal) must be equal or comparable for 

 reference system and/or reference product of interest 

 - Multi-product systems must allocate environmental costs among all products 

 - Perform sensitivity analysis: how much do results vary if assumptions or data change? 

(2112.1, pp.7-8) 

Our Response: 

EPA has used International Standards Organization (ISO) guidance on lifecycle analysis 

in developing its lifecycle analysis. We have drawn upon a suite of the most recent and 

advanced and peer-reviewed models, studies, and data to develop a methodology for lifecycle 

analyses of renewable fuel greenhouse gas emissions. As mandated in EISA, lifecycle GHG 

emissions of biofuels was compared to the lifecycle GHG emissions of a 2005 gasoline or diesel 

baseline. For both the biofuels and petroleum GHG lifecycle analysis, EPA has developed clear 

and consistent system boundaries (both physical and temporal) which are explicitly laid out in 

the Final Rulemaking. Further, we assessed uncertainty in the final analysis and have performed 

sensitivity analyses. EPA provides a complete description of the lifecycle analysis methodology 

and provides the data used in the analysis in the Final Rule Preamble, Regulatory Impact 

Assessment, and the Docket. 

EPA has followed EPA and federal regulatory procedures. In addition, EPA has 

extensively coordinated the development of our methodology and selection of inputs and models 

with outside experts and across the federal government. After EISA’s enactment in December 

7-124
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

2007, we met frequently with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy to share our analytical 

plan, request feedback on our key assumptions, and provide preliminary results as they became 

available. In many cases, we adopted the models, inputs, and assumptions suggested by these 

Departments. 

Lastly, EPA conducted a formal, external, independent peer review for the novel pieces 

developed for this lifecycle analysis following EPA and OMB guidance for third party, peer 

reviews. The names of the reviewers, charge questions, the original comments received from the 

reviewers as well as contractor summaries of the comments were made publically available in 

the docket. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2138 

Organization: American Meat Institute, National Chicken Council, National Turkey 

Federation, Farm Econ LLC 

Comment:

The commenter [[2138]] EPA makes a projection in the proposed rule by stating that the U.S. 

population is expected to be 318 million in 2017 and 330 million in 20229. This projection runs 

completely counter to the latest estimates from the Census Bureau, published in 2008, which 

project the 2017 resident population to be 331.8 million, rising to 347.8 million in 2022. Why 

EPA deviated so significantly from the Census Bureaus projections is not explained. [[2138 p.4]] 

Our Response: 

For the final rulemaking analysis, projection estimates have been updated with the latest 

population projections figures for 2017 and 2022 from the Census Bureau. These are the same 

estimates cited by the commenter, published in August, 2008, and based on the 2000 Census. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2302 

Organization: UC Berkeley - Energy Biosciences Institute 

Comment:

The commenter [[2302]] supports EPA’s proposal for the creation of an interactive, web-based 

mapping tool utilizing reported and satellite data for land determination. [[#2302 p.4]] 

Our Response: 

EPA did not create a web-based mapping tool as part of the analysis for this rulemaking. 

However, we have made our analysis as user-friendly as possible by making all of the data, 

inputs and documentation publicly available, and by holding numerous events and meetings to 

explain our analysis in detail to experts, stakeholders and the public. We will continue to 

7-125
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

consider the value of creating a web-based mapping tool as part of ongoing updates to our 

lifecycle analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2361 

Organization: Indonesian Palm Oil Commission 

Comment:

The commenter (2361) suggests to not factor the effects of ILUC due to the reliability of the 

models used. However, if ILUC must be included, and the life cycle analysis results for soy 

biodiesel be extended to biodiesel from all vegetable oils including palm oil in the absence of 

any available specific analysis at the moment. This would mean that biodiesel from palm oil will 

be deemed to meet the 20% threshold for renewable fuel as for soy biodiesel. Also, renewable 

fuel pathway table should not be limited to ethanol from corn and/or corn starch, sugarcane and 

biodiesel from soy but also include biodiesel from other vegetable oils as shown in Table VI. E. 

4.1 in when such data are available. (2361.1.pdf, p.2)

Our Response: 

EPA recognizes that it has had to break new scientific ground in developing a lifecycle 

methodology as required by EISA. This is why the Agency employed a collaborative, 

transparent and science-based approach. EPA took numerous measures to seek public comment 

on our approach—including extending the comment period for the proposed rule, holding a twoday public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, 

including the biodiesel community, through individual meetings, conferences and events. EPA 

also initiated an independent peer review of specific areas of our work. 

Further, EPA recognizes the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area. 

While the Agency is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, the Agency is also committing to further 

reassess these determinations. As part of this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of 

the National Academy of Sciences as well as other experts. EPA will request that the National 

Academy of Sciences over the next two years evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the 

underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in particular indirect land use change, and make 

recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on this subject. 

EPA has extended its analyses to apply to additional pathways for which the necessary 

information was available. We did not extend our analysis of soy-based biodiesel to also cover 

biodiesel from palm oil as we had no information to support this as technically appropriate. 

However, we did include in the final rule a petition process whereby a producer of biofuel not 

cover by the final rule can provide necessary information to EPA to allow the Agency to conduct 

an appropriate LCA and determine compliance with GHG thresholds. Additionally, EPA 

indicated that as a matter of its ongoing assessment, it would work to expand coverage to other 

biofuels which it determined were likely to be used in the U.S. and for which sufficient 

information were available to allow a LCA GHG analysis. Such new assessments will be 

7-126
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

periodically reflected in regulatory updates to this rule. Section V.C of the Preamble describes 

the details of the petition process. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2466) supports EPA working closely with California regarding the development 

of transportation fuels lifecycle GHG impacts and encourage future cooperation. Consistency of 

the RFS2 program with the California LCFS program will assist the Northeast in their efforts to 

develop a regional LCFS program. (2466.1.pdf, p.9)

Additional comments are from the State of New Jersey to the commenter: The commenter (2466) 

suggests that instead of using a single time horizon, it would be more accurate to estimate the 

project time horizon differently from the impact time horizon. The commenter (2466) agrees 

that the land use impacts would persist for a longer time period, such as 100 years. The 

commenter (2466) also agrees with the assumption of a gradual phase-out of corn starch ethanol 

production between 2022 and 2045. (2466.1.pdf, p.9)

Our Response: 

We appreciate commenter’s support for our ongoing work with the State of California in 

examining the impacts of renewable fuels. 

In the proposed rule, EPA highlighted two time periods of 30 years and 100 years for 

consideration in GHG lifecycle analysis. The Agency discussed the relative advantages of these, 

and other, time periods. The expert peer reviewers discussed a number of justifiable time periods 

ranging from 13 to 100 years. The reviewers said that longer time frames, such as 100 years, 

were only appropriate if the Agency used positive discount rates to value future emissions. 

Almost all of the peer reviewers specifically said that a time frame of 20 to 30 years would be 

justifiable based on the average life of a biofuel production facility. The reviewers and the 

public commenters provided several arguments for the application of a 30 year time frame. A 30 

year time period is appropriate because future emissions are less certain and more difficult to 

value, so the analysis should be confined insofar as possible to the foreseeable future. Another 

argument is that a near-term time horizon is consistent with the latest climate science that 

indicates that swift and deep reductions of heat-trapping gasses are needed to avoid catastrophic 

changes due to a warming climate. One of the reviewers said that while “there is no unassailable 

basis for choosing a very specific timeframe” the expected average lifetime of a biofuel 

production facility is the “most sensible anchor” for the choice of a timeframe. Alternatively, a 

number of commenters argued that a 100-year time frame is the appropriate time period for GHG 

lifecycle emissions analysis principally since this is the time period over which climate change 

impacts are likely to occur. 

7-127
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Based upon the comments received from the peer review and public between after the 

RFS2 proposal, EPA has decided to use a 30 year frame for assessing the lifecycle GHG 

emissions. There are several reasons why the 30 year time frame was chosen. The use of the life 

of a typical biofuel plant seems reasonable as a basis for the timeframe for assessing the GHG 

emissions impacts of a renewable fuel. Also, the 30 year time frame focuses on GHG emissions 

impacts that are more near term and, hence, more certain. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2514 

Organization: Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Comment:

The commenter [[2514]] continues to support lifecycle accounting for greenhouse gases from all 

fuels, including renewable fuels and the development of transparent and credible methods to 

calculate the carbon costs of indirect land use changes due to biofuel. 

The commenter states that the modeling should fully and accurately account for the energy value 

of animal feed byproducts of renewable fuels, and that the rule may have the unintended effect of 

undermining advanced biofuels with more beneficial ecological footprints. 

The commenter states that for example, small micro-processed biodiesel that uses oilseed crops 

grown in rotation with small grains in the Northern Great Plains, that utilizes expeller-pressed 

meal to supplement primarily grassfed livestock, and that uses both the fuel and the feed on site 

or locally, offers significant benefits in the lifecycle carbon footprint. 

Also commenter states that very small processors must incur prohibitively exorbitant expense to 

establish that already certified CAA-compliant fuels do comply with the Clean Air Act, when 

periodic tests verifying the fuel meets an ASTM standard should suffice. [[See docket # 2514 

p.1]]

Our Response: 

We have not specifically modeled biodiesel from oilseed crops grown in rotation with 

small grains in the Northwest Great Plains. However, we do have provisions in our rulemaking 

to account for feedstocks and processes not specifically modeled. While we have not been able 

to model all possible feedstocks that can and are being used for renewable fuel production, there 

are a variety of feedstocks that should have similar enough characteristics to those already 

modeled to allow them to be grouped in with already modeled fuel pathways. This list includes 

secondary annual crops planted on existing crop land such as winter cover crops and providing 

cellulosic material, starch or oil for biofuel production. 

Furthermore, EPA is establishing a process whereby a biofuel producer can petition the 

Agency to also consider their unique production or feedstock pathway if it is different from those 

specifically listed in the current regulations. 

7-128
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2612 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 478 comment letters from 

mass comment campaign sponsored by American Soybean Association) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2612) identified 8 “vital flaws and concerns with the RFS2 proposed rule,” 

including: “3) Nitrogen - The EPA methodology contains a major error pertaining to the direct 

emission calculations for nitrogen in soybean production.” (2612 p. 2) 

Our Response: 

See response to Comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2612 in Section 7.2. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2625 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment representing 400 comment letters from mass 

comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2625) notes that, “EPA’s GHG emissions methodology contains a major error 

regarding direct emission calculations for nitrogen. The 2006 Guidelines for National 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

concludes that nitrogen fixed in soil by soybeans should not be considered a GHG emission. 

EPA, however, does not incorporate the IPCC’s updated nitrogen findings and thus attributes 

excess nitrogen emissions to soybean cultivation. This error reduces the GHG score for soy 

biodiesel by more than 20 percent.” (2615 p. 2)

Our Response:

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

The N2O emission factors used in the proposal overestimated N2O emissions from 

nitrogen fixing crops, because they were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting. 

As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed such that biological nitrogen fixation was 

removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of significant emissions 

arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that the N2O emissions induced by the 

7-129
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function of the above-ground and 

below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This change effectively reduces the 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 

to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

7.2.5.1 Feedstock Production (Domestic & International Ag Sector Impacts) 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0981 

Organization: Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research, Department of Agronomy 

and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Comment:

The commenter (0981) strongly supports the use of IPCC emission factors for N2O emissions 

because they are the most consistent with direct field scale measurements. In addition the 

commenter states that there is no evidence to suggest that use of greater complexity and input 

data requirements of the DAYCENT model improves the estimation of N2O emissions from 

cropping systems compared to use of IPCC default parameters. The commenter recommends 

that emission of N2O from cropping systems be based on IPCC emission factors, such as in 

FASOM, GREET, and BESS, until it can be clearly documented that ecosystem models such as 

DAYCENT provide more accurate estimates. (P. 9) 

Our Response: 

The main difference between using IPCC factors directly as opposed to relying on 

DAYCENT modeling is that IPCC provides default factors by crop by country, while 

DAYCENT models N2O emissions by crop but also by region within the U.S., accounting for 

different soil types and weather factors. For the final rule we still rely on the DAYCENT 

modeling results as we believe them to be more accurate. For example, the National Greenhouse 

Gas Inventory as reported annually by the U.S. to the Framework Convention on Climate 

Change uses the DAYCENT model to determine N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer use as 

opposed to using default IPCC factors as the DAYCENT modeling is recognized to be a more 

accurate approach. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1001, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1005, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-1010, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1011, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1012, 

7-130
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1025, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1029, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-

1043, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1049, et al. 

Organization: Kurzman Clean Tech Research & Kurzman Capital, LLC, Cotner 

Consulting Services, CC Gas Systems, LLC, Atlantic BioFuels, Glenwood Farms, Law Offices 

of David Wilcox, C.I.B., University of Georgia Engineering Outreach Service, Prairie Pride, 

Inc., et al. 

Comment: 

The commenters believe that EPA’s assumptions regarding international land use changes 

associated with U.S. biodiesel production do not reflect the real world. EPA assumes increased 

U.S. biodiesel production will lead to land conversion in South America. If this assumption were 

correct, Brazilian soybean acreage would have increased from 2004 through 2008, a time in 

which U.S. biodiesel production increased from 25 million to 690 million gallons. During this 

time, however, Brazilian soybean acres actually decreased by 1.5 million hectares. 

The commenters noted that this shows the inaccuracy of EPA’s hypothesis and modeling. EPA’s 

analysis does not consider global market drivers for biodiesel feedstock, such as soybeans, that 

have substantial influence on U.S. exports and land use changes in other countries. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2010, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2011, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-2013, et al. 

Organization: SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC, Western Dubuque Biodiesel LLC, Central Iowa 

Energy, LLC, et al. 

Comment: 

EPA concludes with certainty that international land use change will occur and GHG emissions 

will result due to a direct relationship between shifts in the agricultural market as a consequence 

of the increased demand for biofuels in the U.S. However, EPA dismisses actual data on land 

usage in Brazil. For example data shows a decrease of soybean hectares under production from 

2004 to 2008 by 1.5 million. While for the same period of time, U.S. biodiesel production 

increased from 25 million gallons to 690 million gallons. In addition, the forestry minister in 

Indonesia recently highlighted the cause of deforestation in his country as illegal logging—

laying the entire burden of deforestation causation around the world at the feet of U.S. biofuels 

producers is a narrow approach to a significant and multifaceted global issue. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2314 

Organization: The New England Fuel Institute 

Comment:

The commenter does not believe that increased U.S. soy based biodiesel production will lead to 

deforestation and land use conversion in South America. If this assumption is valid, Brazilian 

soybean acreage would have increased from 2004 through 2008, when biodiesel production in 

the United States increased from 25 million to 690 million gallons. In fact, Brazilian soybean 

crops actually decreased by 1.5 million hectares during this same period. Current production 

data suggests that soy based biodiesel volumes sufficient to meet EISA mandates will result in 

no measurable lend use changes either here in the United States or in South America. (2134.1, 

p.4)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2435 

7-131
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Organization: R.W. Heiden Associates LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2435) believes EPA’s assumptions regarding international land use changes 

associated with U.S. biodiesel production do not reflect the real world. EPA assumes increased 

U.S. biodiesel production will lead to land conversion in South America. If this assumption were 

correct, Brazilian soybean acreage would have increased from 2004 through 2008, a time in 

which U.S. biodiesel production increased from 25 million to 690 million gallons. During this 

time, however, Brazilian soybean acres actually decreased by 1.5 million hectares. Clearly, this 

shows the inaccuracy of EPA’s hypothesis and modeling. Indeed, land use changes in other 

countries have numerous drivers wholly unrelated to U.S. biodiesel production. EPA’s analysis 

does not consider global market drivers for biodiesel feedstock, such as soybeans, that have 

substantial influence on U.S. exports and land use changes in other countries. [[Docket number 

2435.1, p. 3]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2625 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 400 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2625) notes that “EPA assumes increased U.S. biodiesel production will lead to 

land conversion in South America. If this assumption were correct, Brazilian soybean acreage 

would have increased from 2004 through 2008, a time in which U.S. biodiesel production 

increased from 25 million to 690 million gallons. During this time, however, Brazilian soybean 

acres actually decreased by 1.5 million hectares.” (2625 p. 2)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2415.1 

Organization: Informa for Renewable Fuels Association, Illinois Corn Marketing Board 

and National Corn Growers Association 

Comment:

Informa reviewed the Winrock analysis of land-use transitions. The Winrock findings about 

whether cropland increased or decreased between 2001 and 2004 were contradicted by data from 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture and FAO. For example, cropland in Brazil under the 

Winrock data decreased from 2001 to 2004, whereas USDA data showed an increase. The 

Winrock data arrived at a materially smaller amount of cropland in Brazil than either the USDA 

or FAO data would indicate. Thus, the conclusions drawn by Winrock using satellite data differ 

from the measurements “on the ground” that are reflected in USDA and FAO data. (2415.1, p2 

Appendix H) 

Our Response: 

As explained in preamble Section V, to quantify the lifecycle GHG emissions associated 

with the increase in renewable fuel mandated by EISA, we compared the differences in total 

GHG emissions between two future renewable fuel volume scenarios using well establishedeconomic models. For each individual biofuel, we analyzed the incremental GHG emission 

impacts of increasing the volume of that fuel to the total mix of biofuels needed to meet the 

EISA requirements. The scenarios that we compared include the same background projections 

about agricultural and economic conditions such as macroeconomic growth, oil prices, crop 

7-132
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

growing conditions, exchange rates and government policies. Thus, we isolate the effects of 

each type of biofuel expansion because all other factors that affect the agricultural economy are 

held constant. 

The historical biodiesel and soybean statistics cited by the commenters are not 

comparable with our model predictions. During the time period discussed by the commenters 

(i.e., 2004 to 2008) many of the conditions that can affect the agricultural economy were 

changing. For example, oil prices spiked, soybean blight became more prevalent in Brazil, 

exchange rates were adjusted, and corn ethanol volumes also expanded substantially. In other 

words, the increase in soy-based biodiesel production was not the only important factor that 

changed during the period. Therefore, the fact that soybean acreage contracted in Brazil during 

this period does not refute model predictions about how Brazil responds to U.S. biodiesel 

production. If we could “re-run” history with a lower biodiesel volume, it may well be that 

Brazil soybean acreage would have been much smaller than it actually was, in which case the 

model predictions would be validated. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1015 

Organization: Renewable Energy Group 

Comment: 

The commenter (1015) states that the data sets used by FASOM did not use the latest guidance 

from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). EPA clearly notes (in Sec. VI.B.4.i. 

footnote 272) that IPCC guidelines have been considered, however, the table noted above fails to 

conform to 2006 IPCC guidelines. FASOM was calibrated with 2001 EPA emission data. Using 

the 2006 IPCC guidelines, the accurate calculation shows a decrease in CO2 emission by -

244,560 tonnes and -5,504 g/MMBtu, therefore, the GHG emissions are a -20.9% decrease. 

[[Docket number 2123.1, p. 4]] 

The commenter points out that according to the current energy use of their plants, the 

commenter’s usage is approximately 18% lower than for soy biodiesel and approximately 13 to 

14% lower for animal fats than the data used by EPA. The commenter adds that Biodiesel has 

the highest energy balance of any transportation fuel produced in the U.S. The latest report from 

the University of Idaho shows energy used to produce soy biodiesel compared to petroleum is 

4.56:1. This is due to increased efficiencies in biodiesel production, soy crushing, farming 

practices, and increases in soybean yields. In 1998, the energy balance was 3.2:1. By 2015, the 

balance is projected to reach 5.44:1. [[Docket number 2123.1, pp. 6-7]] 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2011 

Organization: Western Dubuque Biodiesel LLC 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2013 

Organization: Central Iowa Energy, LLC 

7-133
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Comment: 

The commenter (2013) states that the data sets used by FASOM did not use the latest guidance 

from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). EPA clearly notes (in Sec. VI.B.4.i. 

footnote 272) that IPCC guidelines have been considered, however, the table noted above fails to 

conform to 2006 IPCC guidelines. FASOM was calibrated with 2001 EPA emission data. Using 

the 2006 IPCC guidelines, the accurate calculation shows a decrease in CO2 emission by -

244,560 tonnes and -5,504 g/MMBtu, therefore, the GHG emissions are a -20.9% decrease. 

[[Docket number 2013.1, p. 6]] 

The commenter points out that according to the current energy use of their plants, the 

commenter’s usage is approximately 18% lower than for soy biodiesel and approximately 13 to 

14% lower for animal fats than the data used by EPA. The commenter adds that Biodiesel has the 

highest energy balance of any transportation fuel produced in the U.S. The latest report from the 

University of Idaho shows energy used to produce soy biodiesel compared to petroleum is 

4.56:1. This is due to increased efficiencies in biodiesel production, soy crushing, farming 

practices, and increases in soybean yields. In 1998, the energy balance was 3.2:1. By 2015, the 

balance is projected to reach 5.44:1. [[Docket number 2013.1, pp. 6-7]] 

Our Response:

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

The N2O emission factors used in the proposal overestimated N2O emissions from 

nitrogen fixing crops, because they were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting. 

As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed such that biological nitrogen fixation was 

removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of significant emissions 

arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that the N2O emissions induced by the 

growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function of the above-ground and 

below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This change effectively reduces the 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 

to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

In regards to the comment on energy use, EISA mandates setting up fuel GHG thresholds 

do not require the EPA to do site specific GHG analysis but rather determine for specific fuel 

7-134
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

pathways if they meet the thresholds for the different fuel categories. Therefore, we have 

developed an average energy use value for biodiesel production. As part of the final rule we 

updated the energy use assumptions for biodiesel production to be in line with the latest energy 

balance reports from USDA and the University of Idaho. Therefore, the final rule assumes lower 

energy use for biodiesel production compared to the proposal analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1026 

Organization: Gradek Energy 

Comment:

The commenter (1026.1) believes that using agricultural production as the sole supplier to 

meeting the biofuels demands will have negative environmental consequences initially. It may 

well be the case that the adverse environmental effects of such an action plan will outweigh the 

benefits of biofuels in itself. There will be a significant increase in water usage to produce the 

biofuels, high levels of water and soil contamination through the use of fertilizers. The change in 

land use, which requires the removal of forests, will increase CO2 emissions and will affect the 

natural habitat of many species. Furthermore, the lack of a fuel and transportation infrastructure 

would require massive efforts to refine and distribute the biofuels to the market. (1026.1, p.2) 

The commenter does not condone the production of biofuels through agricultural production, but 

believes that solely using agricultural production to meet the EPA’s environmental objectives is 

not a sustainable option. The commenter believes the best way to alleviate the environmental 

impact caused by fuel demand is to eliminate oil waste sources by transforming them into 

renewable fuel. (1026.1, p.2) 

Our Response: 

EPA notes that the majority of these comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

However, there are several aspects of the RFS2 program that relate to the commenter’s 

statements. For one, EISA establishes lifecycle GHG emission thresholds for each type of 

renewable fuel mandated by the Act. EPA has developed a methodology to implement these 

thresholds, which includes an assessment of the GHG impacts associated with land use changes 

noted by the commenter. Secondly, EPA has finalized an approach to implementing the 

renewable biomass provisions in EISA—which limit the types of biomass as well as the types of 

land from which the biomass may be harvested. Lastly, we have conducted an analysis of the air 

and water quality impacts of this rulemaking. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1036 

Organization: Vision FL I, LLC 

Comment: 

7-135
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The commenter (1404.1) noted that On July 20, 2009, CARB released version 2.2 of the 

“Detailed California-Modified GREET Pathways for Brazilian Sugarcane Ethanol: Average 

Brazilian Ethanol, With Mechanized Harvesting and Electricity Co-product Credit, With Coproduct Credit.” (See Docket Number 1404.3) The commenter recommends that the EPA 

considers the figures in the above attachment as inputs into the GHG lifecycle analysis for the 

final ruling as they will increase the GHG reduction percentage of the current sugarcane import 

model. These figures should be considered for domestic sugarcane ethanol and sweet sorghum 

ethanol processing facilities that are being planned for construction. (1404.1, p.3) (See Docket 

Number 1404.1, p.3 for more discussion on this issue) 

Our Response: 

We have included mechanized harvesting as well as electricity co-product credit (from 

bagasse and trash) in our analyses for the final rule based on recommendations from UNICA as 

well as Brazilian researchers. This has resulted in imported sugarcane ethanol meeting the 

advanced biofuel lifecycle threshold of 50%. At this time domestic sugarcane ethanol also 

qualifies for the advance biofuel category. EPA anticipates modeling grain sorghum ethanol 

after this final rule and including the determinations in a rulemaking within 6 months. EPA has 

established a petition process whereby additional fuel pathways can be evaluated for threshold 

compliance (See Preamble Section V.C). 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment: 

Although the EPA has demonstrated the use of co-products as the basis for GHG emissions from 

ethanol facilities, the commenter (1044) states that EPA failed to capture the data from coproduct generation from renewable biomass based diesel (biodiesel) production facilities or the 

use of combined heat processes (CHP). This factor alone is a significant role player in the LCA 

and violates the tenants of ISO 14040 standards and this factor is not considered in any fashion 

or form unlike ethanol. In fact, in the preamble the discussion regarding co-products is centered 

wholly on ethanol which demonstrates the lack of understanding of Biomass Based Diesel 

refineries. The commenter therefore requests a review of this perspective and asks that the coproducts from Biomass Based Diesel refineries to be included in the LCA and GHG profiles in 

accordance with the proposed language as written. The commenter believes the agency failed to 

fulfill its statutory requirement with this aspect of the proposal. The statements regarding crude 

glycerin and its side product effects (X)(C)(3) are not entirely accurate and again poorly reflect 

the misunderstandings of the agency. [[Docket number 1044.1, p. 10]]

Our Response: 

Glycerin is a co-product of biodiesel production. Our proposal analysis did not assume 

any credit for this glycerin product. The assumption for the proposal was that by 2022 the 

market for glycerin would be saturated due to the large increase in biodiesel production in both 

7-136
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

the U.S. and abroad and the glycerin would therefore be a waste product. We agree with the 

comments that we should be factoring in a co-product credit for glycerin as there would be some 

valuable use for this product in the market. Therefore, we have included for the final rule 

analysis that glycerin would displace residual oil as a fuel source on an energy equivalent basis. 

This is based on the assumption that the glycerin market would still be saturated in 2022 and that 

glycerin produced from biodiesel would not displace any additional petroleum glycerin 

production. However, the biodiesel glycerin would not be a waste and a low value use would be 

to use the glycerin as a fuel source. The fuel source assumed to be replaced by the glycerin is 

residual oil. This inclusion of a co-product credit for glycerin reduces the overall GHG impact 

of biodiesel compared to the proposal analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1049 

Organization: Prairie Pride, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (1049) urges EPA to incorporate the IPCC’s nitrogen findings and remove the 

attribution of excess nitrogen emissions from soybean cultivation. This change will reduce GHG 

score for soy biodiesel by more than 20 percent. [[Docket number 1049, p. 2]] 

Our Response: 

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

We received a number of comments on our proposal results indicating that the N2O 

emissions were overestimated from soybean and other legume production (e.g., nitrogen fixing 

hay) in our analysis. The main issue is that because the N2O emission factors used in the 

proposal were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting they were overestimating 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops. As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed 

such that biological nitrogen fixation was removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack 

of evidence of significant emissions arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that 

the N2O emissions induced by the growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a 

function of the above-ground and below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This 

change effectively reduces the N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and 

nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

7-137
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1051 

Organization: Aberdeen Development Corp. 

Comment:

The commenter (1051) believes that EPA’s GHG emissions methodology contains a major error 

regarding direct emission calculations for nitrogen. The 2006 Guidelines for National 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories by the IPCC’s concludes that nitrogen fixed in soil by soybeans 

should not be considered a GHG emission. EPA, however, does not incorporate the IPCC’s 

updated nitrogen findings and thus attributes excess nitrogen emissions to soybean cultivation. 

This error reduces the GHG score for soy biodiesel by more than 20 percent. [[Docket number 

1051.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response: 

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

We received a number of comments on our proposal results indicating that the N2O 

emissions were overestimated from soybean and other legume production (e.g., nitrogen fixing 

hay) in our analysis. The main issue is that because the N2O emission factors used in the 

proposal were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting they were overestimating 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops. As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed 

such that biological nitrogen fixation was removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack 

of evidence of significant emissions arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that 

the N2O emissions induced by the growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a 

function of the above-ground and below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This 

change effectively reduces the N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and 

nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

7-138
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1051 

Organization: Aberdeen Development Corp. 

Comment:

The commenter adds that EPA’s analysis, which looks at the incremental change in biodiesel 

production, establishes an artificially low production baseline and does not accurately account 

for increasing crop yields and production efficiencies. Also, the agency utilized a 2007 Energy 

Information Agency analysis that underestimates U.S. biodiesel production. In addition, multiple 

state policies and fleet requirements will be implemented between 2008 and 2022. The EPA 

penalizes the biodiesel industry by not considering new technology regarding fats and oils 

production. Sources such as camelina, winter canola, and algae are not taken into account. In 

addition, higher yielding oilseed technology has not been fully incorporated. Thus, the 

commenter believes that EPA overestimated potential indirect land use change associated with 

vegetable oil based biodiesel. [[Docket number 1051.1, p. 3]] 

Our Response: 

As was done for the proposal, to quantify the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with 

the increase in renewable fuel mandated by EISA, we compared the differences in total GHG 

emissions between two future volume scenarios in our economic models. For each individual 

biofuel, we analyzed the incremental GHG emission impacts of increasing the volume of that 

fuel to the total mix of biofuels needed to meet the EISA requirements. Rather than focus on the 

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. 

The two future scenarios considered included a “business as usual” volume of a particular 

renewable fuel based on what would likely be in the fuel pool in 2022 without EISA, as 

predicted by the Energy Information Agency’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) for 2007 (which 

took into account the economic and policy factors in existence in 2007 before EISA). The second 

scenario assumed a higher volume of renewable fuels as mandated by EISA for 2022. In this 

rulemaking analysis we only account for other policies that are currently in effect, we do not 

model any future potential regulations. However, we do consider in this analysis increasing crop 

yields and production efficiencies over time. 

For the final rule analysis we have incorporated the LCA results for an algae oil pathway 

but not for other oilseed pathways. However, we do not extend our results from soybean 

modeling to other oilseed pathways. Those would be analyzed separately through future 

rulemaking analysis if necessary. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1669 

Organization: Environmental Intelligence, Inc. 

7-139
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Comment: 

The commenter (1669.1) is concerned with the unnecessary and unworkable feedstock 

certification requirements that EPA has proposed. EPA must understand that soybeans are 

produced primarily for the meal that is used in the feed and food market. Historically, there has 

been surplus soybean oil that has depressed prices for soybeans. EPA’s proposed rule on RFS2 

implementation is significantly flawed and would do unnecessary harm to the competitive 

position of the U.S. soy biodiesel industry. (1669.1, p.1) 

The commenter noted that the EPA methodology contains a major error pertaining to the direct 

emission calculations for nitrogen in soybean production. EPA also did not account for 

glycerine as a co-product and inaccurately assesses the energy balance of biodiesel. The 

commenter also believes that the GHG calculations must account for improved agriculture yields 

and efficiency. The commenter believes that corrected values for nitrogen emissions, coproducts, and energy balance from biodiesel production would result in soy biodiesel GHG 

emissions that are over 60% better than petroleum, easily exceeding the 50% GHG threshold 

called for under the RFS2 biomass-based diesel schedule. An appropriate indirect land use 

analysis would further enhance soy biodiesel’s value relative to petroleum diesel. (1669.1, p.2) 

Our Response: 

As noted in response to other points raised by the commenter, EPA has substantially 

updated its analysis of soy-based biodiesel, reflecting many of the specific technical issues raised 

by the commenter. Regarding the overall driving forces for soy bean production, these are 

accounted in our assessment of both the baseline projections for demand and for the demand 

estimate due to biofuel production. EPA has appropriately considered market impacts. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1719 

Organization: MAIZAR, Argentine Corn and Sorghum Association 

Comment:

The commenter (1719.1) believes that all data which is used by the mathematical and 

econometric models chosen by the EPA to evaluate and to qualify related to Argentina be 

verified, analyzed and adopted by mutual consent. (1719.1, p.6) 

The commenter also believes that all data obtained from the models chosen by EPA that are used 

as a basis for Argentina’s qualification by EISA, and any another current or future regulation that 

evaluates Argentina’s agricultural production–relating to land use changes, GHG emissions as 

well as any other purpose be verified, analyzed and adopted by mutual consent. Only this way 

the EPA will be assured that the data and assumptions used reflect accurately what occurs today 

and what the future holds so that the norms applied in the qualification of biofuels in the United 

States will be the most reliable for the objectives sought. (1719.1, p.6) 

Our Response: 

7-140
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Via the proposal process, EPA identified its sources of data and the mathematical and 

econometric models it was using. Benefitting from public comment and other sources of 

updated information, EPA used the most up to date and verifiable information available for 

updating analyses for the final rule. In particular for Argentina, we used data provided by 

respected international organizations, in particular data from the Food and Agricultural 

Organization of the United Nations and the International Energy Agency. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2010 

Organization: SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2010) states that the data sets used by FASOM did not use the latest guidance 

from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). EPA clearly notes (in Sec. 

VI.B.4.i. footnote 272) that IPCC guidelines have been considered, however, the table noted 

above fails to conform to 2006 IPCC guidelines. FASOM was calibrated with 2001 EPA 

emission data. Using the 2006 IPCC guidelines, the accurate calculation shows a decrease in 

CO2 emission by -244,560 tons and -5,504 g/MMBtu, therefore, the GHG emissions are a -

20.9% decrease. [[Docket number 2010.2, p. 4]] 

The commenter points out that according to the current energy use of their plants, the 

commenter’s usage is approximately 18% lower than for soy biodiesel and approximately 13 to 

14% lower for animal fats than the data used by EPA. The commenter adds that Biodiesel has the 

highest energy balance of any transportation fuel produced in the U.S. The latest report from the 

University of Idaho shows energy used to produce soy biodiesel compared to petroleum is 

4.56:1. This is due to increased efficiencies in biodiesel production, soy crushing, farming 

practices, and increases in soybean yields. In 1998, the energy balance was 3.2:1. By 2015, the 

balance is projected to reach 5.44:1. [[Docket number 2010.2, pp. 5-6]] 

Our Response: 

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

The N2O emission factors used in the proposal overestimated N2O emissions from 

nitrogen fixing crops, because they were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting. 

As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed such that biological nitrogen fixation was 

removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of significant emissions 

arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that the N2O emissions induced by the 

7-141
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function of the above-ground and 

below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This change effectively reduces the 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 

to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

The EISA mandates setting up fuel GHG thresholds do not require the EPA to do site specific 

GHG analysis but rather determine for specific fuel pathways if they meet the thresholds for the 

different fuel categories. As part of the final rule we updated the energy use assumptions for 

biodiesel production to e in line with the latest energy balance reports including the University of 

Idaho Study. Therefore, the final rule assumes lower energy use for biodiesel production 

compared to the proposal analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2016 

Organization: Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2016.1) believes that the various models used to calculate effects of indirect 

land use change have not been scientifically proven to be accurate and reliable. The commenter 

believes that indirect land use change (ILUC) should not be factored in. If this is the case, 

Malaysian palm biodiesel can easily achieve more than 50% emission savings. (2016.1, p.2) 

If ILUC must be included, the commenter agrees with the proposal that the life cycle analysis 

results for soy biodiesel be extended to biodiesel from all vegetable oils including palm oil in the 

absence of any available specific analysis at the moment. This would mean that biodiesel from 

palm oil will be deemed to meet the 20% threshold for renewable fuel as for soy biodiesel. The 

renewable fuel pathway table (Table VI E 2-1) should not be limited to ethanol from corn and 

biodiesel from soy but also include biodiesel from other vegetable oils as shown in Table VI. E. 

4.1 when such data are available. (2016.1, p.2) 

Our Response: 

EPA recognizes that it has had to break new scientific ground in developing a lifecycle 

methodology as required by EISA. This is why the Agency employed a collaborative, 

transparent and science-based approach. EPA took numerous measures to seek public comment 

on our approach—including extending the comment period for the proposed rule, holding a twoday public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, 

including the biodiesel community, through individual meetings, conferences and events. As 

noted by the commenter, EPA also initiated an independent peer review of specific areas of our 

work. The information we received through this process has led to the approach in this final rule 

7-142
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

which bases the GHG threshold compliance determinations on the weight of evidence currently 

available and quantifies the uncertainty about critical variables. 

EPA has recognized that there are uncertainties associated with these estimates--

particularly with regard to indirect land use change--and has sought to develop an approach that 

manages these uncertainties. However, EPA rejects the view that the modeling relied upon in 

the final rule is too uncertain or untested to provide a credible and reasonable scientific basis for 

determining whether the aggregate lifecycle emissions exceed the thresholds. If the international 

land use impacts were so uncertain that their impact on lifecycle GHG emissions could not be 

adequately determined, this does not mean EPA could assume the international land use change 

emissions are zero. High uncertainty would not mean that emissions are small and can be 

ignored; rather it could mean that we could not tell whether they are large or small. If high 

uncertainty meant that EPA were not able to determine that indirect emissions from international 

land use change are small enough that the total lifecycle emissions meet the threshold, then that 

fuel could not be determined to meet the GHG thresholds of EISA and the fuel would necessarily 

have to be excluded from the program. The Agency has chosen an approach that includes 

biofuels with a significant international land use impact in this program. We also have chosen an 

approach that quantifies uncertainty and presents the weight of currently available evidence in 

making our threshold determinations. 

For the final rule, EPA has updated analyses using the most recent data and information 

available. It has extended its analyses to additional pathways for which the necessary 

information was available. We did not extend our analysis of soy-based biodiesel to also cover 

biodiesel from palm oil as we had no information to support this as technically appropriate. 

However, we did include in the final rule a petition process whereby a producer of biofuel not 

cover by the final rule can provide necessary information to EPA to allow the Agency to conduct 

an appropriate LCA and determine compliance with GHG thresholds. EPA indicated that as a 

matter of its ongoing assessment, it would work to expand coverage to other biofuels which it 

determined were likely to be used in the U.S. and for which sufficient information were available 

to allow a LCA GHG analysis. Such new assessments will be periodically reflected in regulatory 

updates to this rule. In addition, EPA anticipates modeling palm oil biodiesel and include the 

determination in a rulemaking in the next six months. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2048 

Organization: BioPure Fuels 

Comment:

The commenters (2048.1) believes the goal of use of 35 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022 is 

very conservative and could be much greater given the volatility and cost risk associated with 

dependence on petroleum (as we saw in 2008) and the need to achieve carbon reductions of as 

much as 80% by 2020 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. There are also numerous 

benefits in development of alternative fuels in terms of investment in the agricultural sector 

(which is likely to lead to greater food production not less), increased job benefits in the USA 

and globally, and other secondary benefits. The commenter notes that it is not the only way to 

7-143
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

reduce carbon emissions in fuel and leaving out other alternatives (fuel additives) is a policy 

mistake that should not be overlooked. This is particularly relevant to the current rule adoption 

process because some fuel additives can overcome the problems associated with certain biofuel 

feedstocks because of dual benefits from additive use. (2048.1 p.7) 

 

The commenter recommend that U.S. EPA staff work together to develop a specific guidance 

document for the oil seed industry that suggests best practices for co-planting of oil seed trees 

with food crops to optimize the production of both food and fuel and to minimize the life cycle 

carbon impacts of oil production. The commenter encourages U.S. EPA to make changes in the 

GREET model and any implementation of the RFS2 to consider an integrated approach to 

production of both food and fuel. This will optimize carbon benefits and help provide solutions 

to what is seen as a perceived barrier to investment in the biofuels sector and sustainability of 

biofuels. This guide would be used by the oil seed industry in looking at how to produce 

vegetable oil in a way that leads to the best possible food supply and carbon life cycle results. 

(2048.1, p.11) 

Our Response: 

Regarding the recommendations to consider higher fuel mandates or alternative means of 

reducing carbon from the transportation sector, EPA notes this rule is responding to the specific 

mandates of EISA. 

Regarding recommendations for identifying best practices for the agricultural and biofuel 

production communities, the detailed documentation of how EPA has conducted its LCA for 

GHG in part addresses this recommendation as it highlights those parameters and practices 

which tend to make the greatest difference in GHG assessment. Also we have adopted a petition 

process whereby new, enhanced technologies for biofuel production can be identified and their 

benefits quantified. This process should tend to support the development and adoption of 

innovative technologies which improve GHG performance. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079 

Organization: AE Biofuels, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2079.1) believes that EPA’s GHG emissions methodology contains a major 

error pertaining to the direct emission calculations for nitrogen. The 2006 Guidelines for 

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

concludes that nitrogen fixed in soil by soybeans should not be considered a GHG emission. 

EPA, however, does not incorporate the IPCC’s updated nitrogen findings and thus attributes 

excess nitrogen emissions to soybean cultivation. Notably, both the Argonne National 

Laboratory and the California Air Resources Board use the IPCC data in their models. This error 

reduces the GHG score for soy biodiesel by more than 20 percent. (2079.1, p.7) 

Our Response: 

7-144
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

We received a number of comments on our proposal results indicating that the N2O 

emissions were overestimated from soybean and other legume production (e.g., nitrogen fixing 

hay) in our analysis. The main issue is that because the N2O emission factors used in the 

proposal were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting they were overestimating 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops. As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed 

such that biological nitrogen fixation was removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack 

of evidence of significant emissions arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that 

the N2O emissions induced by the growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a 

function of the above-ground and below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This 

change effectively reduces the N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and 

nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2112.1) noted that non-renewable fuels are not held to the same standards as the 

biofuels. The LCA analysis does not include the environmental impact of using Canadian tar 

sands for fuel (or other fossil fuels). The LCA also misallocates energy made from wastes. 

Food wastes and sewage should be included in food LCA models. The commenter also noted 

that the proposed rule fails to acknowledge the energy value of methane and the fertility value of 

carbon dioxide. Production of these greenhouse gases is not bad. What is undesirable is the 

release of these valuable fuel, fertilizer, and food ingredients. This proposed rule does not 

incentivize the channeling of these emissions into further production of valuable products. 

(2112.1, p.14) 

 

Our Response: 

7-145
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

As indentified in both the proposal and the final rule, EPA interprets EISA as requiring 

biofuel lifecycle GHG performance to be compared with a 2005 baseline average fuel it is 

replacing. To the extent specific fuel sources such as Canadian tar sands were represented in that 

2005 baseline fuel pool; we have analyzed their lifecycle GHG impact. In the final rule we have 

also assessed fuels made from waste products. Regarding credit for possible uses of GHG 

emissions, we have provided credit for co-products produced in conjunction with biofuel 

production if such co-products were indentified and likely to be produced and marketed. We did 

not analyze potential uses for GHG emissions for which their currently appears to be no market 

value (such as excess CO2). 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2116 

Organization: The ProExporter Network 

Comment: 

The commenter (2116) noted that increases in yield per acre for corn have allowed the U.S. to 

meet all traditional uses for corn and to increase production of ethanol. USDA projections of 

historical trend corn yields for the next ten years indicate that production will increase to allow 

for five billion bushels of corn to be used for ethanol in 2018 and meet other domestic and export 

needs. If yields per acre increase more rapidly as major seed corn companies believe, the U.S. 

will have even more corn available for all uses. (2116, p.1) 

The commenter also noted that a logical concern could be raised that the world corn market 

could be growing rapidly, but the U.S. not gain much of that market because corn is being bid 

away for domestic ethanol production. (2116.1, p.4) (See Docket Number 2116.1, pp.3-6 for a 

detailed discussion on U.S. corn exports) 

The commenter noted that as ethanol production increases at a slower rate in the years ahead, the 

increase in production of DDGS will also slow and more corn will be needed if livestock and 

poultry production continues to increase as expected in the USDA long-term projections. 

(2116.1, p.6) (See Docket Number 2116.1, pp.6-7 for a detailed discussion of this issue) 

The commenter believes that if there is a need for increased corn production outside the U.S. the 

quickest way to achieve that would be through increased yields on existing corn land. (2116.1, 

p.12) (See Docket Number 2116.1, pp.12-13 for more information regarding international corn 

yields)

Our Response: 

The analysis for the final rulemaking includes a sensitivity run with corn and soybean 

yield projections that are higher than USDA projections. These higher yields occur both 

domestically and internationally in the sensitivity run. Results from the model sensitivity runs in 

FASOM and FAPRI are located in the docket, and are discussed in the RIA and the technical 

reports for each model, also found on the docket. 

7-146
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA agrees that net corn exports are projected to decrease as demand for renewable fuel 

increases. However, EPA’s analysis also projects additional production of corn for ethanol 

production in the U.S. to satisfy this increase in demand. Additionally, as an indirect effect of 

biofuel production, corn used for other purposes, such as in animal feed, also decreases, allowing 

for more corn to be used for ethanol production. Effects on the use of corn as a result of an 

increase demand for renewable fuels are discussed in more detail in chapters 2 and 5 of the RIA. 

EPA’s analysis also projects international yields for crops such as corn to increase over 

time. In addition, the FAPRI model includes price-induced changes in yield. Thus, as demand 

for a commodity increases, raising the global price for that commodity, yields will increase as a 

result. Additional information on price-induced yields in the FAPRI can be found in the RIA 

and the technical documentation for the FAPRI model in the docket. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2119 

Organization: National Sorghum Producers 

Comment:

With regards to distillers grains, the commenter believes that a facility that dries only a portion 

of its distiller’s grains should only be producing different RINs (or no RINs) on that portion of 

biofuels that resulted in dried distiller’s grains. If a facility estimates that it will dry 20% of its 

distiller’s grains in a year, then 20% of the daily volume of ethanol should have a different RIN 

(or no RIN). An adjustment could then be made each quarter to account for the actual amount of 

dried distiller’s grains produced. (21191, p.4) 

The commenter noted that the inclusion of energy sorghum into the final rule will help spur 

investment into biorefineries that will process biomass into cellulosic ethanol. With feedstock 

currently available, the inclusion in the final rule will give confidence to investors that cellulosic 

ethanol can be a viable investment opportunity. (2119.1, p.6) 

Our Response: 

EPA has modeled that facilities that dry no more than 65% of their distillers grains and 

solubles in a calendar year and uses other advanced technologies then they may qualify to 

produce RINs. If the production facility pathways qualify as meeting the GHG threshold then 

that facility may generate RINs for all qualifying volumes. 

EPA has not analyzed the lifecycle GHG performance of energy sorghum or sweet 

sorghum-based biofuel. As emerging fuel pathways, we expect the data and other information 

on which to base a LCA will improve as the pathway approaches commercialization. EPA has 

provided a petition process for fuel providers to provide information necessary for EPA to 

conduct a biofuel LCA. Additionally, EPA plans to routinely expand on the biofuels it has 

assessed and reflect these new assessments in periodic updates to this final rule. 

7-147
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) supports EPA’s approach to add direct and indirect N2O emissions to 

domestic agriculture LCA. The commenter supports sound science and this is a component that 

should not be ignored or skipped. (2124.1, p.28) 

Our Response: 

We have included direct and indirect N2O emissions from domestic and international 

agriculture in our analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2136 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFS) 

Comment:

The commenter (2136) states that EPA relies on old data set that do not keep up with the 

dynamic innovation in the renewables sector. Accurate and up-to-date data sets for biofuels and 

coproducts production must be used. The commenter adds that most biodiesel refineries in Iowa 

report that current energy use is approximately 18% lower for soy biodiesel and approximately 

13 to 14% lower for animal fats than the data used by EPA. [[Docket number 2136.1, pp. 5-6]] 

Our Response: 

For the final rule analysis EPA has used up to date data sets for biofuels and co-products 

produced in the renewable sector. We have updated the corn ethanol energy use projections 

based on an update of the study used in the proposal. We have updated the corn ethanol and 

biodiesel co-product credit based on new research and data available since the proposal was 

released. We have also updated the biodiesel energy use values based on new studies that have 

been released since the proposal. For biodiesel production this has lowered the energy use in 

comparison to the values used in the proposal. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2463.2 

Organization: National Farmers Union 

Comment: 

The commenter (2463) believes EPA is underestimating key data requirements in the analysis. 

One of the key requirements in attempting to determine indirect land use change is the amount of 

U.S. crop production. EPA assumes that U.S. corn yields will average 180 bushels per acre in 

2022, increasing at an annual rate of 1.6 percent annually. In comparison, industry researchers 

believe that U.S. yields could increase much more significantly over the same period reaching 

7-148
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

more than 250 bushels an acre in 2022. If yields more closely match industry estimates, any 

potential impact from international land use change would be further minimized. (2463.2 Pg. 4). 

Our Response:

Our crop yield projections are based on USDA’s most recent forecasts through 2018, and 

then extrapolated out through 2022. We believe these projections represent a feasible future 

scenario. However, we have also included a sensitivity analysis that increases corn and soybean 

yields by approximately 25% by 2022. The results of this analysis are included in the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2136 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFS) 

Comment:

The commenter is concerned about EPA’s crop yield projections and urges the Agency to 

carefully consider comments from DuPont/Pioneer, Monsanto, Syngenta and other seed 

technology providers that make clear we are in the midst of a period of technology driven yield 

transformation. The commenter believes that the Agency must abandon its 30-year straight-line 

yield assumption when modeling ILUC and direct feedstock production efficiencies. [[Docket 

number 2136.1, pp. 6-7]] 

Our Response: 

EPA has considered data supplied by seed producers and others regarding its future 

projections of yield and has reflected these projections in its threshold assessments. In particular 

we have conducted sensitivity assessments using high yield cases and confirmed that high yields 

do not change the results of our analyses. However, we also plan to periodically update our 

analyses and should yield projections change, these changes would be captured in subsequent 

reassessments and appropriate updates to our threshold determinations. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2136 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFS) 

Comment:

The commenter applauds the Agency for pledging to incorporate the updated 2006 Guidelines 

for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

into the final rule. Utilizing these guidelines for incorporating nitrogen values into the GHG 

emissions calculations would increase soybean oil-based biodiesel’s GHG reduction percentage 

by an additional 20.9 percent. [[Docket number 2136.1, pp. 7-8]] 

Our Response: 

7-149
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

EPA has considered data supplied by seed producers and others regarding its future 

projections of yield and has reflected these projections in its threshold assessments. In particular 

we have conducted sensitivity assessments using high yield cases and confirmed that high yields 

do not change the results of our analyses. However, we also plan to periodically update our 

analyses and should yield projections change, these changes would be captured in subsequent 

reassessments and appropriate updates to our threshold determinations. 

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

The N2O emission factors used in the proposal overestimated N2O emissions from 

nitrogen fixing crops, because they were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting. 

As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed such that biological nitrogen fixation was 

removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of significant emissions 

arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that the N2O emissions induced by the 

growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function of the above-ground and 

below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This change effectively reduces the 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 

to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2140 

Organization: John Deere Agriculture & Turf Division 

Comment:

1. The commenter (2140.1) noted that it is also critical to recognize that degraded and/or 

underutilized land in many countries could be used to meet increasing demand for new crop 

production, whether for production of food and feed or renewable fuels. (2140.1, pp.2-3) 

The commenter also noted that it is critical to incorporate up-to-date information about yield 

increases and productivity gains. Simple extrapolation of long-term historic yield trends ignores 

the fact that yield gains have occurred at an accelerated rate following the advent of 

biotechnology and marker assisted breeding. It is also critically important to develop appropriate 

assumptions for increases in crop productivity in the rest of the world. There is currently a 

7-150
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

considerable yield gap between yields in the developed countries and in the rest of the world; a 

gap that can be narrowed through adaptation of some current and future technologies. The 

impacts of increasing crop yields in the rest of the world relative to crop yields in the United 

States are critical. The commenter is confident that the historically demonstrated trend of 

increasing agricultural commodity production efficiency will continue. The highly-successful 

technologies and equipment currently utilized in the United States will enable even more 

dramatic positive impacts when deployed on a global scale. These technologies and practices can 

increase crop yields in the developing world dramatically, and result in improvements to human 

and environmental health. (2140.1, p.3) (See Docket Number 2140.1, pp.3-4 for a detailed 

discussion of this issue) 

2. The commenter believes that EPA must also fully account for the utilization of all products 

from the biofuels production chain, as utilization of part of a crop for fuels production does not 

replace other uses of the crop, such as for feed, oils, and chemicals. The commenter also noted 

that the EPA proposed rule does not account for glycerin resulting from biodiesel production, a 

factor that can markedly improve the emissions assessment of biodiesel. (2140.1, p.4) *

3. The commenter also believes that assumptions regarding international impacts in crop supplies 

of domestic renewable fuels policies must also take into account actual export and trade 

volumes. (2140.1, p.4) 

4. The commenter also believes that it is appropriate for the EPA to seek greater accuracy in the 

estimation of nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture than what is currently attainable with 

existing estimates. (2140.1, p.5)

Our Response: 

1. EPA has considered data supplied by seed producers and others regarding its future 

projections of yield and has reflected these projections in its threshold assessments. In particular 

we have conducted sensitivity assessments using high yield cases and confirmed that high yields 

do not change the results of our analyses. However, we also plan to periodically update our 

analyses and should yield projections change, these changes would be captured in subsequent 

reassessments and appropriate updates to our threshold determinations. 

2. In the LCA analysis performed for this rulemaking EPA has fully accounted for the 

utilization of all products from the biofuels production chain. For example we account for the 

use of corn ethanol co-product DGS use as animal feed displacing use of other crops for feed. 

The final rule analysis also accounts for the beneficial use of glycerin from biodiesel production 

which lowers the GHG impacts associated with biodiesel compared to the analysis in the 

proposal. 

3. The domestic and international agricultural sector modeling done for this analysis 

takes into account actual export and trade volumes. However, the analysis is based on projected 

export and trade volumes for different fuel volume scenarios in the future. Furthermore, we are 

only interested in the difference between the two scenarios in a given year not absolute levels of 

exports or how absolute levels of exports change over time for a given case. 

7-151
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

4. For the final rule analysis we have updated the N2O emission estimates domestically to 

take into account new data and work performed by Colorado State University on soil and crop 

N2O emissions. 

EPA has considered data supplied by seed producers and others regarding its future 

projections of yield and has reflected these projections in its threshold assessments. In particular 

we have conducted sensitivity assessments using high yield cases and confirmed that high yields 

do not change the results of our analyses. However, we also plan to periodically update our 

analyses and should yield projections change, these changes would be captured in subsequent 

reassessments and appropriate updates to our threshold determinations. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2141 

Organization: American Trucking Associations 

Comment:

The commenter (2141.1) has monitored the debate over indirect carbon emissions and its 

potential impact upon the use of soy-based biodiesel under RFS2. The commenter strongly 

believes that EPA’s decisions on this matter must be based upon sound science and that EPA 

cannot ignore indirect carbon emissions from fuels used to satisfy the various RFS2 mandates. 

The failure to include indirect carbon emissions could ultimately require the imposition of 

additional carbon offsets from other sources in order to meet any future government-mandated 

carbon reduction goals. (2141.1, p.5) 

Our Response: 

EPA agrees that the lifecycle methodology must be based on sound science. EPA has 

made every effort to craft a collaborative, transparent and science-based approach. We also 

agree that EISA requires us to consider indirect emissions in our lifecycle assessment. While 

EPA has gone to great lengths to measure these impacts, including the use of analytical tools in 

new ways, we also have sought to acknowledge and manage the uncertainties associated with 

these estimates, particularly with regard to indirect land use change. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) noted that it is critical that the assumptions used properly reflect the 

positive impacts of technology and yield improvement over time. The current EPA analysis 

appears to underestimate the efficiency gains in crop production, therefore overestimating both 

the amount and type of land use required going forward. (2146.1, p.5) 

7-152
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response: 

To quantify the impact of future yield projections raised by Dupont and others, we have 

estimated greenhouse gas emission estimates for corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel using our 

business as usual trends as well as a scenario in which future yields for corn and soybeans are 

approximately 25% higher by 2022. Results of both future yield scenarios are provided in 

Chapter 2 of the RIA and demonstrate the impact of this assumption on the modeling results. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2148 

Organization: Hornbeck Agricultural 

Comment: 

The commenter (2148) is concerned about the proposed EPA regulations that purport to measure 

the lifecycle benefits of soy-based biodiesel. EPA appears to be going beyond its statutory 

mandate. (2148, p.1)

The commenter noted that yield increases by U.S. soybean farmers will play a significant role in 

meeting biodiesel feedstock demand by producing more soybeans on the same amount of land. 

Historical data show that productivity gains and yield increases are the norm for U.S. agriculture. 

Over the 25-year period from 1981-2006, U.S. soybean farmers increased their acre-yield nearly 

50 percent, from 30 bushels per acre to 43 bushels per acre. This equates to an average yield 

increase of one-half bushel per acre per year, and represents the minimum productivity increase 

that is likely to occur. Emerging technologies are expected to increase future yields that will 

surpass those achieved over the past 25 years. (2148, p.1)

Our Response: 

The commenter in particular focused on EPA’s inclusion of indirect land use changes in 

its LCA of soy-based biodiesel. We first note that EPA has significantly updated its LCA 

assessments since the proposal to reflect new and improved data and other information. 

However, as stated in the proposal and reaffirmed in this final rule, EPA believes including 

indirect land use impacts is technically appropriate, consistent with the mandates of EISA and 

can be down in a credible, science based manner. The models and data used for the final rule 

assessments are the best available and are of sufficient reliability to support and determination of 

compliance with the GHG performance threshold. Uncertainty analyses which in particular 

focused on indirect land use impacts were included in this final rule assessment. 

EPA has considered data supplied by seed producers and others regarding its future 

projections of yield and has reflected these projections in its threshold assessments. In particular 

we have conducted sensitivity assessments using high yield cases and confirmed that high yields 

do not change the results of our analyses. However, we also plan to periodically update our 

analyses and should yield projections change, these changes would be captured in subsequent 

reassessments and appropriate updates to our threshold determinations. 

7-153
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2168 

Organization: First United Ethanol, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2168) noted that part of the flawed science lies within EPA’s attempt to 

separate the elements of good and bad within a single corn plant. Corn-based ethanol produced 

from the kernel of the corn is reported to have a higher GHG emission than ethanol produced 

from corn stover. How can this science disproportionately assign GHG emissions to different 

parts of the same plant? The entire plant is being grown on American farms where our farmers 

are employing their best practices to achieve the highest yields possible with the least amount of 

inputs, including fertilizer and chemicals. The same cannot be said for the crops used to produce 

imported ethanol. Imported ethanol should be evaluated and if necessary, charged with additional 

GHG emissions based on its own set of circumstances. (2168, p.2) 

Our Response: 

The rationale used by EPA was that in the case of corn stover collected for cellulosic fuel 

production, the corn was planted for the corn kernels harvested; the remaining stover would then 

be considered agricultural excess with no land use impact (i.e., the corn was planted for the corn 

kernel, not for producing left over stover, some of which might be collected and turned into 

cellulosic biofuel). At this time, for example, farmers fertilize corn for optimum corn kernel 

production, not for optimum stover production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2174 

Organization: Illinois Soybean Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2174) noted that biodiesel is the cleanest burning biofuel currently used in 

commercial markets. Biodiesel is a renewable and sustainable energy source that can play a 

significant role in the national efforts to increase the energy security and improve the 

environmental footprint. Biodiesel has also provided a significant market opportunity for U.S. 

soybean farmers and jobs and economic development for rural communities. The commenter 

believes that yield increases by U.S. soybean farmers will play a significant role in meeting 

biofuel feedstock demand by producing more soybeans on the same amount of land. U.S. seed 

technology companies are projecting that current soybean yields will double by 2030. (2174, p.2) 

Our Response: 

The GHG benefits of biodiesel from soy oil have been evaluated by EPA and clearly 

recognized in determining this fuel pathway as comply with the advanced biofuel GHG 

performance threshold. 

7-154
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2189 

Organization: Technical Consultant for Enzyme Development Corporation and 

Genencor International 

Comment: 

The commenter (2189) noted that steady improvements in grain production per acre and 

increases in gallons of ethanol produced per bushel of corn are resulting in more ethanol being 

produced and more corn being available for export without planting more acres of corn. 

Improved agricultural techniques and improved corn genetics from scientists at companies such 

as Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta will result in dramatic increases in corn production in the 

next ten years. The rate of improvement in accelerating, not slowing down. A good part of these 

improvements have been motivated by the production of fuel ethanol from corn and other grains. 

That provides the incremental market demand for corn and the financial incentives for farmers, 

process engineering companies, agricultural engineering firms, companies working in grain 

genetics, and grain processing plants to produce innovations year by year. (2189, p.2)

Our Response: 

For the lifecycle threshold analysis, yields for corn are based on USDA projections. 

However, EPA did conduct a sensitivity analysis with higher domestic and international yields 

for corn and soybeans to account for possible increases in the rate of technological progress. 

Results from the model sensitivity runs in FASOM and FAPRI are located in the docket, and are 

discussed in the RIA and the technical reports for each model, also found on the docket. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2234 

Organization: Energy & Resources Group University of California 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2234]] states that the effects of changes in consumption of distillers grains on 

enteric methane emissions is promised to be added; this is currently not included in FASOM. 

[[2234.1 p.6]] 

Our Response: 

EPA agrees with the comment that changes in distillers grains in animal feed has an 

effect on enteric methane emissions; this impct is included in the final rulemaking analysis. For 

additional details, please refer to the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2245 

7-155
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Organization: Illinois Corn Growers Association, et.al. 

Contributors to this comment letter include: Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Soybean 

Association, Illinois Soybean Association, Illinois Renewable Fuels Association, Kentucky 

Soybean Association, Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, Missouri Corn Growers 

Association, Missouri Soybean Association, Monsanto, the National Corn to Ethanol Research 

Center, Nebraska Corn Board, Nebraska Soybean Association, Novozymes, Ohio Soybean 

Association, South Dakota Soybean Association, University of Illinois Chicago, Energy 

Resources Center, University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana plant breeding, animal nutrition and 

agronomy, DuPont, Ethanol Technologies, John Deere, and the U.S. Grains Council 

Comment:

The commenters (2245.1) believe that EPA needs to update their expected yield projections and 

should take into account data quality and uncertainty associated with their projections. Accurate 

crop yield projections are extremely important to properly calculate indirect land use changes. 

Although most crops in most countries have a strong history of yield increases, there is 

considerable variability in individual yield predictions. Indirect land use change calculations 

must take into account the errors associated with forward predicting crop yields and must be 

based upon an established and agreed to time frame for trend line yields. (2245.1, p.2) (See 

Docket Number 2245.1, pp.2-21 for a detailed discussion on crop yield projections) 

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has updated its assessment of crop yields both domestically and 

internationally. We have calculated lifecycle emission performance assuming both base yields 

derived from projecting into the future longer term historical trends and also assuming a marked 

increase in future yields based on industry and other comments. We have also included 

uncertainty analyses which in particular focus on international indirect land use impacts. These 

uncertainty assessments were used in determining whether a biofuel pathway was likely to 

exceed its GHG performance threshold. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2249.2) states that EPA’s analysis of the domestic agricultural sector also may 

overestimate domestic agricultural emissions. The domestic agricultural emissions are based on 

very high energy consumption rates—50 percent higher than those used in GREET and 300 

percent higher than a recent survey of Iowa soybean producers. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 

106]] 

In addition, the transportation emissions for feedstock and fuel are calculated from the GREET 

model using the model defaults. The commenter is concerned that the feedstock transportation 

emissions may also be included in the FASOM emission estimates because this energy is 

included in farm energy. These emissions would amount to 2,615 g CO2eq/mm BTU and could 

be double counted. The commenter adds that this is another example of the lack of transparency 

7-156
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

in the FASOM and FAPRI modeling, and the inability to reproduce EPA’s results. [[Docket 

number 2249.2, p. 106]] 

Our Response: 

We disagree that the energy use for soybean production has been overestimated. Energy 

data (e.g., diesel fuel, gasoline, electricity, natural gas) included within the crop budgets in 

FASOM are based on USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data 

(http:www.ers.usda.gov/Data/ARMS/) and crop budgets developed by university extension 

offices. The differences with other sources of data are because the crop budgets included in the 

FASOM model include data on input use that varies by crop, management practices, and region. 

There is often considerable variation in the inputs used per acre, which implies that total input 

use and associated GHG emissions and other environmental impacts will be affected by changes 

in crop mix and management practices that result under the different scenarios considered. 

Furthermore, the energy use for transportation is not double counted in the modeling. 

The energy use for crop production is separate from the energy used to transport feedstocks. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2300 

Organization: Dow AgroSciences 

Comment: 

The commenter (2300) believes that the analysis of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions is incorrect 

and does not provide opportunity for notice and comment on the studies EPA intends to use for 

the final rule. The commenter also noted that technologies like nitrapyrin and its propensity for 

reducing N2O has not been considered in EPA calculations. The commenter requests that such 

products be included, particularly in light of a new and easy formulation being introduced this 

year to the marketplace. (2300, p.1) 

Our Response: 

EPA believes the analysis of N2O emissions used for the final rule is correct and that we 

have provided for opportunity for notice and comment. 

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal but the model and approach was identified in 

order to provide the opportunity for notice and comment. 

7-157
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

We received a number of comments on our proposal results indicating that the N2O 

emissions were overestimated from soybean and other legume production (e.g., nitrogen fixing 

hay) in our analysis. The main issue is that because the N2O emission factors used in the 

proposal were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting they were overestimating 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops. As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed 

such that biological nitrogen fixation was removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack 

of evidence of significant emissions arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that 

the N2O emissions induced by the growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a 

function of the above-ground and below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This 

change effectively reduces the N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and 

nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2317 

Organization: National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) 

Comment:

1. The commenter (2317) believes the proposal’s approach to the LC analysis inappropriately 

attributes GHG emissions to corn ethanol and should be dropped or revised substantially. The 

commenter adds that the proposal’s domestic corn yield projections are inconsistent with current 

trends and forecasts and must be increased substantially. [[Docket number 2317.1, p. 7]] [[See 

docket number 2317.1, pp. 7-15 for an extensive discussion of this issue.]] 

2. The commenter states that like the proposal’s domestic corn yield rate projections, the 

international corn yield projections are inconsistent with current trends in corn yields and must 

be increased substantially. [[Docket number 2317.1, p. 21]] [[See docket number 2317.1, pp. 21-

22 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

3. The commenter adds that the analysis of nitrous oxide emissions is flawed and fails to provide 

an opportunity for notice and comment on the studies upon which EPA sates it will base the final 

rule. [[Docket number 2317.1, p. 28]] [[See docket number 2317.1, pp. 28-34 for extensive 

discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

1. Regarding the comment on EPA’s approach to LCA, EPA has clearly described its 

analytical techniques, the models used and the sources of data. We believe these represent the 

best tools and information available and there appropriate use for biofuel modeling was 

confirmed by peer review and other comments. These models (as well as other models evaluated 

for their projections of land use impact) confirm that indirect land use impacts are significant and 

cannot be ignored. 

2. For the final rule, EPA has updated its assessment of crop yields both domestically and 

internationally. We have calculated lifecycle emission performance assuming both base yields 

7-158
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

derived from projecting into the future longer term historical trends and also assuming a marked 

increase in future yields based on industry and other comments. 

3. EPA believes the analysis of N2O emissions used for the final rule is correct and that 

we have provided for opportunity for notice and comment. 

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal but the model and approach was identified in 

order to provide the opportunity for notice and comment. 

We received a number of comments on our proposal results indicating that the N2O 

emissions were overestimated from soybean and other legume production (e.g., nitrogen fixing 

hay) in our analysis. The main issue is that because the N2O emission factors used in the 

proposal were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting they were overestimating 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops. As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed 

such that biological nitrogen fixation was removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack 

of evidence of significant emissions arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that 

the N2O emissions induced by the growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a 

function of the above-ground and below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This 

change effectively reduces the N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and 

nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2348 

Organization: StateLine Cooperative 

Comment: 

The commenter (2348) believes that EPA should assume that CRP land will be released in 

response to a long term change in demand for ethanol and soy biodiesel. EPA should also 

assume corn and soybean yield increases more in line with recent experience rather than long 

term trends. (2348, p.1)

Our Response: 

Based on coordination with USDA, EPA modeled assuming land in CRP will be 

supported by USDA and therefore would not be available for biofuel production. 

For the final rule, EPA has updated its assessment of crop yields both domestically and 

internationally. We have calculated lifecycle emission performance assuming both base yields 

7-159
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

derived from projecting into the future longer term historical trends and also assuming a marked 

increase in future yields based on industry and other comments. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2354 

Organization: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment: 

The commenter (2354) recommends that the biofuels created from mixed feedstocks should 

NOT be assigned a single lifecycle emissions score based on the weighted average of the score 

that would be achieved by either feedstock. Allowing this type of averaging provides an 

incentive to combine feedstocks with high lifecycle emissions (e.g., virgin vegetable oils) with 

feedstocks with low lifecycle emissions (e.g., waste greases). The commenter (2354) 

recommends creating a system that favors feedstocks, such as waste grease, over feedstocks such 

as virgin vegetable oils. (2354.pdf, p.4)

 

Our Response: 

The option of averaging soy and waste grease biodiesel performance was not adopted. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2355 

Organization: New Generation Biofuels 

Comment: 

As confidential information, the commenter (2355) supports the use of corn oil extract, a 

byproduct from the ethanol process as a feedstock for biofuels. The commenter recommends 

that the indirect impacts for the corn oil extract be minimal compared to the indirect land use 

change impacts attributed to corn for the corn ethanol process. Corn oil is a small percentage of 

the syrup from the ethanol process and accounts for 3 to 4% of the total volume of the corn 

kernel. In addition, the commenter argues that the corn oil should be seen as a waste stream with 

little to no indirect land use change impacts. [[Docket number 2355, p. 2]]

Our Response: 

Our final rulemaking includes a pathway for non-food grade corn oil to biodiesel 

production. This pathway qualifies for the biomass-based diesel category RINs. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2360 

Organization: Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 

Comment: 

7-160
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2360.1) noted that EPA’s GHG emissions methodology contains a significant 

error pertaining to the direct emission calculations for nitrogen. The commenter stated that the 

2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories by the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that nitrogen fixed in soil by soybeans should not be 

considered a GHG emission. EPA, however, does not incorporate the IPCC’s updated nitrogen 

findings and thus attributes excess nitrogen emissions to soybean cultivation. This error reduced 

the GHG score for soy biodiesel by more than 20 percent and should be corrected. (2360.1, p.4) 

Our Response: 

The main issue is that because the N2O emission factors used in the proposal were based 

on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting they were overestimating N2O emissions from 

nitrogen fixing crops. As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed such that biological 

nitrogen fixation was removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of 

significant emissions arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that the N2O 

emissions induced by the growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function 

of the above-ground and below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This change 

effectively reduces the N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and nitrogen 

fixing hay from the 1996 to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2363 

Organization: Ag Processing Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2363) urges EPA to assume that corn and soybean yield increases more in line 

with recent experience rather than long term trends. [[Docket number 2363.1, p. 7]] [[See docket 

number 2363.1, p. 2 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

While we believe it is most appropriate to use future yields that are consistent with 

USDA’s agricultural projections, we have also conducted a sensitivity analysis in which we 

increase yields of corn and soybean by 25% by 2022. The results of this analysis are included in 

Chapter 2 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2365 

7-161
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Organization: Neste Oil Holding, Inc 

Comment:

The commenter (2365.1) urges EPA to proceed with caution in adopting ILUC models , and 

more importantly, in using key assumptions which are inputs to the model and which are 

obviously critical in determining model results. (2365.1, p.3)

Our Response: 

EPA recognizes that it has had to break new scientific ground in developing a lifecycle 

methodology as required by EISA. This is why the Agency employed a collaborative, 

transparent and science-based approach. EPA took numerous measures to seek public comment 

on our approach—including extending the comment period for the proposed rule, holding a twoday public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, 

including the biodiesel community, through individual meetings, conferences and events. EPA 

also initiated an independent peer review of specific areas of our work. 

Further, EPA recognizes the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area. 

While the Agency is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, the Agency is also committing to further 

reassess these determinations. As part of this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of 

the National Academy of Sciences as well as other experts. EPA will request that the National 

Academy of Sciences over the next two years evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the 

underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in particular indirect land use change, and make 

recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on this subject. 

We recognize the importance that key variables can have when calculating the indirect 

land use change impacts of an increase in renewable fuels. It is for this reason that we have 

included a summary of the key assumptions used in the agricultural sector modeling in Chapter 5 

of the RIA. As part of the notice and comment process, we have received valuable input on 

these key assumptions as well as many other parameters included in our modeling analysis, and 

have incorporated the best available data as it becomes available. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2369 

Organization: New Generation Biofuels (NGBF) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2369) states that they did not comment on the methods and details used to 

determine the GHG reductions from various fuels and feedstocks, because, in general, ILUC is 

not fully developed and many assumptions penalize the biofuel industry. The commenter asks 

that careful review and development of ILUC be conducted and that indirect effects of all other 

fuels are also included in the calculations. [[Docket number 2369.1, p. 5]] 

Our Response: 

7-162
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. However, the Agency has clearly acknowledged that there are 

uncertainties associated with these estimates, particularly with regard to indirect land use change 

and the use of economic models to project future market interactions. In the final rule, EPA 

presents an approach that manages these uncertainties in three ways: (1) getting the best 

information possible, (2) performing sensitivity analysis around key factors, and (3) establishing 

reasonable ranges of uncertainty and using probability distributions within these ranges in our 

threshold assessment. 

EPA disagrees that its analysis penalizes the biofuels industry. EPA is simply attempting 

to account for all GHG emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle. Domestic renewable fuel 

producers may have no direct control over land use changes that occur overseas as a result of 

renewable fuel production and use here, but their choice of feedstock can and does influence 

oversees activities, and EPA believes it is appropriate to consider the GHG emissions from those 

activities in its analyses. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2374 

Organization: Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc. (Amyris) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2374) believes a certification program covering both direct and indirect effects 

must be developed allowing prompt verification of improved practices for feedstock and biofuels 

production. The addition of a certification program for updating GHG values would promote best 

practices in existing biofuels and advanced technologies. [[Docket number 2374.1, p. 2]]

Our Response:

EPA has provided a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA to 

evaluate specific technologies or operating processes that distinguish their biofuel production 

LCA GHG impacts from those already considered by EPA. These new technologies or operating 

processes can then receive an alternative GHG threshold assessment, if appropriate. This 

petition process also extends to new feedstocks. Additionally, EPA has indicated in the 

preamble its intention to periodically update its analyses to reflect new data and information 

including the development of new technologies and feedstock sources. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2390 

Organization: Governors‘ Biofuels Coalition 

Comment: 

7-163
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The commenter (2390.1) believes that EPA’s view of net corn use thus land use change for 

ethanol production is wrong. Corn used in ethanol plants does not “disappear” as does exported 

corn. (2390.1, p.1) (See Docket Number 2390.1, pp.1-2 for more discussion on this issue) 

Our Response: 

In assessing the impact of increases mandated by EISA, EPA believes it is most 

reasonable to assume the impacts would be due to biofuel that would not already appear in the 

market (i.e., business as usual volumes). Thus the EISA mandated volume impact would only be 

associated with the incremental volume resulting from the mandate. 

EPA disagrees with the commentor’s interpretation that our analysis assumes corn from 

ethanol “disappears”. Our agricultural sector modeling takes into account the fact that DGS, a 

byproduct of dry-mill corn ethanol, can be used as a feed substitute in place of corn and 

soybeans, thereby reducing the need to grow additional acres of corn or soybeans. Additional 

details on the DGS assumptions can be found in Chapter 5 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2474 

Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2474) believes that nitrogen fixing in soil was incorrectly included. The 

commenter also noted that the energy balance data is out of date, co-product allocations for 

glycerin were not incorporated, and global market drivers for feed stocks, are not considered. 

The commenter believes that EPA should analyze indirect emissions for all fuels or for none, and 

should compare biofuels to the more expensive and higher carbon sources of crude they will be 

replacing such as tar sands and heavy crude. The commenter also noted that EPA’s production 

baseline does not properly account for increasing crop yields and production efficiencies. (2474, 

p.1)

Our Response:

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

The N2O emission factors used in the proposal overestimated N2O emissions from 

nitrogen fixing crops, because they were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting. 

As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed such that biological nitrogen fixation was 

7-164
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of significant emissions 

arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that the N2O emissions induced by the 

growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function of the above-ground and 

below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This change effectively reduces the 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 

to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

Glycerin is a co-product of biodiesel production. Our proposal analysis did not assume 

any credit for this glycerin product. The assumption for the proposal was that by 2022 the 

market for glycerin would be saturated due to the large increase in biodiesel production in both 

the U.S. and abroad and the glycerin would therefore be a waste product. We agree with the 

comments that we should be factoring in a co-product credit for glycerin as there would be some 

valuable use for this product in the market. Therefore, we have included for the final rule 

analysis that glycerin would displace residual oil as a fuel source on an energy equivalent basis. 

This is based on the assumption that the glycerin market would still be saturated in 2022 and that 

glycerin produced from biodiesel would not displace any additional petroleum glycerin 

production. However, the biodiesel glycerin would not be a waste and a low value use would be 

to use the glycerin as a fuel source. The fuel source assumed to be replaced by the glycerin is 

residual oil. This inclusion of a co-product credit for glycerin reduces the overall GHG impact 

of biodiesel compared to the proposal analysis. 

The EISA mandates setting up fuel GHG thresholds do not require the EPA to do site 

specific GHG analysis but rather determine for specific fuel pathways if they meet the thresholds 

for the different fuel categories. Therefore, we have developed an average energy use value for 

biodiesel production. As part of the final rule we updated the energy use assumptions for 

biodiesel production to be in line with the latest energy balance reports from USDA and the 

University of Idaho. Therefore, the final rule assumes lower energy use for biodiesel production 

compared to the proposal analysis. 

Overall with all the changes made to the modeling since the proposal, soybean biodiesel 

qualifies under the biomass based diesel standard with a 57% reduction in GHG emissions. 

EPA disagrees with the comment on petroleum indirect emissions. The reason the 

system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule did not include indirect 

emissions from petroleum production was to be consistent with the goals and scope of the 

analysis as defined by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). 

The text of EISA specifies that the lifecycle threshold analysis for the different renewable 

fuel categories be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. EISA defines 

baseline lifecycle GHG emissions as: 

7-165
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

7-166
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2490 

Organization: Sapphire Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2490) believes EPA should consider CO2 as a feedstock in its lifecycle analysis. 

The commenter recommends that EPA’s methodology for undertaking lifecycle analysis of 

biofuels most notably photosynthetic algae-base fuels - specifically account for the use of 

industrial-source CO2 as a feedstock. [[Docket number 2490.1, pp. 5-6]] [[See docket number 

2490.1, pp. 5-6 for further discussion of this recommendation.]]

Our Response: 

EPA’s lifeycle assessment does take into account the uptake of CO2 that will occur as 

part of the production of biofuel feedstock. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2495 

Organization: GROWMARK, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2495) noted that current corn production data and trends are very important to a 

model system. American agriculture is producing an increasing amount of corn. As agriculture 

continues its efficiency producing more corn per acre while maximizing the use of fertilizer and 

land, the commenter continues to see efficiency gains in ethanol production systems. 

Advancement within ethanol production plants are also occurring to assist companies with 

increasing their overall operational efficiency. Larger crop outputs on a similar amount of 

agricultural land in the U.S. allows for increased food, fiber and fuel resources for the U.S. and 

other countries. This approach helps to meet our national objectives for renewable products. 

(2495, p.2)

Our Response: 

We do consider in our analysis the increasing crop yields and production efficiencies 

over time. In addition, we have also analyzed as part of this rulemaking a high yield case as a 

sensitivity analysis. This does not change the fact that any change in biofuel volumes for 

whatever reason compared to a case without them would still have impacts. As was done for the 

proposal, to quantify the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the increase in renewable fuel 

mandated by EISA, we compared the differences in total GHG emissions between two future 

volume scenarios in our economic models (both of which take into account these advances). 

Simply assuming that increases in future yields and technology will be sufficient to meet U.S. 

food, fiber, and fuel requirements ignores the secondary impacts of diverting some of these 

domestic feedstocks from international markets. Our interpretation of EISA requires us to take 

into consideration these significant indirect impacts of increasing renewable fuel volumes. 

7-167
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2508 

Organization: Environmental Working Group (EWG) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2508) is concerned about EPA’s current approach of using production of 12.4 

billion gallons of corn-ethanol as the baseline for simulating the effect of increasing production 

to 15 billion gallons. The picture is much worse for corn-ethanol if the baseline assumes a lower 

level of corn-ethanol production as the baseline. (2508, p.3) 

Our Response: 

In assessing the impact of increases mandated by EISA, EPA believes it is most 

reasonable to assume the impacts would be due to biofuel that would not already appear in the 

market (i.e., business as usual volumes). Thus the EISA mandated volume impact would only be 

associated with the incremental volume resulting from the mandate. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2508 

Organization: Environmental Working Group (EWG) 

Comment: 

The commenter is concerned that the current approach does not take into consideration 

variability in crop production. The commenter believes that EPA should employ a safety valve - 

cut back on mandates when indicators of market stress, such as the stocks-to-use ratios, season 

average price predictions, or futures prices of commodities used as biofuel feedstocks, point to 

reduced supplies, increased demands, or general tightness in markets that would exacerbate 

pressure to convert additional land. The commenter also recommends that EPA include a 

measure of variability when estimating life-cycle GHG emissions instead of relying on baselines 

that have no stochastic component. (2508, p.3) 

Our Response: 

EPA recognizes that under various circumstances there may be a variety of burdens that 

would make satisfying the renewable fuel requirements difficult. There are waiver provisions 

and methods in place as part of the program that organizations may utilize if this is the case. For 

details on these provisions, please refer to the Preamble and RIA. 

EPA also recognizes that there may be some variability in the results of the analysis, and 

as such our analysis for the final rulemaking includes data validation and quantitative uncertainty 

assessment regarding the types of land affected, and the resulting GHG emissions impacts. For 

more details about the updates in our analysis see Section V of the preamble. 

7-168
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2508 

Organization: Environmental Working Group (EWG) 

Comment: 

The commenter is also concerned that EPA’s current model allows consumption (of grain and 

meat) to decline in order to make room for corn-ethanol production, particularly in developing 

nations that are least able to cope with increased food prices. The commenter recommends that 

EPA consider estimating biofuel GHG emissions holding global food consumption levels 

constant, or even allowing for growth to meet projections of increased demand for food 

associated with projected population and/or income growth. (2508, p.3) 

Our Response: 

The FAPRI model estimates that world food consumption does, indeed, decrease due to 

commodity price increases that result from increased demand for renewable fuels. However, the 

analysis only analyzes reponses due to the increase demand for renewable fuel. The only factors 

held constant in the analysis are those that adhere to proper laws and regulations in place, and to 

scientifically-based assumptions. By allowing world food consumption to be affected by 

changes in demand for renewable fuel as determined by the FAPRI economic model, EPA is 

better able to analyze effects specifically due to increase biofuel production. 

For a full discussion of world food consumption, as well as effects on major areas of food 

consumption (e.g., grains, oilseeds, etc.), please refer the RIA and the FAPRI model 

documentation on the docket. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2510 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2510) states that according to the current energy use of their plants, their usage 

is approximately 18% lower than for soy biodiesel and approximately 13 to 14% lower for 

animal fats than the data used by EPA. [[Docket number 2510.1, p. 3]] 

The commenter adds that biodiesel has the highest energy balance of any transportation fuel 

produced in the U.S. The latest report from the University of Idaho shows energy used to 

produce soy biodiesel compared to petroleum is 4.56:1. This is due to increased efficiencies in 

biodiesel production, soy crushing, farming practices, and increases in soybean yields. In 1998, 

the energy balance was 3.2:1. By 2015, the balance is projected to reach 5.44:1. [[Docket number 

2510.1, p. 4]] 

Our Response: 

7-169
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

As part of the final rule we updated the energy use assumptions for biodiesel production 

to be in line with the latest energy balance reports including the University of Idaho Study. 

Therefore, the final rule assumes lower energy use for biodiesel production compared to the 

proposal analysis. The EISA mandates for assessing pathways for meeting GHG thresholds do 

not require the EPA to do site specific GHG analysis. EPA has established pathway compliance 

based on its assessments of nation-wide performance. However, in the final rule, EPA also 

established a petition process whereby biofuel producers can petition the Agency for a change in 

thereshold assessment (a change in D code) if its production process differs from those modeled. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2512 

Organization: Conservation International 

Comment: 

The commenter noted that it is unclear whether the FASOM mode incorporates changes in 

emissions from possible changes in feed mixtures. The commenter believes that this should be 

clarified. (2512.1, pp.8-9) 

The commenter questions if productivity increases in other countries are stratified by country/ 

groups of countries? (2512.1, p.9) (See Docket Number 2512.1, p.9 for more discussion on this 

issue)

Our Response: 

The EPA modeling does take into account the changes in enteric fermentation emissions 

from livestock with increased amounts of DGS used as feed. 

The technological rates of progress for crop yields in the FAPRI model are based on the 

best available data. The sources for this data include the F.O Lichts Online Database; the Food 

and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (FAOSTAT Online); and the 

Production, Supply and Distribution View (PS&D) of the USDA. For countries that do not have 

sufficient sources of historical data, FAPRI assumes that technological rates of progress are 

similar to those nations in similar geographic regions. Additional detail on the data sources for 

the FAPRI model, and how it operates can be found in RIA and the technical report on the 

FAPRI model that can be found in the docket. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2524 

Organization: South Dakota State University 

Comment: 

The commenters (2524.1) noted that the impacts of ethanol production on food production in 

Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, and South Dakota is extremely complex and suggested that by 

7-170
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

linking ethanol and livestock production systems: 1) ethanol production could have neutral 

impact on the region’s ability to produce food; 2) the profitability and energy efficiency of 

agriculture could be improved and the release of greenhouse gases would likely be reduced; and 

4) the linkages between food, ethanol, and land-use changes in the Africa and South America are 

tenuous at best. (2524.1, p.1) 

Our Response: 

The econometric models used by EPA consider the inter-relations between biofuel 

feedstock production and production of food and feed. They include projected improvements in 

agriculture practices nationwide in the U.S. as well as in other countries. Since the proposal, 

significant enhancements in modeling including improved data internationally have been 

included. These enhancements are detailed in the preamble and in the RIA. As noted by the 

commenters, EPA’s LCA takes into account continued improvements in agricultural practices 

and account for co-product benefits (e.g., from DGS). While we did an impact assessment of the 

potential impact of biofuel production on farm income, this assessment did not necessarily 

consider all the farm profit potentials identified by the comments. However, this should not 

impact our primary analyses of GHG impacts. The factors impacting GHG performance as 

indentified by the comments (e.g., impact on soil carbon; crop yields per acre) were considered 

in our evaluation. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2524 

Organization: South Dakota State University 

Comment: 

The commenters noted that primary arguments used against biofuel production are that more 

energy is required to produce the product than it produces. This argument may have been true 30 

years ago. However, just like other industries, agriculture has made huge improvements over the 

past decades. The commenters also noted that findings reported by the United States Department 

of Energy confirm that agriculture energy efficiency is improving and that even when corn grain 

is converted into ethanol, the amount of energy produced exceed input energy requirement. 

(2524.1, p.2) 

Our Response: 

Regarding energy required to produce corn ethanol, EPA has evaluated this as part of our 

lifecycle assessment, including all inputs for feedstock production, harvesting, collection, 

transport, conversion to biofuel (including co-product benefits) and transport to point of final 

use. These impacts are documented in the preamble and more extensively in the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2532 

7-171
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Organization: BioEnergy Producers Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2532) believes that for advanced biofuels, when produced from organic wastes, 

these offsets include reduced methane emissions from landfills, five times greater energy 

recovery than landfill biogas, reduced emissions from waste transport, zero impact on direct or 

indirect land use change, elimination of the need to utilize food derived resources as feedstocks, 

massively reducing the need to devote 55 million acres to the growing of cellulosic feedstocks, 

with the attendant environmental expenditure of manpower, water resources, harvesting and 

transport. And most importantly, the reduced 02 emissions from automobiles, estimated at 86% 

or more, when waste-derived biofuels are compared with an energy equivalent amount of 

gasoline. Such consideration would more appropriately align the EPA with other existing and 

emerging national policy, whose primary objectives are energy independence. [[Docket number 

2532, p. 2]]

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has analyzed biofuel pathways for using waste material including 

organic waste material that would otherwise be placed in landfills. We have determined such 

organic waste to comply with the renewable fuel definition and to meet GHG performance 

thresholds. This determination and the associated analyses are documented in the preamble 

(Section II) and in additional detail in the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2549 

Organization: Triton Energy LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter believes that the EPA methodology contains a major error pertaining to the 

direct emission calculations for nitrogen in soybean production. EPA also did not account for 

glycerin as a co-product or for those that may use new advanced processes to convert this into 

finished goods product and not scrap the glycerin. (2549.1, p.2)

The commenter noted that that corrected values for nitrogen emissions, co-products, and the 

energy balance from biodiesel/renewable diesel production would result in soy biodiesel GHG 

emissions that are over 60% better than petroleum, easily exceeding the 50% GHG threshold 

called for under the RFS2 biomass-based diesel schedule. An appropriate indirect land use 

analysis would further enhance soy renewable diesel value relative to petroleum diesel. (2549.1, 

p.3)

The commenter believes that the GHG calculations must account for improved agriculture yields 

and efficiency. (2549.1, p.3)

Our Response: 

7-172
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

The N2O emission factors used in the proposal overestimated N2O emissions from 

nitrogen fixing crops, because they were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting. 

As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed such that biological nitrogen fixation was 

removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of significant emissions 

arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that the N2O emissions induced by the 

growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function of the above-ground and 

below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This change effectively reduces the 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 

to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

Glycerin is a co-product of biodiesel production. Our proposal analysis did not assume 

any credit for this glycerin product. The assumption for the proposal was that by 2022 the 

market for glycerin would be saturated due to the large increase in biodiesel production in both 

the U.S. and abroad and the glycerin would therefore be a waste product. We agree with the 

comments that we should be factoring in a co-product credit for glycerin as there would be some 

valuable use for this product in the market. Therefore, we have included for the final rule 

analysis that glycerin would displace residual oil as a fuel source on an energy equivalent basis. 

This is based on the assumption that the glycerin market would still be saturated in 2022 and that 

glycerin produced from biodiesel would not displace any additional petroleum glycerin 

production. However, the biodiesel glycerin would not be a waste and a low value use would be 

to use the glycerin as a fuel source. The fuel source assumed to be replaced by the glycerin is 

residual oil. This inclusion of a co-product credit for glycerin reduces the overall GHG impact 

of biodiesel compared to the proposal analysis. 

The EISA mandates setting up fuel GHG thresholds do not require the EPA to do site 

specific GHG analysis but rather determine for specific fuel pathways if they meet the thresholds 

for the different fuel categories. Therefore, we have developed an average energy use value for 

biodiesel production. As part of the final rule we updated the energy use assumptions for 

biodiesel production to be in line with the latest energy balance reports from USDA and the 

University of Idaho. Therefore, the final rule assumes lower energy use for biodiesel production 

compared to the proposal analysis. 

7-173
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Overall with all the changes made to the modeling since the proposal, soybean biodiesel 

qualifies under the biomass based diesel standard with a 57% reduction in GHG emissions. 

We do consider in our analysis the increasing crop yields and production efficiencies 

over time. In addition, we have also analyzed as part of this rulemaking a high yield case as a 

sensitivity analysis. Furthermore, for this final rulemaking analysis, we have also taken into 

account increases in yields that may occur as the price of that commodity increases (priceinduced yields). 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2614 

Organization: Citizen (sample letter representing 364 comment letters received from 

mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2614) notes that, “EPA should assume the increased demand for ethanol and 

soy biodiesel will mean the release of more CRP land. Recognizing that recent corn and soybean 

yields are increasing at a greater rate than the long-term trend is important in your rulemaking 

process. Because what this means, is that U.S. producers will be able to meet the needs of the 

U.S. renewable fuels industry if not hampered by unnecessary regulation.” (2614 p. 1)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2615 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 9 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2615) notes that EPA should, “Assume that CRP land will be released in 

response to a long term change in demand for ethanol and soy biodiesel [, and that]... Corn and 

soybean yield increases more in line with recent experience rather than long term trends.” (2615 

p. 1) 

Our Response:

Based on coordination with USDA, EPA modeled assuming land in CRP will be 

supported by USDA and therefore would not be available for biofuel feedstock production. 

For the final rule, EPA has updated its assessment of crop yields both domestically and 

internationally. We have calculated lifecycle emission performance assuming both base yields 

derived from projecting into the future longer term historical trends and also assuming a marked 

increase in future yields based on industry and other comments. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2363 

Organization: Ag Processing Inc. 

7-174
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment: 

The commenter (2363) argues that it is well known that removal of crop residue will reduce soil 

organic carbon and thus increase atmospheric CO2 loading, yet EPA chose to ignore this basic 

element of soil and climate change science. [[Docket number 2363.1, p. 5]] [[See docket number 

2363.1, pp. 5-7 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

The modeling for this rule does not directly account for changes in organic soil carbon 

content due to residue removal and this impact on CO2 loading. The modeling does account for 

changes in carbon due to tillage practices, which can modify the effect of residue removal on soil 

carbon content. EPA does, however, recognize that this is an area for further study. 

7.2.5.2 Land Use Changes 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1989 

Organization: Iowa Farm Bureau Federation 

Comment: 

The uncertainty inherent in EPA’s analysis is clearly illustrated with the review of a few basic 

facts. For example, those that support the concept of ILU changes claim that ethanol production 

in the United States affects the rate of deforestation. If that is the case, then why has Brazilian 

deforestation decreased by over 50 percent in the same period that U.S. ethanol production has 

increased by more than 90 percent. Furthermore, it has also been reported that the soybean price 

is negatively 53 percent correlated with the rate of Brazilian deforestation. (Since 2004, the 

negative correlation between U.S. soybean prices and Brazilian deforestation has increased to 70 

percent). The argument that the rate of deforestation may have been even slower if there was no 

increase in U.S. ethanol production is only conjecture and not supported by the data. If anything, 

the correlation data strongly suggests that increases in U.S. ethanol production actually results in 

decreases in Brazilian deforestation. 

(3) Currently, there is nearly no tested and validated science for quantification of ILU. The 

models in use rely on correlations that have been postulated rather than on validated causations. 

As such, these models are in an infant and unreliable stage. However, despite the short comings 

of the science, the proposed rule attempts to comply with EISA by including some adjustments 

to specific forms of ethanol for indirect land use changes. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1989 

Organization: Iowa Farm Bureau Federation 

Comment: 

Dr. Bruce Babcock at the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), Iowa State 

University, in testimony on May 6, 2009, before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, 

Energy, and Research, U.S. House Committee On Agriculture, concluded that while our ability 

to estimate changes in agricultural land use in the U.S. due to a change in biofuels policy may be 

reasonably good, our ability to estimate land use changes overseas is not. Our ability to 

7-175
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

accurately measure the extent of land use changes outside the U.S. is limited because of a lack of 

reliable data and a lack of knowledge about what is actually going on in other countries. 

Babcock testified that CARD is investing heavily in improving its understanding of Brazilian 

agriculture to better enable the EPA to conduct its analysis. They anticipate replicating this effort 

for other major producing countries, too. Without this kind of hard labor and data-intensive 

work, it is impossible to conclude with any certainty, Babcock said, the extent to which increased 

emissions from land conversion offset the decrease in emissions from using a renewable fuel in 

our transportation sector. 

The recent EPA peer review panel also reaffirmed many of the concerns the IFBF has about the 

EPA's proposed rule and rulemaking process. The panel expressed concern about using these 

incomplete and unreliable models to measure ILU changes and indicated that they didn't have 

enough time to review this convoluted and complicated proposal. We are also concerned that 

there is no evidence that the U.S. Department of Agriculture or any other federal agencies with 

expertise on these issues were included in the peer review process. This is exactly why the House 

of Representatives voted in the climate change bill to limit EPA's ability to implement 

international ILU provisions in the RFS-2. 

We respectively disagree with the EPA assessment “...that there were no direct and substantial 

[conflict of interest] or appearance of impartiality issues that would have prevented a peer 

reviewer’s comments from being considered by EPA.” Dr. Timothy Searchinger, for instance, 

has been an outspoken critic of biofuels and is clearly not impartial. His inclusion on the peer 

review panel casts serious doubt on the sincerity of EPA in wanting an unbiased, critical review 

of the issues associated with life-cycle analysis and the use of models to assess causality. 

In addition, a glaring weakness of the approach used is the lack of linkage of the driving force of 

petroleum prices on input prices for agricultural products and the resulting causalities that exist 

between petroleum prices and food prices. Increasing petroleum prices result in increased prices 

for crops and food commodities, and thus, a significant portion of the land-use change is 

attributable to the underlying change in energy prices, not just the changes that occur because of 

linkages of biofuels production to energy policy. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

1. The commenter (2329.1) believes that there is is insufficient science to include international 

indirect land use changes. EPA’s methodology for assessing indirect land use changes is new 

and untested, and simply fails to rise to the level of scientific integrity necessary to support 

regulatory actions. There are currently no accepted scientific methods for estimating indirect 

land use change associated with biofuel production, and EPA’s use of various models, in 

particular the FAPRI model, is not consistent with accepted standards for lifecycle analysis. The 

commenter believes that EPA should not include international indirect land use changes in its 

lifecycle analysis. Even though the statute requires EPA to consider significant indirect 

emissions when calculating a renewable fuel’s emission profile, the statute does not require EPA 

7-176
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

to rely on faulty data and to make unrealistic assumptions. (2329.1, p. 25) [[See Docket Number 

2329.1, pp.25-27 for a detailed discussion of this issue]] 

The commenter also believes that EPA’s inclusion of indirect emissions from international land 

use changes in its lifecycle analysis goes beyond the statutory language and intent of Congress. 

(2329.1, p.35) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp.35-39 for a more detailed discussion of this 

issue]] 

Our Response: 

EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. EPA took numerous measures to seek public comment on our 

approach—including extending the comment period for the proposed rule, holding a two-day 

public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, 

through individual meetings, conferences and events. EPA also initiated an independent 

scientific peer review of specific areas of our work. 

EPA has clearly acknowledged that there are uncertainties associated with these 

estimates--particularly with regard to indirect land use change--and has sought to develop an 

approach that manages these uncertainties. However, EPA rejects the view that the modeling 

relied upon in the final rule is too uncertain to provide a credible and reasonable scientific basis 

for determining whether the aggregate lifecycle emissions exceed the thresholds. If the 

international land use impacts were so uncertain that their impact on lifecycle GHG emissions 

could not be adequately determined, this does not mean EPA could assume the international land 

use change emissions are zero. High uncertainty would not mean that emissions are small and 

can be ignored; rather it could mean that we could not tell whether they are large or small. If 

high uncertainty meant that EPA were not able to determine that indirect emissions from 

international land use change are small enough that the total lifecycle emissions meet the 

threshold, then that fuel could not be determined to meet the GHG thresholds of EISA and the 

fuel would necessarily have to be excluded from the program. EPA has chosen an approach that 

includes biofuels with a significant international land use impact in this program. 

As to the comments about the statutory language and intent of Congress, EPA believes 

that a complete analysis of the aggregate GHG emissions related to the full lifecycle of 

renewable fuels includes the significant indirect emissions from international land use change 

that are predicted to result from increased domestic use of agricultural feedstocks to produce 

renewable fuel. The statute specifically directs EPA to include in its analyses significant indirect 

emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes. EPA has not ignored either the 

terms “significant” or “life cycle.” It is clear from EPA’s assessments that the modeled indirect 

emissions from land use changes are “significant” in terms of their relationship to total GHG 

emissions for given fuel pathways. Therefore, they are appropriately considered in the total 

GHG emissions profile for the fuels in question. EPA has not ignored the term “life cycle.” The 

entire approach used by EPA is directed to fully analyzing emissions related to the complete 

lifecycle of renewable and baseline fuels. 

7-177
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Although the definition of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in Section 211(o) does not 

specifically mention international emissions, it would be inconsistent with the text and the intent 

of this section of the Act to exclude them. The definition of lifecycle GHG emissions makes it 

clear that EPA is to determine the “aggregate” emissions “related to” the “full” fuel lifecycle, 

including “all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution”. EPA is directed to 

include both direct emissions and significant indirect emissions, such as significant emissions 

from land use changes. A large variety of activities outside the U.S. play a major part in the full 

fuel lifecycle of both the baseline fuel (gasoline and diesel fuel used as transportation fuel in 

2005) and renewable fuels. For example, several stages of the lifecycle process for gasoline and 

diesel can occur overseas, including extraction and delivery of imported crude oil, and for 

imported gasoline and diesel products, emissions associated with refining and distribution of the 

finished product to the U.S. For imported renewable fuel, all of the emissions associated with 

feedstock production and distribution, fuel processing, and delivery of the finished renewable 

fuel to the U.S. occur overseas. Whether the direct or indirect emissions occur in the U.S. or 

overseas does not change that they are related to the full fuel lifecycle. There is no basis in the 

definition to treat direct or indirect emissions that occur overseas different from direct or indirect 

emissions that occur in the US. Thus, EPA could not, as a legal matter, ignore those parts of a 

fuel lifecycle that occur overseas. 

Excluding international impacts means large percentages of GHG emissions would be 

ignored. This would take place in a context where the global warming impact of emissions is 

irrespective of where the emissions occur. If the purpose of thresholds is to achieve some 

reduction in GHG emissions in order to help address climate change, then ignoring emissions 

outside our borders interferes with the ability to achieve this objective. Such an approach would 

essentially undermine the purpose of the provision, and would be an arbitrary interpretation of 

the broadly phrased text used by Congress. 

Lastly, EPA believes that including international indirect emissions in EPA’s lifecycle 

analysis does not exercise regulatory authority over activities that occur solely outside the U.S., 

nor does it raise questions of extra-territorial jurisdiction. EPA’s regulatory action involves an 

assessment of products either produced in the U.S. or imported into the U.S. EPA is simply 

assessing whether the use of these products in the U.S. satisfies requirements under EISA for the 

use of designated volumes of renewable fuel, cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and 

advanced biofuel. Considering international emissions in determining the lifecycle GHG 

emissions of the domestically-produced or imported fuel does not change the fact that the actual 

regulation of the product involves its use solely inside the U.S. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

2. The commenter believes that EPA relies on questionable studies to claim “potential” impacts 

on international land use changes from U.S. biofuel production. The commenter noted that 

7-178
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA’s assertion that U.S. biofuel production will have impacts on international land use changes 

are largely based on a paper by Timothy Searchinger, et al., entitled Use of U.S. croplands for 

biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change, Science 319:1238-

1240 (2008). The Searchinger paper is based on a theory that use of crops in the United States 

for biofuels causes reduced exports, leading other countries to expand their crop production, and 

resulting in the clearing of land that is currently unused for agricultural production. The 

Searchinger paper is not a lifecycle analysis and is based on flawed assumptions and inadequate 

data. (2329.1, p.39) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp.39-41 for a detailed discussion of this 

issue]] 

No margins of error were reported by Searchinger, there was no discussion of the assumptions 

utilized and the degree of their validity, and the analysis could not be replicated due to a lack of 

transparency. The commenter noted the following flawed assumptions in Searcher et al.: (a) 

inclusion of high estimates of ethanol production by 2015 all assumed to be derived from corn 

(double that required by the EISA); (b) failure to incorporate technological advances in the 

industry; (c) questionable assumptions regarding types of land converted; (d) reliance on satellite 

data that has misclassification problems (on the order of 54.55% in identifying cropland) and that 

was based on a time period where land use changes were driven by rapid industrial growth and 

were subject to little or no regulatory control; (e) inclusion of flawed assumptions regarding crop 

yields and distiller grain displacement; and (f) reliance on commodity prices that were much 

lower than today. The Searchinger paper fails to properly account for increased corn yields, 

which reduce the need for land use changes. 

Our Response: 

EPA has made the GHG threshold determinations based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. EPA has used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many 

modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers 

and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations. Based on the Agency’s 

analyses, EPA has determined that biodiesel and renewable diesel from soy oil or waste oils, fats 

and greases will exceed the 50% threshold for biomass-based diesel compared to the 2005 

petroleum diesel baseline. 

EPA’s analysis for this rulemaking is entirely independent of the Searchinger et al. study 

cited by the commenter. The most significant similarity between our analysis and the work done 

by Searchinger et al. is that we also used the FAPRI modeling framework to simulate 

international responses to biofuel policies. However, our modeling approach is substantively 

different and we have incorporated many modifications to our approach based on comments 

from the public and peer reviewers and developing science. 

7-179
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The updates we have incorporated address all of the specific criticisms of Searchinger et 

al. cited by the commenter. Searchinger et al. analyzed an arbitrary increase in biofuel 

production, while we specifically analyzed the impacts of the revisions to the RFS specified in 

EISA. Based the advice and input of a broad group of stakeholders we extensively updated the 

FAPRI model with the best available data and information about agricultural and food markets. 

For example, our modeling includes a more detailed representation of Brazil and price-induced 

yield responses. We also include many technological advances over time, such as corn and 

soybean yields and co-product efficiency. We use more recent and higher resolution satellite 

data, and we model the interactions between pasture and cropland. Furthermore, our analysis 

includes data validation and quantitative uncertainty assessment regarding the types of land 

affected, and the resulting GHG emissions impacts. For more details about the updates in our 

analysis see Section V of the preamble. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

3. The commenter also noted that EPA’s analysis does not account for the fact that U.S. biofuel 

production actually promotes sustainable agriculture, which can reduce land use impacts. The 

commenter also believes that EPA’s analysis fails to adequately account for the other, more 

likely causes of international land use changes. (2329.1, pp.41&42) [[See Docket Number 

2329.1, pp.41-48 for a detailed discussion on this issue]] 

Our Response: 

To the maximum extent possible, our agricultural sector modeling does capture 

incentives for promoting certain farming practices that may be encouraged by the increase in 

demand for renewable fuels. For example, the FASOM model captures incentives for farmers to 

switch to reduced tilling practices as more stover is harvested for cellulosic ethanol production. 

In addition, the FAPRI model now takes into account price induced yield changes, which 

accounts for the fact that farmers will increase yields on existing lands rather than expand onto 

new lands as a result of higher commodity prices. 

As described in the preamble and RIA, we recognize there are many social, economic, 

and political factors that contribute to land use change, such as urbanization and increasing 

populations. We have taken into account the impact of future projections of population, 

urbanization, income, and other macroeconomic conditions in our reference case. As a standard 

economic practice, we are assuming all of those other factors are held constant in both our 

reference case and our policy case. Our analysis therefore focuses only on the changes in land 

use that result from an increase in the renewable fuel volumes required by the RFS2. 

What Commenters Said:

7-180
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

With regards to the Winrock data, the commenter believes that EPA’s reliance on Winrock 

satellite data from the 2001-2004 timeframe renders the entire analysis arbitrary in that EPA is 

suggesting that land use changes that occurred for any reason in the countries of interest serve as 

an appropriate proxy for land use changes resulting from U.S. biofuel expansion under the RFS. 

The Winrock data cannot provide any causal connection between the land use changes and U.S. 

biofuel production. The analysis of the Winrock data also shows a high error rate. The 

commenter believes that with no attempt to verify the land use changes reported in the Winrock 

report, and with very questionable changes reported over a three-year period, the Winrock data is 

not suitable for use in policy assessments. (2329.1, pp.48-51) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, 

pp.48-51 for a detailed discussion of this issue]] 

Our Response: 

The proposed rule included a detailed description of the FAPRI/Winrock approach used 

to determine the type of land affected internationally. This approach uses satellite data depicting 

recent land conversion trends in conjunction with economic projections from the FAPRI model 

(an economic model of global agricultural markets) to determine the type of land converted 

internationally. In the proposed rule we described areas of uncertainty in this approach, 

illustrated the uncertainty with sensitivity analyses, and discussed other potential approaches for 

this analysis. To encourage expert and stakeholder feedback, EPA specifically invited comment 

on this issue, held public hearings and workshops, and sponsored an independent peer-review, all 

of which specifically highlighted this part of our analysis for feedback. While there were a wide 

range of views expressed in these forums, the feedback received by the Agency generally 

supported the FAPRI/Winrock approach as appropriate for this analysis. For example, all five 

experts that peer reviewed EPA’s use of satellite imagery agreed that it is scientifically justifiable 

to use historic remote sensing data in conjunction with agricultural sector models to evaluate and 

project land use change emissions associated with biofuel production. Additionally, the peer 

reviewers and public commenters highlighted problematic areas and suggested revisions to 

improve our analysis. In preamble Section V, we describe the key revisions that were 

implemented which have significantly improved our analysis based on the feedback received. 

As discussed above, all five of the expert peer reviewers that reviewed our use of satellite 

imagery for this analysis agreed that our general approach was scientifically justifiable. 

However, all of the peer reviewers qualified that statement by describing relevant uncertainties 

and highlighting revisions that would improve our analysis. Some of the public commenters 

supported EPA’s use of satellite imagery, while other expressed concern. In general, both sets of 

public commenters—those in favor and opposed—outlined the same criticisms and suggestions 

as the expert peer reviewers. Among the many valuable suggestions for satellite data analysis 

provided in the expert peer reviews and public comments, several major recommendations 

emerged: EPA should use the most recent satellite data set that covers a period of at least 5 years; 

EPA should use higher resolution satellite imagery; EPA's analysis should consider a wider 

range of land categories; EPA should improve it’s analysis of the interaction between cropland, 

pasture and unused or underutilized land; and EPA's analysis should include thorough data 

7-181
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

validation and a full assessment of uncertainty. In preamble Section V, we describe these and 

other recommendations and how we addressed each of them to improve our analysis. Based on 

the peer reviewers agreement that our general approach is scientifically justifiable, and in light of 

the significant improvements made, we think that our approach represents the best available 

analysis of the types of land affected internationally. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter also believes that EPA’s approach fails to adequately account for corn yields and 

role of DDG in maintaining or growing exports, resulting in less need for land use changes. 

(2329.1, p.51) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp.51-52 for a detailed discussion of this issue]] 

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has updated its assessment of crop yields both domestically and 

internationally. We have calculated lifecycle emission performance assuming both base yields 

derived from projecting into the future longer term historical trends and also assuming a marked 

increase in future yields based on industry and other comments 

Final rule analyses also have updated our assessment of the use of DDG and its impact on 

land use. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter believes that EPA failed to consider emissions from direct land use changes 

associated with petroleum exploration and production. EPA also has failed to consider indirect 

emissions of baseline gasoline. (2329.1, pp.53-55) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp.53-55 for a 

detailed discussion of these issues]] 

Our Response:

For the final rule, we performed an estimate of land use change emissions associated with 

oil extraction and production to determine if the value was significant enough to be included in 

our petroleum baseline calculation. As oil sands production incurs a greater degree of land use 

change versus conventional crude oil production, we made an estimate of the emissions from the 

conversion of Alberta forest for oil sands production. Using literature values, we found that land 

use change emissions for oil sands were negligible compared to the total well-to-tank values and 

7-182
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

did not change the overall petroleum baseline values. A more complete discussion of our 

analysis can be found in Chapter 2.5.7 of the RIA. 

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

7-183
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter believes that the following corrections to its analysis: 

-The assumptions used by EPA in its FASOM and FAPRI modeling regarding corn yields need 

to be increased substantially; 

-The models used by EPA do not include correct U.S. land inventories, which forces the 

modeling framework to immediately “Look” overseas for land to convert; 

-CRP land should not be limited to 32 million acres; and, 

-EPA did not properly account for pasture intensification in Brazil. [[See Docket Number 

2329.1, pp.57-60 for a detailed discussion of these issues]]

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has updated its assessment of crop yields both domestically and 

internationally. We have calculated lifecycle emission performance assuming both base yields 

derived from projecting into the future longer term historical trends and also assuming a marked 

increase in future yields based on industry and other comments. 

EPA’s analysis for the proposal and for the final rulemaking shows changes in both 

domestic and international cropland production in response to the increased demand for 

renewable fuels. For the final rulemaking analysis, the FASOM model includes both the forestry 

and agriculture sector models, and dynamically interact with one another via price changes and 

competition for land (amongst other variables). In addition, the FASOM model has been 

updated to account for additional land classes in the United States, based on USDA NASS data. 

This includes cropland pasture, forest pasture, forestland, rangeland, developed land, and acres 

enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. Details on changes in land use in the U.S., and 

the updates to the FASOM model are discussed in the Preamble, the RIA, and the technical 

report for the FASOM model in the docket. 

7-184
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Based on coordination with USDA, EPA modeled assuming land in CRP will be 

supported by USDA and therefore would not be available for biofuel feedstock production. 

As explained in preamble Section V, one of the major changes made to the FAPRI model 

between the NPRM and FRM includes the more detailed representation of Brazil through a new 

integrated module. The Brazil module was developed by Iowa State with input from Brazilian 

agricultural sector experts and we believe it is an improvement over the approach used in the 

proposal. The new Brazil module also explicitly accounts for changes in pasture acres, therefore 

accounting for the competition between crop and pasture acres. Furthermore, the Brazil module 

explicitly models livestock intensification, the practice of increasing the number of heads of 

cattle per acre of land in response to higher commodity prices or increased demand for land. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA’s assumptions regarding carbon sequestration are 

flawed. EPA should revise its 80-year assumption for the final rule. EPA should also be using 

the same average age for carbon sequestration and for developing the emission factors for forest 

conversion. (2329.1, p.60) 

The commenter noted that ethanol facilities have taken great strides in addressing GHG 

emissions, including carbon capture and sequestration projects, which are not reflected in EPA’s 

pathways. EPA should allow facilities to submit a facility specific analysis in order for the 

facility to take advantage of the measures they are taking to reduce their overall carbon footprint. 

(2329.1, p. 99) 

Our Response: 

In the proposed rule, to estimate annual forgone forest sequestration, we used IPCC 

default data for the growth rates of forests greater than 20 years old. The expert peer reviewers 

noted that these estimates could be refined with more detailed information from the scientific 

literature. Many of the public commenters were also concerned that EPA’s approach 

overestimated foregone sequestration because it did not adequately account for natural 

disturbances, such as fires and disease. To address these comments, our analysis has been 

updated with peer reviewed studies of long-term growth rates for both tropical and temperate 

forests. These estimates are based on long-term records (i.e., monitoring stations in old-growth 

forests for the tropics and multi-decadal inventory comparisons for the temperate regions) and 

reflect all losses/gains over time. These studies show that the old-growth forests in the tropics 

that many once assumed to be in “steady state” (i.e., carbon gains equal losses) are in fact still 

gaining carbon. In summary, our analysis now includes more conservative foregone forest 

sequestration estimates that account for natural gains and losses over time. 

7-185
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

 For this final rule, EPA did not have sufficient information to model the likely impacts of 

carbon capture and sequestration used in combination with tranditional biofuel facilities. 

However, EPA has established a petition process whereby biofuel producers can petition the 

Agency for a change in threshold assessment (a different D code) based on differences in 

production processes compared to those modeled. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1015 

Organization: Renewable Energy Group 

Comment:

The commenter (1015) believes the biodiesel industry must be able to utilize every feedstock 

available. The EPA should not exclude soybean oil-based biodiesel from RINs eligibility, and 

thus RFS2 volume requirements, as a result of indirect land use change formulations for 

greenhouse gas emissions. (1015, p.1) 

Our Response: 

Based on the analysis and approach explained in the final rule, EPA has determined that 

biodiesel and renewable diesel from soy oil or waste oils, fats and greases will exceed the 50% 

threshold for biomass-based diesel compared to the 2005 petroleum diesel baseline. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1044) supports ILUC of the LCA from the perspective of confinement of use to 

the industries of the United States of America-only. The commenter states that EISA does not 

give any agency authorization to consider data from foreign countries. However, in the preamble 

of the proposed rule the EPA uses the language “interprets” (VI)(B)(2)(a) they must include that 

data. The commenter strongly disagrees, especially, when certain vegetable oil feedstocks are 

only grown in the United States. The commenter presents three main arguments that the EISA 

definition does not state nor imply that EPA has the jurisdictional authority to capture LCA data 

outside the boundaries of the U.S. [[Docket number 1044.1, p. 8]] [[See docket number 1044.1, 

pp 8-10 for further discussion of this issue.]]

Our Response: 

With regard to the legal interpretation of the definition of lifecycle analysis, EPA believes 

that a complete analysis of the aggregate GHG emissions related to the full lifecycle of 

renewable fuels includes the significant indirect emissions from international land use change 

that are predicted to result from increased domestic use of agricultural feedstocks to produce 

renewable fuel. The statute specifically directs EPA to include in its analyses significant indirect 

7-186
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes. EPA has not ignored either the 

terms “significant” or “life cycle.” It is clear from EPA’s assessments that the modeled indirect 

emissions from land use changes are “significant” in terms of their relationship to total GHG 

emissions for given fuel pathways. Therefore, they are appropriately considered in the total 

GHG emissions profile for the fuels in question. EPA has not ignored the term “life cycle.” The 

entire approach used by EPA is directed to fully analyzing emissions related to the complete 

lifecycle of renewable and baseline fuels. 

Although the definition of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in Section 211(o) does not 

specifically mention international emissions, it would be inconsistent with the intent of this 

section of the amended Act to exclude them. The definition of lifecycle GHG emissions makes 

it clear that EPA is to determine the aggregate emissions related to the “full” fuel lifecycle, 

including “all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution.” Thus, EPA could not, as 

a legal matter, ignore those parts of a fuel lifecycle that occur overseas. 

Drawing a distinction between GHG emissions that occur inside the U.S. as compared to 

emissions that occur outside the U.S. would result in a lifecycle analysis that bears no apparent 

relationship to the purpose of this provision. The purpose of the thresholds in EISA is to require 

the use of renewable fuels that achieve reductions in GHG emissions compared to the baseline. 

Ignoring international emissions, a large part of the GHG emission associated with the different 

fuels, would result in a GHG analysis that bears no relationship to the real world emissions 

impact of transportation fuels. The baseline would be significantly understated, given the large 

amount of imported crude and imported finished gasoline and diesel used in 2005. Likewise, the 

emissions estimates for imported renewable fuel would be grossly reduced in comparison to the 

aggregate emissions estimates for fuels made domestically with domestically-grown feedstocks, 

simply because the impacts of domestically produced fuels occurred within the U.S. EPA does 

not believe that Congress intended such a result. 

Relative and direct “global warming potentials” are in reference to technical methods of 

expressing quantities of greenhouse gases, irrespective of the source of the greenhouse gas. 

Lastly, while some feedstocks may only be produced in the United State, their indirect 

market effects may impact global agricultural markets. Therefore, international indirect effects 

are considered for domestically produced feedstocks as well as foreign-produced feedstocks. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1048 

Organization: Macquarie University (Australia) Graduate School of Management 

(COPYRIGHT) 

Comment: 

Commenter[[1048]] finds that EPA shows a lack of transparency and scientific integrity in 

Searchinger et al. The commenter describes rules as more ideology than science and seeking to 

put biofuels in worst possible light; - Alternative approaches likely to be more fruitful in 

genuinely evaluating effects of biofuels grown around the world. A scholarly analysis of the 

7-187
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

keystone of indirect land use study. Commenters feel the framework used was inappropriate in 

that it started with assumptions as to diversion of grain to ethanol production in the U.S. but then 

extrapolated these to parts of the world, such as sugarcane growing in Brazil, which are actually 

(much) more bio-efficient. 

Commenters [[1048]] analysis concluded that Searchinger et al. Failed sound scientific standards 

on many fronts and that government agencies relying on Searchinger et al. Findings for 

evaluating biofuels would be better served by utilizing other controls. The commenter states 

“Indirect land use change effects are too diffuse and subject to too many arbitrary assumptions to 

be useful for rule-making,” stated Professor Mathews. “The use of direct and controllable 

measures such as building statements of origin or biofuels into the contracts that regulate the sale 

of such commodities would secure better results.” The issue is where to draw the boundary for 

life cycle analysis and how to address ILUC effects within the boundary. Non-industry experts 

are concerned that this is taking regulatory action too far, and the science underpinning such 

actions, including the ILUC calculations.

Our Response: 

We have analyzed and reviewed the dozens of studies that have been published on 

indirect land use change in the last several years. We have been informed by previous work but 

our analysis goes beyond anything that has been done currently and improves on much of the 

existing work. Through our rulemaking process we have worked with numerous stakeholders 

including the scientists who have authored those studies to incorporate the best data and tools 

available into the lifecycle analysis. 

EPA recognizes that it has had to break new scientific ground in developing a lifecycle 

methodology as required by EISA. This is why the Agency employed a collaborative, 

transparent and science-based approach. EPA took numerous measures to seek public comment 

on our approach—including extending the comment period for the proposed rule, holding a twoday public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, 

including the biodiesel community, through individual meetings, conferences and events. EPA 

also initiated an independent peer review of specific areas of our work. 

Further, EPA recognizes the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area. 

While the Agency is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, the Agency is also committing to further 

reassess these determinations. As part of this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of 

the National Academy of Sciences as well as other experts. EPA will request that the National 

Academy of Sciences over the next two years evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the 

underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in particular indirect land use change, and make 

recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on this subject. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1049 

7-188
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: Prairie Pride, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (1049) believes that existing biodiesel facilities meeting the RFS2 requirements 

with existing feedstock sources should not be unfairly penalized for assumptions related to 

international land use changes. The commenter requests the EPA use its regulatory authority to 

exempt existing biodiesel facilities from land use changes. Existing feedstock sources are already 

available to meet this production level. As such, no land use changes, and therefore no 

significant emissions from those changes, should be with existing production. [[Docket number 

1049, p. 1]] 

The commenter states that EPA’s assumptions regarding international land use changes 

associated with U.S. biodiesel production do not reflect historical results and should be revised. 

EPA assumes increased U.S. biodiesel production will lead to land conversion in South America; 

however, Brazilian soybean acreage has decreased 1.5 million hectares from 2004 through 2008, 

a time in which U.S. biodiesel production increased from 25 million to 690 million gallons. 

[[Docket number 1049, p. 2]] 

The commenter believes that co-product allocations for glycerin need to be incorporated in GHG 

calculations, which would dramatically increase biodiesel’s GHG benefits compared to 

petroleum. [[Docket number 1049, p. 2]]

The commenter adds that EPA’s approach should account for increasing soybean yields and 

improving farm efficiencies. Soybean hybrids and farming techniques have continuously 

improved over the past fifty years and this trend is expected to continue. [[Docket number 1049, 

p. 2]] 

Our Response: 

Based on the analysis and approach explained in the final rule, EPA has determined that 

biodiesel and renewable diesel from soy oil or waste oils, fats and greases will exceed the 50% 

threshold for biomass-based diesel compared to the 2005 petroleum diesel baseline. This 

assessment includes the impacts from international land use changes, which EPA is required to 

consider and which EPA has found to be significant for biodiesel production. 

Glycerin is a co-product of biodiesel production. Our proposal analysis did not assume 

any credit for this glycerin product. The assumption for the proposal was that by 2022 the 

market for glycerin would be saturated due to the large increase in biodiesel production in both 

the U.S. and abroad and the glycerin would therefore be a waste product. We received a number 

of comments that we should be factoring in a co-product credit for glycerin as there would be 

some valuable use for this product in the market. Based on these comments we have included 

for the final rule analysis that glycerin would displace residual oil as a fuel source on an energy 

equivalent basis. This is based on the assumption that the glycerin market would still be 

saturated in 2022 and that glycerin produced from biodiesel would not displace any additional 

petroleum glycerin production. However, the biodiesel glycerin would not be a waste and a low 

value use would be to use the glycerin as a fuel source. The fuel source assumed to be replaced 

7-189
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

by the glycerin is residual oil. This inclusion of a co-product credit for glycerin reduces the 

overall GHG impact of biodiesel compared to the proposal analysis. 

For the final rule, EPA has updated its assessment of crop yields both domestically and 

internationally. We have calculated lifecycle emission performance assuming both base yields 

derived from projecting into the future longer term historical trends and also assuming a marked 

increase in future yields based on industry and other comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

The commenter (2101.1) noted that because of the selective enforcement of the controversial and 

untested theory of ILUC against biofuels by EPA, they cannot support the rule as written and 

instead recommend that EPA issue a final rule that does not apply an ILUC penalty for biofuels. 

The commenter recommends that EPA should insist upon greater scientific consensus and realworld data of so-called ILUC effects from biofuels before moving forward to apply them in the 

final rule. (2101.1, p.2) 

The commenter noted that EISA does not direct EPA, not in statutory language nor in intent, to 

estimate the impact of international land use changes in its calculation of the greenhouse gas 

impact of biofuels. The law specifically compels EPA to examine significant direct and indirect 

land use changes, but EPA alone, with the strong backing of groups who do not want to see 

biofuels succeed, has loosely interpreted the law and unfortunately given credence to this 

controversial and untested theory of international ILUC. (2101.1, pp.3-4) 

The commenter also noted that the EISA statute does not require EPA to apply ILUC outside the 

United States. Because of the selective enforcement of the controversial and untested theory of 

ILUC against biofuels by EPA, the commenter can not support the rule as written and instead 

recommends that EPA issue a final rule that does not apply an international ILUC penalty for 

biofuels, consistent with the law. (2101.1, p.16) 

Our Response: 

EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. EPA took numerous measures to seek public comment on our 

approach—including extending the comment period for the proposed rule, holding a two-day 

public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, 

through individual meetings, conferences and events. EPA also initiated an independent 

scientific peer review of specific areas of our work. 

7-190
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA has clearly acknowledged that there are significant uncertainties associated with these 

estimates--particularly with regard to indirect land use change--and has developed an approach 

that manages these uncertainties. However, EPA rejects the view that the modeling relied upon 

in the final rule is too uncertain or untested to provide a credible and reasonable scientific basis 

for determining whether the aggregate lifecycle emissions exceed the thresholds. In addition, if 

international land use impacts were so uncertain that their impact on lifecycle GHG emissions 

could not be adequately determined, this does not mean EPA could assume the international land 

use change emissions are zero. High uncertainty as claimed by the commenter would not mean 

that we have absis to believe the emissions are small and can be ignored; rather it would mean 

that we could not tell whether they are large or small. If high uncertainty meant that EPA were 

not able to determine that indirect emissions from international land use change are small enough 

that the total lifecycle emissions meet the threshold, then that fuel could not be determined to 

meet the GHG thresholds of EISA and the fuel would necessarily have to be excluded from the 

program. EPA has chosen an approach that takes the uncertainty of international land use 

impacts into account, does not ignore it, and provides a credible and reasonable estimate of the 

significant emissions associated with these land use impacts. Our approach quantifies 

uncertainty and presents the weight of currently available evidence in making our threshold 

determinations. 

Although the definition of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in Section 211(o) does not 

specifically mention international emissions, it would be inconsistent with the text and the intent 

of this section of the Act to exclude them. The definition of lifecycle GHG emissions makes it 

clear that EPA is to determine the “aggregate” emissions “related to” the “full” fuel lifecycle, 

including “all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution”. EPA is directed to 

include both direct emissions and significant indirect emissions, such as significant emissions 

from land use changes. A large variety of activities outside the U.S. play a major part in the full 

fuel lifecycle of both the baseline fuel (gasoline and diesel fuel used as transportation fuel in 

2005) and renewable fuels. For example, several stages of the lifecycle process for gasoline and 

diesel can occur overseas, including extraction and delivery of imported crude oil, and for 

imported gasoline and diesel products, emissions associated with refining and distribution of the 

finished product to the U.S. For imported renewable fuel, all of the emissions associated with 

feedstock production and distribution, fuel processing, and delivery of the finished renewable 

fuel to the U.S. occur overseas. Whether the direct or indirect emissions occur in the U.S. or 

overseas does not change that they are related to the full fuel lifecycle. There is no basis in the 

definition to treat direct or indirect emissions that occur overseas different from direct or indirect 

emissions that occur in the US. Thus, EPA could not, as a legal matter, ignore those parts of a 

fuel lifecycle that occur overseas. 

Excluding international impacts means large percentages of GHG emissions would be 

ignored. This would take place in a context where the global warming impact of emissions is 

irrespective of where the emissions occur. If the purpose of thresholds is to achieve some 

reduction in GHG emissions in order to help address climate change, then ignoring emissions 

outside our borders interferes with the ability to achieve this objective. Such an approach would 

essentially undermine the purpose of the provision, and would be an arbitrary interpretation of 

the broadly phrased text used by Congress. 

7-191
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Lastly, EPA believes that including international indirect emissions in EPA’s lifecycle 

analysis does not exercise regulatory authority over activities that occur solely outside the U.S., 

nor does it raise questions of extra-territorial jurisdiction. EPA’s regulatory action involves an 

assessment of products either produced in the U.S. or imported into the U.S. EPA is simply 

assessing whether the use of these products in the U.S. satisfies requirements under EISA for the 

use of designated volumes of renewable fuel, cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and 

advanced biofuel. Considering international emissions in determining the lifecycle GHG 

emissions of the domestically-produced or imported fuel does not change the fact that the actual 

regulation of the product involves its use solely inside the U.S. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

The commenter also noted that ILUC models provide for interesting discussions, but they are not 

reliable enough to be used for determining policies with national and consequential 

ramifications. Computer models are entirely dependent on the assumptions that are employed by 

those who develop them. Ultimately the only meaningful test of whether a computer model is 

sound is whether its predictions can be corroborated by actual on-the-ground measurements. 

Without these real-world substantiations, models are more theory than science. In the case of 

ILUCs from biofuels, the measurements of on-the-ground land clearing do not corroborate the 

predictions of existing models. (2101.1, pp.4&5) 

The commenter believes that computer models should not be used to ascribe GHG emissions to 

biofuels or any other energy source until those models have been shown through years of 

corroborative data to accurately predict real-world changes in emission rates. Some academics 

who developed the models used by EPA may not agree with the commenter about what the 

“score” or “penalty” for corn ethanol under the ILUC theory is (often they say the land use 

change effect of corn ethanol is not zero), but even they would admit their models need more 

work before they can be reliably used in a policy context. (2101.1, p.5) 

The commenter is pleased that EPA sent a letter to Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) in response to an 

amendment he filed to the Fiscal Year 2010 Interior Appropriations bill which would require 

more EPA study of ILUC before enforcing it in the RFS2 rule. The fact that EPA noted “that 

there are significant uncertainties associated with these estimates (ILUC) and in particular, with 

the estimate of indirect land use change” is an important acknowledgment. Thanks for asking 

EPA staff to quantify the uncertainty associated with specifically the ILUC emissions. They are 

working closely with USDA as well as incorporating feedback from experts who are 

commenting on the rule. It is important to understand the uncertainty surrounding the estimates 

before finalizing the RFS2 rule. (2101.1, p.7) 

In an effort to better understand lifecycle analysis and indirect effects, the commenter 

commissioned a study by Global Insight entitled “Lifecycle Analysis of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Associated with Starch-based Ethanol.” Key findings from that report include: 

7-192
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

-Changes in land use have always occurred and are not new, nor are biofuels the primary driver 

of them. Global population growth cannot be ignored as a factor. 

Our Response: 

We agree that land use change has occurred in the past and will continue. We also agree 

that there are many drivers for land use change including global population growth. Our analysis 

is based on the difference between two future scenarios with different levels of biofuels 

production that both include population growth and other land use change factors. So we are 

only calculating the impact of the increase in biofuel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

-The scientific literature available to date shows a huge variation in estimates of carbon release 

from land clearing in general, on the order of 50 percent plus or minus - a huge margin of error 

that should not be relied upon to make policy. 

Our Response: 

For the final rule analysis we have included the uncertainty of carbon releases from land 

clearing. However, we disagree that we can not make threshold determinations because of this 

uncertainty. For this final rule, because of the inherent uncertainty and the state of the evolving 

science on this issue, EPA is basing its GHG threshold compliance determinations for this rule 

on an approach that considers the weight of evidence currently available. For fuel pathways with 

a significant land use impact, the evidence considered includes the best estimate as well as the 

range of possible lifecycle greenhouse gas emission results based on formal uncertainty and 

sensitivity analyses conducted by the Agency. In making the threshold determinations for this 

rule, EPA weighed all of the evidence available to it, while placing the greatest weight on the 

best estimate value for the base yield scenario. In those cases where the best estimate for the 

potentially conservative base yield scenario exceeds the reduction threshold, EPA judges that 

there is a good basis to be confident that the threshold will be achieved and is determining that 

the bio-fuel pathway complies with the applicable threshold. To the extent the midpoint of the 

scenarios analyzed lies further above a threshold for a particular biofuel pathway, we have 

increasingly greater confidence that the biofuel exceeds the threshold. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

7-193
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

-If some land use change is due to increased biofuels production, the overriding challenge is to 

quantify which changes can indeed be directly attributed to biofuels. 

Our Response: 

The way the analysis was conducted we specifically quantify changes that are attributable 

to biofuel production. We consider the emissions difference between two future scenarios where 

the only difference between the two scenarios is the amount of biofuels produced. By doing this 

scenario analysis we isolate the impacts due to biofuel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

-If the indirect GHG emissions of biofuels are counted toward the carbon footprint, so should be 

the indirect emissions associated with petroleum production. (2101.1, pp.7-8) 

Our Response: 

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

7-194
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that EPA needs to more carefully consider the value of ethanol coproducts (distillers grains) that are returned to the feed supply and the fact that corn yields are 

not fixed but are constantly improving thanks to improved farming methods and biotechnology. 

If proper credit is provided to distillers grains co-products, which replace the need for corn and 

soybean meal in livestock feed, and if increased corn yields are considered, the 15 billion gallons 

of corn ethanol called for under RFS2 can be produced without any land use penalties. (2101.1, 

p.8)

The commenter noted that ascribing GHG emissions from land clearing in developing countries 

to biofuels production in the U.S. would hold the domestic ethanol industry to a uniquely 

7-195
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

punitive standard, one that no other U.S. industry would face under any existing or proposed 

GHG control program. (2101.1, p.14) 

Our Response: 

For the final rulemaking analysis, both the FASOM and FAPRI models have 

incorporated updated distillers grains replacement rates for corn and soybean meal in animal 

feed. These updated assumptions are based on recent research conducted by Argonne National 

Laboratory. In addition, both the FASOM and FAPRI models expect crop yields to continue to 

increase over time, in accordance with USDA projections. These assumptions, however, are 

applied to all volume scenarios analyzed in the FASOM and FAPRI models for this rulemaking. 

Therefore, an increase in demand for renewable fuel under these circumstances still results in 

land use change stemming from increased crop production in the final rulemaking analysis. 

Another update to the FAPRI model related to improved crop yields includes price-induced yield 

changes, which results in increased yield for a crop as its price increases. Details on these 

assumptions in the final rulemaking can be found in the RIA, and the technical reports on the 

docket for the FASOM and FAPRI models. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1051 

Organization: Aberdeen Development Corp. 

Comment:

The commenter (1051) believes that existing biodiesel facilities, which are able to meet the 

RFS2 requirements with existing feedstock sources, should not be unfairly penalized for 

assumptions related to international land use changes. EPA has already indicated that obligated 

parties will be able to use 2009 biodiesel and renewable diesel to meet the RFS2 requirements. 

[[Docket number 1051.1, p. 1]] 

The commenter urges EPA to use its regulatory authority to exempt biodiesel facilities that were 

placed in service prior to December 19, 2007, the date of enactment of EISA from being unfairly 

penalized for assumptions related to international land use changes that cannot be validated with 

credible science and are unrelated to U.S. biodiesel production. [[Docket number 1051.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response: 

EISA “grandfathers” production from existing facilities but only for compliance with the 

basic renewable fuel compliance threshold (i.e, 20% GHG improvement) not the advanced 

biofuel threshold (50% improvement) which is generally the target for biodiesel. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1051 

Organization: Aberdeen Development Corp. 

7-196
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment:

The commenter believes that existing U.S. biodiesel production, which has been steadily 

growing, will have no land use changes and therefore no significant emissions can be associated 

with existing production. [[Docket number 1051.1, p. 2]] 

The commenter states that EPA’s assumptions regarding international land use changes 

associated with U.S. biodiesel production do not reflect the real world. EPA assumes increased 

U.S. biodiesel production will lead to land conversion in South America. If this assumption were 

correct, Brazilian soybean acreage would have increased from 2004 through 2008, a time in 

which U.S. biodiesel production increased from 25 million to 690 million gallons. During this 

time, however, Brazilian soybean acres actually decreased by 1.5 million hectares. [[Docket 

number 1051.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response: 

The commenter indicates that methodology for determining GHG impacts is flawed in 

that it is not a widely accepted methodology, includes indirect land use changes (including 

international land use impacts), out of date IPPC factors for nitrogen from soybean production, 

glycerine co-product benefits are under estimated, and the petroleum baseline does not take into 

account future petroleum trends. As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used the most 

up to date models, data and other information in its LCA. These indicate that indirect impacts 

including international land use impacts are significant and should appropriately be included in 

accordance with good practice and the requirements of EISA. For the final rule we have updated 

our nitrogen data to use the latest IPPC guidance and have included co-product value for 

glycerine. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1338 

Organization: Union for Concerned Scientists 

Comment:

The commenter’s (1338) recommend that the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) use the latest 

science to calculate the lifecycle analyses of heat-trapping emissions from biofuels. Doing this 

would ensure that indirect land use change, resulting from converting forests and grasslands to 

farmland for fuel crop production, is taken into account. (1338, p.1) 

The commenter’s note that recent peer-reviewed research indicates that the production of 

conventional biofuels can directly or indirectly result in substantial global warming emissions. 

Previous lifecycle analyses of biofuels did not adequately account for these emissions, giving 

these fuels credit for greater reductions in heat-trapping emissions than actually achieved. The 

data on land use change indicate that the emissions related to biofuels are significant and can be 

quite large. The commenter’s note that even though it is currently difficult to assign a precise 

value to the effect of indirect land use, regulations based on the best available science need to be 

developed without ignoring this major source of global warming pollution. (1338, p.1) 

7-197
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response: 

EPA agrees with the commenter’s suggestion to use the latest science. The methodology 

presented in the final rule includes significant enhancements to our approach, including the 

incorporation of new scientific data. In addition, as required by EISA, EPA has considered all 

aspects of a fuel’s lifecycle emissions in order to determine compliance with the thresholds. 

EPA believes it has developed an approach that incorporates and measures full lifecycle 

emissions while also acknowledging that single point estimates of these impacts may not be 

possible given the uncertainties in certain areas. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1669 

Organization: Environmental Intelligence, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1669.1) is concerned that the evidence demonstrates that U.S. biodiesel 

production is not the cause of significant land use change in Brazil or elsewhere. U.S. soybean 

farmers should not be penalized based on flawed and immature assumptions and theories. 

(1669.1, p.1)

Our Response: 

As described in more detail and in Section V of the preamble, EPA has used the best 

available models to analyze the indirect impacts of U.S. biodiesel production, and has 

incorporated many modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public 

and peer reviewers and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated 

with significant components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG 

emissions associated with international land use change. EPA has updated and refined its 

modeling approach since proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its 

modeling of GHG emissions associated with international land use is comprehensive and 

provides a reasonable and scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations 

required for this rulemaking. As discussed in the preamble, EPA plans to continue to improve 

upon its analyses, and will update it in the future as appropriate. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1719 

Organization: MAIZAR, Argentine Corn and Sorghum Association 

Comment:

The commenter (1719.1) needs to make EPA aware that the theoretical bases on which the 

proposed rulemaking is founded, known as the international Land Use Change theory (“iLUC”), 

directly contradicts the commenter’s experience and knowledge of the agricultural development 

in Argentina and of the care and sustainability of its ecosystems. Land use change is actually an 

7-198
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

opportunity to improve ecosystems and, when desired, it is a method to accumulate organic 

matter and sequester in the soil the GHG emitted by other activities of mankind. (1719.1, p.1&5) 

Our Response: 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used the most up to date models, data and 

other information in its LCA. These indicate that indirect impacts including international land 

use impacts are significant and should appropriately be included in accordance with good 

practice and the requirements of EISA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1722 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment: 

The commenter (1722) believes that the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the change in 

the use of the land (be they negative or positive) are not directly related to any of the enumerated 

direct emissions sources; they are, however, indirectly related. The commenter noted that in the 

proposed rule, EPA leaped from “indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use 

changes” to “international indirect land use change,” creating this phrase which is not in the 

legislation. EPA then proposed that when land is taken from one use in one part of the world, 

identifiable and quantifiable adjustments will be made in another part of the world in response. 

The commenter believes that such a broad re-interpretation of the phrase is unwarranted. (1722, 

p.3) 

The commenter believes that indirect emissions could result from land use changes in other 

countries in the production of biofuels in those countries. It would seem reasonable to include 

those emissions in the lifecycle calculation, should those biofuels be imported to the U.S. 

However, it is an unwarranted stretch to suggest that any change in the use of land from one 

purpose to another in one country has a predictable, measurable, emission-creating counterpart in 

another country, in another part of the world. The commenter believes that there is no 

justification in the legislation to include international indirect land use change analysis in 

calculating the required lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions either baseline or comparative. 

(1722, p.3) 

The commenter believes that EPA should not incorporate any evaluation of any international 

indirect land use change - or any indirect land use change - into its analysis of greenhouse gas 

emissions for the purpose of determining if a biofuel meets the Renewable Fuel Standard. 

Indirect land use changes-related analysis should only be incorporated after the appropriate tools 

are developed and meet independent peer-reviewed approval such as that which might be 

provided by the National Academies of Sciences. (1722, p.4)

Our Response: 

7-199
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

EPA believes that a complete analysis of the aggregate GHG emissions related to the full 

lifecycle of renewable fuels includes the significant indirect emissions from international land 

use change that are predicted to result from increased domestic use of agricultural feedstocks to 

produce renewable fuel. The statute specifically directs EPA to include in its analyses 

significant indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes. EPA has not 

ignored either the terms “significant” or “life cycle.” It is clear from EPA’s assessments that the 

modeled indirect emissions from land use changes are “significant” in terms of their relationship 

to total GHG emissions for given fuel pathways. Therefore, they are appropriately considered in 

the total GHG emissions profile for the fuels in question. EPA has not ignored the term “life 

cycle.” The entire approach used by EPA is directed to fully analyzing emissions related to the 

complete lifecycle of renewable and baseline fuels. 

Although the definition of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in Section 211(o) does not 

specifically mention international emissions, it would be inconsistent with the text and the intent 

of this section of the Act to exclude them. The definition of lifecycle GHG emissions makes it 

clear that EPA is to determine the “aggregate” emissions “related to” the “full” fuel lifecycle, 

including “all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution”. EPA is directed to 

include both direct emissions and significant indirect emissions, such as significant emissions 

from land use changes. A large variety of activities outside the U.S. play a major part in the full 

fuel lifecycle of both the baseline fuel (gasoline and diesel fuel used as transportation fuel in 

2005) and renewable fuels. For example, several stages of the lifecycle process for gasoline and 

diesel can occur overseas, including extraction and delivery of imported crude oil, and for 

imported gasoline and diesel products, emissions associated with refining and distribution of the 

finished product to the U.S. For imported renewable fuel, all of the emissions associated with 

feedstock production and distribution, fuel processing, and delivery of the finished renewable 

fuel to the U.S. occur overseas. Whether the direct or indirect emissions occur in the U.S. or 

overseas does not change that they are related to the full fuel lifecycle. There is no basis in the 

definition to treat direct or indirect emissions that occur overseas different from direct or indirect 

emissions that occur in the US. Thus, EPA could not, as a legal matter, ignore those parts of a 

fuel lifecycle that occur overseas. 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. EPA has used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many 

modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers 

and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations described above. 

EPA recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area, 

the lifecycle GHG assessments for a variety of fuel pathways will continue to change. 

Therefore, while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also 

7-200
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this 

ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as 

other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new 

assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this 

final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1975 

Organization: Canadian Bioenergy Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (1975) believes that indirect Land Use Change should not be used to calculate 

greenhouse gas emissions. The biodiesel industry must be able to utilize every feedstock 

available. The EPA should not exclude soybean oil-based biodiesel from RINs eligibility, and 

thus RFS2 volume requirements, as a result of indirect land use change formulations for 

greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA concludes, with certainty, that international land use change 

will occur and GHG emissions will result due to a direct relationship between shifts in the 

agricultural market as a consequence of the increased demand for biofuels in the U.S. However, 

the EPA dismisses actual data. For example, on land usage in Brazil, data shows a decrease of 

soybean hectares under production from 2004 to 2008 by 1.5 million. While for the same period 

of time, U.S. biodiesel production increased from 25 million gallons to 690 million gallons. The 

commenter believes it is wrong to lay deforestation across globe at the feet of the U.S. biofuels 

industry. [[Docket number 1975, p. 1]]

Our Response: 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. EPA has used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many 

modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers 

and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations described above. We plan to 

continue to improve upon our analyses, and will update it in the future as appropriate. Based on 

this analysis and approach, EPA has determined that biodiesel and renewable diesel from soy oil 

or waste oils, fats, and greases will exceed the 50% GHG threshold for biomass-based diesel. 

What Commenters Said:

7-201
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1987 

Organization: Cornell University 

Comment: 

The commenter [[1987]] states that applying their methodology to Brazilian and U.S. data, they 

find that in Brazil conversion to biofuel production of two land types is genuinely sustainable, 

i.e., satisfies our sustainability standard, whereas in the United States no land type satisfies their 

criterion. [[1987.1 p.3]] 

Our Response: 

The commenter’s statement that corn ethanol production in the U.S. does not satisfy their 

defined “sustainability criteria” is based on the authors' conclusion that corn ethanol produced in 

the U.S. requires a payback period of at least 61 years. This conclusion is based on a simple 

analysis using data from Searchinger et al. (2008). EPA disagrees, because, as described in 

preamble Section V, EPA’s analysis finds that many U.S. corn ethanol pathways require a 

payback period of less than 30 years. As described in the preamble, we have made number of 

very important updates as compared to the Searchinger et al. (2008) analysis. Furthermore, the 

analysis conducted by the commenter makes several assumptions that EPA does not support, 

such as the assumption that crop yields will not increase over time. For the same reasons, EPA 

also disagrees with the commenter’s calculated payback periods for ethanol produced in Brazil. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2000 

Organization: Galva Holstein Ag, LLC. 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2000]] states that EPA should Drop consideration of “international” land use 

change and focus on domestic land use change only, assume that CRP land will be released in 

response to a long-term change in demand for ethanol and soy biodiesel, and assume corn and 

soybean yield increases more in line with recent experience rather than long-term trends. [[see 

docket#2000 p. 1]] 

Our Response: 

Based on coordination with USDA, EPA modeled assuming land in CRP will be 

supported by USDA and therefore would not be available for biofuel feedstock production. 

For the final rule, EPA has updated its assessment of crop yields both domestically and 

internationally. We have calculated lifecycle emission performance assuming both base yields 

derived from projecting into the future longer term historical trends and also assuming a marked 

increase in future yields based on industry and other comments 

What Commenters Said:

7-202
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2002 

Organization: Novozymes North America, Inc. (Novozymes) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2002) states that the economic models being used for ILUC modeling were not 

developed for this purpose (a point also made in the peer review) and are in themselves a 

significant source of uncertainty. The same also goes for the input parameters of the models such 

as price elasticities, which have significant influence on the ILUC results produced by the 

models. [[Docket number 2002.1, p. 2]]

The commenter points out that on page 353 in the DRIA, the EPA states that price-induced yield 

changes are assumed to be counteracted by lower productivity on marginal lands taken into 

production due to increased biofuels production. Meanwhile, the EPA does nothing to give a 

quantitative substantiation of this assumption. The commenter recommends that the EPA 

explores the aspect of price-induced yield changes in more detail and would also mentions that 

new land taken into production internationally does not necessarily have a lower fertility than 

existing agricultural land. The EPA may consider using the GTAP Model to quantify priceinduced yield changes. [[Docket number 2002.1, p. 5]] 

Our Response: 

In the NPRM we requested comment on whether the higher prices caused by an increased 

in demand for biofuels would increase future yield projections in the policy case beyond the 

yield trends in the reference case (sometimes referred to as “price induced yields”), or whether 

these price induced yields would be offset by the reduction in yields associated with expanding 

production onto new marginal acres (sometimes referred to as extensification). Based on the 

comments we received, along with additional historical trend analysis conducted by FAPRI, the 

FAPRI model was updated to include elasticity factors for yields to respond to changes in prices 

over time both in the U.S. and internationally. 

As the price of corn increase, farmers, seed producers, and others involved in crop 

production have an additional incentive to improve yields. The price induced yield phenomenon 

is partially offset by the reduced yields that result from expanding on to new crop acres, which is 

often referred to as extensification. However, the price-induced yield impact is projected to be 

larger than the extensification effect. For example, in 2022 the price of corn increases by $0.10 

(3.3 percent) in the U.S. In response, the average corn yield in 2022 increases by 0.4 bushels per 

acre (0.4 percent). In another example, in 2022, world corn prices increase by $0.12 per bushel 

(3.1 percent). As a result, corn yields in China increased from 101.9 bushels per acre in the 

Reference Case to 102.3 bushels per acre in the Control Case in 2022, a 0.3 percent 

improvement. Additional details on the methodology behind the estimation of price-induced 

yields can be found RIA Chapter 5. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2002 

7-203
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Organization: Novozymes North America, Inc. (Novozymes) 

Comment: 

The commenter notes EPA’s assumption that new land brought into production is cleared by 

burning in most of the countries considered in the GHG analysis. Meanwhile, EPA recognizes 

that timber and other valuable products are removed from forests before conversion to cropland, 

at least in the United States (DRIA page 354). EPA states that accounting for timber removal 

would only reduce GHG emissions from forests converted to cropland by 2% (DRIA page 385). 

The commenter believes that this is very low and is difficult for the reader to verify since a 

breakdown of the emissions from forest conversion is not provided. The commenter recommends 

that the EPA provides a more transparent substantiation of its assessment for the clearing of land 

in the documentation for the final rule. [[Docket number 2002.1, p. 5]]

Our Response: 

As the commenter states, some wood felled during timber harvest and deforestation is 

used in wooden products (e.g., furniture) that retain biogenic carbon for a long period of time. 

Emissions from forest products can also occur over several years or decades. 

With the addition of the forestry module to the FASOM domestic modeling, FASOM 

takes into account both the carbon stored in harvested wood products (HWP) and the emission 

streams associated with them over time for domestic forests. Thus, wood products are accounted 

for in the domestic modeling for the final rulemaking. For details on these domestic HWP 

calculations, see the RIA 2.4.4.1. 

Some commenters argued that consideration of the use of harvested wood in products 

would decrease land use change emissions and reduce the impacts of biofuel production. For the 

international land use analysis in the proposed rule, we investigated the share of cleared forest 

biomass that is typically used in HWP. However, we did not account for this factor in the 

proposed rule after it was determined that HWP would have a very small impact on the 

magnitude of international land use change emissions. 

A number of commenters expressed concern that we did not account for HWP, and they 

argued that HWP would be more significant than we had determined. However, in response to 

specific questions on this topic, all of the expert peer reviewers agreed that EPA had properly 

accounted for HWP and other factors (e.g., land filling) that could prevent or delay emissions 

from land clearing. One of the peer reviewers noted that forests converted to croplands are 

generally driven by interests unrelated to timber, and thus the trees are simply burned and 

exceptions are probably of minor importance. 

To study this issue further, we looked at FAO timber volume estimates for 111 

developing countries, and published literature on the share of harvested timber used in wood 

products and the oxidation period for wood products, such as wood-based panels and other 

industrial roundwood. Consistent with the peer reviewers’ statements, our analysis concluded 

that even in countries with high rates of harvested timber utilization, such as Indonesia, a very 

small share of harvested forest biomass would be sequestered in HWP for longer than 30 years. 

The details of our HWP analysis are discussed further in RIA Chapter 2. 

7-204
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

This is an area for further work, but based on our analysis, and the feedback from expert 

commenters, we do not expect that consideration of HWP would have a significant impact on the 

magnitude of GHG emissions from international deforestation in our analysis. Furthermore, the 

range of outcomes from consideration of HWP is indirectly captured in our assessment of forest 

carbon stock uncertainty. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2008 

Organization: Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments 

Comment: 

The commenter (2008.1) urges that biofuels be provided a level playing field by federal or state 

authorities in the calculation of the effects of indirect land use. (2008.1, p.1)

Our Response: 

For this rule, EPA has applied the same methodology in analyzing the LCA of all 

biofuels. We believe our methodology represents the best currently available and should be used 

for this national rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2010 

Organization: SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2010) notes that EPA insists that indirect emissions due to land use change, as 

directed by statute, includes international land use change and attempts to use data derived from 

intricate corollary-models and dated satellite imaging. Rather than applying the indirect 

emissions assumption to all fuels as directed by statue, EPA choose to apply this assumption 

only to biofuels. The baseline for petroleum is static and does not include indirect emissions. 

This action violates a true comparative LCA analysis and ISO standards. The commenter adds 

that using faulty data and assumptions to drive a regulatory polity after billions of dollars of 

federal, state, and private investments in renewable biofuels is unconscionable. [[Docket number 

2010.1, p. 9]] 

It’s apparent that there is no consensus on how indirect emissions should be accounted for in an 

LCA for soy biodiesel. If transparency cannot be readily attained, analysis of indirect effects for 

biofuels should be deferred until all factors and petroleum fuels are considered. [[Docket number 

2010.1, p. 9]] 

What Commenters Said:

 

7-205
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2152.1 

Organization: Minnesota Coalition for Ethanol 

Comment:

The commenter (2152) has great concern with the inclusion of indirect land use change in 

lifecycle GHG analysis. The recent debate about indirect land use change in the U.S. House of 

Representatives demonstrates that his concept is very controversial. Even by utilizing the best 

research techniques available, there is little or no consensus among the scientific community as 

to how indirect effects can be measured. The language included in the amendment sponsored by 

Rep. Collin Peterson prohibited the EPA from considering international indirect land use change 

while this concept is still being studied. (2152.1 Pg. 1). 

Our Response: 

EPA believes there is a great deal of scientific consensus on the need to account for 

indirect emissions in assessing the lifecycle impacts of biofuels. EPA’s goal in developing this 

methodology was to use a scientifically sound approach and to appropriately characterize 

uncertainty. In an independent peer review or EPA’s methodology the reviewers in general 

supported the importance of assessing indirect land use change and determined that EPA used 

the best available tools and approaches for this work. This peer review, along with the extensive 

public comments the Agency received, supported the value of quantifying the magnitude of this 

uncertainty and its relative impact on the resulting lifecycle emission estimates as is done in this 

final rule. 

EPA recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area, 

the lifecycle GHG assessments for a variety of fuel pathways will continue to change. 

Therefore, while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also 

committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this 

ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as 

other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new 

assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this 

final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. This new assessment could result in new determinations of threshold compliance 

compared to those included in this rule that would apply to future production (from plants that 

are constructed after each subsequent rule). 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2011 

Organization: Western Dubuque Biodiesel LLC 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2013 

Organization: Central Iowa Energy, LLC 

Comment: 

7-206
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2013) notes that EPA insists that indirect emissions due to land use change, as 

directed by statute, includes international land use change and attempts to use data derived from 

intricate corollary-models and dated satellite imaging. Rather than applying the indirect 

emissions assumption to all fuels as directed by statue, EPA choose to apply this assumption 

only to biofuels. The baseline for petroleum is static and does not include indirect emissions. 

This action violates a true comparative LCA analysis and ISO standards. The commenter adds 

that using faulty data and assumptions to drive a regulatory polity after billions of dollars of 

federal, state, and private investments in renewable biofuels is unconscionable. [[Docket number 

2013.1, p. 9]]

 

It’s apparent that there is no consensus on how indirect emissions should be accounted for in an 

LCA for soy biodiesel. If transparency cannot be readily attained, analysis of indirect effects for 

biofuels should be deferred until all factors and petroleum fuels are considered. [[Docket number 

2013.1, p. 10]] 

Our Response:

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

7-207
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

With regard to the lifecycle analysis more generally, the Agency believes it has 

developed a scientifically sound, state-of-the-art, methodology. In an independent peer review 

of EPA’s methodology the reviewers in general supported the importance of assessing indirect 

land use change and determined that EPA used the best available tools and approaches for this 

work. This peer review, along with the extensive public comments the Agency received, 

supported the value of quantifying the magnitude of this uncertainty and its relative impact on 

the resulting lifecycle emission estimates as is done in this final rule. We focused our 

uncertainty analysis on the international indirect land use change emissions and worked to 

manage the uncertainty around those impacts. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2047 

Organization: Terrabon 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2071]] states the statute’s current heavy reliance on crop-based feedstocks 

creates incentives to shift the entire burden of feedstock production onto lands, which promotes 

intense production and increases the odds of economically unsustainable land management 

processes. [[#2071.1 p.4]]

7-208
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response: 

EISA and EPA’s rule acknowledge the expected high levels of biofuels likely to come 

from crops. However, provisions are made for including non-crop feedstock sources including 

waste fats and greases as well as agricultural wastes. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2048 

Organization: BioPure Fuels 

Comment:

The commenter (2048.1) believes that the science behind indirect land use assumptions is weak 

and open to criticism. Clearly there is room for questioning the assumptions being made in 

including indirect land use in the regulations and this is perhaps the area where U.S. EPA is 

likely to obtain the greatest criticism (as evidenced by the recent hearing on indirect land use in 

Congress). (2048.1, p.3) 

With regards to the GREET model, the commenter is not in favor of any of the recommendations 

in the GREET model associated with indirect land use change, staff recommendations to include 

indirect land use change in carbon calculations and adoption of a rule that includes Indirect Land 

Use Change (ILUC). The commenter agrees with comments from stakeholders including the 

letter by 111 Ph.D. Scientists stating that the science used in determining these market mediated, 

indirect impacts is quite limited and highly uncertain. In addition, the selective enforcement of 

indirect land use impacts for biofuels over other fuels included in the LCFS violates the most 

basic principles of regulatory fairness. (2048.1, p.11) 

Our Response: 

EPA has clearly acknowledged that our lifecycle methodology required breaking new 

scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally recognized as 

state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the indirect impacts 

of biofuels. EPA took numerous measures to seek public comment on our approach—including 

extending the comment period for the proposed rule, holding a two-day public workshop on the 

lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, through individual meetings, 

conferences and events. EPA also initiated an independent scientific peer review of specific 

areas of our work. 

EPA has recognized that there are uncertainties associated with these estimates--

particularly with regard to indirect land use change--and has sought to develop an approach that 

manages these uncertainties. However, EPA rejects the view that the modeling relied upon in 

the final rule is too uncertain or untested to provide a credible and reasonable scientific basis for 

determining whether the aggregate lifecycle emissions exceed the thresholds. If the international 

land use impacts were so uncertain that their impact on lifecycle GHG emissions could not be 

adequately determined, this does not mean EPA could assume the international land use change 

7-209
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

emissions are zero. High uncertainty would not mean that emissions are small and can be 

ignored; rather it could mean that we could not tell whether they are large or small. If high 

uncertainty meant that EPA were not able to determine that indirect emissions from international 

land use change are small enough that the total lifecycle emissions meet the threshold, then that 

fuel could not be determined to meet the GHG thresholds of EISA and the fuel would necessarily 

have to be excluded from the program. The Agency has chosen an approach that includes 

biofuels with a significant international land use impact in this program. We also have chosen an 

approach that quantifies uncertainty and presents the weight of currently available evidence in 

making our threshold determinations. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079 

Organization: AE Biofuels, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2079.1) believes that EPA’s assumptions regarding international land use 

changes associated with U.S. biodiesel production do not reflect the real world. EPA’s analysis 

does not consider global market drivers for biodiesel feedstock, such as soybeans, that have 

substantial influence on U.S. exports and land use changes in other countries. (2079.1, p.7) 

Our Response: 

 To quantify the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the increase in renewable fuel 

mandated by EISA, we compared the differences in total GHG emissions between two future 

volume scenarios using well established-economic models. For each individual biofuel, we 

analyzed the incremental GHG emission impacts of increasing the volume of that fuel to the total 

mix of biofuels needed to meet the EISA requirements. The scenarios that we compared include 

the same background projections about agricultural and economic conditions such as 

macroeconomic growth, oil prices, crop growing conditions, exchange rates and government 

policies. Thus, we isolate the effects of each type of biofuel expansion because all other factors 

that affect the agricultural economy are held constant. 

 The historical biodiesel and soybean statistics cited by the commenter are not comparable 

with our model predictions. During the time period discussed by the commenter (i.e., 2004 to 

2008) many of the conditions that can affect the agricultural economy were changing. For 

example, oil prices spiked, soybean blight became more prevalent in Brazil, exchange rates were 

adjusted, and corn ethanol volumes also expanded substantially. In other words, the increase in 

soy-based biodiesel production was not the only important factor that changed during the period. 

Therefore, the fact that soybean acreage contracted in Brazil during this period does not refute 

model predictions about how Brazil responds to U.S. biodiesel production. If we could “re-run” 

history with a lower biodiesel volume, it may well be that Brazil soybean acreage would have 

been much larger than it actually was, in which case the model predictions would be validated. 

What Commenters Said:

7-210
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2087 

Organization: Ag Partners 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2087]] states that EPA should drop consideration of “international” land use 

change and focus on domestic land use change only, assume that CRP land will be released in 

response to a long-term change in demand for ethanol and soy biodiesel, and assume corn and 

soybean yield increases more in line with recent experience rather than long-term trends. [[see 

docket#2087 p. 1]]

Our Response: 

 As required by EISA, EPA has included in its lifecycle GHG assessment all significant 

impacts on GHG emissions including those resulting from international land use change. EPA 

bleives its assessments are technically appropriate and defensible and consistent with the 

mandates of law. 

Based on coordination with USDA, EPA modeled assuming land in CRP will be 

supported by USDA and therefore would not be available for biofuel feedstock production. 

For the final rule, EPA has updated its assessment of crop yields both domestically and 

internationally. We have calculated lifecycle emission performance assuming both base yields 

derived from projecting into the future longer term historical trends and also assuming a marked 

increase in future yields based on industry and other comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2104 

Organization: US Canola Association 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2104]] state that they are concerned that EPA has attributed an undue degree of 

land use causation to U.S. biofuels production and do not adequately consider other market 

factors that have driven international land use decisions historically and currently. These myriad 

other factors include, population growth, food and feed demand, timber prices, Brazilian 

agricultural policies and subsidies, Argentina’s Differential Export Taxes, and the European 

Union’s ban on U.S. soybean imports due to biotechnology barriers. [[#2104.1 p.3]]

Our Response: 

To quantify the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the increase in renewable fuel 

mandated by EISA, we compared the differences in total GHG emissions between two future 

volume scenarios using well established-economic models. For each individual biofuel, we 

analyzed the incremental GHG emission impacts of increasing the volume of that fuel to the total 

mix of biofuels needed to meet the EISA requirements. The scenarios that we compared include 

the same background projections about agricultural and economic conditions such as 

macroeconomic growth, oil prices, crop growing conditions, exchange rates and government 

7-211
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

policies. Thus, we isolate the effects of each type of biofuel expansion because all other factors 

that affect the agricultural economy are held constant. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2104 

Organization: US Canola Association 

Comment: 

The commenter states that Iowa State University Professor, Dr. Robert Brown has conducted a 

statistical analysis of indirect land use change for Brazil in which the linear regressions typically 

showed correlations of about 0.01. In fact, acreage in Brazil dedicated to soybean cultivation 

actually decreased from 2004 through 2008. In 2004, soybean production in Brazil covered 

22.917 million hectares. In 2008, soybean production accounted for 21.400 million hectares. 

EPA has proposed to conduct their lifecycle GHG analysis for all vegetable oil based biodiesel 

using flawed and immature assumptions regarding international indirect land use that result in a 

significant and unprecedented penalty being applied to biodiesel produced from virgin vegetable 

oils. Additionally, yield increases by U.S. farmers will play a significant role in meeting biofuel 

feedstock demand by producing more feedstock on the same amount of land, and that the statute 

does not require EPA to include international indirect emissions in their life-cycle analysis for 

biofuels. [[#2104.1 p.3-4]]

Our Response: 

The historical biodiesel and soybean statistics cited by the commenter are not comparable 

with our model predictions. During the time period discussed by the commenter (i.e., 2004 to 

2008) many of the conditions that can affect the agricultural economy were changing. For 

example, oil prices spiked, soybean blight became more prevalent in Brazil, exchange rates were 

adjusted, and corn ethanol volumes also expanded substantially. In other words, the increase in 

soy-based biodiesel production was not the only important factor that changed during the period. 

Therefore, the fact that soybean acreage contracted in Brazil during this period does not refute 

model predictions about how Brazil responds to U.S. biodiesel production. 

To constitute a meaningful analysis of the correlation between U.S. biofuel production 

and soybean acreage in Brazil, the linear regressions cited by the commenter would have to 

statistically control for the many other variables that changed during the time period analyzed. 

Such an analysis would require extensive economic, climatic and agricultural data collection and 

validation. EPA has not received documentation showing that the linear regressions cited 

include these necessary statistical procedures. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2110 

Organization: Chevron 

Comment:

7-212
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2110.1) agrees that impacts from indirect land use change (ILUC) should be 

included based on the best science available. That science says that ILUC is a real, significant 

effect; only its magnitude is uncertain. Failure to include ILUC initially only to add it later will 

lead to bad investment decisions, stranded capital and possible harm to the environment. (2110.1, 

p.4) 

Our Response: 

EPA agrees with commenter that impacts from indirect land use change must be included 

in our lifecycle analysis. Further, we have taken steps in the final rule to account for 

uncertainties. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2112.2) believes that arbitrary restrictions imposed by imposing indirect land 

use analyses interfere with the challenge of participation in the RFS2 program. After months of 

debate, no defensible causality has been established between U.S. biofuel policy influence and 

global land use decisions. EPA made a gallant effort, but gaping holes remain in the level of data 

required to develop a representative relationship. The result is that a forced effort to guess about 

indirect land use creates significant barriers to energy security without providing effective 

greenhouse gas safeguards. (2112.1, p.1) 

The commenter believes that the statutory language for indirect land use is fatally flawed. EPA 

does a disservice to the Congress by forcing through a law that can not be measured (See 

discussion on limitation of the Lifecycle Assessments below). There is insufficient data to 

conduct the level of analysis that EPA has attempted to deliver. The commenter believes that 

indirect land use effects must be balanced with 1) the GHG emission impact of developing the 

Canadian tar sands as well as 2) coping with U.S. cropland losses due to urban development. The 

land use issues (direct and indirect) do not deal with urban expansion. (2112.1, p.4) (See Docket 

Number 2212.1, p.4 for more information on this issue)

Regarding modeling indirection land use change, the commenter listed some findings from 

Stephen Kaffka, Director of the California Biomass Collaborative. These findings include: 

1. There is an uneasy relationship between methods and outputs. 

2. Models should be seen as learning tools, not truth machines. 

3. There is no single policy that can control the response of complex systems. Attempting to do 

so will reduce sustainability. 

4. It is not food (or feed) vs. fuels, but a question of how to create more sustainable agroecosystems (more diverse, more profitable). In many cases, crops grown for biomass may 

facilitate that process, not only in CA but also in many locations in the developing world were 

human need is great. 

7-213
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

5. The distinction between first generation biofuels and second generation biofuels is partially 

arbitrary and misleading & If the entire crop plant were used (corn, sugarbeets), then energy 

yields could be similar to or even greater compared to so-called 2nd generation crops like switch 

grass. An integrated bio-refinery may change the production of energy to a by-product or waste 

management process rather than the primary activity. 

6. The decision to impose an ILUC handicap on agricultural biofuels was premature and 

occurred without sufficient understanding of the nature of agricultural systems. This violates the 

principle of a performance standard by excluding potentially viable biofuel sources and methods, 

and shuts off the human talent for agriculture as part of the solution. 

7. CA should encourage indigenous biofuel production to do its share to reduce GHG without 

exporting all the consequences of doing so to other locations. This is partly a matter of ethics, but 

it will also have the best estimates of GHG effects for local systems. 

8. The key to a successful transition to a low carbon future will be entrepreneurial innovation. 

The state should err on the side of encouraging such innovation. 

9. The economic, social and ecological effects of regulation of the energy sector are so 

fundamental, far-reaching and complex, that prudence and time are needed to achieve the 

greatest net environmental and social benefits. (2112.1, p.9) (See Docket Number 2112.1, pp.9-

10 for more discussion on this issue)

Our Response: 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used the most up to date models, data and 

other information in its LCA. These indicate that indirect impacts including international land 

use impacts are significant and should appropriately be included in accordance with good 

practice and the requirements of EISA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2112.1) noted the EPA carbon emissions over time are fatally tied to the 

assumption that their numbers reflect what is actually happening in real life. The coefficients 

used by EPA to forecast carbon emissions and sequestration out 30 and 100 years may reflect a 

few situations, but they do not come close to approximating field conditions in the US. If real life 

emission values differ by only a small amount from the EPA estimates the forecasted results 

change significantly. (2112.1, p.12) 

Our Response: 

For this final rule we have incorporated a statistical analysis of uncertainty about critical 

variables in our pathway analysis. This uncertainty analysis is explained in detail in preamble 

Section V and is consistent with the specific recommendations received through our peer review 

and public comments on the proposal. The uncertainty analysis focused on two aspects of 

indirect land use change - the types of land converted and the GHG emission associated with 

7-214
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

different types of land converted. In particular, our uncertainty analysis focused on such specific 

sources of information as the satellite imaging used to inform our assessment of land use trends 

and the specific changes in carbon storage expected from a change in land use in each 

geographic area of the world modeled. We have also performed additional sensitivity analyses 

including analysis of two yield scenarios for corn and soy beans to assess the impact of changes 

in yield assumptions. 

This uncertainty analysis provides information on both the range of possible outcomes for 

the parameters analyzed, an estimate of the degree of confidence that the actual result will be 

within a particular range (in our case, we estimated a 95% confidence interval) and an estimate 

of the central tendency or midpoint of the GHG performance estimate. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2116 

Organization: The ProExporter Network 

Comment: 

The commenter (2116) noted that international land use change has been occurring since 1975 

and will continue to occur with or without U.S. corn ethanol production. While total world acres 

harvested of coarse grains (corn, barley and sorghum) and food grains (wheat and rice) have 

been relatively stable since 1975 at about 611 million acres and 919 million acres, respectively, 

annual world oilseeds acreage (soybeans, peanuts, rapeseed and sunflowers) increased from 173 

million in 1975/76 to 423 million acres in 2008/09 (2116, p.2) 

The commenter noted that the EISA of 2007 mandates that land use change factors be included 

in life cycle analyses of renewable fuels made from biomass, including corn ethanol. That has 

resulted in the use of several econometric models that purport to measure the impact of land use 

change in other countries resulting from corn ethanol production in the U.S. The results of these 

analyses are at odds with the realities of production and use of corn in the U.S. for the last 35 

years and USDA’s projections for the next ten years. (2116.1, p.3)

Our Response: 

As described in the proposal, to estimate lifecycle indirect impacts of biofuel production 

requires the use of economic modeling to determine the market impacts of using agricultural 

commodity feedstocks for biofuels. The use of economic models and the uncertainty of those 

models to accurately predict future agricultural sector scenarios was one of the main comments 

we received on our analysis. While the comments and specifically the peer review supported our 

need to use economic models to incorporate and measure indirect impacts of biofuel production, 

they also highlighted the uncertainty with that modeling approach, especially in projecting out to 

the future. 

However, it is important to note that while there are many factors that impact the 

uncertainty in predicting total land used for crop production, making accurate predictions of 

many of these factors are not relevant to our analysis. For example different assumptions about 

7-215
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

economic growth rates, weather, and exchange rates will all impact future agricultural 

projections including amount of land use for crops. However, we are interested only in the 

difference between two biofuel scenarios holding all other changes constant. So the absolute 

values and projections for crops and other variables in the model projections are not as important 

as the difference the model is projecting due to an increase in biofuels production. This limits 

the uncertainty of using the economic models for our analysis. 

Furthermore, one of the key uncertainties associated with our agricultural sector 

economic modeling that has the biggest impact on land use change results is the assumptions 

around crop yields. As discussed in Section V.A.2, we are conducting sensitivity analysis 

around different yield assumptions in our analysis. 

Therefore, because of the fact that we are only using the economic models to determine 

the difference between two projected scenarios and the fact that we are conducting sensitivity 

analysis around the yield assumptions we feel it is appropriate and acceptable to use economic 

models in our analysis of determining GHG thresholds in our final rule analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2117 

Organization: NYU School of Law 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2117]] believes that EPA’s decision to include international impacts is required 

by legal standards and by best economic practices. [[2117.1 p.2]] 

The commenter also states a court will find an agency action to be illegally arbitrary and 

capricious if an agency entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem. 12 

International GHG emissions from land use changes are clearly an important aspect of the 

lifecycle GHG calculation. As EPA notes, a large variety of different activities outside the U.S. 

play a major part of the full fuel lifecycle of baseline and renewable fuels. 13 Excluding 

international land use changes would arbitrarily ignore an important aspect of the regulatory 

issues put before EPA by Congress. Indeed, because a key goal of EISA is to reduce GHG 

emissions, 14 it would be arbitrary and in contravention of congressional intent to ignore any 

significant source of GHG emissions, such as international land use changes. [[2117.1 p.3]]

Our Response: 

EPA believes the preamble for the final rule addresses each of the points raised by the 

commenter. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2119 

Organization: National Sorghum Producers 

7-216
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment: 

The commenter (2119.1) does not support the use of indirect land use change penalties. Although 

the commenter recognizes the work that EPA has put into the modeling of indirect land use 

change, they believe that too much is unknown and the modeling too theoretical to be used in a 

final rule. (2119.1, p.7) 

Our Response: 

EPA has clearly acknowledged that there are uncertainties associated with these 

estimates—particularly with regard to indirect land use change—and has sought to develop an 

approach that manages these uncertainties. However, EPA rejects the view that the modeling 

relied upon in the final rule is too uncertain or untested to provide a credible and reasonable 

scientific basis for determining whether the aggregate lifecycle emissions exceed the thresholds. 

If the international land use impacts were so uncertain that their impact on lifecycle GHG 

emissions could not be adequately determined, this does not mean EPA could assume the 

international land use change emissions are zero. High uncertainty would not mean that 

emissions are small and can be ignored; rather it could mean that we could not tell whether they 

are large or small. If high uncertainty meant that EPA were not able to determine that indirect 

emissions from international land use change are small enough that the total lifecycle emissions 

meet the threshold, then that fuel could not be determined to meet the GHG thresholds of EISA 

and the fuel would necessarily have to be excluded from the program. EPA has chosen an 

approach that includes biofuels with a significant international land use impact in this program. 

We also have chosen an approach that quantifies uncertainty and presents the weight of currently 

available evidence in making our threshold determinations. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) strongly supports EPA’s inclusion of indirect land-use change (ILUC) 

in biofuel GHG LCA. Including ILUC in the assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

from biofuels is critical if GHG reduction goals are to be achieved. The projected magnitude of 

ILUC emissions are large and therefore, notwithstanding the technical uncertainty, should be part 

of both near and long term quantification of biofuel GHG emissions. The commenter also 

supports: 

-Assessment of global ILUC emissions using the best available science, and continued 

refinement of this assessment as science and experience progress. 

-Incorporation of ILUC emissions in regulations pertaining to biofuel GHG emissions by 

practical methodologies that can be applied in the near term. (2124.1, p.46) 

The commenter also endorses the use of FASOM and FAPRI to model ILUC. These models are 

detailed tools with a high level of detail and data validation. FASOM has been used to model 

U.S. agricultural GHG for many years. Linking the models is appropriate and allows the 

analytical strengths of both models to be utilized. The commenter supports the examination of 

7-217
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

GTAP as an alternative modeling platform with global scope. The commenter also agrees with 

use of satellite (MODIS) data to estimate type of land converted internationally but recommend 

use of a larger dataset than just three years. (2124.1, pp.46-47)

Our Response: 

EPA recognizes that it has had to break new scientific ground in developing a lifecycle 

methodology as required by EISA. This is why the Agency employed a collaborative, 

transparent and science-based approach. EPA took numerous measures to seek public comment 

on our approach—including extending the comment period for the proposed rule, holding a twoday public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, 

including the biodiesel community, through individual meetings, conferences and events. EPA 

also initiated an independent peer review of specific areas of our work. 

Further, EPA recognizes the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area. 

While the Agency is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, the Agency is also committing to further 

reassess these determinations. As part of this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of 

the National Academy of Sciences as well as other experts. EPA will request that the National 

Academy of Sciences over the next two years evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the 

underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in particular indirect land use change, and make 

recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on this subject. 

We appreciate comments provided by NPRA supporting our use of FASOM and FAPRI 

to determine indirect land use change. As recommended by NRPA and others, we have also 

explored the option of also incorporating the GTAP model into our modeling framework, and 

have included the results of this analysis in the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment:

The commenter (2129.1) believes that it is legally necessary for EPA to include ILUC in its 

lifecycle assessment and supports EPA. (2129.1, p.6) 

Our Response:

EPA agrees with commenter that the language in EISA requires EPA to include 

significant indirect emissions, which includes significant emissions from land use impacts. 

7-218
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130) agrees with EPA’s interpretation that EISA requires that EPA consider 

both direct and indirect land use change impacts and strongly supports the inclusion of indirect 

land-use change in biofuel GHG LCA. Additionally, the commenter believes that collaborative 

work is needed at the international level to develop a common and appropriate methodology to 

account for ILUC [[Docket number 2130.1, pp. 3 and 18-19] 

Our Response: 

EPA agrees with commenter that impacts from indirect land use change must be included 

in our lifecycle analysis. 

EPA has and continues to pursue technical cooperation and exchange with our 

international partners with regard to analysis of lifecycle greenhouse gases from biofuels, 

including those due to land use change. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) believes that EPA should remain cautious when estimating these 

impacts and use a strong, science-based analysis to the extent possible. EPA may want to 

consider regulating or prohibiting certain practices as an alternative approach to implementing 

this part of EISA, unless or until it receives further guidance from Congress. (2132.1, p.8) 

Our Response: 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2136 

7-219
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFS) 

Comment:

The commenter (2136) questions if a ILUC assessment is required. The combination of the 

CAA’s legal scope, Congressional intent and overwhelming scientific uncertainty strongly argue 

for the EPA to not attempt to assess the international ILUC of biofuels. The commenter urges 

the EPA to reconsider its position that international ILUC must be included in the final rule. 

[[Docket number 2136.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response: 

EPA has clearly acknowledged that there are uncertainties associated with indirect land 

use change estimates and has sought to develop an approach that manages these uncertainties. 

However, EPA rejects the view that the modeling relied upon in the final rule is too uncertain or 

untested to provide a credible and reasonable scientific basis for determining whether the 

aggregate lifecycle emissions exceed the thresholds. If the international land use impacts were 

so uncertain that their impact on lifecycle GHG emissions could not be adequately determined, 

this does not mean EPA could assume the international land use change emissions are zero. 

High uncertainty would not mean that emissions are small and can be ignored; rather it could 

mean that we could not tell whether they are large or small. If high uncertainty meant that EPA 

were not able to determine that indirect emissions from international land use change are small 

enough that the total lifecycle emissions meet the threshold, then that fuel could not be 

determined to meet the GHG thresholds of EISA and the fuel would necessarily have to be 

excluded from the program. EPA has chosen an approach that includes biofuels with a 

significant international land use impact in this program. We also have chosen an approach that 

quantifies uncertainty and presents the weight of currently available evidence in making our 

threshold determinations. 

Further, the statute specifically directs EPA to include in its analyses significant indirect 

emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes. EPA has not ignored either the 

terms “significant” or “life cycle.” It is clear from EPA’s assessments that the modeled indirect 

emissions from land use changes are “significant” in terms of their relationship to total GHG 

emissions for given fuel pathways. Therefore, they are appropriately considered in the total 

GHG emissions profile for the fuels in question. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2136 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFS) 

Comment:

The commenter states that the current EPA model, which assumes that distillers grains replaces 

conventional feed on a pound-for-pound basis, is incorrect. With the starch gone, distillers 

grains is a high protein feed ration. Due to the high protein content per pound, one pound of 

distiller grains displaces more than a pound of corn and soybean meal. Factoring in the higher 

displacement rate and taking into account that soybean meal is also displaced from the feed 

7-220
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

ration, not just corn, there is a significant positive impact on the ILUC models. [[Docket number 

2136.1, p. 7]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) noted that current EPA analysis undervalues Dgs by only displacing 1 

lb of corn grain per lb of Dgs, which results in an overestimate of land use change. (2146.1, p.6) 

Our Response: 

 

For the final rulemaking analysis, distillers grains replacement rates of corn and soybean 

meal in animal feed have been updated based on the latest research by Argonne National 

Laboratory in both the FASOM and FAPRI models. These replacement rates are higher and 

more efficient than those used in the proposal’s analysis. Details on these assumptions can be 

found in the RIA and the technical reports for each respective model. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2136 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFS) 

Comment:

The commenter is concerned that the draft rule seriously underestimates, even ignores, the value 

of glycerin from biodiesel producers. Utilizing glycerin as a valuable coproduct and petroleum 

replacement in the GHG emissions calculations would increase soybean oil-based biodiesel’s 

GHG reduction percentage by roughly 17 percent. The commenter urges EPA to take into 

account valuable future markets as it quantifies the energy efficiency of biodiesel production. 

[[Docket number 2136.1, p. 7 and Docket number 2321.1]] [[See copyrighted materials at docket 

numbers 2247.1 and 2321.1 for additional information on glycerin.]] 

Our Response: 

Glycerin is a co-product of biodiesel production. Our proposal analysis did not assume 

any credit for this glycerin product. The assumption for the proposal was that by 2022 the 

market for glycerin would be saturated due to the large increase in biodiesel production in both 

the U.S. and abroad and the glycerin would therefore be a waste product. We received a number 

of comments that we should be factoring in a co-product credit for glycerin as there would be 

some valuable use for this product in the market. Based on these comments we have included 

for the final rule analysis that glycerin would displace residual oil as a fuel source on an energy 

equivalent basis. This is based on the assumption that the glycerin market would still be 

saturated in 2022 and that glycerin produced from biodiesel would not displace any additional 

petroleum glycerin production. However, the biodiesel glycerin would not be a waste and a low 

value use would be to use the glycerin as a fuel source. The fuel source assumed to be replaced 

7-221
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

by the glycerin is residual oil. This inclusion of a co-product credit for glycerin reduces the 

overall GHG impact of biodiesel compared to the proposal analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2137 

Organization: Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2137.1) states that EPA should apply the same standard for assessing 

international land use change to both domestic and internationally sourced feedstocks. Referring 

to HR 2454, the commenter strenuously cautions EPA again applying different standards for 

calculating emissions for domestically vs. foreign produced fuels. Such an approach would 

undercut EPA’s ability to establish the 2010 RFS2, increase fuels market uncertainty at a time of 

economic stress, and likely undermine the ongoing work of EPA and stakeholders aimed at 

reducing the level of uncertainty associated with these calculations and models. [[Docket number 

2137.1, p. 16]] 

Our Response: 

The regulations finalized for RFS2 determine GHG threshold compliance on the basis of 

fuel pathways, irrespective of the country where the feedstock or the fuel was produced. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2140 

Organization: John Deere Agriculture & Turf Division 

Comment:

The commenter (2140.1) recommends EPA and other federal agencies undertake greater study of 

indirect land use impacts and not assign any international indirect land use impact values to 

biofuels at this time. Attempting to assign an indirect land use value prematurely can result in 

significant impacts on innovation, delays in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and thwart 

progress towards more environmental and economically sustainable production of food, fiber, 

and fuel for the world’s growing population. (2140.1, p.1) 

The commenter noted that the proposed rule assumes land use patterns related to renewable fuels 

are reflective of total global land use change patterns. This assumption ignores the reality that 

decisions related to conversion of non-cropland to cropland are based on completely different 

criteria than decisions of what crop to grow on a given parcel of cropland in a given year. 

(2140.1, p.2) (See Docket Number 2140.1, p.2 for a more detailed discussion of this issue) 

Our Response: 

EPA recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area, 

the lifecycle GHG assessments for a variety of fuel pathways will continue to change. 

7-222
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Therefore, while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also 

committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this 

ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as 

other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new 

assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this 

final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. This new assessment could result in new determinations of threshold compliance 

compared to those included in this rule that would apply to future production (from plants that 

are constructed after each subsequent rule). 

To estimate lifecycle indirect impacts of biofuel production requires the use of economic 

modeling to determine the market impacts of using agricultural commodity feedstocks for 

biofuels. The use of economic models and the uncertainty of those models to accurately predict 

future agricultural sector scenarios was one of the main comments we received on our analysis. 

While the comments and specifically the peer review supported our need to use economic 

models to incorporate and measure indirect impacts of biofuel production, they also highlighted 

the uncertainty with that modeling approach, especially in projecting out to the future. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment:

 

The commenter (2143) strongly recommends that evaluation of the full lifecycle emission 

impacts of fuel production should include both direct and significant indirect emissions from 

land use changes. 

The commenter (2143) suggests that the uncertainty in the quantitative magnitude of emissions is 

not a sufficient reason for ignoring the statutory mandate to include land use change emissions. 

(2143.2, p.3) 

The commenter (2143) suggests that the proposed rulemaking should use a 30 year time frame 

and 0 percent discount rate instead of 100 years and 2 percent discount rate when estimating the 

emissions related to indirect land usage change.(2143.2, p,4) 

Our Response: 

EPA agrees with commenter on the need to include full lifecycle emissions and that 

uncertainty does not mean that EPA can ignore impacts. Further, EPA has finalized its 

assessments based on an analysis assuming 30 years of continued emission impacts with a 0 

discount rate. 

7-223
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2148 

Organization: Hornbeck Agricultural 

Comment: 

The commenter (2148) believes that EPA is relying on unproven techniques in an attempt to 

measure international indirect land use changes (ILUC) associated with soy biodiesel production. 

EPA has proposed regulations that are overreaching, deeply flawed, and counterproductive. Even 

if a “climate bill” does not pass in Congress this session, the commenter believes there is logic in 

the House version passed this summer that would call upon the National Academy of Sciences to 

study the potential international impact for five years to avoid the adoption of any short-sighted 

regulations. (2148, p.1)

Below are several points that offer a rationale for the EPA not to apply the proposed rules based 

on assumptions of ILUC. 

1. The commenter believes that EPA is going beyond Congressional mandate. The EISA 

statute does not direct EPA to include international indirect emissions in its lifecycle 

analysis of biofuels. An EPA lifecycle analysis that attempts to measure international 

ILUC is unnecessary and inappropriate, given that Congress did not choose to require 

such analysis.

2. The commenter noted that EPA used a new and untested method in its attempt to measure 

international ILUC. There is no generally accepted scientific methodology for measuring 

indirect land use change, and the International Standards Organization (ISO) has not 

published standards for analyzing indirect effects. 

3. The commenter noted that global land use change has occurred for many years, long 

before biodiesel was produced in the U.S. Many factors including urbanization, world 

population growth and dietary changes, timber and hardwood prices, etc., impact and 

drive land use change. However, EPA analysis measures the conversion of Brazilian 

forestland to cropland during 2001-2004, extrapolates that trend into the future, and 

attributes the possible future change to U.S. production of soy biodiesel. Soy biodiesel 

production is not driving land use change in the Amazon region, and any land use change 

that is occurring certainly cannot be solely attributed to U.S. biodiesel. 

Our Response: 

Although the definition of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in Section 211(o) does not 

specifically mention international emissions, it would be inconsistent with the text and the intent 

of this section of the Act to exclude them. The definition of lifecycle GHG emissions makes it 

clear that EPA is to determine the “aggregate” emissions “related to” the “full” fuel lifecycle, 

including “all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution”. EPA is directed to 

include both direct emissions and significant indirect emissions, such as significant emissions 

from land use changes. A large variety of activities outside the U.S. play a major part in the full 

fuel lifecycle of both the baseline fuel (gasoline and diesel fuel used as transportation fuel in 

2005) and renewable fuels. For example, several stages of the lifecycle process for gasoline and 

7-224
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

diesel can occur overseas, including extraction and delivery of imported crude oil, and for 

imported gasoline and diesel products, emissions associated with refining and distribution of the 

finished product to the U.S. For imported renewable fuel, all of the emissions associated with 

feedstock production and distribution, fuel processing, and delivery of the finished renewable 

fuel to the U.S. occur overseas. Whether the direct or indirect emissions occur in the U.S. or 

overseas does not change that they are related to the full fuel lifecycle. There is no basis in the 

definition to treat direct or indirect emissions that occur overseas different from direct or indirect 

emissions that occur in the U.S. Thus, EPA could not, as a legal matter, ignore those parts of a 

fuel lifecycle that occur overseas. 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. EPA has used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many 

modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers 

and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations described above. 

However, EPA recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in 

this area, the lifecycle GHG assessments for a variety of fuel pathways will continue to change. 

Therefore, while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also 

committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this 

ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as 

other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new 

assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this 

final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. This new assessment could result in new determinations of threshold compliance 

compared to those included in this rule that would apply to future production (from plants that 

are constructed after each subsequent rule). 

To quantify the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the increase in renewable fuel 

mandated by EISA, we compared the differences in total GHG emissions between two future 

volume scenarios using well established-economic models. For each individual biofuel, we 

analyzed the incremental GHG emission impacts of increasing the volume of that fuel to the total 

mix of biofuels needed to meet the EISA requirements. The scenarios that we compared include 

the same background projections about agricultural and economic conditions such as 

macroeconomic growth, oil prices, crop growing conditions, exchange rates and government 

policies. Thus, we isolate the effects of each type of biofuel expansion because all other factors 

that affect the agricultural economy are held constant. 

7-225
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The proposed rule included a detailed description of the FAPRI/Winrock approach used 

to determine the type of land affected internationally. This approach uses satellite data depicting 

recent land conversion trends in conjunction with economic projections from the FAPRI model 

(an economic model of global agricultural markets) to determine the type of land converted 

internationally. In the proposed rule we described areas of uncertainty in this approach, 

illustrated the uncertainty with sensitivity analyses, and discussed other potential approaches for 

this analysis. To encourage expert and stakeholder feedback, EPA specifically invited comment 

on this issue, held public hearings and workshops, and sponsored an independent peer-review, all 

of which specifically highlighted this part of our analysis for feedback. While there were a wide 

range of views expressed in these forums, the feedback received by the Agency generally 

supported the FAPRI/Winrock approach as appropriate for this analysis. For example, all five 

experts that peer reviewed EPA’s use of satellite imagery agreed that it is scientifically justifiable 

to use historic remote sensing data in conjunction with agricultural sector models to evaluate and 

project land use change emissions associated with biofuel production. Additionally, the peer 

reviewers and public commenters highlighted problematic areas and suggested revisions to 

improve our analysis. In preamble Section V, we describe the key revisions that were 

implemented which have significantly improved our analysis based on the feedback received. 

As discussed above, all five of the expert peer reviewers that reviewed our use of satellite 

imagery for this analysis agreed that our general approach was scientifically justifiable. 

However, all of the peer reviewers qualified that statement by describing relevant uncertainties 

and highlighting revisions that would improve our analysis. Some of the public commenters 

supported EPA’s use of satellite imagery, while other expressed concern. In general, both sets of 

public commenters—those in favor and opposed—outlined the same criticisms and suggestions 

as the expert peer reviewers. Among the many valuable suggestions for satellite data analysis 

provided in the expert peer reviews and public comments, several major recommendations 

emerged: EPA should use the most recent satellite data set that covers a period of at least 5 years; 

EPA should use higher resolution satellite imagery; EPA's analysis should consider a wider 

range of land categories; EPA should improve it’s analysis of the interaction between cropland, 

pasture and unused or underutilized land; and EPA's analysis should include thorough data 

validation and a full assessment of uncertainty. In preamble Section V, we describe these and 

other recommendations and how we addressed each of them to improve our analysis. For 

example, we have updated our analysis to consider satellite data from 2001-2007. Based on the 

peer reviewers agreement that our general approach is scientifically justifiable, and in light of the 

significant improvements made, we think that our approach represents the best available analysis 

of the types of land affected internationally. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2148 

Organization: Hornbeck Agricultural 

Comment: 

4. The commenter believes that other market factors, including input and transportation 

costs, determine how farmers will put their lands to use. 

7-226
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response: 

We agree that factors such as input and transportation costs influence how farmers will 

use their land, however these factors are primarily captured in our reference case. Our 

greenhouse gas emissions analysis focuses on the incremental impact of increasing renewable 

fuel volumes to meet the RFS2 requirements. Since the increase in renewable fuel volumes will 

increase the world price of commodities and decrease exports from the U.S., it will make 

agricultural production on some new acres of land profitable in other countries. Our analysis 

captures this incremental increase in new acres that results from the change in renewable fuel 

volumes from our reference case to our control case. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2148 

Organization: Hornbeck Agricultural 

Comment: 

5. The commenter believes that an increase of 300 million gallons of biodiesel (from 700 

million to 1.0 billion gallons annually) as called for under the RFS2 should not result in the 

substantial land use “penalty” ascribed to U.S. soy biodiesel by EPA. Any reasonable land use 

penalty that might be justifiably attributed to U.S. soy biodiesel should certainly not result in 

pushing soy biodiesel below the 50% GHG reduction threshold required under the statute. 

Our Response: 

With regard to their relationship between land use and soybean biodiesel lifecycle GHG 

emissions, EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on a methodology that 

includes an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international 

land-use change. As described in more detail below and in Section V of this preamble, EPA has 

used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many modifications to its 

proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers and developing 

science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant components of its 

analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with international land 

use change. As discussed below, EPA has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations described above. As discussed 

below, EPA plans to continue to improve upon its analyses, and will update it in the future as 

appropriate. 

The revised lifecycle assessment for soybean biodiesel predicts less overall indirect land 

use change (less land needed) and less impact from the land use changed that does occur (due to 

updates in types of converted land assumed). In addition, the latest IPCC guidance indicates 

reduced domestic soybean N2O emissions, and updated USDA and industry data show 

reductions in biodiesel processing energy use and a higher co-product credit, all of which further 

reduced the modeled soybean biodiesel lifecycle GHG emissions. This has resulted in a 

7-227
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

significant improvement in our assessment of the lifecycle performance of soybean biodiesel as 

compared to the estimate in the proposal. 

EPA's final analysis indicates that, based on currently available information and our 

current analysis over the range of scenarios considered, the performance of soy oil-based 

biodiesel exceeds the 50% threshold. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2148 

Organization: Hornbeck Agricultural 

Comment: 

6. The commenter noted that other measures are being implemented to address land use 

change for certain sensitive areas such as Brazils Amazon region. (2148, p.1)

Our Response: 

One of the major changes made to our modeling between the NPRM and FRM includes 

the more detailed representation of Brazil through a new module integrated into the global 

FAPRI modeling framework. The Brazil module was developed by Iowa State with input from 

Brazilian agricultural sector experts and we believe it is an improvement over the approach used 

in the proposal. Furthermore, it includes information that helps to address the points raised by 

the commenter. For example, when the model determines the area of crop and pasture 

expansion/reversion in each region in Brazil it considers the cost of deforestation in each region. 

The deforestation costs are based on the various policies put in place in Brazil to limit the 

amount of future deforestation. In developing the model we worked with Iowa State and 

Brazilian experts to be realistic about how we modeled these policies, because based on past 

experience, it would be unreasonable to assume full compliance in all regions of Brazil. More 

information about the new Brazil model is included in preamble Section V. 

Furthermore, we quantified major sources of uncertainty in our evaluation of the types of 

land that would be affected by land conversion. Our central estimates are based on recent land 

use change patterns from 2001-2007, so to the extent that the Soy Moratorium was affecting land 

use changes during this period, we have captured some of those effects in our analysis. 

Furthermore, our 95% confidence ranges include scenarios with less deforestation, which could 

be the result of efforts like the Soy Moratorium mentioned by the commenter. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2150 

Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation 

Comment:

The commenter (2150.1) strongly objects to the agency’s proposal related to indirect land use 

changes. There is no reliable way to measure or accurately predict how the production of 

7-228
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

biofuels will affect land use change in other countries. Improved plant varieties, new 

technologies and more efficient agricultural practices have produced greater crop yields of higher 

quality. It is unrealistic to think that anyone can predict how agriculture will evolve in the future 

based on the single variable of biofuels utilization. (Page 3) 

Our Response: 

EPA’s lifecycle methodology required breaking new scientific ground and using 

analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally recognized as state of the art and an 

advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the indirect impacts of biofuels. EPA took 

numerous measures to seek public comment on our approach—including extending the comment 

period for the proposed rule, holding a two-day public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, 

and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, through individual meetings, conferences and events. 

EPA also initiated an independent scientific peer review of specific areas of our work. 

As to the comment about changes in crop yields, for this analysis we ran a base yield case 

and a high yield case. This will provide two distinct model results for key parameters like total 

amount of land converted by crop by country. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment:

The commenter (2154.1) noted that EPA has determined through their current analysis that the 

indirect land use change (LUC) impacts are significant for certain fuels and have included these 

impacts in the total life cycle assessment. The commenter is supportive of including these 

factors, based on the best scientific data currently available. The commenter also encourages 

EPA to conduct periodic evaluations to be able to capture any improvements in the modeling and 

assessment technologies as they evolve. (2154.1, p.8) 

Our Response: 

The Agency will further reassess our determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of 

this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as 

well as other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a 

new assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in 

this final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. 

What Commenters Said:

7-229
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2157) recommends that EPA utilize a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission 

methodology for rulemaking purposes that is based on sound economics and science and the 

most updated information, is valid for regulatory purposes, and does not unfairly penalize U.S. 

biofuel production for unrelated land use shifts in foreign nations. The commenter also 

recommends that EPA implement a workable program that is simple and efficient while not 

imposing undue burdens on the renewable fuel industry. Based on the issues above, the 

commenter believes EPA’s proposed approach for addressing emissions from international 

indirect land use should be excluded. (2157 p. i-ii and 48-50) 

Our Response: 

Throughout the development of EPA’s lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a 

collaborative, transparent, and science-based approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as 

developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking new scientific ground and using analytical 

tools in new ways. The work was generally recognized as state of the art and an advance on 

lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the indirect impacts of biofuels. The Agency has 

updated and refined its modeling approach since proposal in several important ways, including a 

number of updates made in direct response comments from the public and peer reviewers. EPA 

is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations. EPA has also quantified the 

uncertainty associated with significant components of its analyses, including important factors 

affecting GHG emissions associated with international land use change. Lastly, EPA has strove 

to create a workable program that builds off the current RFS1 program. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2157) makes specific suggestions for corrections to EPA’s lifecycle analysis for 

biodiesel: 

(1) nitrogen fixing in soil was incorrectly included and if corrected would decrease GHG 

lifecycle emissions by an additional 20.9 percent, 

7-230
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response: 

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

The N2O emission factors used in the proposal overestimated N2O emissions from 

nitrogen fixing crops, because they were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting. 

As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed such that biological nitrogen fixation was 

removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of significant emissions 

arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that the N2O emissions induced by the 

growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function of the above-ground and 

below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This change effectively reduces the 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 

to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

(2) The energy balance data is out of date, co-product allocations for glycerin were not 

incorporated, and global market drivers for feedstocks are not considered when updated and 

included these factors would further decrease GHG lifecycle emissions by an additional 19.1 

percent. 

Our Response: 

To the maximum extent possible, we have continued to review and update the data and 

assumptions underlying our modeling tools. As part of the final rule we updated the energy use 

assumptions for biodiesel production to be in line with the latest energy balance reports including 

7-231
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

the University of Idaho Study. Therefore, the final rule assumes lower energy use for biodiesel 

production compared to the proposal analysis. In addition, we have revised our analysis to 

assume that glycerin will displace residual oil as an energy source for this final rulemaking. We 

disagree, however, that global market drivers for feedstocks are not included in our models. For 

example, our partial equilibrium agricultural sector models FASOM and FAPRI both take into 

account that approximately 80% of the soybean is meal, whereas approximately 20% of the 

soybean is oil. Profit maximization that takes into account both streams of ree is included in the 

projected planting decisions of farmers. In addition, both agricultural sector models take into 

account changes in macroeconomic conditions over time, such as increases in income and 

population that also affect world markets for feedstocks. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

(3) EPA should analyze indirect emissions for all fuels or for none, and should compare biofuels 

to the more expensive and higher carbon sources of crude they will be replacing such as tar sands 

and heavy crude.

Our Response: 

As required by EISA, GHG performance of biofuels is to be compared to the average 

lifecycle GHG emissions of the 2005 baseline fuel pool for the type of fuel, gasoline or diesel, 

being replaced to determine threshold compliance. EPA did, however, also analyze the likely 

GHG benefits of the rule considering the petroleum fuel pool in 2022 including projected 

sources. 

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

7-232
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA.

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

7-233
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

(4) EPA’s reference case underestimates the volume of biodiesel production in absence of an 

RFS, and therefore overestimates the land use change resulting from RFS implementation. 

Our Response:

EPA disagrees with this comment, any change in biofuel volumes for whatever reason 

compared to a case without them would still have impacts. Even if biodiesel volumes would 

have reached the mandated volumes in 2022 there is still an impact with producing these 

volumes compared to a case without them. The threshold analysis mandated by EISA requires 

EPA to determine the impacts of the different biofuels production which requires us to consider 

two scenarios with differing volumes of biofuels. So regardless of what volume might or might 

not actually be produced, our threshold analysis would still be based on two different volume 

scenarios and production of any amount of biofuels would still have an impact. Furthermore, 

since our analysis normalizes the greenhouse gas emissions impacts on a per BTU basis, the 

effect of using different volumes in our calculations is minimized. 

For this rulemaking analysis we are only considering the policy for which this analysis 

was done, namely EISA. Where there are other polices on the books that would impact our 

analysis, they have been accounted for but we do not project future polices that are not in place. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

 (5) the commenter agrees that EPA should use a 100-year time frame, but EPA should eliminate 

the arbitrary 2 percent discount rate. 

Our Response: 

In the proposed rule, EPA highlighted two time periods of 30 years and 100 years for 

consideration in GHG lifecycle analysis. The Agency discussed the relative advantages of these, 

and other, time periods. The expert peer reviewers discussed a number of justifiable time periods 

ranging from 13 to 100 years. The reviewers said that longer time frames, such as 100 years, 

were only appropriate if the Agency used positive discount rates to value future emissions. 

7-234
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Almost all of the peer reviewers specifically said that a time frame of 20 to 30 years would be 

justifiable based on the average life of a biofuel production facility. The reviewers and the 

public commenters provided several arguments for the application of a 30 year time frame. A 30 

year time period is appropriate because future emissions are less certain and more difficult to 

value, so the analysis should be confined insofar as possible to the foreseeable future. Another 

argument is that a near-term time horizon is consistent with the latest climate science that 

indicates that swift and deep reductions of heat-trapping gasses are needed to avoid catastrophic 

changes due to a warming climate. One of the reviewers said that while “there is no unassailable 

basis for choosing a very specific timeframe” the expected average lifetime of a biofuel 

production facility is the “most sensible anchor” for the choice of a timeframe. Alternatively, a 

number of commenters argued that a 100 year time frame is the appropriate time period for GHG 

lifecycle emissions analysis principally since this is the time period over which climate change 

impacts are likely to occur. 

Based upon the comments received from the peer review and public between after the 

RFS2 proposal, EPA has decided to use a 30 year frame for assessing the lifecycle GHG 

emissions. There are several reasons why the 30 year time frame was chosen. The use of the life 

of a typical biofuel plant seems reasonable as a basis for the timeframe for assessing the GHG 

emissions impacts of a renewable fuel. Also, the 30 year time frame focuses on GHG emissions 

impacts that are more near term and, hence, more certain. 

After considering the comments on discounting from the peer review and the public, EPA 

decided not to discount (i.e., use a 0% discount rate) GHG emissions due to the many issues 

associated with applying an economic concept to a physical parameter. First, it is unclear 

whether EISA intended lifecycle GHG emissions to be converted into a metric whose 

underpinnings rest on principals of economic valuation. A more literal interpretation of EISA is 

that EPA should consider only physical GHG emissions. Second, even if the principle of tying 

GHG emissions to economic valuation approaches were to be accepted, there would still be the 

problem that there is a lack of consensus in the scientific community about the best way to 

translate GHG emissions into a proxy for economic damages. Some of the issues that arise are: 

how to factor in the atmospheric residence times of GHG emissions in the atmosphere, and the 

evolution of atmospheric concentrations of GHG emissions through time both with and without 

renewable fuels. As mentioned previously, there is also a lack of consensus as to the appropriate 

discount rate to apply to GHG lifecycle emissions streams through time. Also, since EPA has 

decided to base threshold assessments of lifecycle GHG emissions on a 30 year time frame, the 

issue of whether to discount GHG emissions is not as significant as if the EPA had chosen the 

100 year time frame to assess GHG emissions impacts 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

7-235
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

(6) EPA has relied upon questionable data and assumptions relating to international indirect land 

use change, which disproportionally penalize U.S. biodiesel producers for unrelated land use 

changes outside the United States.

Our Response: 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. EPA has used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many 

modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers 

and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations described above. We plan to 

continue to improve upon our analyses, and will update it in the future as appropriate. 

Based on this analysis and approach, EPA has determined that biodiesel and renewable 

diesel from soy oil or waste oils, fats, and greases will exceed the 50% GHG threshold for 

biomass-based diesel. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

(7) The Winrock satellite data has a 70% accuracy rate. 

Our Response: 

All five of the expert peer reviewers that reviewed our use of satellite imagery agreed that 

our general approach was scientifically justifiable. However, all of the peer reviewers qualified 

that statement by describing relevant uncertainties and highlighting revisions that would improve 

our analysis. Some of the public commenters supported EPA’s use of satellite imagery, while 

other expressed concern. In general, both sets of public commenters—those in favor and 

opposed—outlined the same criticisms and suggestions as the expert peer reviewers. Among the 

7-236
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

many valuable suggestions for satellite data analysis provided in the expert peer reviews and 

public comments, several major recommendations emerged: EPA should use the most recent 

satellite data set that covers a period of at least 5 years; EPA should use higher resolution 

satellite imagery; EPA's analysis should consider a wider range of land categories; EPA should 

improve it’s analysis of the interaction between cropland, pasture and unused or underutilized 

land; and EPA's analysis should include thorough data validation and a full assessment of 

uncertainty. In preamble Section V, we describe these and other recommendations and how we 

addressed each of them to improve our analysis. Based on the peer reviewers agreement that our 

general approach is scientifically justifiable, and in light of the significant improvements made, 

we think that our approach represents the best available analysis of the types of land affected 

internationally. 

One benefit of the MODIS satellite data set that we used in our analysis is that it is 

routinely and extensively validated by NASA’s MODIS land validation team. NASA uses 

several validation techniques for quality assurance and to develop uncertainty information for its 

products. NASA’s primary validation technique includes comparing the satellite classifications 

to data collected through field and aircraft surveys, and other satellite data sensors. The accuracy 

of the version 5 MODIS land cover product was assessed over a significant set of international 

locations, including roughly 1,900 sample site clusters covering close to 150 million square 

kilometers. The results of these validation efforts are summarized in a “confusion matrix” which 

compares the satellite’s land classifications with the actual land types observed on the ground. 

We used this information to assess the accuracy and systematic biases in the published MODIS 

data. In general, the validation process found that MODIS version 5 was quite accurate at 

distinguishing forest from cropland or grassland. However, the satellite was more likely; for 

example, to confuse savanna and shrubland because these land types can look quite similar from 

space. Using the data validation information from NASA about which types of land MODIS 

tends to confuse which each other, our Monte Carlo analysis was able to account for systematic 

misclassifications in the MODIS data set. More information about our data validation and 

uncertainty assessment procedures is available in RIA Chapter 2.

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

(8) EPA calculations attribute all forest harvesting emissions to indirect land use emissions to 

agriculture.

Our Response: 

7-237
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

EPA disagrees with this comment. We do not attribute all forest harvesting emissions to 

indirect land use emissions, we first start with modeling how much indirect land use change there 

would be based on economic analysis that isolates the impacts and land use required for the 

specific biofuel in question. So the amount of land impacted is very specific to only biofuel 

production. In terms of what types of land would be converted into the new land required we 

rely on the satellite data for recent trends for types of land converted to agriculture. We only 

consider the trends of what types of land are converted to agriculture for our analysis. Our use of 

satellite data is only for trends not for calculating total acres of land use change, that is based on 

our economic models. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

(9) Emissions resulting from natural deforestation, forest fires, disease, and climate damage were 

also charged to agriculture (yet events or land use changes that resulted in the land having more 

carbon was excluded from the calculations.

Our Response: 

As mentioned in our answer to #10 below, our emissions factors reflect the net carbon 

changes over time, which account for both natural disturbances as well as factors increasing 

carbon. Furthermore, to the extent natural disturbances lowers carbon in a forest, the emissions 

from forest conversion are decreased. The soil sequestration by crops is also factored in, and if a 

crop results in more soil carbon then the ecosystem converted than that is included in the analysis 

and would be a benefit for the biofuel. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

(10) EPA’s assumption that trees live forever is incorrect and contrary to established United 

Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines. Carbon losses 

associated with natural disturbances and mortality should be included in the calculation. These 

7-238
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

factors have a far greater impact on GHG emissions than lost sequestration and can have a huge 

impact on emission calculations.

(10a) Accurately accounting for natural disturbances in soy-based biodiesel’s GHG emission 

profile would decrease GHG emissions by an additional 25 percent compared to baseline 

petroleum.

(10b) The inclusion of accurate assumptions regarding both natural disturbances and mortality 

could decrease GHG emissions by an additional 55 percent compared to baseline petroleum. 

Our Response: 

In the proposed rule, to estimate annual forgone forest sequestration, we used IPCC 

default data for the growth rates of forests greater than 20 years old. The expert peer reviewers 

noted that these estimates could be refined with more detailed information from the scientific 

literature. Many of the public commenters were also concerned that EPA’s approach 

overestimated foregone sequestration because it did not adequately account for natural 

disturbances, such as fires and disease. To address these comments, our analysis has been 

updated with peer reviewed studies of long-term growth rates for both tropical and temperate 

forests. These estimates are based on long-term records (i.e., monitoring stations in old-growth 

forests for the tropics and multi-decadal inventory comparisons for the temperate regions) and 

reflect all losses/gains over time. These studies show that the old-growth forests in the tropics 

that many once assumed to be in “steady state” (i.e., carbon gains equal losses) are in fact still 

gaining carbon. In summary, our analysis now includes more conservative foregone forest 

sequestration estimates that account for natural gains and losses over time. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

(11) EPA’s methodology assumes that 20 percent of the new land dedicated to soybean 

cultivation comes from Paraguay. In the absence of credible land use data for Paraguay, EPA 

relied upon a world average based on 10 countries. Properly accounting for this would reduce 

the GHG score for soy-based biodiesel by 20 percent in relation to petroleum. 

Our Response: 

In the proposed rule analysis we had only developed satellite data analysis and land 

conversion emissions factors for 10 of the most important regions (including 35 countries), with 

a weighted average applied to the rest of the world. Paraguay was not one of the 35 countries 

covered in our proposed rule analysis. We have since completed a global satellite data and land 

conversion emissions factor analysis covering over 750 distinct regions across 160 countries. 

7-239
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

This was an analytical improvement that we committed to do in the proposed rule. Our updated 

analysis includes the evaluation of Paraguay recommended by the commenter. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

(12) EPA’s international indirect land use calculations assume that 10 percent of new land comes 

from India. India currently has over 61 million acres of fallow land, of which approximately 60% 

is currently fallow. Emissions associated with international indirect land use changes in India 

will be zero under any reasonable assumptions relating to increased production demand. 

Our Response: 

As discussed in preamble Section V, we used well-established economic models to 

project the amount and location of international cropland and pasture land conversions. In some 

of the scenarios analyzed, we project biofuel-induced cropland expansion in India. This crop 

expansion in India would require soil to be plowed on land that would otherwise not be used for 

crop production. Based on numerous studies synthesized in the IPCC guidelines, we know that 

this would cause positive carbon releases to the atmosphere. To the extent that biomass is also 

cleared as part, the net emissions impact would be greater. In some of our scenarios, however, 

we do project crop and/or pasture abandonment in India. In this case we follow IPCC guidelines 

to account for carbon uptake on land previously used for agriculture. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

(13) EPA inaccurately assumes that significant amounts of pastureland would be converted to 

cropland. Appropriately allocating grassland would decrease GHG emissions by an additional 25 

percent compared to baseline diesel fuel. 

Our Response: 

7-240
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

As explained in preamble Section V, one of the major changes made to the FAPRI model 

between the NPRM and FRM includes the more detailed representation of Brazil through a new 

integrated module. The Brazil module was developed by Iowa State University with input from 

Brazilian agricultural sector experts and we believe it is an improvement over the approach used 

in the proposal. The new Brazil module also explicitly accounts for changes in pasture acres, 

therefore accounting for the competition between crop and pasture acres. Furthermore, the 

Brazil module explicitly models livestock intensification, the practice of increasing the number 

of heads of cattle per acre of land in response to higher commodity prices or increased demand 

for land. 

In addition to modifying how pasture acres are treated in Brazil, we also improved the 

methodology for calculating pasture acreage changes in other countries. We received several 

comments through the public comment period and peer reviewers supporting a better analysis of 

the interaction between crops, pasture, and livestock. In the NPRM, although we accounted for 

GHG emissions from livestock production (e.g., manure management), we did not explicitly 

account for GHG emissions from changes in pasture demand. In response to comments received, 

our new methodology accounts for changes in pasture area resulting from livestock fluctuations 

and therefore captures the link between livestock and land used for grazing. Based on regional 

pasture stocking rates (livestock per acre), we now calculate the amount of land used for 

livestock grazing. The regional stocking rates were determined with data on livestock 

populations from the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and data on pasture area 

measured with agricultural inventory and satellite-derived land cover data. As a result of this 

change, in countries where livestock numbers decrease, less land is needed for pasture. 

Therefore, unneeded pasture acres are available for crop land or allowed to revert to their natural 

state. In countries where livestock numbers increase, more land is needed for pasture, which can 

be added on abandoned cropland or unused grassland, or it can result in deforestation. We 

believe this new methodology provides a more realistic assessment of land use changes, 

especially in regions where livestock populations are changing significantly. For additional 

information on the pasture replacement methodology, see RIA Chapter 2. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

 (14) EPA’s assumptions regarding the rate of wood harvesting is inconsistent with actual 

harvesting practices and other assumptions with respect to biomass inventory. Correcting these 

assumptions could reduce GHG emissions associated with indirect land use emissions by as 

much as 10 percent. (2157 p. ii-iii) 

Our Response: 

7-241
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

As the commenter states, some wood felled during timber harvest and deforestation is 

used in wooden products (e.g., furniture) that retain biogenic carbon for a long period of time. 

Emissions from forest products can also occur over several years or decades. 

With the addition of the forestry module to the FASOM domestic modeling, FASOM 

takes into account both the carbon stored in harvested wood products (HWP) and the emission 

streams associated with them over time for domestic forests. Thus, wood products are accounted 

for in the domestic modeling for the final rulemaking. For details on these domestic HWP 

calculations, see the RIA 2.4.4.1. 

Some commenters argued that consideration of the use of harvested wood in products 

would decrease land use change emissions and reduce the impacts of biofuel production. For the 

international land use analysis in the proposed rule, we investigated the share of cleared forest 

biomass that is typically used in harvested wood products (HWP). However, we did not account 

for this factor in the proposed rule after it was determined that HWP would have a very small 

impact on the magnitude of international land use change emissions. 

A number of commenters expressed concern that we did not account for HWP, and they 

argued that HWP would be more significant than we had determined. However, in response to 

specific questions on this topic, all of the expert peer reviewers agreed that EPA had properly 

accounted for HWP and other factors (e.g., land filling) that could prevent or delay emissions 

from land clearing. One of the peer reviewers noted that forests converted to croplands are 

generally driven by interests unrelated to timber, and thus the trees are simply burned and 

exceptions are probably of minor importance. 

To study this issue further, we looked at FAO timber volume estimates for 111 

developing countries, and published literature on the share of harvested timber used in wood 

products and the oxidation period for wood products, such as wood-based panels and other 

industrial roundwood. Consistent with the peer reviewers’ statements, our analysis concluded 

that even in countries with high rates of harvested timber utilization, such as Indonesia, a very 

small share of harvested forest biomass would be sequestered in HWP for longer than 30 years. 

The details of our HWP analysis are discussed further in RIA Chapter 2. 

This is an area for further work, but based on our analysis, and the feedback from expert 

commenters, we do not expect that consideration of HWP would have a significant impact on the 

magnitude of GHG emissions from international deforestation in our analysis. Furthermore, the 

range of outcomes from consideration of HWP is indirectly captured in our assessment of forest 

carbon stock uncertainty. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

7-242
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2157) notes that EPA’s analysis of indirect land use changes are not based on 

the “best available science” or international standards. Extensive comments are offered on 

various criteria, but the commenter identifies 7 main issues (each discussed in-depth): (1) 

inconsistent system boundaries, (2) lack of reliable data, (3) failure to adequately address 

allocation issues, (4) lack of transparency and reproducibility, (5) inadequate analysis and 

explanation of uncertainty, (6) insufficient sensitivity analysis, and (7) lack of validation. (2175 

p. 51-58)

Our Response: 

Throughout the development of EPA’s lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a 

collaborative, transparent, and science-based approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as 

developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking new scientific ground and using analytical 

tools in new ways. The work was generally recognized as state of the art and an advance on 

lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the indirect impacts of biofuels. The Agency has 

updated and refined its modeling approach since proposal in several important ways, including a 

number of updates made in direct response comments from the public and peer reviewers. EPA 

is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations. EPA has also quantified the 

uncertainty associated with significant components of its analyses, including important factors 

affecting GHG emissions associated with international land use change. 

Further, to ensure the Agency made its decisions for this final rule on the best science 

available, EPA conducted a formal, independent peer review of key components of the analysis. 

The reviews were conducted following the Office of Management and Budget’s peer review 

guidance that ensures consistent, independent government-wide implementation of peer review, 

and according to EPA's longstanding and rigorous peer review policies. In accordance with 

these guidelines, EPA used independent, third-party contractors to select highly qualified peer 

reviewers. The reviewers selected are leading experts in their respective fields, including 

lifecycle assessment, economic modeling, remote sensing imagery, biofuel technologies, soil 

science, agricultural economics, and climate science. They were asked to evaluate four key 

components of EPA’s methodology: (1) land use modeling, specifically the use of satellite data 

and EPA’s proposed land conversion GHG emission factors; (2) methods to account for the 

variable timing of GHG emissions; (3) GHG emissions from foreign crop production (both the 

modeling and data used); and (4) how the models EPA relied upon are used together to provide 

overall lifecycle estimates. 

One of the main comments we received on the NPRM on our choice of models was the 

issue of transparency. Several comments were concerned that the results of EPA’s modeling 

efforts can not be duplicated outside the experts who developed the models and conducted the 

analysis used by EPA in the proposal. Upon the release of the proposal, EPA requested 

comment on the use of these various models. EPA conducted a number of measures to gather 

7-243
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

comments, including the public comment period upon release of the NPRM analysis, holding a 

public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, and conducting a peer review of the lifecycle 

methodology. Specifically, one of the major tasks of the peer review of EPA’s lifecycle GHG 

methodology was to review and comment on the use of the various models and their linkages. 

The response we received through the peer review is supportive of our use of the FASOM and 

FAPRI models, affirming that they are the strong and appropriate tools for the task of estimating 

land use changes stemming from agricultural economic impacts due to changes in biofuel policy. 

In addition, in an effort to garner as useful comments as possible and to be as transparent 

as possible about the modeling process, EPA supplied in the docket technical documents for the 

FASOM and FAPRI models, the output received by EPA from each model, and the models 

themselves such that the public and commenters could learn and examine how each model 

operates. 

Building upon the support for the use of the FASOM and FAPRI models, a number of 

important enhancements were made to both models in response to comments received through 

the public comment system and through the peer review, and in consultation with various experts 

on domestic and international agronomics. These enhancements include updated substitution 

rates of corn and soybean meal for distillers grains (DG) based on recent scientific research by 

Argonne National Laboratory, the addition of a corn oil from the dry mill ethanol extraction 

process as a source of biodiesel, the full incorporation of FASOM’s forestry model that 

dynamically interacts with the agriculture sector model in the U.S., as well as the addition of a 

Brazil regional model to the FAPRI modeling system. All of these enhancements are discussed 

in more detail in the rule’s preamble and RIA. In addition to the model enhancements we also 

conducted a sensitivity analysis on yields as part of our final rule analysis. These updates to our 

modeling and the sensitivity analysis were done in response to public comments specifically 

asking for this to add transparency to the modeling and modeling results. 

 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2157) is concerned that EPA has included indirect land use changes that occur 

outside of the U.S., given that nothing in the definition of “significant indirect” emissions 

indicates that it must consider these and they are highly speculative at this time. Significant 

discussion follows on pages (2175 p. 61-68).

Our Response: 

7-244
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Although the definition of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in Section 211(o) does not 

specifically mention international emissions, it would be inconsistent with the text and the intent 

of this section of the Act to exclude them. The definition of lifecycle GHG emissions makes it 

clear that EPA is to determine the “aggregate” emissions “related to” the “full” fuel lifecycle, 

including “all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution”. EPA is directed to 

include both direct emissions and significant indirect emissions, such as significant emissions 

from land use changes. A large variety of activities outside the U.S. play a major part in the full 

fuel lifecycle of both the baseline fuel (gasoline and diesel fuel used as transportation fuel in 

2005) and renewable fuels. For example, several stages of the lifecycle process for gasoline and 

diesel can occur overseas, including extraction and delivery of imported crude oil, and for 

imported gasoline and diesel products, emissions associated with refining and distribution of the 

finished product to the U.S. For imported renewable fuel, all of the emissions associated with 

feedstock production and distribution, fuel processing, and delivery of the finished renewable 

fuel to the U.S. occur overseas. Whether the direct or indirect emissions occur in the U.S. or 

overseas does not change that they are related to the full fuel lifecycle. There is no basis in the 

definition to treat direct or indirect emissions that occur overseas different from direct or indirect 

emissions that occur in the U.S. Thus, EPA could not, as a legal matter, ignore those parts of a 

fuel lifecycle that occur overseas. 

EPA understands that including international indirect land use change is a key decision 

and that there is significant uncertainty associated with it. That is why we have taken an 

approach that quantifies that uncertainty and presents the weight of currently available evidence 

in making our threshold determinations. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2157) notes that EPA’s approach to address indirect emissions from 

international land use is further flaws in 3 ways: (1) EPA’s focus on two scenarios is 

inappropriate and substantially overestimates the potential impacts of biofuel production in the 

United States on land use changes outside the United States, (2) EPA’s use of satellite data from 

2001-2004 is inappropriate, and (3) EPA’s lifecycle analysis relating to the global consequences 

of indirect emissions is inaccurate and must incorporate a number of factors omitted from the 

original analysis. Each point is discussed in more detail on (2175 p. 76-86). 

Our Response: 

7-245
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Comments (1), and (3) are addressed in the previous responses. Comment (2) concerning 

the use of 2001 – 2004 satellite data, we have updated our analysis for the final rulemaking and 

are now using 2001 – 2007 satellite data in our analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2157) notes that a lifecycle analysis must not include disproportionate treatment 

of crop-based biofuels. They cite two main criticisms: EPA must consider direct land use 

changes associated with petroleum and indirect emissions of baseline gasoline, and adequately 

explain why it seems them not to be “significant.” Detailed discussion of both points is 

presented in (2157 p. 86-89). 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2168 

Organization: First United Ethanol, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2168) noted that land use change is not applied to the GHG emissions 

calculation for gasoline which results in an unfair comparison of biofuels to gasoline or other 

fuels. The commenter questions if not all of the energy requirements to locate oil reserves, 

extraction of the oil, transportation of the oil, refining of the oil and transportation of the refined 

products should be included? These energy requirements all vary widely depending on the 

source and type of the oil being refined. Gasoline is gasoline but the GHG emissions vary widely 

depending on the “feedstock” of the oil. The commenter also questioned what is the GHG 

calculation for the energy requirements to protect the world’s oil supplies and shipping lanes? 

The commenter believes that that value should be calculated all the way down to the steel used 

for armor plating to protect our American soldiers from IEDs. (2168, pp.2-3) 

The commenter noted that EPA reported in the RFS2 that it is compelled to include significant 

indirect emission impacts including those due to land use changes in other countries. The data 

indicate that excluding the international land use change would result in corn ethanol having an 

approximately 60% reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions compared to petroleum gasoline 

regardless of timing or discount rate used. The commenter believes that this theory leads one to 

believe that if that same impact were applied to gasoline, corn-based ethanol would have a much 

larger reduction capacity on emissions. (2168, p.3) 

Our Response: 

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

7-246
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

7-247
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

We also performed an estimate of land use change emissions associated with oil 

extraction and production to determine if the value was significant enough to be included in our 

petroleum baseline calculation. As oil sands production incurs a greater degree of land use 

change versus conventional crude oil production, we made an estimate of the emissions from the 

conversion of Alberta forest for oil sands production. Using literature values, we found that land 

use change emissions for oil sands were negligible compared to the total well-to-tank values and 

did not change the overall petroleum baseline values. A more complete discussion of our 

analysis can be found in Chapter 2.5.7 of the RIA. 

We also do not believe that emissions arising from military activities can be readily 

attributed to the protection of oil imports. Military activities, even in world regions that 

represent vital sources of oil imports, undoubtedly serve a broader range of security and foreign 

policy objectives than merely protecting oil supplies. In the peer review of the energy security 

analysis that EPA commissioned, a majority of peer reviewers believed that U.S. military costs 

should be excluded absent a widely agreed methodology for estimating this component of U.S. 

energy security. Since military impacts were not considered for the energy security analysis in 

this final rule, they were also excluded from any lifecycle GHG analyses 

Furthermore, increased domestic consumption of renewable fuels is expected to decrease 

oil demand and thus reduce oil imports. However, an incremental reduction in oil imports is not 

expected to cause an analogous reduction in U.S. military expenditures and activities. Hence, 

even if we were able to attribute GHG emissions to the protection of oil imports, it is unlikely 

that there would be a decrease in military-related GHG emissions as a result of this rule. More 

detail on this topic can be found in the Energy Security Analysis in Chapter 5 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2174 

Organization: Illinois Soybean Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2174) feels strongly that EPA does not recognize the evidence that soy 

biodiesel use in the United States does not drive international land use change. The commenter 

noted that the EPA analysis uses worldwide land converted to cropland from 20012004 and 

extrapolates that into the future. Since there was very little U.S. soy biodiesel produced from 

20012004, it is illogical how EPA justifies attributing future land conversion to soy biodiesel. If 

Brazilian land use change is a key factor then past and recent trends in Brazilian soy planted area 

should be a telling data point. In fact, Brazilian soy area increased most significantly in years 

prior to the existence of U.S. biodiesel production. In the last five years, when U.S. biodiesel 

7-248
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

production has increased exponentially, Brazilian soy area has remained relatively flat. U.S. 

biodiesel use does not drive international land use decisions and certainly cannot be singled out 

for responsibility for all land use changes. The commenter believes that if soy biodiesel is 

excluded, the biomass-based diesel schedule under RFS2 cannot be achieved. (2174, p.1)

Our Response: 

To quantify the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the increase in renewable fuel 

mandated by EISA, we compared the differences in total GHG emissions between two future 

volume scenarios using well established-economic models. For each individual biofuel, we 

analyzed the incremental GHG emission impacts of increasing the volume of that fuel to the total 

mix of biofuels needed to meet the EISA requirements. The scenarios that we compared include 

the same background projections about agricultural and economic conditions such as 

macroeconomic growth, oil prices, crop growing conditions, exchange rates and government 

policies. Thus, we isolate the effects of each type of biofuel expansion because all other factors 

that affect the agricultural economy are held constant. 

The historical biodiesel and soybean statistics cited by the commenter are not comparable 

with our model predictions. During the time period discussed by the commenter (i.e., 2004 to 

2008) many of the conditions that can affect the agricultural economy were changing. For 

example, oil prices spiked, soybean blight became more prevalent in Brazil, exchange rates were 

adjusted, and corn ethanol volumes also expanded substantially. In other words, the increase in 

soy-based biodiesel production was not the only important factor that changed during the period. 

Therefore, the fact that soybean acreage contracted in Brazil during this period does not refute 

model predictions about how Brazil responds to U.S. biodiesel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2190 

Organization: Illinois River Energy, LLC. 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2190]] state the international land use penalties are based on complicated 

models that are strongly influenced by independent model variables whose assumed values are 

just not backed by verifiable evidence.[[#2190 p.1]]

Our Response: 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used the most up to date models, data and 

other information in its LCA. These indicate that indirect impacts including international land 

use impacts are significant and should appropriately be included in accordance with good 

practice and the requirements of EISA. 

What Commenters Said:

7-249
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2203 

Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2003]] states that their studies show that there are significant differences 

regarding the accuracy with which international land use change can be determined compared to 

the accuracies achievable for domestic land use change assessments. [[#2003 p.1]] 

The commenter [[2003]] finds that EPA’s reliance on MODIS imagery to determine prior land 

use of international crop acres (1km and 500m spatial resolution, respectively) produces results 

with high inaccuracies. In fact, the combined error range may exceed the predicted land use 

change between important ecosystem transitions for biofuels analyses such as the conversion of 

tropical rainforest to cropland in Brazil. [[#2003 p.3]] 

The commenter [[2003]] recommends that land cover products based on high resolution satellite 

imagery be combined with existing cropping pattern information for international transition 

regions associated with indirect land use change are created. [[#2003 p.3]] 

The commenter cites extensive studies and data presented on pages 4-30. 

Our Response: 

All five of the expert peer reviewers that reviewed our use of satellite imagery agreed that 

our general approach was scientifically justifiable. However, all of the peer reviewers qualified 

that statement by describing relevant uncertainties and highlighting revisions that would improve 

our analysis. Some of the public commenters supported EPA’s use of satellite imagery, while 

other expressed concern. In general, both sets of public commenters—those in favor and 

opposed—outlined the same criticisms and suggestions as the expert peer reviewers. Among the 

many valuable suggestions for satellite data analysis provided in the expert peer reviews and 

public comments, several major recommendations emerged: EPA should use the most recent 

satellite data set that covers a period of at least 5 years; EPA should use higher resolution 

satellite imagery; EPA's analysis should consider a wider range of land categories; EPA should 

improve it’s analysis of the interaction between cropland, pasture and unused or underutilized 

land; and EPA's analysis should include thorough data validation and a full assessment of 

uncertainty. In preamble Section V, we describe these and other recommendations and how we 

addressed each of them to improve our analysis. Based on the peer reviewers agreement that our 

general approach is scientifically justifiable, and in light of the significant improvements made, 

we think that our approach represents the best available analysis of the types of land affected 

internationally. 

One benefit of the MODIS satellite data set that we used in our analysis is that it is 

routinely and extensively validated by NASA’s MODIS land validation team. NASA uses 

several validation techniques for quality assurance and to develop uncertainty information for its 

products. NASA’s primary validation technique includes comparing the satellite classifications 

to data collected through field and aircraft surveys, and other satellite data sensors. The accuracy 

of the version 5 MODIS land cover product was assessed over a significant set of international 

locations, including roughly 1,900 sample site clusters covering close to 150 million square 

7-250
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

kilometers. The results of these validation efforts are summarized in a “confusion matrix” which 

compares the satellite’s land classifications with the actual land types observed on the ground. 

We used this information to assess the accuracy and systematic biases in the published MODIS 

data. In general, the validation process found that MODIS version 5 was quite accurate at 

distinguishing forest from cropland or grassland. However, the satellite was more likely; for 

example, to confuse savanna and shrubland because these land types can look quite similar from 

space. Using the data validation information from NASA about which types of land MODIS 

tends to confuse which each other, our Monte Carlo analysis was able to account for systematic 

misclassifications in the MODIS data set. More information about our data validation and 

uncertainty assessment procedures is available in RIA Chapter 2. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) notes the unresolved issues, uncertainty and lack of scientific consensus 

on the LC GHG emission impact of biofuels related to land use change. Regarding the 

contribution of indirect or market-mediated GHG emissions effects from land-use changes 

attributable to expanded biofuels production, the commenter supports EPA’s inclusion of these 

effects in its assessment of the GHG impacts of the RFS2. Since the science, methods and data 

is rapidly evolving, the commenter urges EPA to revisit this topic as part of a formal periodic 

technical review process. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 45-46]] 

Our Response: 

EPA is basing its GHG threshold compliance determinations for this rule on an approach 

that considers the uncertainty in our assessments and other information available to the Agency. 

For fuel pathways with a significant land use impact, the evidence considered includes the best 

estimate as well as the range of possible lifecycle greenhouse gas emission results based on 

formal uncertainty and sensitivity analyses conducted by the Agency. 

The Agency will further reassess our determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of 

this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as 

well as other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a 

new assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in 

this final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2234 

7-251
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Organization: Energy & Resources Group University of California 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2234]] states that the treatment of emissions using the net present value of 

emission flows over 100-years is a poor choice for several reasons. The commenter recommends 

using a shorter time period or including the increasingly low probability that these systems will 

remain in place decades into the future. The commenter also recommends discounting damages, 

(or a reasonable proxy) rather than discounting physical emission flows. [[2234.1 p.1]] 

The commenter also states that inadequate time was provided to review the large number of 

models used in this rulemaking. [[2234.1 p.4]] 

Our Response:

In the proposal, we considered several options for the timeframe over which to measure 

lifecycle GHG impacts and the possibility of discounting those impacts. Based on peer review 

recommendations and other comments received, EPA is finalizing its assessments based on an 

analysis assuming 30 years of continued emission impacts after the program is fully phased in by 

2022 and without discounting those impacts. 

In order to maximize the opportunity for stakeholders to review and comment upon 

EPA’s approach, the comment period for this rulemaking was extended by an additional 60 days. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2245 

Organization: Illinois Corn Growers Association, et.al. 

Contributors to this comment letter include: Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Soybean 

Association, Illinois Soybean Association, Illinois Renewable Fuels Association, Kentucky 

Soybean Association, Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, Missouri Corn Growers 

Association, Missouri Soybean Association, Monsanto, the National Corn to Ethanol Research 

Center, Nebraska Corn Board, Nebraska Soybean Association, Novozymes, Ohio Soybean 

Association, South Dakota Soybean Association, University of Illinois Chicago, Energy 

Resources Center, University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana plant breeding, animal nutrition and 

agronomy, DuPont, Ethanol Technologies, John Deere, and the U.S. Grains Council 

Comment:

The commenters (2245.1) noted that land use change in the context of global demand for 

agricultural land needs to be incorporated when making predictions of emissions due to indirect 

land use change. (2245.1, p.23) (See Docket Number 2245.1, pp.23-24 for a discussion on this 

issue) 

Our Response: 

EPA believes that its analysis properly takes into account the growth in global population 

and food demand over time in the FAPRI modeling analysis. However, to correctly model the 

impact of increased demand for renewable fuels, one must observe the difference that results 

7-252
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

from a change in only the demand for renewable fuel in a given time period. Thus, although an 

increase crop production for renewable fuel in a given period may indeed have occurred due to 

increasing demand for food over time in a future time period, this ignores the increased demand 

for renewable fuel in that future time period. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2245 

Organization: Illinois Corn Growers Association, et.al. 

Comment:

The commenters believe that EPA needs to correct its land use requirements for corn based 

ethanol with accurate corn and soybean meal coproduct displacement values. EPA has 

inaccurately credited the displacement of soybean meal and corn across species from distillers” 

dried grain with soluble (DDGS) as a 1 for 1 displacement resulting in inaccurately higher corn 

and soybean acreage requirements for biofuels. Peer reviewed scientific literature consistently 

indicates that 1 kg of DDGS can replace between 0.50 and 0.70 kg of corn and between 0.40 and 

0.60 kg of soybean meal. (2245.1 p.24) 

Our Response: 

For the final rulemaking analysis, distillers grains replacement rates of corn and soybean 

meal in animal feed have been updated based on the latest research by Argonne National 

Laboratory in both the FASOM and FAPRI models. These replacement rates are higher and 

more efficient than those used in the proposal’s analysis. In addition, co-product credits are 

attributed to distillers grains in EPA’s analysis. Details on these assumptions can be found in the 

RIA and the technical reports for each respective model. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2245 

Organization: Illinois Corn Growers Association, et.al. 

Comment:

The commenters also believe that EPA should correct their later year DDGS yield assumptions; 

reducing DDGS yield from 17 lbs/bu across all dry grind plants to 17 lbs/bu from the 78% of the 

plants not incorporating backend oil extraction and 16.4 lbs/bu for the 22% of plants the EPA is 

assuming will adopt backend oil extraction technology. On average, this results in a yield of 16.7 

lbs/bu. (2245.1, p.24) 

Our Response: 

For the final rulemaking analysis, EPA estimates that by 2022, 70% of dry mill ethanol 

plants will adopt corn oil extraction technology, 20% will adopt fractionation technology, and 

10% will not adopt either technology. Details on the assumptions used in the final rulemaking 

analysis in regards to corn oil extraction, fractionation, and DG production can be found in the 

7-253
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

RIA. Scientific assumptions that are more up to date than those used in this analysis will be 

considered in future updates to the analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2245 

Organization: Illinois Corn Growers Association, et.al. 

Comment:

The commenters believe that EPA needs to credit corn based ethanol with the additional 

coproducts resulting from backend oil extraction for biodiesel, corn stover utilized as an 

alternative to coal for electricity generation, and the reduction in gasoline emissions resulting 

from the utilization of ethanol. GHG reduction considerations for new coproducts were not 

considered in the proposed rule. If the EPA is going to include the mass reduction from backend 

oil extraction, it needs to include the coproduct credit from the utilization of backend oil as a 

feedstock for biodiesel production which reduces the dry grind corn ethanol carbon footprint by 

an estimated 3.11 gCO2e/MJ. (2245.1, pp.24-25) 

Our Response: 

For the final rulemaking analysis, coproducts from corn ethanol, such as corn oil from 

extraction and fractionation, have been attributed credits. For more information on credits for 

coproducts attributed to various renewable fuels, please refer to the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2245 

Organization: Illinois Corn Growers Association, et.al. 

Comment:

The commenters concur with the determination by the 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament 

and of the Council on the Promotion of the Use of Energy From Renewable Fuel Sources to 

delay the incorporation of an indirect land use change determination value for any renewable 

fuels until a methodology and the best available scientific evidence can be brought to bear 

(Directive 2009/28/EC, 2009). The commenters believe the efforts initiated by the Department of 

Energy at Oak Ridge National Laboratories provide the most promising approach to creating a 

common agreed upon approach and an understanding of the data needs for quality indirect land 

use determinations. (2245.1, p.29) 

Our Response: 

EPA believes that compliance with the EISA mandate — determining “the aggregate 

GHG emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, including both direct emissions and significant 

indirect emissions such as land use changes” — makes it necessary to assess those direct and 

significant indirect impacts that occur not just within the United States, but also those that occur 

in other countries. 

7-254
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area, 

the lifecycle GHG assessments for a variety of fuel pathways will continue to change. 

Therefore, while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also 

committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this 

ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as 

other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new 

assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this 

final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. This new assessment could result in new determinations of threshold compliance 

compared to those included in this rule that would apply to future production (from plants that 

are constructed after each subsequent rule). 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2249.2) believes that the inclusion of international indirect land use changes in 

its lifecycle analysis for biodiesel is arbitrary and capricious. The commenter bases their 

position on the following points: 

A. EPA assumptions that biofuel production in the U.S. will lead to “significant” land use 

changes do not accurately reflect the real world and thus are arbitrary. EPA assumes that indirect 

emission related to international land use changes are “significant,” relying on highly criticized 

and questionable data. GHG calculations from land use must appropriately account for improved 

agriculture yields and efficiencies. Real world evidence shows that biodiesel production has 

little, if any, impacts on land use changes. The demand for oils for biofuel production in the U.S. 

will not result in significant indirect land use changes internationally. [[Docket number 2249.2, 

pp. 66-79]] 

B. EPA’s approach to addressing indirect emission from international land use changes is 

arbitrary. EPA’s focus on two scenarios is inappropriate and substantially overestimates the 

potential impacts of biofuel production in the United States on land use changes outside the 

United States. EPA’s use of satellite data from 2001-2004 is inappropriate. EPA’s lifecycle 

analysis relating to the global consequences of indirect emissions are inaccurate and must 

incorporate a number of factors omitted from the original analysis. [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 

79-88]] 

[[See docket number 2249.2, pp. 66-88 for comprehensive discussion of the commenter’s points 

listed above.]] 

7-255
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response: 

The EISA statute specifically directs EPA to include in its analyses significant indirect 

emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes. EPA has not ignored either the 

terms “significant” or “life cycle.” It is clear from EPA’s assessments that the modeled indirect 

emissions from land use changes are “significant” in terms of their relationship to total GHG 

emissions for given fuel pathways. Therefore, they are appropriately considered in the total 

GHG emissions profile for the fuels in question. 

Throughout the development of EPA’s lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a 

collaborative, transparent, and science-based approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as 

developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking new scientific ground and using analytical 

tools in new ways. The work was generally recognized as state of the art and an advance on 

lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the indirect impacts of biofuels. 

However, the complexity and uncertainty inherent in this work made it extremely 

important that we seek the advice and input of a broad group of stakeholders. In order to 

maximize stakeholder outreach opportunities, the comment period for the proposed rule was 

extended to 120 days. In addition to this formal comment period, EPA made multiple efforts to 

solicit public and expert feedback on our approach. Beginning early in the NPRM process and 

continuing throughout the development of this final rule, EPA held multiple meetings with 

stakeholders, including government, academia, industry, and non-profit organizations, to gather 

expert technical input. Our work was also informed heavily by consultation with other federal 

agencies. For example, we have relied on the expert advice of USDA and DOE, as well as 

incorporating the most recent inputs and models provided by these Agencies. Dialogue with the 

State of California and the European Union on their parallel, on-going efforts in GHG lifecycle 

analysis also helped inform EPA’s methodology. As described below, formal technical 

exchanges and an independent, formal peer review of the methodology were also significant 

components of the Agency’s outreach. A key result of our outreach effort has been awareness of 

new studies and data that have been incorporated into our final rule analysis. 

EPA has made a number of significant enhancements to our approach in conducting the 

lifecycle analysis for the final rule, including the incorporation new scientific data that has 

become available since the proposal, including new improved satellite data, as well as the 

approach to recognize and quantify, where appropriate, the uncertainty inherent in this analysis. 

Our updated analysis is well grounded in the science and responds fully to the concerns raised by 

commenter. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2300 

Organization: Dow AgroSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2300) believes that the calculations on crops yields must be revisited and based 

on current trends, not those from 2005. (2300, p.1) The commenter believes that evidence is 

7-256
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

clear that U.S. biofuel production does not result in significant, if any, land use change in Brazil 

or elsewhere and that this applies to any of the crops used for biofuel production, including corn, 

soybeans, or canola. The commenter requests that EPA review the potential penalties that could 

be applied to U.S. farmers based on flawed and immature assumptions and theories that are 

applied to all vegetable oils. 

The commenter also noted that nowhere in the statutory language do they find the legal basis for 

including international indirect emissions in the lifecycle emissions definition. This suggests that 

applying the Energy Independence and Security Act beyond U.S. borders may be inappropriate. 

(2300, p.1) 

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has updated its assessment of crop yields both domestically and 

internationally. We have calculated lifecycle emission performance assuming both base yields 

derived from projecting into the future longer term historical trends and also assuming a marked 

increase in future yields based on industry and other comments 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used the most up to date models, data and 

other information in its LCA. These indicate that indirect impacts including international land 

use impacts are significant and should appropriately be included in accordance with good 

practice and the requirements of EISA. 

Although the definition of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in Section 211(o) does not 

specifically mention international emissions, it would be inconsistent with the text and the intent 

of this section of the Act to exclude them. The definition of lifecycle GHG emissions makes it 

clear that EPA is to determine the “aggregate” emissions “related to” the “full” fuel lifecycle, 

including “all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution”. EPA is directed to 

include both direct emissions and significant indirect emissions, such as significant emissions 

from land use changes. A large variety of activities outside the U.S. play a major part in the full 

fuel lifecycle of both the baseline fuel (gasoline and diesel fuel used as transportation fuel in 

2005) and renewable fuels. For example, several stages of the lifecycle process for gasoline and 

diesel can occur overseas, including extraction and delivery of imported crude oil, and for 

imported gasoline and diesel products, emissions associated with refining and distribution of the 

finished product to the U.S. For imported renewable fuel, all of the emissions associated with 

feedstock production and distribution, fuel processing, and delivery of the finished renewable 

fuel to the U.S. occur overseas. Whether the direct or indirect emissions occur in the U.S. or 

overseas does not change that they are related to the full fuel lifecycle. There is no basis in the 

definition to treat direct or indirect emissions that occur overseas different from direct or indirect 

emissions that occur in the US. Thus, EPA could not, as a legal matter, ignore those parts of a 

fuel lifecycle that occur overseas. 

Drawing a distinction between GHG emissions that occur inside the U.S. as compared to 

emissions that occur outside the U.S. would result in a lifecycle analysis that bears no apparent 

relationship to the purpose of this provision. The purpose of the thresholds in EISA is to require 

the use of renewable fuels that achieve reductions in GHG emissions compared to the baseline. 

7-257
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Ignoring international emissions, a large part of the GHG emission associated with the different 

fuels, would result in a GHG analysis that bears no relationship to the real world emissions 

impact of transportation fuels. The baseline would be significantly understated, given the large 

amount of imported crude and imported finished gasoline and diesel used in 2005. Likewise, the 

emissions estimates for imported renewable fuel would be grossly reduced in comparison to the 

aggregate emissions estimates for fuels made domestically with domestically-grown feedstocks, 

simply because the impacts of domestically produced fuels occurred within the U.S. EPA does 

not believe that Congress intended such a result. 

Lastly, EPA believes that including international indirect emissions in EPA’s lifecycle 

analysis does not exercise regulatory authority over activities that occur solely outside the U.S., 

nor does it raise questions of extra-territorial jurisdiction. EPA’s regulatory action involves an 

assessment of products either produced in the U.S. or imported into the U.S. EPA is simply 

assessing whether the use of these products in the U.S. satisfies requirements under EISA for the 

use of designated volumes of renewable fuel, cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and 

advanced biofuel. Considering international emissions in determining the lifecycle GHG 

emissions of the domestically-produced or imported fuel does not change the fact that the actual 

regulation of the product involves its use solely inside the U.S. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2302 

Organization: UC Berkeley - Energy Biosciences Institute 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2302]] states that they caution EPA on extrapolation of land use changes from 

recent trends. Land use change typically occurs in phases as a result of complex triggers and 

should not be viewed as a linear function of time [[#2302 p.4]] 

The commenter [[2302]] strongly suggests that EPA provide mechanisms for evaluating the 

appropriateness of incorporating these emerging techniques, including broader peer-review and 

additional workshops, and include a mechanism for re-evaluation at regular (e.g., every 12-18 

months) intervals. [[#2302 p.5]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2304 

Organization: Gevo Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2304) believes that limitations of the current science underlying land use 

change, including assumptions about future crops yield and land constraint, causality, and the 

role of global land policies, impose a large range of uncertainty on lifecycle GHG calculations 

for biofuels. The commenter urges EPA to fully acknowledge the extent of the uncertainty in 

estimation of emissions from land use change, and ensure that emerging biofuels technologies 

are not disqualified from participation in the RFS2 program unless clearly demonstrated to be out 

of compliance with the program’s GHG performance requirements. Technology innovation in 

the biofuels space is occurring at a rapid rate. In its final rule, EPA should allow biotechnology 

to aid the future biofuels industry in continuing to increase crop yields, decrease fertilizer inputs, 

7-258
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

increase drought tolerance and lower their carbon footprint. EPA should increase the 

transparency of the carbon intensity processes and reduce the time needed to certify pathways. 

Biofuels should be credited for reducing future gasoline and diesel production emissions by 

curbing demand for more GHG-intensive sources of petroleum-based fuels. [[Docket number 

2304.1, p. 2]]

Our Response: 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA 

We have also included uncertainty analyses which in particular focus on international 

indirect land use impacts. These uncertainty assessments were used in determining whether a 

biofuel pathway was likely to exceed its GHG performance threshold. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2314 

Organization: The New England Fuel Institute 

Comment:

The commenter (2134.1) fully supports EPA’s efforts to discourage global deforestation which 

contributes to greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. A steady, reliable and cost effective supply 

of biodiesel is absolutely essential if the heating oil industry is to reach its long term goal of 

marketing a home heating oil with a 20% renewable fuel content. The reality is that this goal 

requires a robust supply of biodiesel derived from soy beans. (2314.1, p.4) 

The commenter believes that any lifecycle analysis used by the EPA to measure the effect of 

biodiesel production on greenhouse gas emissions and land use changes should more accurately 

reflect current soy crop and biodiesel production data. The commentor asserts that EPA 

mistakenly assumes that soybeans are planted for the oil. The commenter also believes that until 

alternative sources of biodiesel are perfected, soy based biodiesel is absolutely vital to achieving 

the renewable fuel mandates required under EISA. (2314.1, p.5)

Our Response: 

The commentor has misinterpreted EPA’s characterization of the soybean markets. Our 

analysis does take into account the fact that soybeans are 80% meal and 20% oil. However, our 

modeling framework assumes that farmers choose to plant an additional acre of soybeans based 

on the expected net returns associated with the sum of both the oil and the meal streams, 

7-259
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

compared to the returns associated with other crops. We believe this optimization approach 

accurately represents the soybean and biodiesel production markets. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2316 

Organization: University of Minnesota 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2316]] states: I would note that it is also appropriate to account for the 

significant uncertainty associated with whether land converted as a result of biofuel production 

will remain in biofuel production throughout the entire analytical time horizon, or whether it may 

be converted to other uses. Land conversion results in an more certain release of carbon 

occurring primarily within a few years of conversion compared to a less certain offset of 

petroleum projected to occur up to thirty or even a hundred years out. As such it is appropriate to 

discount future carbon savings from biofuel production to reflect this uncertainty. In sum, 

accounting for uncertainty in ILUC will likely decrease the apparent lifecycle greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions of biofuels, but accounting for uncertainty in future biofuel production will 

likely increase such estimates. [[2316.1 p.2]]

Our Response: 

It is true that the GHG emissions from land use change are uncertain, which is why EPA 

specifically built in an uncertainty analysis around the land use change component of our 

analysis for this final rule. 

As the commenter points out there are several aspects of the land use change modeling 

that impact the overall lresults, the time frame for analysis, how and if to discount future 

emissions and reductions, and whether to account for land reversion or not. 

In the proposed rule, EPA highlighted two time periods of 30 years and 100 years for 

consideration in GHG lifecycle analysis. The Agency discussed the relative advantages of these, 

and other, time periods. The expert peer reviewers discussed a number of justifiable time periods 

ranging from 13 to 100 years. The reviewers said that longer time frames, such as 100 years, 

were only appropriate if the Agency used positive discount rates to value future emissions. 

Almost all of the peer reviewers specifically said that a time frame of 20 to 30 years would be 

justifiable based on the average life of a biofuel production facility. The reviewers and the 

public commenters provided several arguments for the application of a 30 year time frame. A 30 

year time period is appropriate because future emissions are less certain and more difficult to 

value, so the analysis should be confined insofar as possible to the foreseeable future. Another 

argument is that a near-term time horizon is consistent with the latest climate science that 

indicates that swift and deep reductions of heat-trapping gasses are needed to avoid catastrophic 

changes due to a warming climate. One of the reviewers said that while “there is no unassailable 

basis for choosing a very specific timeframe” the expected average lifetime of a biofuel 

production facility is the “most sensible anchor” for the choice of a timeframe. Alternatively, a 

number of commenters argued that a 100 year time frame is the appropriate time period for GHG 

7-260
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

lifecycle emissions analysis principally since this is the time period over which climate change 

impacts are likely to occur. 

Based upon the comments received from the peer review and public between after the 

RFS2 proposal, EPA has decided to use a 30 year frame for assessing the lifecycle GHG 

emissions. There are several reasons why the 30 year time frame was chosen. The use of the life 

of a typical biofuel plant seems reasonable as a basis for the timeframe for assessing the GHG 

emissions impacts of a renewable fuel. Also, the 30 year time frame focuses on GHG emissions 

impacts that are more near term and, hence, more certain. 

EPA received numerous of comments on whether lifecycle GHG emissions should be 

discounted through time. For example, as part of the EPA-sponsored peer review, while many of 

peer reviewers thought that current GHG emissions reductions should be more strongly weighted 

than future reductions, the peer reviewers were in general agreement that a discount rate should 

only be applied to a monetary unit, rather than a physical unit, such as an GHG emission. One 

peer reviewer suggested that it is scientifically justifiable to use discounting procedures for GHG 

emissions if the procedure is broadened to capture more than the “time value of money” and 

includes biophysical relationships such as the changing value of damages produced by 

atmospheric GHG stocks, the persistence of GHGs in the atmosphere and the initial GHG stock 

levels. Alternatively, another peer reviewer argued that the provision of EISA that deals with 

lifecycle GHG emissions didn’t call for an economic assessment, therefore discounting of GHG 

emissions would not be appropriate. A majority of peer reviewers said that a 0% discount rate 

would be appropriate if EPA uses a short time horizon (13-30 years) to assess GHG impacts. 

The reasoning for not using discounting with shorter time periods is that for purposes of meeting 

the EISA GHG thresholds, a GHG emission now is not significantly different than a GHG 

emission 30 years from now. 

In addition to the comments received in the peer review, EPA also received many 

comments in the public comment period. Commenters suggested that discounting is an essential 

part of long term cost benefit analysis but it is not necessary in the context of the physical 

aggregation of lifecycle GHG emissions called for in the EISA. Also, commenters expressed 

concerns that any discount rate chosen by the Agency would be based upon relatively arbitrary 

criteria. 

After considering the comments on discounting from the peer review and the public, EPA 

decided not to discount (i.e., use a 0% discount rate) GHG emissions due to the many issues 

associated with applying an economic concept to a physical parameter. First, it is unclear 

whether EISA intended lifecycle GHG emissions to be converted into a metric whose 

underpinnings rest on principals of economic valuation. A more literal interpretation of EISA is 

that EPA should consider only physical GHG emissions. Second, even if the principle of tying 

GHG emissions to economic valuation approaches were to be accepted, there would still be the 

problem that there is a lack of consensus in the scientific community about the best way to 

translate GHG emissions into a proxy for economic damages. Some of the issues that arise are: 

how to factor in the atmospheric residence times of GHG emissions in the atmosphere, and the 

evolution of atmospheric concentrations of GHG emissions through time both with and without 

renewable fuels. As mentioned previously, there is also a lack of consensus as to the appropriate 

7-261
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

discount rate to apply to GHG lifecycle emissions streams through time. Also, since EPA has 

decided to base threshold assessments of lifecycle GHG emissions on a 30 year time frame, the 

issue of whether to discount GHG emissions is not as significant as if the EPA had chosen the 

100 year time frame to assess GHG emissions impacts. 

In the proposed rule EPA sought comment on whether sequestration from land reversion 

following the end of production of a particular biofuel should be considered in our analysis. A 

majority (3) of the expert peer reviewers responded that reversion should not be counted. Two 

of the peer reviewers offered conditional support: one advised EPA to consider land reversion 

impacts only if it had reason to believe that croplands dedicated to biofuels would be reverted; 

the other suggested that EPA try different scenarios to test if land reversion has a significant 

effect. 

The reviewers that objected to counting post-production land reversion offered a number 

of justifications to support their position. All of them said that there is no reason to assume that 

land would in fact revert following biofuel production. Instead, it is more likely that land would 

be kept in crop production for food or that the land would be developed. One of the reviewers 

recommended that EPA consider post-project salvaged carbon as part of a second independent 

land use change that occurs once the biofuel project terminates. Another reviewer noted that 

even if land were reverted, the benefits of sequestration would be attributed to the grazing, 

forestry, or conservation payment activities associated with the new land use, not to biofuel 

production. 

Dr. Fargione expaneded on his lack of support for counting post-project reversion. He 

interpreted EISA to mandate reduced emissions during the project time frame, and therefore 

concluded that emission reduction calculations should be based only on land use change and 

foregone sequestration that occur during the project time frame. Indeed, EISA specifies that 

lifecycle GHG emissions shall include the “full fuel lifeycle, including all stages of fuel and 

feedstock production and distribution,” but the Act does not specifically mention post-project 

activities as part of the lifecycle. Thus, Dr. Fargione argued, the only accounting required 

following the project time horizon is based on fate of the emissions already released (and their 

radiative forcing and residence time in the atmosphere). According to Dr. Fargione, one 

potential exception to this would be if EPA were to include long-lived forest products, as these 

emissions are not dependent on assumptions about future land use change. (As discussed in 

preamble Section V, EPA has determined that long-lived wood products from international land 

conversion are not a significant factor). 

Based on comments from the expert reviewers and the public, and for the reasons 

discussed above, EPA decided that 30 years is a reasonable time frame over which to evaluate 

lifecycle GHG emissions. As part of this determination, EPA decided that the most reasonable 

approach is to expect that a particular biofuel pathway should achieve GHG reductions 

commensurate with the required reduction thresholds, as specified in EISA, during a 30 year 

time period, and not to give credit for potential post-project sequestrations. 

What Commenters Said:

7-262
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2317 

Organization: National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2317) believes that much of the controversy over EPA’s international indirect 

land use change (ILUC) analysis can be resolved by simply calculating the existing domestic 

capability to meet fuel, food, and feed demand properly. If EPA did so, the calculation would 

show that no additional land conversion is needed as a result of the RFS2 and therefore that no 

significant emissions will result from the RFS2 mandates. The commenter urges EPA to revisit 

these aspects of the program and to make revisions to the regulations consistent with their 

comments. [[Docket number 2317.1, p. 3]]

Our Response: 

While the existing domestic capacity may exist to meet U.S. fuel, food, and fuel demand, 

this calculation ignores the impact the U.S. has on world agricultural markets. Since the U.S. is 

the world’s largest exporter of corn and a significant exporter of soybeans, a significant decrease 

in U.S. exports would have ripple effects throughout the world. If increasing demand for 

renewable fuels in the U.S. increases commodity prices and reduces U.S. exports of corn and 

soybeans, international agricultural markets will respond by increasing supply. As described 

below, we believe our interpretation of the term “significant indirect impacts” to include 

international land use change is consistent with the statutory intent of EISA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2317 

Organization: National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) 

Comment:

The commenter believes the legal basis offered in the proposal for including international 

indirect emission in the LC emissions definition is not supported by the statutory language and 

EPA seeks to extend the application of the Energy Independence and Security Act beyond the 

U.S. borders. [[Docket number 2317.1, p. 3]] [[See docket number 2317.1, pp. 3-6 for extensive 

discussion of this issue.]] 

The commenter notes that the statute requires that LC emissions be related to the fuel LC and 

that EPA’s analysis must accurately determine the quantity of such emissions and whether they 

are significant. In light of the inability to estimate accurately indirect emissions attributable to 

international land use changes and because the statute does not indicate that emissions based on 

international land use changes are required to be included in the lifecycle analysis, the 

commenter believe that EPA should adopt an interpretation that is limited to domestic significant 

indirect emissions. [[Docket number 2317.1, p. 3]] [[See docket number 2317.1, pp. 3-6 for 

extensive discussion of this issue.]] 

The commenter adds that because the increased supplies of domestic corn that result from 

increased yields will provide the corn necessary for future exports and other uses, there is no 

7-263
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

significant International land use change as a result of RFS2. [[Docket number 2317.1, p. 15]] 

[[See docket number 2317.1, pp. 15-17 for extensive discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

See responses to prior comments for EPA’s interpretation of the definition of lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, and why it is appropriate for EPA to include significant indirect 

emissions from land use change that occurs overseas 

With respect to the impact of the RFS program on future exports of corn, EPA estimated 

the changes in the domestic agricultural sector (e.g., changes in crop acres resulting from 

increased demand for biofuel feedstock or changes in the number of livestock due to higher corn 

prices) and their associated emissions, using the Forestry and Agricultural Sector Optimization 

Model (FASOM), developed by Texas A&M University and others. This model and our analysis 

clearly found an impact on U.S. corn exports due to the RFS, which is explained in detail in the 

rulemaking. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2317 

Organization: National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) 

Comment:

The commenter disagrees with EPA’s assumption that increased biofuels production is the 

causative factor for increased GHG emissions. [[Docket number 2317.1, p. 22]] [[See docket 

number 2317.1, pp. 22-24 for extensive discussion of this issue.]] 

The commenter believes that EPA fails to give proper credit for distillers grains as co-product. 

[[Docket number 2317.1, p. 26]] [[See docket number 2317.1, pp. 26-28 for extensive discussion 

of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

 

For the final rulemaking analysis, distillers grains replacement rates of corn and soybean 

meal in animal feed have been updated based on the latest research by Argonne National 

Laboratory in both the FASOM and FAPRI models. These replacement rates are higher and 

more efficient than those used in the proposal’s analysis. In addition, co-product credits are 

attributed to distillers grains in EPA’s analysis. Details on these assumptions can be found in the 

RIA and the technical reports for each respective model. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2339 

Organization: Illinois Com Growers Association 

Comment: 

7-264
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter [[#2339]] states that EPA has admitted that its proposal is based on many 

uncertainties, it argues that to fail to consider indirect international land use change would be 

worse in that it would ignore any contribution by U.S. renewable fuels policy to these foreign 

development decisions. EPA has mistakenly read into EISA Title II a requirement that renewable 

fuels produced in the United States must take responsibility for the carbon footprint associated 

with unassociated future land use changes in other countries. [[#2339 p.4,7]]

Our Response: 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determinations based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. EPA has used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many 

modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers 

and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations described above. We plan to 

continue to improve upon our analyses, and will update it in the future as appropriate. 

EPA does not believe it has misread or otherwise mistakenly read the requirements in 

EISA. A large variety of activities outside the U.S. play a major part in the full fuel lifecycle of 

both baseline (gasoline and diesel fuel used as transportation fuel in 2005) and renewable fuels. 

For example, several stages of the lifecycle process for gasoline and diesel can occur overseas, 

including extraction and delivery of imported crude oil, and for imported gasoline and diesel 

products, emissions associated with refining and distribution of the finished product to the U.S. 

For imported renewable fuel, all of the emissions associated with feedstock production and 

distribution, fuel processing, and delivery of the finished renewable fuel to the U.S. occur 

overseas. The definition of lifecycle GHG emissions makes it clear that EPA is to determine the 

aggregate emissions related to the “full” fuel lifecycle, including “all stages of fuel and feedstock 

production and distribution.” Thus, EPA could not, as a legal matter, ignore those parts of a fuel 

lifecycle that occur overseas. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2347 

Organization: Illinois Farm Bureau 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2347]] states he uncertainty level and the possibility of error in the proposals 

assumptions are high, it is therefore ludicrous to try to analyze how international indirect land 

use will affect GHG impacts. The proposal also appears to go far beyond the intent of the law 

when it incorrectly gives U.S. renewable fuel producers the carbon footprint of others that are 

beyond the control of U.S producers. [[#2347.1 p.1]]

7-265
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response: 

EPA continues to believe that compliance with the EISA mandate — determining “the 

aggregate GHG emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, including both direct emissions and 

significant indirect emissions such as land use changes” — makes it necessary to assess those 

direct and significant indirect impacts that occur not just within the United States, but also those 

that occur in other countries. 

Although considering international emissions in its analyses could result in different 

implications under the statute for various fuels and fuel pathways as compared to ignoring these 

emissions, EPA believes that this is precisely the outcome that Congress intended. 

Implementation of EISA will undoubtedly benefit the domestic agricultural sector as a whole, 

with some components benefiting more than others depending in part on the lifecycle GHG 

emissions associated with the products to be made from individual feedstocks. If Congress had 

sought to promote all biofuel production without regard to GHG emissions related to the full 

lifecycle of those fuels, it would not have specified GHG reduction thresholds for each category 

of renewable fuel for which volume targets are specified in the Act. 

It is also important to note that including international indirect emissions in EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis does not exercise regulatory authority over activities that occur solely outside 

the U.S., nor does it raise questions of extra-territorial jurisdiction. EPA’s regulatory action 

involves an assessment of products either produced in the U.S. or imported into the U.S. EPA is 

simply assessing whether the use of these products in the U.S. satisfies requirements under EISA 

for the use of designated volumes of renewable fuel, cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, 

and advanced biofuel. Considering international emissions in determining the lifecycle GHG 

emissions of the domestically-produced or imported fuel does not change the fact that the actual 

regulation of the product involves its use solely inside the U.S. 

Excluding international impacts means large percentages of GHG emissions would be 

ignored. This would take place in a context where the global warming impact of emissions is 

irrespective of where the emissions occur. If the purpose of thresholds is to achieve some 

reduction in GHG emissions in order to help address climate change, then ignoring emissions 

outside our borders interferes with the ability to achieve this objective. Such an approach would 

essentially undermine the purpose of the provision, and would be an arbitrary interpretation of 

the broadly phrased text used by Congress. 

EPA disagrees that it is seeking to penalize domestic renewable fuel producers for 

impacts over which they have no control. EPA is simply attempting to account for all GHG 

emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle. Domestic renewable fuel producers may have no 

direct control over land use changes that occur overseas as a result of renewable fuel production 

and use here, but their choice of feedstock can and does influence oversees activities, and EPA 

believes it is appropriate to consider the GHG emissions from those activities in its analyses. 

Furthermore, as described in this rulemaking, EPA has used the best available models 

and substantially modified key inputs to those models to reflect comments by peer reviewers, the 

public, and emerging science. EPA has also modeled additional scenarios from those described 

7-266
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

in the NPRM. EPA recognizes that uncertainty exists with respect to the results, and has 

attempted to quantify the range of uncertainty. While EPA agrees that application of the models 

it has used in the context of assessing GHG emissions represents changes from previous biofuel 

lifecycle modeling, EPA disagrees that it has used faulty data, modeled unrealistic scenarios, or 

that its approach is otherwise scientifically indefensible. Although the results of modeling GHG 

emissions associated with international land use change are uncertain, EPA has attempted to 

quantify that uncertainty and is now in a better position to consider the uncertainty inherent in its 

approach. 

EPA understands that including international indirect land use change is a key decision 

and that there is significant uncertainty associated with it. That is why we have taken an 

approach that quantifies that uncertainty and presents the weight of currently available evidence 

in making our threshold determinations. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2348 

Organization: StateLine Cooperative 

Comment: 

The commenter (2348) believes that EPA should drop consideration of “international” land use 

change and focus on domestic land use change only.

Our Response: 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. EPA has used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many 

modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers 

and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2350 

Organization: BioEnergy Producers Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2350) submits that as EPA considers regulations relating to Indirect Land Use 

Change, any such regulations should stipulate that there are no such impacts involved in the 

production of advanced biofuels from organic wastes. As non-food derived resources, carbon7-267
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

based wastes represent the nation’s most promising and virtually untapped renewable energy 

source. [[Docket number 2350, p. 1]] 

Our Response: 

EPA has analyzed biofuels from biogenic waste feedstocks and assessed their potential 

indirect land use impacts, determining that such impacts are negligible or nonexistent. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2353 

Organization: Iowa Soybean Association 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2353]] states that soybeans are raised in a rotation with corn. Since soybeans 

fix nitrogen from the air, the nitrogen nodules on their roots help fertilize the next crop, reducing 

both fertilizer use and tillage. Nitrogen fertilizer is not used on soybeans. [[#2353 p.2]]

Our Response: 

EPA’s analysis takes into account the fact that soybeans fix nitrogen. The crop budgets 

included in the FASOM model include data on input use that varies by crop, management 

practices, and region. There is often considerable variation in the inputs used per acre. Crop 

budgets are based on USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data and crop 

budgets developed by university extension offices. More information on this can be found in the 

FASOM documentation in the Docket. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2354 

Organization: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment: 

The commenter (2354) strongly agrees with the proposal to fully account for indirect land use 

change (ILUC) when determining lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels. (2354.pdf, 

p.3) 

Our Response: 

EPA’s final rule includes a full assessment of indirect land use change impacts. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2357 

Organization: Iowa Biodiesel Board 

7-268
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2357]] states that underestimating biodiesel volumes results in an overestimate 

of indirect land use changes, penalizing the biodiesel industry. Also EPA assumes increased 

U.S. biodiesel production will lead to land conversion in South America. If this assumption were 

correct, Brazilian soybean acreage would have increased from 2004 through 2008, a time in 

which U.S. biodiesel production increased from 25 million to 690 million gallons [[2357.1 p.4-

5]] 

Our Response: 

We disagree with the comment that underestimating biodiesel volumes result in an 

overstatement of indirect land use change, even if biodiesel volumes would have reached the 

mandated volumes in 2022 there is still an impact with producing these volumes compared to a 

case without them. The threshold analysis mandated by EISA requires EPA to determine the 

impacts of the different biofuels production which requires us to consider two scenarios with 

differing volumes of biofuels. So regardless of what volume might or might not actually be 

produced, our threshold analysis would still be based on two different volume scenarios and 

production of any amount of biofuels would still have an impact. Furthermore, since our 

analysis normalizes the greenhouse gas emissions impacts on a per BTU basis, the effect of using 

different volumes in our calculations is minimized. 

The historical biodiesel and soybean statistics cited by the commenter are not comparable 

with our model predictions. During the time period discussed by the commenter (i.e., 2004 to 

2008) many of the conditions that can affect the agricultural economy were changing. For 

example, oil prices spiked, soybean blight became more prevalent in Brazil, exchange rates were 

adjusted, and corn ethanol volumes also expanded substantially. In other words, the increase in 

soy-based biodiesel production was not the only important factor that changed during the period. 

Therefore, the fact that soybean acreage contracted in Brazil during this period does not refute 

model predictions about how Brazil responds to U.S. biodiesel production. If we could “re-run” 

history with a lower biodiesel volume, it may well be that Brazil soybean acreage would have 

been much smaller than it actually was, in which case the model predictions would be validated. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2357 

Organization: Iowa Biodiesel Board 

Comment: 

The commenter also states that EPA’s GHG emissions methodology contains a major error 

pertaining to the direct emission calculations for nitrogen. The 2006 Guidelines for National 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

concludes that nitrogen fixed in soil by soybeans should not be considered a GHG emission. 

EPA, however, does not incorporate the IPCC’s updated nitrogen findings, this error reduces the 

GHG score for soy biodiesel by more than 20 percent. [[2357.1 p.5]]

Our Response: 

7-269
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

We received a number of comments on our proposal results indicating that the N2O 

emissions were overestimated from soybean and other legume production (e.g., nitrogen fixing 

hay) in our analysis. The main issue is that because the N2O emission factors used in the 

proposal were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting they were overestimating 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops. As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed 

such that biological nitrogen fixation was removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack 

of evidence of significant emissions arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that 

the N2O emissions induced by the growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a 

function of the above-ground and below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This 

change effectively reduces the N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and 

nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2360 

Organization: Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 

Comment:

The commenter’s (2360.1) greatest concern is with the calculation of indirect land use change 

values under the rule. The commenter believes the modeling used to evaluate these impacts has 

not been fully developed and may greatly overestimate the impact of biofuels on land use. 

Biofuels hold great promise as part of this country’s energy future, and corn-based ethanol and 

biomass-based biodiesel are already delivering on those promises across the country. Moreover, 

first-generation biofuels are the bridge that will speed the development of the next generation 

cellulosic solutions. However, the proposed land use values place a major obstacle to future 

development of the domestic biofuels industry. (2360.1, p.1) 

The commenter believes that questionable modeling of indirect land use changes should not be 

used to undermine the commitment to today’s biofuels, nor should it be allowed to imperil 

tomorrow’s cellulosic solutions. The commenter believes that modeling should not be allowed 

7-270
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

to dictate major decisions regarding our energy future until we can be confident it adequately 

captures the indirect impact of any fuel. (2360.1, p.2) 

Our Response: 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. EPA has used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many 

modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers 

and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations described above. EPA plans 

to continue to improve upon its analyses, and will update it in the future as appropriate. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2363 

Organization: Ag Processing Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2363) urges EPA to drop consideration of “international” land use change and 

focus on domestic land use change only. [[Docket number 2363.1, p. 7]] [[See docket number 

2363.1, pp. 1-2 for further discussion of this issue.]]

The commenter also urges EPA to assume that CRP land will be released in response to long 

term change in demand for ethanol and soy biodiesel. [[Docket number 2363.1, p. 7]] [[See 

docket number 2363.1, pp. 2-4 for further discussion of this issue.]]

Our Response: 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. EPA has used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many 

modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers 

and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations described above. We plan to 

continue to improve upon our analyses, and will update it in the future as appropriate. 

7-271
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Based on coordination with USDA, EPA modeled assuming land in CRP will be 

supported by USDA and therefore would not be available for biofuel feedstock production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2367 

Organization: New Fuels Alliance (NFA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2367) expresses widespread concerns about EPA’s methodology, boundaries, 

uncertainty, and unintended consequences related to predicting indirect land use change. Two 

primary objectives to enforcing indirect land use change penalties against biofuels are lack of 

parity and the scientific uncertainty. The commenter refers to the unanswered questions raised by 

the analysis performed by Dr. Wang from the Argonne National Laboratory. The commenter 

believes that enforcing overly uncertain carbon scoring metric could have the perverse result of 

promoting more carbon intensive fuels. With all of the uncertainties associated with EPA’s 

approach to modeling indirect land use change, the commenter questions how EPA is prepared to 

declare that biofuels are responsible for “significant indirect emission.” 

The commenter believes that EPA must re-balance the RFS2 LCA to avoid destabilizing the 

program by differentiating direct and indirect carbon effects and assessing petroleum in a more 

comprehensive and responsible way. The commenter strongly recommends that EPA reconsider 

the principles contained in ISO 14040, establish common system boundaries for all fuels, and rebalance the LCA analysis for RFS2. [[Docket number 2367.1, pp. 10-16]] [[See docket number 

2367.1, pp. 4-18 for a detailed discussion of the commenter’s concerns related to indirect land 

use change.]] 

Our Response:

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

7-272
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum use. We 

performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by biofuels use. 

Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we were able to 

determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to the countries 

where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an average 

gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this final 

rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace petroleum coproducts. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum co-products, such 

as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the demand for 

renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum co-products due to the 

ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic renewable fuels demand 

will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower demand for gasoline and 

diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for petroleum co-products unless 

the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners respond to demand for fuels, 

and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum co-products per barrel of crude 

then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel demand. This increased supply 

and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight decrease in co-product cost and 

therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering the 

world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels and 

increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found in 

Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix of crude 

oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further discussion 

of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2369 

Organization: New Generation Biofuels (NGBF) 

Comment: 

7-273
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The commenter (2369) agrees with many commenters that the science of ILUC needs further 

developing before finalizing on a specific method of determining the cradle to grave greenhouse 

gas emissions of most biofuels. [[Docket number 2369.1, p. 1]] 

Our Response: 

EPA recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area, 

the lifecycle GHG assessments for a variety of fuel pathways will continue to change. 

Therefore, while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also 

committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this 

ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as 

other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new 

assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this 

final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2374 

Organization: Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc. (Amyris) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2374) states that the science behind indirect land use models is young and 

subject to much interpretation and debate within the scientific community. If the RFS2 is 

implemented with indirect effects, the commenter believes that EPA should allow maximum 

flexibility, cost-effective farming practices, while providing an incentive structure promoting 

best practices. The commenter also believes that the 100 year pay-back period should be utilized 

for calculations. Once lands are transformed into agricultural use, historically the land remains 

agricultural for many generations–thus a 100 year pay-back period is appropriate. More broadly, 

the commenter believes that EPA should: 1) provide or allow verifiable mechanisms for 

producers to proactively reduce their indirect impacts of biofuels production and 2) allow regular 

updates to the model calculating the magnitude of the indirect effects, especially in light of the 

nascence of the science behind the calculation. [[Docket number 2374.1, p. 2]] 

 

Our Response:

In the proposal, we considered several options for the timeframe over which to measure 

lifecycle GHG impacts and the possibility of discounting those impacts. Based on peer review 

recommendations and other comments received, EPA is finalizing its assessments based on an 

analysis assuming 30 years of continued emission impacts after the program is fully phased in by 

2022 and without discounting those impacts. 

7-274
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. 

EPA recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area, 

the lifecycle GHG assessments for a variety of fuel pathways will continue to change. 

Therefore, while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also 

committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this 

ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as 

other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new 

assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this 

final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. 

While commenter’s suggestion to incentivize best practices is beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking, EPA will take this suggestion under consideration for future voluntary programs. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

Informa developed independent forecasts of U.S. and global crop acreage and supply/demand 

balances and compared the forecasts to those agricultural economic models used by EPA. Total 

world corn area in FAPRI is larger in 2022 in the control case relative to the reference case 

compared to Informa forecasts. Informa shows a decrease in total world soybean area whereas 

FAPRI shows an increase when the control case is compared to the reference case in 2022. 

Informa’s corn export forecast is moderately below FASOM’s forecast and significantly below 

FAPRI’s (2415.1, p1 & p18 Appendix H) 

To provide appropriate bounds on the land use change predicted by EPA’s modeling suite, the 

commenter (2383) asked Informa to use Informa’s world agricultural and economic data bases 

and predictive methodology in order to show what the impact of specified increases in U.S. corn 

ethanol usage would be on cropland conversion in the United States and overseas. A key 

assumption in this effort and an assumption which Growth Energy asked Informa to assume for 

purposes of this exercise was that the level and rate of land conversion overseas could in fact be 

attributed to the RFS2 program. The results are shown in Table 1 of the Informa Report. On the 

assumptions supplied, Informa predicted a net increase in world corn and soybean acreage of 2.2 

million acres. By contrast, FAPRI’s estimate is a net increase of 7.4 million acres. The 

commenter concludes that the data set and methodology that are actually used in the business 

world to plan investments and to predict commodity prices the Informa data set and methodology 

demonstrate that the results generated for EPA by FAPRI’s “black box” are more than 300 

7-275
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

percent overstated. If EPA is not prepared to accept Informa’s analysis as part of the LCA 

analysis, it must explain why. [[Docket number 2383.1, pp. 51-52]] [[See docket number 2383.1, 

pp. 51-52 and docket number 2415.1-2, which are electronic files associate with the Informa 

Economics report.]]

Our Response: 

Although the Informa model provides a useful estimate of their interpretation of the 

impacts of a change in corn ethanol and soybean based biodiesel, we do not believe that their 

analysis can be used at this time to replace our FAPRI and FASOM analysis of the indirect land 

use change associated with an increase in renewable fuel volumes. As described in other 

sections, we disagree with Informa’s assertion that the projected yields used in our modeling are 

too low. Informa projects corn yields of 201.7 bushels per acre and soybean yields of 51.7 

bushels/acre by 2022 which are within the range of the reasonable yields we considered for oour 

sensitivity analyses. These higher yield sensitivity analyses did not change our threshold 

assessments. 

Furthermore, the Informa model lacks much of the detail that the use of the FASOM and 

FAPRI models provide. For example, the Informa model does not appear to include cellulosic 

feedstocks, therefore it cannot be used to assess the competition between energy crops and 

conventional crops in the U.S. In addition, the Informa model does not appear to take into 

account the domestic land use competition between agricultural and forestry sectors. Since the 

Informa “Control Case” does not appear to take into account cellulosic or imported ethanol 

volumes, it is not appropriate to compare the Informa control case with the FASOM or FAPRI 

control case. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

The commenter (2384) does not believe that the science and methodology underlying the LCA, 

including significant emission from land use changes, has progress sufficiently to provide a 

rigorous differentiation between fuels. Until a more reliable land use data set is available, the 

commenter recommends that EPA rely on the feedstock requirements described in EISA to 

differentiate fuels. [[docket number 2384.1, p. 6]] 

Our Response: 

7-276
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

As legally required by EISA, EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on 

a methodology that includes an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions 

related to international land-use change. EPA has used the best available models for this 

purpose, and has incorporated many modifications to its proposed approach based on comments 

from the public and peer reviewers and developing science. EPA has also quantified the 

uncertainty associated with significant components of its analyses, including important factors 

affecting GHG emissions associated with international land use change. The Agency has 

updated and refined its modeling approach since proposal in several important ways, and EPA is 

confident that its modeling of GHG emissions associated with international land use is 

comprehensive and provides a reasonable and scientifically robust basis for making the threshold 

determinations described above. EPA plans to continue to improve upon its analyses, and will 

update it in the future as appropriate. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2387 

Organization: Ensus Ltd 

Comment: 

The commenter (2387) believes that increased global production of crop-derived biofuel 

feedstock creates a significant risk of indirect land use change and it is inevitable that GHG 

emissions from ILUC will need to be quantified for different biofuels and feed-stocks. However, 

they are concerned about the accuracy of the modeling of indirect land use change in the FAPRI 

and FASOM models especially the methods and factors used in the following parts of the 

models: Accounting for biofuel co-products, Modeling land area changes as a result of demand 

growth, Modeling of oilseeds market, type of land changes, and land use change for meat 

production. The commenter believes that with all of these issues, the models overestimate the 

level of GHG emissions from indirect land use change. [[Docket number 2387.1, p. 1]]

Our Response: 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA. The models indicate that indirect impacts including 

international land use impacts are significant and should appropriately be included in accordance 

with good practice and the requirements of EISA. We have also included uncertainty analyses 

which in particular focus on international indirect land use impacts. These uncertainty 

assessments were used in determining whether a biofuel pathway was likely to exceed its GHG 

performance threshold. 

7-277
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2387 

Organization: Ensus Ltd 

Comment: 

More specifically, the commenter states: 

-The lack of proper accounting for high protein biofuel co-products causes an overestimation of 

the GHG emissions from ILUG. [[See docket number 2387.1, p. 5 for further discussion of the 

issue.]] 

Our Response: 

For the final rulemaking analysis, distillers grains replacement rates of corn and soybean 

meal in animal feed have been updated based on the latest research by Argonne National 

Laboratory in both the FASOM and FAPRI models. These replacement rates are higher and 

more efficient than those used in the proposal’s analysis. Details on these assumptions can be 

found in the RIA and the technical reports for each respective model. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2387 

Organization: Ensus Ltd 

Comment: 

-The EPA ME models determine the land area growth indirectly by subtracting a yield growth 

estimate from the demand growth. The yield growth estimate is an exogenous value that does not 

properly account for changes in yield growth as a result of demand growth. The models therefore 

assume that all the increase in demand above the estimated yield growth is met by land area 

change. The lack of modeling of the proportion of demand growth from yield growth and area 

growth will cause an error in the estimation of the GHG emissions from ILUC. [[See docket 

number 2387.1, pp. 5-7 for further discussion of the issue.]] 

Our Response: 

EPA agrees with the comment that there needs to be a demand response on crop yields. 

One of the updates to the FAPRI model for the final rulemaking analysis is the incorporation of 

price-induced yields. Thus, as demand for a commodity increases, raising the global price for 

that commodity, yields will increase as a result. Additional information on price-induced yields 

in the FAPRI can be found in the RIA and the technical documentation for the FAPRI model in 

the docket. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2387 

Organization: Ensus Ltd 

7-278
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment: 

-The EPA FASOM model appears to assume that the use of soy oil for biodiesel production will 

be met by growing soybeans and that the soy meal co-product will substitute for cereals and hay. 

However, soybean is primarily grown for the meal, not for the oil, so increased production of 

biodiesel from soy oil will lead to replacement of the soy oil on the global market by other 

vegetable oils, primarily palm oil. The assumption that soy is just grown primarily for its oil, 

rather than primarily for its meal will lead to an overestimation of the overall land used for the 

production of soy biodiesel and underestimate the land saved by soy meal replacement by DOGS 

co-product from corn bioethanol. These will both cause an overestimation of the GHG emissions 

from ILUG. [[See docket number 2387.1, pp. 8-9 for further discussion of the issue.]] 

Our Response: 

EPA’s analysis shows that the total value for soybeans is a combination of the value of 

raw soybeans, soybean meal, and soybean oil combined. Soybean meal is an important and 

substantial component of soybeans, and is a major source of animal feed, among other uses. 

However, soybean oil is also a valued component of soybeans, both for the use in food products, 

as well as for biodiesel production. EPA’s analysis shows that changes in demand for soybean 

oil biodiesel will affect not only the value of soybean oil, but the value of soybeans and soybean 

meal as well. The primary source of soybean oil for biodiesel production comes from a 

reduction in soybean oil exports from the U.S. to the global trade market. The FAPRI model 

also analyzes the effect this change in soybean oil exports from the U.S. has on the global 

vegetable oil market. 

For additional detail of the assumptions and results of the final rulemaking analysis, 

please refer to the RIA, as well as the technical reports of the FASOM and FAPRI models in the 

docket. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2387 

Organization: Ensus Ltd 

Comment: 

-There are enormous discrepancies in the changes in crop areas for the EU and Brazil given by 

the FAO data and the MODIS data used for EPA work. The reasons for this need to be resolved. 

[[See docket number 2387.1, pp. 9-10 and docket number 1990.1, pp.1-4 for extensive 

discussion of the issue.]]

Our Response: 

Based on comments from the expert peer reviewers EPA updated its analysis with the 

new MODIS Version 5 satellite data set covering 2001-2007. Compared to the MODIS Version 

4 data set used in the proposed rule, the new MODIS data is higher resolution, more recent, and 

covers a longer time period. Another benefit of using the MODIS data set is that it is routinely 

and extensively validated by NASA’s MODIS land validation team. NASA uses several 

7-279
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

validation techniques for quality assurance and to develop uncertainty information for its 

products. NASA’s primary validation technique includes comparing the satellite classifications 

to data collected through field and aircraft surveys, and other satellite data sensors. The accuracy 

of the version 5 MODIS land cover product was assessed over a significant set of international 

locations, including roughly 1,900 sample site clusters covering close to 150 million square 

kilometers. The results of these validation efforts are summarized in a “confusion matrix” which 

compares the satellite’s land classifications with the actual land types observed on the ground. 

We used this information to assess the accuracy and systematic biases in the published MODIS 

data. 

Resolving discrepancies between our data and the FAO data is not necessary for our 

analysis. As discussed above, the MODIS Version 5 land cover data has been vetted with data 

validation efforts that are far more rigorous than simply comparing the MODIS and FAO data 

sets. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2387 

Organization: Ensus Ltd 

Comment: 

-Regarding land use change for meat production, it is assumed in the EPA ME models that the 

conversion of grassland to cropland in one region will lead to the conversion of an equal area of 

shrub land or forest to grassland in another region. Work shows that this assumption cannot be 

justified. This assumption causes an overestimation of the land use change resulting from ILUC. 

[[See docket number 2387.1, pp. 10-12 for further discussion of the issue.]]

Our Response: 

For the final rule we made several improvements in our analysis of land converted to 

pasture. 

As explained in preamble Section V, one of the major changes made to the FAPRI model 

between the NPRM and FRM includes the more detailed representation of Brazil through a new 

integrated module. The Brazil module was developed by Iowa State with input from Brazilian 

agricultural sector experts and we believe it is an improvement over the approach used in the 

proposal. The new Brazil module also explicitly accounts for changes in pasture acres, therefore 

accounting for the competition between crop and pasture acres. Furthermore, the Brazil module 

explicitly models livestock intensification, the practice of increasing the number of heads of 

cattle per acre of land in response to higher commodity prices or increased demand for land. 

In addition to modifying how pasture acres are treated in Brazil, we also improved the 

methodology for calculating pasture acreage changes in other countries. We received several 

comments through the public comment period and peer reviewers supporting a better analysis of 

the interaction between crops, pasture, and livestock. In the NPRM, although we accounted for 

GHG emissions from livestock production (e.g., manure management), we did not explicitly 

7-280
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

account for GHG emissions from changes in pasture demand. In response to comments received, 

our new methodology account for changes in pasture area resulting from livestock fluctuations 

and therefore captures the link between livestock and land used for grazing. Based on regional 

pasture stocking rates (livestock per acre), we now calculate the amount of land used for 

livestock grazing. The regional stocking rates were determined with data on livestock 

populations from the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and data on pasture area 

measured with agricultural inventory and satellite-derived land cover data. As a result of this 

change, in countries where livestock numbers decrease, less land is needed for pasture. 

Therefore, unneeded pasture acres are available for crop land or allowed to revert to their natural 

state. In countries where livestock numbers increase, more land is needed for pasture, which can 

be added on abandoned cropland or unused grassland, or it can result in deforestation. We 

believe this new methodology provides a more realistic assessment of land use changes, 

especially in regions where livestock populations are changing significantly. For additional 

information on the pasture replacement methodology, see RIA Chapter 2. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2390 

Organization: Governors‘ Biofuels Coalition 

Comment: 

The commenter (2390.1) noted that the information available to comment on the proposal 

pertaining to EPA’s ILUC lifecycle analysis is inadequate. The data and information presented 

do not permit replication of EPA’s ILUC findings. The ability to reproduce EPA”s findings is an 

essential part of ensuring the quality of the findings and the transparency citizens expect from 

their government. (2390.1, p.1)

Our Response: 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) supports EPA’s inclusion of the effects of land use changes in its 

assessment of the GHG impacts of the RFS2 proposed rule. While EPA’s proposed approach is a 

7-281
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

commendable first step, it is clear that the science, methods and data underlying the 

quantification of ILUC effects will continue to evolve even after the RFS2 final rule is published. 

The commenter notes that EPA recognizes this evolution of the science and supports EPA’s 

“plan to establish formal update procedures that include further peer review of the lifecycle 

analysis framework and methodology.” In fact, the commenter urges EPA to revisit this topic as 

part of a formal periodic technical review process. [[Docket number 2393.1, pp. 44-45 and 

2523.1, p. 3]] 

Our Response: 

EPA recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area, 

the lifecycle GHG assessments for a variety of fuel pathways will continue to change. 

Therefore, while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also 

committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this 

ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as 

other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new 

assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this 

final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. This new assessment could result in new determinations of threshold compliance 

compared to those included in this rule that would apply to future production (from plants that 

are constructed after each subsequent rule). 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2401 

Organization: Clean Energy 

Comment:

The commenter (2401) fully supports EPA’s decision to apply indirect land use change analysis 

to all fuels to perform lifecycle GHG emission assessments. The commenter believes that EPA 

is applying the best science available and has been willing to subject their analysis to peer review 

and they feel confident that EPA will responsibly apply ILUC. [[Docket number 2401.1, p. 7]] 

Our Response:

EPA agrees with the commenter that we have applied the best science available and has 

employed a collaborative and transparent approach. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

7-282
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment:

The commenter (2408.1) encourages EPA to continue to study, develop and peer-review the vast 

amount of information which is currently being generated in this area. The commenter 

encourages EPA to consider the ability of technology to deliver efficiency gains in current crop 

production as well as the development of better farming practices and higher yielding crop 

varieties. 

Our Response: 

EPA has conducted a peer review of its LCA methodology and data sources; results are 

reflected in final rule. Additionally, as stated in Preamble, EPA intends to continue working to 

improve its LCA capability and as part of that effort plans to solicit support from the National 

Academy of Sciences. For the final rule, EPA has updated its assessment of crop yields both 

domestically and internationally. We have calculated lifecycle emission performance assuming 

both base yields derived from projecting into the future longer term historical trends and also 

assuming a marked increase in future yields based on industry and other comments. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment:

In addition, the assumptions concerning the types of lands which are being converted and the 

resulting specific changes in foreign land use arc difficult and have many competing pressures, 

which-at a minimum-make it difficult to accurately calculate specific impacts resulting from 

biofuels. Over time, the understanding and accuracy of these types of modeling efforts should 

improve and become far more accurate. (2408.1, p.3) 

Our Response: 

EPA worked with Winrock International to evaluate the types of land that would be 

affected internationally. Winrock is a global nonprofit organization with years of experience in 

the development and application of the IPCC agricultural forestry and other land use (AFOLU) 

guidance. For the proposed rule, we used satellite data from 2001-2004 to provide a breakdown 

of the types of land converted to crop production. A key strength of this approach is that satellite 

information is based on empirical observations which can be verified and statistically tested for 

accuracy. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that recent land use change decisions have 

been driven largely by economics, and, as such, recent patterns will continue in the future, absent 

major economic or land use regime shifts caused, for example, by changes in government 

policies. 

As discussed above, all five of the expert peer reviewers that reviewed our use of satellite 

imagery for this analysis agreed that our general approach was scientifically justifiable. 

However, all of the peer reviewers qualified that statement by describing relevant uncertainties 

and highlighting revisions that would improve our analysis. Some of the public commenters 

7-283
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

supported EPA’s use of satellite imagery, while other expressed concern. In general, both sets of 

public commenters—those in favor and opposed—outlined the same criticisms and suggestions 

as the expert peer reviewers. Among the many valuable suggestions for satellite data analysis 

provided in the expert peer reviews and public comments, several major recommendations 

emerged: EPA should use the most recent satellite data set that covers a period of at least 5 years; 

EPA should use higher resolution satellite imagery; EPA's analysis should consider a wider 

range of land categories; EPA should improve it’s analysis of the interaction between cropland, 

pasture and unused or underutilized land; and EPA's analysis should include thorough data 

validation and a full assessment of uncertainty. Below, we describe these and other 

recommendations and how we addressed each of them to improve our analysis. Based on the 

peer reviewers agreement that our general approach is scientifically justifiable, and in light of the 

significant improvements made, we think that our approach represents the best available analysis 

of the types of land affected internationally. 

EPA recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area. 

Therefore, while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also 

committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this 

ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as 

other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new 

assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this 

final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2409 

Organization: Tennessee Department of Agriculture 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2409]] states that the new methodology arbitrarily assigns greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions associated with land use changes in other countries to biofuels produced and 

used in this nation. This would, in effect, prevent all soy oil biodiesel producers from earning 

Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs). And that the methodology developed by EPA to 

determine the GHG emission profile of biofuels under the RFS2 program is based on 

questionable inputs and dubious assumptions about international land use changes. The 

commenter also states that from 2004 to 2008, U.S. biodiesel production grew from 25 million 

gallons to 690 million gallons. Between 2004 and 2008, the land area devoted to soybean 

production in Brazil decreased by 1.52 million hectares. [[#2409.1 p.2]] 

The commenter also states that soybeans everywhere in the world are grown primarily to meet 

the demand for their 80 percent protein meal. By-products do not drive supply responses and 

soybean oil for biodiesel does not drive planting decisions for farmers. If it did, then farmers 

would plant crops other than soybeans, that produce more oil per acre. [[#2409.1 p.3]] 

7-284
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response: 

To quantify the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the increase in renewable fuel 

mandated by EISA, we compared the differences in total GHG emissions between two future 

volume scenarios using well established-economic models. For each individual biofuel, we 

analyzed the incremental GHG emission impacts of increasing the volume of that fuel to the total 

mix of biofuels needed to meet the EISA requirements. The scenarios that we compared include 

the same background projections about agricultural and economic conditions such as 

macroeconomic growth, oil prices, crop growing conditions, exchange rates and government 

policies. Thus, we isolate the effects of each type of biofuel expansion because all other factors 

that affect the agricultural economy are held constant. 

Furthermore, the agricultural economic models which we used account for the soy meal 

co-product. For crops with by-products, behavioral equations for the by-products are included 

(e.g., soybean meal, soybean oil and biodiesel from soybeans). For each commodity, a marketclearing price is achieved by equating quantity supplied to quantity demanded. The market 

linkages imply that changes in one commodity sector will have impacts on the other sectors. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated. 

Comment:

The commenter (2511.1) noted that indirect land use changes pose several significant challenges 

for analysts and policymakers. The commenter recognizes that land use changes do occur, and 

that at some level, such changes may be influenced by biofuels policy, in addition to a host of 

other factors. EPA’s proposed rule would unilaterally make changes to domestic U.S. law, with 

the goal of indirectly addressing an international problem, largely on the other side of the planet. 

Land use changes in the United States have been minimal, and large-scale land diversion of crop 

land into conversion use has been in place for decades as a part of U.S. government policy. The 

commenter has significant concerns that the proposed policy is far too narrow, and hence is an 

inefficient and ineffective way of reducing GHG emissions. It will also place an unreasonable 

and disproportionate burden on domestic U.S. farmers and the biofuels industry. It will also 

unfairly penalize those in developing countries (2511.1, p.1). The commenter also noted that 

EISA requires that EPA address Indirect Land Use Changes. However, the Act offers EPA broad 

discretion to adopt an implementing rule that reflects the inherent complexity in such analysis. 

EISA simply calls for including indirect emissions. The Act does not specify a direct mechanism, 

or any other mechanism, on how to design and model the impact of biofuels on land use changes, 

and is silent on whether the act is designed to be extraterritorial. The commenter believes that 

EPA should ensure flexible implementation and compliance with Indirect Land Use parameters. 

(2511.1, p.3) 

Our Response: 

7-285
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. EPA has used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many 

modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers 

and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations. EPA plans to continue to 

improve upon its analyses, and will update it in the future as appropriate. 

Although considering international emissions in its analyses could result in different 

implications under the statute for various fuels and fuel pathways as compared to ignoring these 

emissions, EPA believes that this is precisely the outcome that Congress intended. 

Implementation of EISA will undoubtedly benefit the domestic agricultural sector as a whole, 

with some components benefiting more than others depending in part on the lifecycle GHG 

emissions associated with the products to be made from individual feedstocks. If Congress had 

sought to promote all biofuel production without regard to GHG emissions related to the full 

lifecycle of those fuels, it would not have specified GHG reduction thresholds for each category 

of renewable fuel for which volume targets are specified in the Act. 

Including international indirect emissions in EPA’s lifecycle analysis does not exercise 

regulatory authority over activities that occur solely outside the U.S., nor does it raise questions 

of extra-territorial jurisdiction. EPA’s regulatory action involves an assessment of products either 

produced in the U.S. or imported into the U.S. EPA is simply assessing whether the use of these 

products in the U.S. satisfies requirements under EISA for the use of designated volumes of 

renewable fuel, cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and advanced biofuel. Considering 

international emissions in determining the lifecycle GHG emissions of the domesticallyproduced or imported fuel does not change the fact that the actual regulation of the product 

involves its use solely inside the U.S. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated. 

Comment:

The commenter noted that under EPA’s proposed rule, a rather simple, direct allocation to the 

biofuels industry is determined on the potential gallons produced per acre. The commenter 

believes that this rule, while simple, vastly underestimates the myriad of other factors that 

influence land use decisions and lacks accuracy. The commenter also believes that any 

calculation of land use changes should also monitor and factor in the improvements in marginal 

lands. Substantial improvements can and will be made in utilizing marginal lands, if producers 

are allowed to respond and given the tools to responsibly cultivate and develop these acres. 

7-286
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Omitting these acres as a likely first response to market conditions seriously alters the emissions 

calculations. (2511.1, pp.2-3)

Our Response: 

It appears that the commentor has misinterpreted our analysis of indirect land use change. 

Our methodology does not attribute all land use change to renewable fuels. Instead, only the 

incremental change in land use that occurs as a result of the increase in renewable fuel volumes 

required by the RFS2 is attributed to renewable fuels. To the extent that other drivers such as 

urban development, demand for wood products, and demand for other agricultural products 

result in land use changes, those impacts are included in our reference case and are not allocated 

to the renewable fuels. However, secondary impacts, such as a reduction in meat demand that 

might occur if feed prices increase, are captured in our agricultural modeling framework. 

Therefore, we disagree with the commentor that we have reduced a “complex, multi-dimensional 

system to something so simple as to be almost unrecognizable.” 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated. 

Comment:

The commenter believes that the proposed rule penalizes lesser-developed countries. Biofuels 

have created an entirely new distribution choice for the world’s farmers. Now, by inhibiting this 

industry and restricting this new source of demand, they would be preempting a strong antipoverty measure for those in need. (2511.1, p.3) 

The commenter also noted that a direct approach to limiting land clearing is a much more 

reliable approach to reducing GHG emissions. The commenter believes that nations should be 

encouraged to finalize and enforce existing, and new, land use regulations that are structured to 

reduce deforestation. The commenter also encourages the U.S. government to work with other 

countries that are also currently analyzing the impacts of land use changes. (2511.1, p.3) 

The commenter believes that EPA needs to determine the basis for allocating the land use 

changes such that one country’s direct changes are not double counted as another country’s 

indirect changes. In order to properly allocate and determine the extent of the land use changes 

that should be borne by the biofuels industry, the EPA needs data that shows causation as 

opposed to speculative data. (2511.1, p.6) 

Our Response: 

It appears that the commenter has misinterpreted our analysis of indirect land use change. 

Our methodology does not attribute all land use change to renewable fuels. Instead, only the 

incremental change in land use that occurs as a result of the increase in renewable fuel volumes 

required by the RFS2 is attributed to renewable fuels. To the extent that other drivers such as 

urban development, demand for wood products, and demand for other agricultural products 

7-287
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

result in land use changes, those impacts are included in our reference case and are not allocated 

to the renewable fuels. However, secondary impacts, such as a reduction in meat demand that 

might occur if feed prices increase, are captured in our agricultural modeling framework. 

Therefore, we disagree with the commenter that we have reduced a “complex, multi-dimensional 

system to something so simple as to be almost unrecognizable.” 

The regulations finalized for RFS2 determine GHG threshold compliance on the basis of 

fuel pathways, irrespective of the country where the feedstock or the fuel was produced 

EISA requires EPA to develop regulations for biofuels based on the development of a 

lifecycle analysis methodology that includes significant indirect effects such as land use change. 

The direct approach to limiting land clearing discussed by the commenter is outside of the scope 

of EISA’s provisions for the Renewable Fuel Standard. 

EPA’s approach avoids double counting of emissions associated with the renewable fuel 

pathway. The key issue at hand here is whether there are controls through other mechanisms on 

these sources of emissions that are included in the analysis. If international land use change 

emissions indirectly due to biofuels were accounted for and controlled through other policy 

systems of accounting, then the biofuels indirect impacts would not need assessment, but 

currently that is not the case. 

EPA notes that Congress has specified in Section 211(o) the required causal link between 

a fuel and indirect emissions. The indirect emissions must be “related to” the full fuel lifecycle. 

EPA believes that it has demonstrated this link through its modeling efforts. Specifically, the 

models predict that increased demand for feedstocks to produce renewable fuel that satisfies 

EISA mandates will likely result in international land use change. Such change is, then, “related 

to” the full fuel lifecycle of these fuels. EPA does not believe that the statute requires EPA to 

wait until these effects occur to establish the required linkage, but instead believes that it is 

authorized to use predictive models to demonstrate likely results. 

Therefore, we do not attribute all land use change to biofuels in our lifecycle analysis. 

Instead, we evaluated the incremental impact that biofuel production will have on existing land 

use and land use change. Our approach assumes that other drivers will still be in place and 

isolates the impacts due to biofuels production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated. 

Comment:

The commenter is concerned that EPA’s data and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

data have such widely varying results. The commenter suggests that neither model is robust 

enough to calculate a firm number. More sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulations need 

to be conducted to demonstrate where there are areas to tighten within the model to eliminate 

errors. (2511.1, p.7) 

7-288
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has included uncertainty and sensitivity analyses about critical 

parameters. We also anticipate continuing to work with CARB and other organizations and 

experts to improve LCA modeling and data. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2423 

Organization: Green Earth Fuels, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2423) addresses the provision in the proposal which deals with the calculation 

of GHG reductions and indirect land use. The commenter first points out that they have already 

invested money, earned from producing “first generation biofuels,” to develop non-food 

feedstocks such as camelina and jatropha which can be produced with less environmental impact. 

The commenter believes this is critical to our industry’s growth and a demonstration of the value 

of supporting first generation biofuels and that these are the types of crops EPA’s rules should be 

supporting; however under the proposal, they would not quality for RFS2. [[Docket number 

2423, pp. 1-2]] 

The commenter notes that they have been developing a palm plantation in Guatemala using the 

latest and most advanced environmental standards and working with NGO’s such as Rainforest 

Alliance to develop sustainable palm standards for the region. EPA’s proposed international 

indirect land use rules suggest that for every gallon of biodiesel produced rain forests will be 

destroyed. In fact the commenter believes that they are saving rainforests and preserving lands 

ravaged not by industrial farmers but rainforest land burned by indigenous people just trying to 

survive through subsistence farming. By disqualifying vegetable oil based biodiesel from 

qualifying for the RFS2, EPA eliminates much of the incentive for pursuing these new, positive 

practices. [[Docket number 2423, p. 2]]

Our Response: 

EPA provides in the final rulemaking a petition process by which those fuel pathways 

that have not yet been modeled EPA modeling can be evaluated to determine compliance with 

one or more of the renewable fuel categories. Section V.C of the Preamble describes the petition 

process. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2424 

Organization: The Pacific Forest Trust 

Comment:

7-289
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The commenter (2424.1) applauds EPA that they include the impacts of both direct and indirect 

land use in the analysis of biofuel lifecycle emissions. (2424.1, p.1) 

The commenter noted that while the utilization of biofuels might reduce the amount of carbon 

released through the combustion of fossil fuels, the attendant changes in land use can result in 

increased emissions from terrestrial systems. The commenter believes that selectively accounting 

for only the fossil fuel carbon reductions from biofuel utilization, without considering resultant 

terrestrial emissions, is not just poor accounting, it is self-defeating - both for the environment 

and ultimately the broader economy. (2424.1, p.1) (See Docket Number 2424.1, pp.1-5 for more 

discussion about this issue) 

The commenter also noted that while biofuel production that causes the conversion of terrestrial 

ecosystems may be favored by landowners who stand to gain from biofuel production (if not 

carbon management), the carbon benefits (or lack thereof) of biofuel production are highly 

variable and contingent upon a variety of factors. In some instances, biofuel production may 

indeed be beneficial but this is highly dependent upon a variety of actors. If biofuels are 

produced from waste biomass or crops grown on degraded or abandoned agricultural lands, little 

or no carbon debt is incurred, and immediate emissions reduction benefits may well result. 

However, establishing this determination requires the accurate accounting of not only the carbon 

benefits of biofuel production, but all attendant emissions as well. (2424.1, p.5)

Our Response: 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, including both direct and the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA In particular it takes into account impacts on GHG 

emissions due to changes in land use such as the removal of trees. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2424 

Organization: The Pacific Forest Trust 

Comment:

The commenter (2424.1) believes that it is apparent that retaining terrestrial systems to actively 

sequester and store atmospheric carbon is paramount. The commenter noted that currently, 

domestic forestry and land use sequester approximately 884 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide annually, or nearly 12% of all U.S. GHG emissions. However, these lands have the 

potential to sequester and store far more carbon - up to an additional 40 to 60 billion tons of 

carbon from forests alone over the next half century. When the climate benefits of all global 

terrestrial systems are considered, the services provided are staggering - with more than 2 trillion 

7-290
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

metric tons of carbon stored in the Earth’s soils and aboveground biomass. The vast, terrestrial 

carbon reserves will be critical to effectively combating global climate change. However, the 

efficacy of this invaluable asset depends on the continued existence and sustainable management 

of these systems. This will require that policies accurately account for carbon emissions and 

reductions related to these lands, such as the lifecycle accounting of carbon emissions from both 

direct and indirect land use. (2424.1, p.2) 

Our Response: 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determinations for RFS2 based on a methodology that 

includes an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international 

land-use change. EPA received significant comment on including international indirect 

emissions in its lifecycle calculations. EPA continues to believe that compliance with the EISA 

mandate — determining “the aggregate GHG emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, 

including both direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as land use changes” — 

makes it necessary to assess those direct and significant indirect impacts that occur not just 

within the United States, but also those that occur in other countries. Preamble Section V 

includes more discussion of our reasons for including carbon emissions from indirect land use 

change. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2425 

Organization: PetroAlgae 

Comment:

The commenter (2425) states that it is critical the RFS2 clearly state secondary land use 

emissions are not applicable to renewable fuels derived from non food-based feedstock. The 

commenter adds that although the inclusion of secondary land use emissions has merits, the 

models used to estimate secondary land use emission are simply not as transparent as they need 

to be and further evaluation of this requirement and the models is needed. The commenter 

believes that it is the spike in CO2 emissions caused by the indirect land use that is causing EPA 

to look at 30 or 100 year emission profiles so the net present value (NPV) of GHG emissions 

have an opportunity to meet the RFS2 GHG reduction criteria. [[Docket number 2425.1, p. 5]]

Our Response: 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA. Regarding renewable fuels from non food feedstock, EPA 

modeled a variety of pathways such as those using corn stover, switchgrass and algae as 

7-291
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

feedstock sources with varying impacts on land use. These results are detailed in the preamble 

and to a greater extent in the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2446 

Organization: Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation 

Comment:

MFBF strongly objects to the Agency’s proposal related to indirect land use changes. There is no 

reliable way to measure or accurately predict how the production of biofuels will affect land use 

change in other countries. 

Our Response: 

The Agency believes it has developed a scientifically sound, state-of-the-art, 

methodology. In an independent peer review or EPA’s methodology the reviewers in general 

supported the importance of assessing indirect land use change and determined that EPA used 

the best available tools and approaches for this work. This peer review, along with the extensive 

public comments the Agency received, supported the value of quantifying the magnitude of this 

uncertainty and its relative impact on the resulting lifecycle emission estimates as is done in this 

final rule. It is also clear that there are uncertainties associated with these estimates, particularly 

with regard to indirect land use change and the use of economic models to project future market 

interactions. Therefore, we focused our efforts on the international indirect land use change 

emissions and worked to manage the uncertainty around those impacts. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2466) strongly recommends inclusion of the impact of indirect and use change 

in GHG emissions accounting. The commenter (2466) fully supports EPA’s use of lifecycle 

analysis of biofuels, which evaluates GHG emissions on a full fuel lifecycle basis, including 

direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use 

changes. The commenter (2466) suggests that land use change, particularly from clearing and 

degradation of tropical forests, is responsible for approximately one-fifth of annual global GHG 

emissions. Given the volumes of biofuels proposed to be required under the proposed renewable 

2 fuel standard (RFS), the rule when finalized could potentially add substantial pressure to world 

markets for agricultural and forest-based biomass. (2466.1.pdf, p2) 

The commenter (2466) encourages EPA to devote sufficient resources to continued improvement 

of modeling tools to estimate land use change resulting from increased demand for biofuels and 

evaluation of alternative models and approaches.(2466.1.pdf, p2)

7-292
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response: 

EPA agrees with commenter and is making the GHG threshold determinations based on a 

methodology that includes an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions 

related to international land-use change. The Agency also agrees with commenter on the 

importance of continuing this work. As part of this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert 

advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as other experts, and incorporate their 

advice and any updated information we receive into a new assessment of the lifecycle GHG 

emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this final rule. EPA will request that 

the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years evaluate the approach taken in this 

rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in particular indirect land use change, 

and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on this subject. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment:

The commenter (2471.1) finds it troubling that EPA’s proposed rule includes indirect land use 

change (“ILUC”) assessments that would disqualify virgin oil-based biodiesel from satisfying 

the Biomass-Based Diesel mandate. There appears to be sufficient disagreement over the science 

of ILUC and how best to make the assessments and apply the models. The commenter urges 

EPA to consider tabling this part of the rule for further study. There is no downside in allowing 

for more time to gather more information. (2471.1, p.10)

 

Our Response: 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment:

The commenter (2472) supports EPA’s Life Cycle Analysis work and the inclusion of In-Direct 

Land Use Change in the RFS2 regulations. The commenter commends EPA on the job that they 

7-293
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

have done and believe that this part of the proposed regulations is based on sound science and 

adheres to the other core principals. [[Docket number 2072, p. 2]]

Our Response: 

EPA agrees with commenter that the lifecycle methodology is based on sound science 

and that it incorporates indirect land use changes. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2474 

Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation 

Comment:

The commenter (2474) believes that EPA should correct the false statement included in the 

proposal that “the impact of any land-use change tends to be magnified with soybean bio-diesel.” 

(2474, p.1) 

Our Response: 

As stated in other responses, we believe the quoted statement is being misinterpreted. 

This statement was a qualitative explanation for why land use changes projected by the 

agricultural sector models in the NPRM analysis may have been larger than the corn ethanol land 

use changes on a per BTU basis. We were not implying that soybeans were being planted 

exclusively for soybean oil. The agricultural sector models take into account the fact that 

soybeans are approximately 80% meal and 20% oil. Furthermore, the agricultural sector models 

assume that farmers choose to plant soybeans based on the expected net returns associated with 

the sum of both the oil and the meal ree streams. We believe this optimization approach 

accurately represents the soybean production markets. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2478 

Organization: ZeaChem Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2478) is highly uncertain of the speculative inclusion of indirect land use 

change (ILUC) emissions associated with advanced biofuels production. There is no scientific 

consensus on how to accurately measure the indirect effects of any fuel type. Rigorous model 

validation is needed to align model data sets to real world facts. This validation needs to be 

undertaken in a transparent manner so that the integrity of all data and information can be 

ensured. The commenter believes that the biofuels industry should not be singled out or held to a 

separate standard compared to other fuels. For example, indirect GHG emissions related to the 

oil supply chain are apparently not considered in the 2005 petroleum baseline as calculated by 

EPA. This biased and uneven comparison automatically puts domestically produced biofuels at a 

7-294
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

disadvantage compared to carbon intensive, fossil fuel resources. [[Docket number 2478.1, pp. 2-

3]]

Our Response:

EPA believes there is a great deal of scientific consensus on the need to account for 

indirect emissions in assessing the lifecycle impacts of biofuels. EPA’s goal in developing this 

methodology was to use a scientifically sound approach and to appropriately characterize 

uncertainty. In an independent peer review or EPA’s methodology the reviewers in general 

supported the importance of assessing indirect land use change and determined that EPA used 

the best available tools and approaches for this work. This peer review, along with the extensive 

public comments the Agency received, supported the value of quantifying the magnitude of this 

uncertainty and its relative impact on the resulting lifecycle emission estimates as is done in this 

final rule. 

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for 

comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the renewable fuel) sold or 

distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

What Commenters Said:

7-295
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2486 

Organization: Primafuel, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2486) states that if indirect land-use change (iDLUC) is to be charged to 

biofuels production, then reductions in land-use must also be counted towards a credit with coproducts due to displacement. In keeping with displacement co-product credit allocation 

methodology, any “cost” or “penalty” associated with a product must be counted as an “asset” 

with regards to new co-products. This should also be true with regards to iDLUC penalties for 

biofuels feedstock. IDLUC impacts must be counted as credits towards co-products. For 

example, waste corn oil extracted from thin-stillage from dry mill ethanol plants offsets soybean 

oil in the biodiesel industry. IDLUC penalties charged to soybean oil should accordingly be 

counted as a credit for waste corn oil. [[Docket number 2486.1, p. 2]]

Our Response: 

EPA agrees that displacement methodology should be used to assign credits to coproducts. In EPA’s analysis, this methodology is used to assign the proper credits to particular 

renewable fuels based on their related co-products, such as distillers grains and soybean meal. 

Additional information on co-product credits and how they are attributed to renewable fuels can 

be found in the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2486 

Organization: Primafuel, Inc. 

Comment:

Referring to the “polluter pays principle,” the commenter states that iDLUC is a marketmediated effect, and as such there are multiple causes of land use-change. Charging biofuels for 

some theoretical share of this impact while not charging other (much larger and more mature) 

industries is not in keeping with the polluter pays principle. In fact, it effectively subsidizes the 

detrimental environmental impacts of industries like pulp & paper, timber, and cattle ranching. 

[[Docket number 2486.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response: 

This rule is focused on the impacts of transportation fuels, not on the larger economy and 

sources of pollution 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2486 

Organization: Primafuel, Inc. 

Comment:

7-296
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter believes that so-called indirect land-use changes ought to be dealt with more 

directly. Rather than attempting to mitigate the impact of non-U.S. land-use changes, EPA 

should engage non-U.S. governments directly, to promote and establish native-ecosystem 

protections and more sustainable land-use policies. [[Docket number 2486.1, p. 4]] [[See docket 

number 2486.1, pp. 3-4 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

The commenter’s suggestions on engaging other nations in mitigating the impacts of land 

use changes are outside the scope of this rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2487 

Organization: Abengoa Bioenergy Corporation 

Comment:

The commenter (2487) believes that EPA should exclude any estimates of international indirect 

land use changes from the lifecycle GHG analysis of biofuels as there is no legitimate scientific 

way to quantify those impacts. Inclusion of penalties for ILUC are based on conjecture and 

assumptions that have no valid scientific basis, and which defy any credible causal link. 

Our Response: 

EPA disagrees with commenter that there is no legitimate scientific way—or valid 

scientific basis--to quantify international land use impacts. The Agency believes it has 

developed a scientifically sound, state-of-the-art, methodology. In an independent peer review 

or EPA’s methodology the reviewers in general supported the importance of assessing indirect 

land use change and determined that EPA used the best available tools and approaches for this 

work. This peer review, along with the extensive public comments the Agency received, 

supported the value of quantifying the magnitude of this uncertainty and its relative impact on 

the resulting lifecycle emission estimates as is done in this final rule. It is also clear that there 

are uncertainties associated with these estimates, particularly with regard to indirect land use 

change and the use of economic models to project future market interactions. Therefore, we 

focused our efforts on the international indirect land use change emissions and worked to 

manage the uncertainty around those impacts. 

EPA disagrees that accounting for international land use impacts constitutes a penalty. 

EPA is simply attempting to account for all GHG emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle as 

required by EISA. Domestic renewable fuel producers may have no direct control over land use 

changes that occur overseas as a result of renewable fuel production and use here, but their 

choice of feedstock can and does influence oversees activities, and EPA believes it is appropriate 

to consider the GHG emissions from those activities in its analyses. 

What Commenters Said:

7-297
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2487 

Organization: Abengoa Bioenergy Corporation 

Comment:

In addition, if indirect land use change consequences for biofuels are to be attributed, then EPA 

should also estimate and attribute indirect impacts of the continued use of petroleum. [[Docket 

number 2487, p. 1]] 

Our Response:

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

7-298
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2488 

Organization: Kansas Corn Growers Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2488) noted that there is no evidence that corn production in the United States 

has had an impact on land use in Brazil or other countries. U.S. corn growers continue to grow 

more corn per acre, thanks to advances in technology and farming practices. Yields are predicted 

to continue to increase especially as new biotech seed traits are introduced. A new drought 

tolerant trait will soon be available in corn, allowing even more efficiencies and ability to 

overcome adverse conditions that have in the past caused high yield losses. Not only do these 

advances allow companies to produce more on less land, they also allow the companies to meet 

the needs of all their customers, including the ethanol industry. (2488, p.2)

Our Response: 

To quantify the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the increase in renewable fuel 

mandated by EISA, we compared the differences in total GHG emissions between two future 

volume scenarios using well established-economic models. For each individual biofuel, we 

analyzed the incremental GHG emission impacts of increasing the volume of that fuel to the total 

mix of biofuels needed to meet the EISA requirements. The scenarios that we compared include 

the same background projections about agricultural and economic conditions, such as the rate of 

crop yield technology improvement. Thus, we isolate the effects of each type of biofuel 

expansion because all other factors that affect the agricultural economy are held constant. Our 

analysis suggests that even when increased crop yield are taken into account, corn ethanol 

7-299
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

production in the U.S. does have impacts on global commodity prices and land use decisions in 

other countries. 

A factor that can have a significant impact on the amount of land that may be converted 

as a result of increasing biofuel demand are changes in crop yields over time. As discussed in 

the NPRM, our proposal based domestic yields on USDA projections for both the reference case 

and the control case. As discussed in preamble Section V.B.1.c, for this FRM we have also 

included scenarios that use higher yield projections in both the reference case and the control 

case. One of the key uncertainties associated with our agricultural sector economic modeling 

that has the biggest impact on land use change results is the assumptions around crop yields. As 

discussed in preamble Section V.A.2, we are conducting sensitivity analysis around different 

yield assumptions in our analysis. 

In the NPRM we also requested comment on whether the higher prices caused by an 

increased in demand for biofuels would increase future yield projections in the policy case 

beyond the yield trends in the reference case (sometimes referred to as “price induced yields”), 

or whether these price induced yields would be offset by the reduction in yields associated with 

expanding production onto new marginal acres (sometimes referred to as extensification). Based 

on the comments we received, along with additional historical trend analysis conducted by 

FAPRI, the international agricultural modeling framework now incorporates a price induced 

yield component. The new yield adjustments are partially offset by the extensification factor, 

however, the combined impact is that fewer new acres are needed for agricultural production to 

meet world agricultural demands. Our consideration of price-induced yield impacts is explained 

in RIA Chapter 5. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2490 

Organization: Sapphire Energy 

Comment: 

While the commenter (2490) supports the consideration of indirect changes to land use as part of 

the EPA’s lifecycle analysis, they believe that the science underlying such consideration must be 

further validated before it is applied. As a matter of policy, a lifecycle analysis that does not 

consider indirect changes to land use will provide a misleading analysis of the true carbon impact 

of biofuels, and undermine the objective of reducing GHG emissions. The commenter also notes 

that the EPA correctly recognizes in the Preamble that the production of algae-based biofuels 

does not compete with food crops and can be cultivated on marginal land rather than cropland. 

Thus, the production of algal fuel will result in dramatically fewer indirect land use changes than 

many other renewable alternatives. Consequently, algae-based fuel has a significantly lower 

carbon footprint than renewable fuel feedstocks that are grown on croplands. [[Docket number 

2490.1, p. 7]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2491 

Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) 

Comment:

7-300
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Regarding indirect GHG emissions from land use changes, the commenter (2491) recommends 

that the EPA conduct a formal uncertainty analysis of ILUC GHG estimates obtained from both 

GTAP model, and a combination FASOM and FAPRI models using Monte Carlo analysis. A 

comparison of estimates obtained from various models will help correct the model assumptions 

and parameters and develop a more robust and integrated model that can predict ILUC emissions 

with a reasonable certainty. [[Docket number 2491.1, pp. 3-4]] 

Our Response: 

For this final rule we have incorporated a statistical analysis of uncertainty about critical 

variables in our pathway analysis. This uncertainty analysis is explained in detail in preamble 

Section V and is consistent with the specific recommendations received through our peer review 

and public comments on the proposal. The uncertainty analysis focused on two aspects of 

indirect land use change - the types of land converted and the GHG emission associated with 

different types of land converted. In particular, our uncertainty analysis focused on such specific 

sources of information as the satellite imaging used to inform our assessment of land use trends 

and the specific changes in carbon storage expected from a change in land use in each 

geographic area of the world modeled. We have also performed additional sensitivity analyses 

including analysis of two yield scenarios for corn and soy beans to assess the impact of changes 

in yield assumptions. 

This uncertainty analysis provides information on both the range of possible outcomes for 

the parameters analyzed, an estimate of the degree of confidence that the actual result will be 

within a particular range (in our case, we estimated a 95% confidence interval) and an estimate 

of the central tendency or midpoint of the GHG performance estimate. 

The structure of the FAPRI international model framework is not currently suited for 

Monte Carlo type analysis. Thus, we were not able to complete the specific analysis 

recommended by the commenter. However, as noted above, EPA believes that we have 

quantified uncertainty from the most important factors in our analysis. Furthermore, as 

explained in preamble Section V, we did conduct systematic sensitivity analysis with the GTAP 

model. Based on the GTAP analysis results we were able to conclude that the impacts of the 

corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel mandates on land use change are statistically significant. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2494 

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2494]] states that there are large uncertainties and lack of evidence to support 

theoretical scenarios of how changing U.S. biofuels production can be linked in a cause and 

effect to land use changes in other countries. The Energy Independence and Security Act 

requires the National Academies of Science to produce a study and report on this topic along 

with other associated environment effects, which may provide some valuable insight into how to 

consider this issue.

7-301
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response:

Throughout the development of EPA’s lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a 

collaborative, transparent, and science-based approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as 

developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking new scientific ground and using analytical 

tools in new ways. The work was generally recognized as state of the art and an advance on 

lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the indirect impacts of biofuels. That being said, the 

Agency has been clear to recognize that there are significant uncertainties associated with these 

estimates, particularly with regard to indirect land use change and the use of economic models to 

project future market interactions. EPA has quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency is also committing to further reassess these 

determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert 

advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as other experts, and incorporate their 

advice and any updated information we receive into a new assessment of the lifecycle GHG 

emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this final rule. EPA will request that 

the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years evaluate the approach taken in this 

rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in particular indirect land use change, 

and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on this subject. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2494 

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter also states that wood products produced as a result of forest land conversion 

should be accounted for in GHG emissions associated with different types of land conversion. 

Many of these products store sequestered carbon long after they are removed from the 

landscapes terrestrial carbon pool, and should be considered as carbon release happening over 

time rather than just a one-time release of carbon when the land is converted to a non-forest use 

production. If the converted land was once undisturbed then the system was likely mature and in 

equilibrium and not necessarily sequestering additional carbon if left alone. [[see docket # 

2492.1p.2]]

Our Response: 

As the commenter states, some wood felled during timber harvest and deforestation is 

used in wooden products (e.g., furniture) that retain biogenic carbon for a long period of time. 

Emissions from forest products can also occur over several years or decades. 

With the addition of the forestry module to the FASOM domestic modeling, FASOM 

takes into account both the carbon stored in harvested wood products (HWP) and the emission 

streams associated with them over time for domestic forests. Thus, wood products are accounted 

7-302
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

for in the domestic modeling for the final rulemaking. For details on these domestic HWP 

calculations, see the RIA 2.4.4.1. 

Some commenters argued that consideration of the use of harvested wood in products 

would decrease land use change emissions and reduce the impacts of biofuel production. For the 

international land use analysis in the proposed rule, we investigated the share of cleared forest 

biomass that is typically used in HWP. However, we did not account for this factor in the 

proposed rule after it was determined that HWP would have a very small impact on the 

magnitude of international land use change emissions. 

A number of commenters expressed concern that we did not account for HWP, and they 

argued that HWP would be more significant than we had determined. However, in response to 

specific questions on this topic, all of the expert peer reviewers agreed that EPA had properly 

accounted for HWP and other factors (e.g., land filling) that could prevent or delay emissions 

from land clearing. One of the peer reviewers noted that forests converted to croplands are 

generally driven by interests unrelated to timber, and thus the trees are simply burned and 

exceptions are probably of minor importance. 

To study this issue further, we looked at FAO timber volume estimates for 111 

developing countries, and published literature on the share of harvested timber used in wood 

products and the oxidation period for wood products, such as wood-based panels and other 

industrial roundwood. Consistent with the peer reviewers’ statements, our analysis concluded 

that even in countries with high rates of harvested timber utilization, such as Indonesia, a very 

small share of harvested forest biomass would be sequestered in HWP for longer than 30 years. 

The details of our HWP analysis are discussed further in RIA Chapter 2. 

This is an area for further work, but based on our analysis, and the feedback from expert 

commenters, we do not expect that consideration of HWP would have a significant impact on the 

magnitude of GHG emissions from international deforestation in our analysis. Furthermore, the 

range of outcomes from consideration of HWP is indirectly captured in our assessment of forest 

carbon stock uncertainty. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2495 

Organization: GROWMARK, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2495) has concerns with EPA’s proposed rule to implement the expanded 

Renewable Fuels Standard with a calculation for indirect land use on international lands. The 

provision addressing indirect land use should not be included in any final rule. EPA’s base 

assumption for corn ethanol life cycle analysis appear deficient or unreasonably limited and does 

not do enough to reflect current data for corn production. It is admittedly known that land use 

data in other countries is limited at best and this allows too much variance for false conclusions 

on what is driving land use decisions. (2495, p.1)

7-303
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response:

EPA rejects the view that the modeling relied upon in the final rule, which includes 

emissions associated with international indirect land use change, cannot provide a credible and 

reasonable scientific basis for determining whether the aggregate lifecycle emissions exceed the 

thresholds. In addition, the definition of lifecycle emissions includes significant indirect 

emissions associated with land use change. In deciding whether a bio-fuel pathway meets the 

threshold, EPA has to consider what it knows about all aspects of the lifecycle emissions, and 

decide whether there is a valid basis to find that the aggregate lifecycle emissions of the fuel, 

taking into account significant indirect emissions from land use change meets the threshold. 

Based on the analyses conducted for this rule, EPA has determined international indirect land use 

impacts are significant and therefore must be included in threshold compliance assessment. 

The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since proposal in several 

important ways, including a number of updates made in direct response comments from the 

public and peer reviewers. EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions is 

comprehensive and provides a reasonable and scientifically robust basis for making the threshold 

determinations. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant components 

of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2499 

Organization: Dial Corporation (Henkel Company) 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2499]] states that they share the concerns of Soap and Detergent Association 

about the potential for this rule to divert oleochemical feedstocks to biofuel production, forcing 

the industry to seek alternative raw materials, such as palm oil, for oleochemical production. 

Recently, Dial has had to compete with the biofuels industry for animal fats (tallow) based upon 

government policies that favor biofuel production rather than traditional uses. Supporters argue 

that animal fats are waste products, but this is far from true. Animal fats and waste greases have 

a variety of uses, such as for oleochemicals, pet food, and animal feed. Animal fats are also not 

an expandable resource; supply will not increase as demand increases- driven by government 

mandates. EPAs’ proposed rule has the potential to shift the country’s animal fats to biofuel 

production as the nation seeks to comply with the Renewable Fuel Standard. If soy-based 

biodiesel is deemed ineligible for RIN credits due to potential greenhouse gas emissions under 

the indirect land use change calculations, then increased pressure will be placed on using animal 

fats for biofuels [[See #2499.1 p.1]] 

Our Response: 

EPA did not fully analyze competing uses for some feedstock sources such as the 

commenter identified. While these uses may have economic impacts, they do not impact the 

lifecycle GHG assessment or eligibility of the feedstock for use in transportation fule. 

7-304
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2502 

Organization: Verenium Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2502.1) believes that EPA should defer consideration of indirect land use 

change issues, and specifically the international component of land use change, until there is a 

stronger empirical basis for drawing conclusions supported by broad scientific consensus. 

(2502.1, p.9) (See Docket Number 2502.1, pp.8-9 for a detailed discussion of this issue) 

Our Response: 

EPA recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area, 

the lifecycle GHG assessments for a variety of fuel pathways will continue to change. 

Therefore, while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also 

committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this 

ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as 

other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new 

assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this 

final rule. EPA will request that the National Academy of Sciences over the next two years 

evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in 

particular indirect land use change, and make recommendations for subsequent rulemakings on 

this subject. This new assessment could result in new determinations of threshold compliance 

compared to those included in this rule that would apply to future production (from plants that 

are constructed after each subsequent rule). 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (25085.2) believes that rather than imposing a highly uncertain indirect land use 

change factor on the carbon intensity of biofuels, EPA should focus solely on direct land use 

change at this time, and adopt a globally harmonized approach to for biofuels to address potential 

indirect land use change issues. The commenter also believes that rather than adopting a highly 

uncertain indirect land use change factor, EPA should adopt appropriate sustainability criteria for 

biofuels. The commenter is concerned that applying an indirect land use change factor could 

have a significant adverse impact on the existing biofuels industry, and the developing advanced 

biofuels industry. (2505.2, p.15) 

Our Response: 

7-305
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

EPA believes that a complete analysis of the aggregate GHG emissions related to the full 

lifecycle of renewable fuels includes the significant indirect emissions from land use change that 

are predicted to result from increased domestic use of agricultural feedstocks to produce 

renewable fuel. The statute specifically directs EPA to include in its analyses significant indirect 

emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes. EPA has not ignored either the 

terms “significant” or “life cycle.” It is clear from EPA’s assessments that the modeled indirect 

emissions from land use changes are “significant” in terms of their relationship to total GHG 

emissions for given fuel pathways. Therefore, they are appropriately considered in the total 

GHG emissions profile for the fuels in question. EPA has not ignored the term “life cycle.” The 

entire approach used by EPA is directed to fully analyzing emissions related to the complete 

lifecycle of renewable and baseline fuels. 

EPA recognizes that it has had to break new scientific ground in developing a lifecycle 

methodology as required by EISA. This is why the Agency employed a collaborative, 

transparent and science-based approach. EPA took numerous measures to seek public comment 

on our approach—including extending the comment period for the proposed rule, holding a twoday public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to dozens of stakeholders, 

including the biodiesel community, through individual meetings, conferences and events. As 

noted by the commenter, EPA also initiated an independent peer review of specific areas of our 

work. The information we received through this process has led to the approach in this final rule 

which bases the GHG threshold compliance determinations on all the infomration currently 

available and quantifies the uncertainty about critical variables. 

Further, EPA recognizes the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area. 

While the Agency is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, the Agency is also committing to further 

reassess these determinations. As part of this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of 

the National Academy of Sciences as well as other experts. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2508 

Organization: Environmental Working Group (EWG) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2508) believes that EPA has the authority and duty to account for direct land 

use changes. There is significant potential as well for domestic indirect land use change that 

should be accounted for by EPA. Such indirect land use change can occur if a producer replaces 

food crops with fuel crops on existing cropland and then clears forest, rangeland, or pasture to 

plant food crops. Expanding his cropland acreage to produce the food crops, even without 

international ILUC accounting, this type of obvious domestic indirect land use change should be 

accounted for. (2508, p.2) 

The commenter is also very concerned about the potential for slippage under the land conversion 

prohibitions. If a producer plants energy crops on existing cropland, then clears other land to 

produce the displaced crops, slippage is occurring. EPA explicitly states in the rule that they 

7-306
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

don’t have authority to prohibit slippage. The commenter believes that some coordination 

between USDA base acreage accounting and EPA biofuel feedstock accounting needs to be 

developed to avoid this problem. (2508, p.2)

Our Response:

EPA agrees with commenter on the importance of accounting for domestic and 

international indirect emissions. Our final methodology as presented in this final rule includes 

these emissions. 

In keeping with EISA, under today’s final rule, renewable fuel producers may only 

generate RINs for fuels made from feedstocks meeting the definition of renewable biomass. In 

order to implement this requirement, the final rule presents three potential mechanisms for 

domestic and foreign renewable fuel producers to verify that their feedstocks comply with this 

requirement. Further, based on USDA’s publicly available agricultural land data, EPA is able to 

establish a baseline of the aggregate amount of U.S. agricultural land (meaning cropland, 

pastureland and CRP land in the United States) that is available for the production of crops and 

crop residues for use in renewable fuel production consistent with the definition of renewable 

biomass. EPA has determined that, in the aggregate this amount of agricultural land (land 

cleared or cultivated prior to EISA’s enactment (December 19, 2007) and actively managed or 

fallow, and nonforested on that date) is expected to, at least in the near term, be sufficient to 

support EISA renewable fuel obligations and other foreseeable demands for crop products, 

without clearing and cultivating additional land. Discussion of other comments related to this 

issue is contained in section 3.3. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2510 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2510) states that if EPA includes indirect emissions due to land use change it 

has to be applied across the board equally, not selectively. Land use is constantly changing here 

and abroad. The American farmer and small businessman CAN NOT be held responsible for 

actions of foreign governments in setting policy, including how land is used or what crops may 

be grown. The commenter believes EPA is assuming that when anyone in the world is tilling 

another acre of soil for crops it is not going to be used for food. That’s incorrect, acres are tilled, 

acres are put into conservation - it an ever changing number. As crops are grown more 

efficiently, is it wrong to not use additional gains beyond food needs for uses that also benefit 

mankind, including the reduction of petroleum oil usage? The commenter urges EPA to discard 

this piece of the RFS2. [[Docket number 2510.1, p. 5]] 

Our Response: 

EPA notes that Congress has specified in Section 211(o) the required causal link between 

a fuel and indirect emissions. The indirect emissions must be “related to” the full fuel lifecycle. 

7-307
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

EPA believes that it has demonstrated this link through its modeling efforts. Specifically, the 

models predict that increased demand for feedstocks to produce renewable fuel that satisfies 

EISA mandates will likely result in international land use change. Such change is, then, “related 

to” the full fuel lifecycle of these fuels. EPA does not believe that the statute requires EPA to 

wait until these effects occur to establish the required linkage, but instead believes that it is 

authorized to use predictive models to demonstrate likely results. 

Therefore, we do not attribute all land use change to biofuels in our lifecycle analysis. 

Instead, we evaluated the incremental impact that biofuel production will have on existing land 

use and land use change. Our approach assumes that other drivers will still be in place and 

isolates the impacts due to biofuels production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2512 

Organization: Conservation International 

Comment: 

The commenter (2512) feels the inclusion of indirect land use change is absolutely critical to 

ensuring biofuels play a real role in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, and thus 

mitigating climate change. The commenter would strongly oppose any attempts to remove iLUC 

from the RFS2. (2512, p.1) 

Recognizing the uncertainty inherent in iLUC calculations and the limitations of current models, 

the commenter recommends that models and assumptions be reviewed after a specified period of 

time (perhaps 5 years) and adjusted as necessary, to take into account advances in science and 

modeling and lessons learned from the first years of implementation of the RFS2. (2512.1, p.3) 

The commenter believes that the direct emissions calculations should also include any clearing 

of vegetation on land placed under production for feedstocks (for example, secondary forest that 

has regenerated on previously-cleared land). (2512.1, p.4) 

The commenter also agrees that emissions from outside the U.S. (both direct and indirect) must 

be includes in analysis, as the impact of GHG emissions is not constrained by borders, but rather 

affects the global climate. (2512.1, p.7) 

The commenter noted that ISO standards serve as an important minimum standard for programs, 

and the ISO standard offers one of the more developed standards for biofuels. The commenter 

believes that EPA should clarify it will use a cradle-to-grave LCA as opposed to any other 

boundary option possible. (2512.1, p.7) 

The commenter questions if potential REDD payments are factored into the models. If they are 

not, the commenter suggests this option be considered, as potential payments for maintaining 

standing forests will likely be a factor in decisions by landowners whether to convert land in the 

future. The commenter believes it is also important to note that while economic factors are 

critical to landowners in making conversion decisions, costs and profit are not the only factors. 

7-308
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Other issues, such as securing recognized land ownership and tenure, can also be driving forces 

behind conversion. The commenter believes that it should be made clear that the potential 

conversion of forestry lands is indirect, as direct conversion would not be allowed given the cutoff date. The commenter fully supports the concept of incorporating government policies and 

regulations, as well as enforcement capabilities into the models (perhaps through a governance 

coefficient for enforcement effectiveness). (2512.1, pp.10-11) 

The commenter (2512.1) believes that foregone sequestration should be included in the proposal. 

(2512.1, p.11) 

Our Response: 

EPA appreciates Conservation International’s support for including indirect land use 

change in the lifecycle analysis. EPA recognizes that it has had to break new scientific ground in 

developing a lifecycle methodology as required by EISA. This is why the Agency employed a 

collaborative, transparent and science-based approach. EPA took numerous measures to seek 

public comment on our approach—including extending the comment period for the proposed 

rule, holding a two-day public workshop on the lifecycle methodology, and reaching out to 

dozens of stakeholders, including the biodiesel community, through individual meetings, 

conferences and events. As noted by the commenter, EPA also initiated an independent peer 

review of specific areas of our work. The information we received through this process has led 

to the approach in this final rule which bases the GHG threshold compliance determinations on 

the weight of evidence currently available and quantifies the uncertainty about critical variables. 

Further, EPA recognizes the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area. 

While the Agency is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, the Agency is also committing to further 

reassess these determinations. As part of this ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of 

the National Academy of Sciences as well as other experts. 

For EPA’s modeling of both domestic and international land use change, lifecycle GHG 

assessments include emissions due to clearing of land due for direct cultivation of renewable fuel 

feedstocks. FASOM incorporates this calculus directly in its domestic land use modeling. In the 

case of international land use change, satellite data analyses provide historical trends that capture 

land conversion of secondary forests into agricultural lands. 

EPA has included in its analysis significant direct and indirect land use change that 

occurs domestically and internationally due to biofuels production under the Renewable Fuel 

Standard program, in accordance with EISA. In agreement with the commenter, EPA believes 

that a complete analysis of the aggregate GHG emissions related to the full lifecycle of 

renewable fuels includes the significant indirect emissions from international land use change 

that are predicted to result from increased domestic use of agricultural feedstocks to produce 

renewable fuel. 

EPA has used International Standards Organization (ISO) guidance on lifecycle analysis 

in developing its lifecycle analysis. We have drawn upon a suite of the most recent and 

7-309
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

advanced and peer-reviewed models, studies, and data to develop a methodology for lifecycle 

analyses of renewable fuel greenhouse gas emissions. As mandated in EISA, lifecycle GHG 

emissions of biofuels was compared to the lifecycle GHG emissions of a 2005 gasoline or diesel 

baseline. For both the biofuels and petroleum GHG lifecycle analysis, EPA has developed clear 

and consistent system boundaries (both physical and temporal) which are explicitly laid out in 

the Final Rulemaking. Further, we assessed uncertainty in the final analysis. EPA provides a 

complete description of the lifecycle analysis methodology and provides the data used in the 

analysis in the Final Rule Preamble, Regulatory Impact Assessment, and the Docket. 

The lifecycle analysis used for the final rulemaking is based on current domestic and 

international laws, regulations, and policies, as EPA cannot predict those policies which will be 

implemented in the future in the U.S., other countries, or internationally. Therefore, REDD 

payments are not incorporated into the current lifecycle analysis. 

Foregone forest sequestration was included in EPA’s analysis for the proposal and it is 

still included in EPA’s analysis for this final rulemaking. Preamble Section V explains our 

evaluation of foregone sequestration and how it fits into our lifecycle GHG analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2513 

Organization: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 

Comment:

The commenter [[2513]] does not presently support the inclusion of indirect land use change 

estimates in these calculations, as they do not believe the science behind their calculations is 

sufficiently accurate at this stage to be used for effective policymaking. They do not dispute the 

fact that undesirable land use change is a very serious issue and that biofuel development may 

certainly play a part in driving this change, but it is one they believe at this time, with our current 

state of knowledge, would be best dealt with through direct policies and shared actions to attack 

the overall systemic conditions that result in undesirable land use change and environmental 

degradation. [[Docket # 2513.1 p.1-2]] 

Our Response: 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. EPA has used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many 

modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers 

and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations described above. We plan to 

continue to improve upon our analyses, and will update it in the future as appropriate. Through 

7-310
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

these actions, EPA has met its obligations under EISA. The additional policies mentioned by 

commenter are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2514 

Organization: Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Comment: 

Conversion [[2514]] of land to agro-fuels crops outside the borders of the U.S. is an issue that 

needs to be dealt with forcefully and directly. The obvious approach is by not permitting imports 

of ethanol and biodiesel. [[#2514.1 p.3]] 

Our Response: 

The application of the lifecycle analysis methodology is neutral to country of origin. The 

same requirements apply to both domestic and imported fuels. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2517 

Organization: National Association of State Foresters 

Comment: 

The commenter urges EPA to conduct its own Life Cycle Analysis, and to consider the one being 

conducted by the National Academy of Science per EISA, before promulgating final regulations 

based on science that is incomplete, uncertain and variable. The commenter believes the agency 

will then find that wood and forest biomass will meet the requirements for advanced biofuels or 

cellulosic biofuels criteria. 

Our Response: 

EPA has conducted its own LCA for this rulemaking. We have determined that fuels 

produced from forest waste biomass do meet the requirements for advanced biofuels and 

cellulosic biofuels criteria. We continue to evaluate the lifecycle GHG impacts of producing 

biofuels from from wood from commercially planted forests. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2519 

Organization: Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade 

Comment: 

The commenter (2519) specifically questions the regulatory assessment that could include 

indirect land use change and they would like to reserve comment pending further development of 

the proposal. [[Docket number 2519.1, p. 1]] 

7-311
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response:

As required by EISA and as technically appropriate, EPA has included indeirect land use 

change in its GHG assessment. EPA provided a public comment period and other opportunities 

which parties have utilized to provide comments and suggestions to EPA on its LCA. Since 

EPA expects to continue to refine and update its lifecycle assessment, this should provide an 

opportunity to further comment. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2528 

Organization: U.S. Congress, House of Representatives 

The commenter included a comment letter from the Missouri Corn Growers Association (2528, 

pp.2-3) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2528) does not believe indirect land uses in foreign countries ought to be a 

consideration when it comes to advancing the American biofuels industry. (2528), p.1) 

Our Response:

EPA notes that implementation of EISA will undoubtedly benefit the domestic 

agricultural sector as a whole, with some components benefiting more than others depending in 

part on the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the products to be made from individual 

feedstocks. However, if Congress had sought to promote all biofuel production without regard to 

GHG emissions related to the full lifecycle of those fuels, it would not have specified GHG 

reduction thresholds for each category of renewable fuel for which volume targets are specified 

in the Act. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2529 

Organization: National Grain and Feed Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (docket #2529.1) states that EPA is using unproven models when making its 

proposed policy decisions, because the science on indirect land use is immature, and that models 

used by the agency are not sufficiently developed to provide validated outcomes. 

The commenter states that EPA’s models, after considering land use changes, reduce the 

estimated reduction of GHG emissions of corn ethanol from 61 percent to 16 percent, and reduce 

the estimated reduction of GHG emissions of soy biodiesel from 80 percent to 22 percent, with 

essentially all of the decrease resulting from alleged international land use change. 

7-312
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter dislikes that EPA assumes a static U.S. land use scenario under which 34 million 

acres of land will remain in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), even if crop prices 

increase. They feel that it makes sense to assume some flexibility in U.S. land use patterns in the 

coming years, rather than to assume a completely static land use situation. 

[[see docket #2529.1 p. 1]] 

Our Response:

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA 

Based on coordination with USDA, EPA modeled assuming land in CRP will be 

supported by USDA and therefore would not be available for biofuel feedstock production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2532 

Organization: BioEnergy Producers Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2532) points out that they have previously written to urge that EPA, in any 

future regulations relating to Indirect Land Use Change, stipulate that there are no such impacts 

direct or indirect involved in the production of advanced biofuels from organic wastes. It is 

important for EPA to calculate the life-cycle benefits of biofuels production. [[Docket number 

2532, p. 1]] 

The commenter believes the regulations under consideration in association with EPA’s ILUC 

rule making would be burdensome for third generation biofuels producers (i.e., those that will be 

using new conversion technologies to produce advanced biofuels, electricity and other products 

from municipal solid waste and other non-food derived and non-purpose grown organic waste 

materials). [[Docket number 2532, p. 2]]

Our Response: 

EPA has analyzed biofuels from biogenic waste feedstock and assessed their potential 

indirect land use impacts, determining that such impacts are negligible or nonexistent. 

What Commenters Said:

7-313
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2541 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment: 

The commenter (1722) noted that the contentious issue is EPA’s interpretation that the land use 

evaluation should be applied to foreign nations. Biofuel industry representatives argue that this 

was not the intent of Congress. The commenter noted that in adding projected foreign land use 

change to 2022, the reduction in GHG emissions for corn ethanol plants using natural gas as a 

fuel drops form 60% to 16% to 35%, depending on the type of operation. For soybean oil 

biodiesel plants, the reduction drops from 80% to 22%. (2541_Copyright, p.1)

Our Response:

EPA does not agree with the presumption that Congress is concerned only with domestic 

effects and domestic impacts only or that Congress intended to benefit domestic agriculture 

through EISA enactment, and that the statute’s ambiguous terms should not be interpreted in a 

manner that could harm domestic agriculture in general. Although considering international 

emissions in its analyses could result in different implications under the statute for various fuels 

and fuel pathways as compared to ignoring these emissions, EPA believes that this is precisely 

the outcome that Congress intended. Implementation of EISA will undoubtedly benefit the 

domestic agricultural sector as a whole, with some components benefiting more than others 

depending in part on the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the products to be made from 

individual feedstocks. If Congress had sought to promote all biofuel production without regard 

to GHG emissions related to the full lifecycle of those fuels, it would not have specified GHG 

reduction thresholds for each category of renewable fuel for which volume targets are specified 

in the Act. 

Based on the analyses and approach described in Section V of the preamble, EPA is 

determining that ethanol produced from corn starch at a new (or expanded capacity from an 

existing) natural gas fired facility using advanced efficient technologies that we expect will be 

most typical of new production facilities will meet the 20% GHG emission reduction threshold 

compared to the 2005 baseline gasoline. We are also determining that biobutanol from corn 

starch meets the 20% threshold. Similarly, EPA is making the determination that biodiesel and 

renewable diesel from soy oil or waste oils, fats and greases will exceed the 50% GHG threshold 

for biomass-based diesel compared to the 2005 petroleum diesel baseline. In addition, we have 

now modeled biodiesel and renewable diesel produced from algal oils as complying with the 

50% threshold for biomass-based diesel. EPA is also determining that ethanol from sugarcane 

complies with the applicable 50% GHG reduction threshold for advanced biofuels. The modeled 

pathways (feedstock and production technology) for cellulosic ethanol and cellulosic diesel 

would also comply with the 60% GHG reduction threshold applicable to cellulosic biofuels. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2549 

Organization: Triton Energy LLC 

Comment: 

7-314
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2549.1) believes that flawed and immature assumptions and methodology are 

being utilized to measure the indirect land use impacts of U.S. soy Renewable Diesel production. 

(2549.1, p.2) 

The commenter believes that ILUC is not fully developed and many assumptions penalize the 

biofuel industry. The commenter requests careful review and development of ILUC be 

conducted and that indirect effects of all other fuels are also included in the calculations. (2549.1, 

p.7)

Our Response:

Throughout the development of EPA’s lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a 

collaborative, transparent, and science-based approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as 

developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking new scientific ground and using analytical 

tools in new ways. The work was generally recognized as state of the art and an advance on 

lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the indirect impacts of biofuels. 

EPA also recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this 

area, the lifecycle GHG assessments for a variety of fuel pathways will continue to change. 

Therefore, while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also 

committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this 

ongoing effort, we will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as 

other experts, and incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new 

assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this 

final rule. 

Lastly, EPA disagrees that accounting for international land use impacts constitutes a 

penalty. EPA is simply accounting for all GHG emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle as 

required by EISA in order to determine the threshold performance for these biofuels. Domestic 

renewable fuel producers may have no direct control over land use changes that occur overseas 

as a result of renewable fuel production and use here, but their choice of feedstock can and does 

influence oversees activities, and EPA believes it is appropriate to consider the GHG emissions 

from those activities in its analyses. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2613 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 306 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2613) notes that, “The methodology used to measure the impacts of U.S. corn 

and ethanol production is the issue of International Land Use Change or Indirect Land Use is 

flawed and immature. There is no evidence to support EPA’s claim that corn production in the 

U.S. has any impact on the production of crops in other countries such as Brazil.” (2613 p. 1) 

7-315
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response:

The Agency believes it has developed a scientifically sound, state-of-the-art, 

methodology. In an independent peer review or EPA’s methodology the reviewers in general 

supported the importance of assessing indirect land use change and determined that EPA used 

the best available tools and approaches for this work. The Agency also has updated and refined 

its modeling approach since proposal in several important ways, including a number of updates 

made in direct response comments from the public and peer reviewers. EPA is confident that its 

modeling of GHG emissions is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and scientifically 

robust basis for making the threshold determinations. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty 

associated with significant components of its analyses, including important factors affecting 

GHG emissions associated with international land use change. 

 

EPA has used a suite of global models to project a variety of agricultural impacts of the 

RFS program, including changes in the types of crops and number of acres planted world-wide. 

These shifts in the agricultural market are a direct consequence of the increased demand for 

biofuels in the U.S. This increased demand diverts biofuel feedstocks from other competing uses, 

and also increases the price of the feedstock, thus spurring additional international production. 

Our analysis uses country-specific information to determine the amount, location, and type of 

land use change that would occur to meet these changes in production patterns. The linkages of 

these changes to increased U.S. biofuel demand in our analysis are generally close, and are not 

extended or overly complex. 

Overall, EPA is confident that it is appropriate to consider indirect emissions, including 

those from both domestic and international land use changes, as “related to” the full fuel 

lifecycle, based on the results of our modeling. These results form a reasonable technical basis 

for the linkage between the full fuel lifecycle of transportation fuels and indirect emissions, as 

well as for the determination that these emissions are significant. EPA believes that while 

uncertainty in the resulting aggregate GHG estimates should be taken into consideration, it 

would be inappropriate to exclude indirect emissions estimates from this analysis. The use of 

reasonable estimates of these kinds of indirect emissions allows EPA to conduct a reasoned 

evaluation of total GHG impacts, which is needed to promote the objectives of this provision, as 

compared to ignoring or not accounting for these indirect emissions. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2614 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 364 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2614) notes that, “EPA should consider domestic land use change only. Trying 

to reign in international land use changes is not EPA’s jurisdiction and nearly impossible as 

many countries such as China, India and Brazil do not conform to Green House Gas compliance 

7-316
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

anyway. Your indirect land use proposal will place the grain I produce at a competitive 

disadvantage in our global market place.” (2614 p.1)

Our Response:

EPA does not agree that including international indirect emissions in EPA’s lifecycle 

analysis exercises regulatory authority over activities that occur solely outside the U.S., nor does 

it raise questions of extra-territorial jurisdiction. EPA’s regulatory action involves an assessment 

of products either produced in the U.S. or imported into the U.S. EPA is simply assessing 

whether the use of these products in the U.S. satisfies requirements under EISA for the use of 

designated volumes of renewable fuel, cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and advanced 

biofuel. Considering international emissions in determining the lifecycle GHG emissions of the 

domestically-produced or imported fuel does not change the fact that the actual regulation of the 

product involves its use solely inside the U.S. 

If Congress had sought to promote all biofuel production without regard to GHG 

emissions related to the full lifecycle of those fuels, it would not have specified GHG reduction 

thresholds for each category of renewable fuel for which volume targets are specified in the Act. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2615 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 9 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2615) notes that the consideration of international land use change should be 

eliminated. Calculations should focus on domestic land use change only. (2615 p. 1)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2617 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 72 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter notes that, “EPA’s proposal assumes that U.S. biofuel production will lead to 

reduced exports. But there’s simply no evidence to support that claim – nor other EPA 

assumptions about how agricultural land use will change with increased biofuel production.” 

(2617 p. 1)

Our Response:

EPA’s analysis is focused only on the difference between two biofuel scenarios, holding 

all other changes constant. Thus when considering the impact on exports, our analysis sought to 

determine only the impact of the higher volume of renewable fuels as mandated by EISA 

compared to a business as usual case. To conduct this analysis we use economic modeling to 

determine the market impacts of using agricultural commodity feedstocks for biofuels. The 

comments and peer review supported our need to use these economic models. 

7-317
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2618 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 40 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2618) notes that, “Forcing hypothetical ‘models’ on U.S. farmers and 

renewable fuel producers which the rest of the world does not abide by is unfair and puts our 

country at a huge disadvantage. Indirect land use is an unproven concept and should not be a 

consideration in the RFS2.” (2618 p. 1)

Our Response: 

As described in the proposal, to estimate lifecycle indirect impacts of biofuel production 

requires the use of economic modeling to determine the market impacts of using agricultural 

commodity feedstocks for biofuels. The use of economic models and the uncertainty of those 

models to accurately predict future agricultural sector scenarios was one of the main comments 

we received on our analysis. While the comments and specifically the peer review supported our 

need to use economic models to incorporate and measure indirect impacts of biofuel production, 

they also highlighted the uncertainty with that modeling approach, especially in projecting out to 

the future. 

However, it is important to note that while there are many factors that impact the 

uncertainty in predicting total land used for crop production, making accurate predictions of 

many of these factors are not relevant to our analysis. For example different assumptions about 

economic growth rates, weather, and exchange rates will all impact future agricultural 

projections including amount of land use for crops. However, we are interested only in the 

difference between two biofuel scenarios holding all other changes constant. So the absolute 

values and projections for crops and other variables in the model projections are not as important 

as the difference the model is projecting due to an increase in biofuels production. This limits 

the uncertainty of using the economic models for our analysis. 

Furthermore, one of the key uncertainties associated with our agricultural sector 

economic modeling that has the biggest impact on land use change results is the assumptions 

around crop yields. As discussed in preamble Section V.A.2, we are conducting sensitivity 

analysis around different yield assumptions in our analysis. 

Therefore, because of the fact that we are only using the economic models to determine 

the difference between two projected scenarios and the fact that we are conducting sensitivity 

analysis around the yield assumptions we feel it is appropriate and acceptable to use economic 

models in our analysis of determining GHG thresholds in our final rule analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

7-318
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2619 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 162 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2619) is concerned that, “The calculation of greenhouse gas emissions includes 

indirect land use changes for biofuels that as currently drafted in the RFS2 disqualifies Biomassbased Diesel derived from vegetable oil, including domestically produced soybean. Vegetable 

oils account for more than sixty percent of the feedstock that is available to meet the RFS2 

Biomass based Diesel targets, and the use requirements established cannot be met if these 

feedstocks are disqualified from the program. Given the complexity of calculating the indirect 

land use component of the greenhouse gas emissions for biofuels at this time we ask that the 

EPA refrain from including any calculation of the indirect land use change components in 

determining the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions for biofuels at this time.” (2619 p. 1)

Our Response: 

Based on the analyses and approach described in Section V of the preamble, EPA is 

determining that biodiesel and renewable diesel from soy oil or waste oils, fats and greases will 

exceed the 50% GHG threshold for biomass-based diesel compared to the 2005 petroleum diesel 

baseline. In addition, we have now modeled biodiesel and renewable diesel produced from algal 

oils as complying with the 50% threshold for biomass-based diesel. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2623 

Organization: Citizen 

Notes: 

Docket number 2623 includes a letter of affirmation from Sierra Club (2623), a petition letter 

signed by 13,432 citizens (2623.2) and 1,614 personalized comments based on the petition letter 

(2623.1). Due to some overlap in the two attachments this equates to a total of 14,855 individual 

comments. Information for all 3 sources is summarized under this docket number. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2623) notes that, “Accounting for indirect land use changes as Congress called 

for in creating this RFS - is critical to making sure we truly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 

2050 as we use more renewable fuels.” (2623.2 p. 1)

Our Response: 

EPA agrees with the importance of accounting for indirect land use change as required by 

Congress. 

What Commenters Said:

7-319
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2624 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 1,084 comment letters 

received from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter encourages EPA to, “withdraw the international land use penalties that are 

assigned to Biofuel.” (2624 p. 1)

Our Response: 

EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on a methodology that includes 

an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international land-use 

change. EPA has used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many 

modifications to its proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers 

and developing science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant 

components of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations described above. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2625 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 400 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2625) notes that, “Existing feedstock sources are already available to meet this 

production level (and even additional production as noted below). As such, no land use changes, 

and therefore no significant emissions from those changes, can be associated with existing 

production.” (2625 p. 1)

 

Our Response: 

EPA believes its analysis has clearly established that the increase in biofuel production as 

mandated by EISA results in both direct and indirect land use changes. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2625 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 400 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

Further, the commenter (2625) notes outputs from lifecycle analysis models are only as good as 

their inputs. Unfortunately, much of the data and assumptions contained within the nine models 

used by EPA are inaccurate. Examples include: 

7-320
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

o Energy balance data used by EPA is out of date. 

o Co-product allocations for glycerine were not incorporated. 

o Global market drivers for feedstocks, like soybeans are not included. 

 (2625 p. 2)

Our Response: 

To the maximum extent possible, we have continued to review and update the data and 

assumptions underlying our modeling tools. As part of the final rule we updated the energy use 

assumptions for biodiesel production to be in line with the latest energy balance reports including 

the University of Idaho Study. Therefore, the final rule assumes lower energy use for biodiesel 

production compared to the proposal analysis. In addition, we have revised our analysis to 

assume that glycerin will displace residual oil as an energy source for this final rulemaking. We 

disagree, however, that global market drivers for feedstocks are not included in our models. For 

example, our partial equilibrium agricultural sector models FASOM and FAPRI both take into 

account that approximately 80% of the soybean is meal, whereas approximately 20% of the 

soybean is oil. Profit maximization that takes into account both streams of ree is included in the 

projected planting decisions of farmers. In addition, both agricultural sector models take into 

account changes in macroeconomic conditions over time, such as increases in income and 

population that also affect world markets for feedstocks. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2625 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 400 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

Further, the commenter (2625) notes that, “EPA’s approach establishes an artificially low 

production baseline, and does not accurately account for increasing crop yields and production 

efficiencies. The agency utilized a 2007 Energy Information Agency analysis that 

underestimates U.S. biodiesel production. In addition, multiple state policies and fleet 

requirements will be implemented between 2008 and 2022. These use requirements will increase 

the baseline volume of biodiesel that will be used regardless of the RFS2 program. The EPA 

also penalizes the biodiesel industry by not considering new technology regarding fats and oils 

production. Sources such as camelina, winter canola, and algae are not taken into account. In 

addition, higher yielding oilseed technology has not been fully incorporated. Thus, EPA 

overestimated potential indirect land use change associated with vegetable oil based biodiesel.” 

(2625 p.2) 

Our Response: 

We do consider in our analysis the increasing crop yields and production efficiencies 

over time. In addition, we have also analyzed as part of this rulemaking a high yield case as a 

sensitivity analysis. This does not change the fact that any change in biofuel volumes for 

whatever reason compared o a case without them would still have impacts. Even if biodiesel 

7-321
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

volumes would have reached the mandated volumes in 2022 there is still an impact with 

producing these volumes compared to a case without them. The threshold analysis mandated by 

EISA requires EPA to determine the impacts of the different biofuels production which requires 

us to consider two scenarios with differing volumes of biofuels. So regardless of what volume 

might or might not actually be produced, our threshold analysis would still be based on two 

different volume scenarios and production of any amount of biofuels would still have an impact. 

Furthermore, since our analysis normalizes the greenhouse gas emissions impacts on a per BTU 

basis, the effect of using different volumes in our calculations is minimized. 

For this rulemaking analysis we are only considering the policy for which this analysis 

was done, namely EISA. Where there are other polices on the books that would impact our 

analysis, they have been accounted for but we do not project future polices that are not in place. 

For the final rule analysis we have incorporated the LCA results for an algae oil pathway 

but not for other oilseed pathways. However, we do not extend our results from soybean 

modeling to other oilseed pathways. Those would be analyzed separately through future 

rulemaking analysis if necessary. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2625 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 400 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

Further, the commenter (2625) notes that, “The GHG emissions from biodiesel derived from 

virgin vegetable oils should be depreciated over 100 years, as EPA has proposed, rather than the 

30 years some have suggested. Historical data indicates that land converted to agricultural 

production tends to continue in that purpose for at least a century. Dramatic innovation is not 

occurring in the engine manufacturing industry in a way that suggests that heavy duty liquid 

transportation fuels will no longer be needed in as little as 30 years, or any remotely similar 

timeframe. Additionally, 100 years is a modest scope of time when you consider that the 

greenhouse gases that are being released by the burning of fossil fuels took the Earth millions of 

years to capture and sequester.” (2625 p.2-3)

Our Response: 

In the proposed rule, EPA highlighted two time periods of 30 years and 100 years for 

consideration in GHG lifecycle analysis. The Agency discussed the relative advantages of these, 

and other, time periods. The expert peer reviewers discussed a number of justifiable time periods 

ranging from 13 to 100 years. The reviewers said that longer time frames, such as 100 years, 

were only appropriate if the Agency used positive discount rates to value future emissions. 

Almost all of the peer reviewers specifically said that a time frame of 20 to 30 years would be 

justifiable based on the average life of a biofuel production facility. The reviewers and the 

public commenters provided several arguments for the application of a 30 year time frame. A 30 

year time period is appropriate because future emissions are less certain and more difficult to 

7-322
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

value, so the analysis should be confined insofar as possible to the foreseeable future. Another 

argument is that a near-term time horizon is consistent with the latest climate science that 

indicates that swift and deep reductions of heat-trapping gasses are needed to avoid catastrophic 

changes due to a warming climate. One of the reviewers said that while “there is no unassailable 

basis for choosing a very specific timeframe” the expected average lifetime of a biofuel 

production facility is the “most sensible anchor” for the choice of a timeframe. Alternatively, a 

number of commenters argued that a 100 year time frame is the appropriate time period for GHG 

lifecycle emissions analysis principally since this is the time period over which climate change 

impacts are likely to occur. 

Based upon the comments received from the peer review and public between after the 

RFS2 proposal, EPA has decided to use a 30 year frame for assessing the lifecycle GHG 

emissions. There are several reasons why the 30 year time frame was chosen. The use of the life 

of a typical biofuel plant seems reasonable as a basis for the timeframe for assessing the GHG 

emissions impacts of a renewable fuel. Also, the 30 year time frame focuses on GHG emissions 

impacts that are more near term and, hence, more certain. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2625 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 400 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

Finally, the commenter (2625) notes that, “In Section VI.C.D of the preamble, it is stated that the 

impact of any land-use change tends to be magnified with soybean biodiesel. The statement is 

justified by asserting that soybeans have a low gallon-per-acre yield compared to corn ethanol. 

This statement is simply false. For this to be true, soybean oil used for biodiesel must require 

additional soybeans to be grown somewhere else in the world to replace the oil used for 

biodiesel. Everywhere in the world, soybeans are grown primarily for the demand created by the 

protein meal, which comprises 80 percent of the bean. By-products do not drive supply 

responses and soybean oil for biodiesel does not drive planting decisions for farmers. If it did, 

then farmers would plant crops, other than soybeans, that produce more oil per acre. This 

economic reality invalidates EPA’s link between use of soybean oil for biodiesel and magnified 

land use change impact. We strongly urge EPA to correct this statement in its final rule.” (2625 

p.3) 

Our Response: 

As stated in other responses, we believe the quoted statement is being misinterpreted. 

This statement was a qualitative explanation for why land use changes projected by the 

agricultural sector models in the NPRM analysis may have been larger than the corn ethanol land 

use changes on a per BTU basis. We were not implying that soybeans were being planted 

exclusively for soybean oil. The agricultural sector models take into account the fact that 

soybeans are approximately 80% meal and 20% oil. Furthermore, the agricultural sector models 

assume that farmers choose to plant soybeans based on the expected net returns associated with 

7-323
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

the sum of both the oil and the meal ree streams. We believe this optimization approach 

accurately represents the soybean production markets. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2516.1 

Organization: Imperium 

Comment: 

Lipid sources such as camelinia, winter canola, algae and other sustainable oilseed crops are not 

factored in 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2435 

Organization: R.W. Heiden Associates LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2435) states that a review of the EPA reference case, which was used to 

calculate the increased levels of biofuels needed to meet RFS2, reveals the fact that the agency 

has penalized the biodiesel industry when calculating potential global land use change by 

establishing an artificially low production baseline. EPA utilizes a 2007 Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) analysis that underestimates U.S. biodiesel production, which reached 

levels of 690 million gallons in 2008. In addition, multiple state policies and fleet requirements 

will be implemented between 2008 and 2022. These use requirements will increase the baseline 

volume of biodiesel that will be used regardless of the RFS2 program. Underestimating 

biodiesel volumes results in an overestimate of indirect land use changes, penalizing the 

biodiesel industry. In looking at an incremental change, EPA’s approach also does not 

accurately reflect increasing crop yields, which have allowed the agricultural industry to keep up 

with demand. The EPA analysis also penalizes the biodiesel industry by not fully considering 

new fats and oils technology that can increase the contribution biodiesel will make to the 

Biomass-based Diesel category in RFS2. The proposed rule only considers soybean oil, 

vegetable oil from ethanol plants, and rendered fats and waste greases in its analysis. Lipid 

sources such as camelina, winter canola, and algae are not factored into the feedstock supply. In 

addition, higher yielding oilseed technology has not been fully incorporated. Implementation of 

a workable RFS2 Program will continue to support investment in new technology. Regardless, 

whether or not additional vegetable oil supplies are factored into the EPA reference case or the 

EPA control case, the result should be the same. The amount of vegetable oil produced 

domestically is greater than assumed in the proposed rule. Thus, the commenter believes that 

EPA’s approach has severely overestimated potential indirect land use change associated with 

vegetable oil based biodiesel. [[Docket number 2435.1, p. 4]]

Our Response: 

As was done for the proposal, to quantify the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with 

the increase in renewable fuel mandated by EISA, we compared the differences in total GHG 

emissions between two future volume scenarios in our economic models. For each individual 

biofuel, we analyzed the incremental GHG emission impacts of increasing the volume of that 

fuel to the total mix of biofuels needed to meet the EISA requirements. Rather than focus on the 

7-324
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

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. 

 The two future scenarios considered included a “business as usual” volume of a particular 

renewable fuel based on what would likely be in the fuel pool in 2022 without EISA, as 

predicted by the Energy Information Agency’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) for 2007 (which 

took into account the economic and policy factors in existence in 2007 before EISA). The second 

scenario assumed a higher volume of renewable fuels as mandated by EISA for 2022. In this 

rulemaking analysis we only account for other policies that are currently in effect, we do not 

model any future potential regulations. However, we do consider in this analysis increasing crop 

yields and production efficiencies over time. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2249.2) believes that EPA should adjust its estimates of the baseline level for 

biodiesel without the RFS. The commenter thinks that the levels are too low leading to an 

overestimate of potential land use impacts. The EPA reference case, which was used to calculate 

the increased levels of biofuels needed to meet RFS2, underestimates biodiesel production 

without the RFS. In addition, the amount of vegetable oil produced domestically is greater than 

assumed in the Proposed Rule. In addition, multiple state policies and fleet requirements will be 

implemented between 2008 and 2022. The commenter believes that these use requirements will 

increase the baseline volume of biodiesel that will be used regardless of the RFS2 program. 

Thus, these factors in the baseline have resulted in an overestimate of the potential indirect land 

use change associated with vegetable oil based biodiesel. The commenter refers to the Kruse 

RFS2 Report [[see docket number 2232.1, Attachment 10]] for additional information related to 

EPA’s undercount of biodiesel production without RFS2. [[See docket number 2249.2, pp. 99-

101 for detailed discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

We disagree with the comment that our baseline level is too low and that as a result we 

are overestimating the potential land use impacts. As was done for the proposal, to quantify the 

lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the increase in renewable fuel mandated by EISA, we 

compared the differences in total GHG emissions between two future volume scenarios in our 

economic models. For each individual biofuel, we analyzed the incremental GHG emission 

impacts of increasing the volume of that fuel to the total mix of biofuels needed to meet the 

EISA requirements. Rather than focus on the 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. 

7-325
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

 The two future scenarios considered included a “business as usual” volume of a particular 

renewable fuel based on what would likely be in the fuel pool in 2022 without EISA, as 

predicted by the Energy Information Agency’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) for 2007 (which 

took into account the economic and policy factors in existence in 2007 before EISA). The second 

scenario assumed a higher volume of renewable fuels as mandated by EISA for 2022. In this 

rulemaking analysis we only account for other policies that are currently in effect, we do not 

model any future potential regulations. 

While we recognize that the AEO 2007 renewable fuel volumes may be lower than 

currently projected U.S. biodiesel production and fleet requirements, we believe the AEO 2007 

projections represent a reasonable baseline against which to measure the impact of an increase in 

renewable fuel volumes as a result of the RFS2 because it was the last official EIA projection 

that did not take into account the new volumes required by EISA. 

For this rulemaking analysis we are only considering the policy for which this analysis 

was done, namely EISA. Where other existing requirements would impact our analysis, they 

have been accounted for but we do not project future requirements that are not in place. 

For the final rule analysis we have incorporated the LCA results for an algae oil pathway 

but not for other oilseed pathways. However, we do not extend our results from soybean 

modeling to other oilseed pathways. Those would be analyzed separately through future 

rulemaking analysis if necessary. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA should update its reference case to better reflect 

expected ethanol production. The 12.4 bgy estimate for the 2022 base case is inappropriate, and 

EPA should reassess its baseline. Using the Informa forecast, there would be no international 

land use changes associated with the RFS2, because the reference case would be higher than the 

control case. (2329.1, p.61)

Our Response: 

We disagree with this comment, even if ethanol volumes would have reached the 

mandated volumes in 2022 there is still an impact with producing these volumes compared to a 

case without them. The threshold analysis mandated by EISA requires EPA to determine the 

impacts of the different biofuels production which requires us to consider two scenarios with 

differing volumes of biofuels. So regardless of what volume might or might not actually be 

produced, our threshold analysis would still be based on two different volume scenarios and 

production of any amount of biofuels would still have an impact. Furthermore, since our 

analysis normalizes the greenhouse gas emissions impacts on a per BTU basis, the effect of using 

different volumes in our calculations is minimized. 

7-326
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

We believe that our primary reference case projections are appropriate because they are 

consistent with those forecasts previously used by our agency as well as by our federal agencies. 

We use the Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO 2007) for 

estimating renewable fuel volumes because it does not already take into account the enactment of 

EISA. Wherever possible we have also assessed many of the impacts of the program relative to 

the RFS1 mandated renewable fuel volumes to give another perspective. By using these 

reference cases, our assessments provide important information on the wider public policy 

considerations related to renewable fuel production and use, climate change, and national energy 

security. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2626 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 2,048 comment letters 

received from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2626) urges, “EPA to keep the timeframe for crediting reduced emissions from 

biofuels to 30 years or less. A longer timeframe would only complicate this process and delay 

the swift action we need now to avoid catastrophic impacts from climate change. A timeframe 

of 100 years or more would allow biofuels that are bad for the climate to squeak through the 

reduction requirements.” (2626 p.1) 

Our Response: 

In the proposed rule, EPA highlighted two time periods of 30 years and 100 years for 

consideration in GHG lifecycle analysis. The Agency discussed the relative advantages of these, 

and other, time periods. The expert peer reviewers discussed a number of justifiable time periods 

ranging from 13 to 100 years. The reviewers said that longer time frames, such as 100 years, 

were only appropriate if the Agency used positive discount rates to value future emissions. 

Almost all of the peer reviewers specifically said that a time frame of 20 to 30 years would be 

justifiable based on the average life of a biofuel production facility. The reviewers and the 

public commenters provided several arguments for the application of a 30 year time frame. A 30 

year time period is appropriate because future emissions are less certain and more difficult to 

value, so the analysis should be confined insofar as possible to the foreseeable future. Another 

argument is that a near-term time horizon is consistent with the latest climate science that 

indicates that swift and deep reductions of heat-trapping gasses are needed to avoid catastrophic 

changes due to a warming climate. One of the reviewers said that while “there is no unassailable 

basis for choosing a very specific timeframe” the expected average lifetime of a biofuel 

production facility is the “most sensible anchor” for the choice of a timeframe. Alternatively, a 

number of commenters argued that a 100 year time frame is the appropriate time period for GHG 

lifecycle emissions analysis principally since this is the time period over which climate change 

impacts are likely to occur. 

7-327
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Based upon the comments received from the peer review and public between after the 

RFS2 proposal, EPA has decided to use a 30 year frame for assessing the lifecycle GHG 

emissions. There are several reasons why the 30 year time frame was chosen. The use of the life 

of a typical biofuel plant seems reasonable as a basis for the timeframe for assessing the GHG 

emissions impacts of a renewable fuel. Also, the 30 year time frame focuses on GHG emissions 

impacts that are more near term and, hence, more certain. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2634 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 155 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by Prairie Pride Inc.) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2634) notes that, “Existing biodiesel facilities meeting the RFS2 requirements 

with existing feedstock sources should not be unfairly penalized for assumptions related to 

international land use changes. We request the EPA use its regulatory authority to exempt 

existing biodiesel facilities from land use changes. The U.S. biodiesel industry has been steadily 

growing over the past several years with 690 million gallons in production in 2008. Existing 

feedstock sources are already available to meet this production level. As such, no land use 

changes, and therefore no significant emissions from those changes, should be associated with 

existing production. We recommend changing the Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Methodology for 

Biodiesel and consider the following elements of EPA’s lifecycle analysis: EPA’s assumptions 

regarding international land use changes associated with U.S. biodiesel production do not reflect 

historical results and should be revised. EPA assumes increased U.S. biodiesel production will 

lead to land conversion in South America. Brazilian soybean acreage has decreased 1.5 million 

hectares from 2004 through 2008, a time in which U.S. biodiesel production increased from 25 

million to 690 million gallons.” (2634 p 1-2)

Our Response: 

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2634 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 155 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by Prairie Pride Inc.) 

7-328
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment: 

Further, the commenter (2634) notes that, “The 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that nitrogen 

fixed in soil by soybeans should not be considered a GHG emission. EPA should incorporate the 

IPCC’s nitrogen findings and remove the attribution of excess nitrogen emissions from soybean 

cultivation. This change will reduce GHG score for soy biodiesel by more than 20 percent.” 

(2634 p. 2) 

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

We received a number of comments on our proposal results indicating that the N2O 

emissions were overestimated from soybean and other legume production (e.g., nitrogen fixing 

hay) in our analysis. The main issue is that because the N2O emission factors used in the 

proposal were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting they were overestimating 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops. As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed 

such that biological nitrogen fixation was removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack 

of evidence of significant emissions arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that 

the N2O emissions induced by the growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a 

function of the above-ground and below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This 

change effectively reduces the N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and 

nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2634 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 155 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by Prairie Pride Inc.) 

Comment: 

Further, the commenter (2634) notes that, “Co-product allocations for glycerin need to be 

incorporated in GHG calculations.” (2634 p.2) 

Our Response:

7-329
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Glycerin is a co-product of biodiesel production. Our proposal analysis did not assume 

any credit for this glycerin product. The assumption for the proposal was that by 2022 the 

market for glycerin would be saturated due to the large increase in biodiesel production in both 

the U.S. and abroad and the glycerin would therefore be a waste product. We received a number 

of comments that we should be factoring in a co-product credit for glycerin as there would be 

some valuable use for this product in the market. Based on these comments we have included 

for the final rule analysis that glycerin would displace residual oil as a fuel source on an energy 

equivalent basis. This is based on the assumption that the glycerin market would still be 

saturated in 2022 and that glycerin produced from biodiesel would not displace any additional 

petroleum glycerin production. However, the biodiesel glycerin would not be a waste and a low 

value use would be to use the glycerin as a fuel source. The fuel source assumed to be replaced 

by the glycerin is residual oil. This inclusion of a co-product credit for glycerin reduces the 

overall GHG impact of biodiesel compared to the proposal analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0933 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment:

The commenter (0933) believes that use of ethanol is a good way to lessen imports of petroleum 

products while keeping dollars in the USA and reduce the cost of farm program expenses. The 

commenter strongly opposes the land use change calculations presented by Mr. Searchinger. (P. 

1) 

Our Response:

The lifecycle methodology developed by EPA, and explained in detail in this final rule, is 

based on the best available scientific techniques. It does not rely on one study in the literature, 

but instead relies on the body of scientific literature on this topic as well as an independent 

scientific peer review of EPA’s methodology. The peer review, the public comments we have 

received, and the analysis conducted for the proposal and final rule indicate that it is important to 

take into account indirect emissions. Through this evaluation, EPA also has determined that 

biofuels production leads to both negative and positive indirect land use changes. We also 

recognize the uncertainties inherent in this estimation and therefore have taken an approach that 

quantifies the uncertainty and presents the weight of currently available evidence in making our 

threshold determination. 

7.2.5.3 Feedstock Transport 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2625 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 400 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

7-330
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment: 

The commenter (2624) notes that, “After concluding biodiesel from virgin vegetable oils does 

not qualify for the program, the agency attempts to restore it, in part, by creating a pathway for 

compliance purposes whereby virgin vegetable oils can be combined with waste oils in a 52-48 

percent ratio. This is unworkable from a practical perspective. Instead, EPA should recognize 

that U.S. feedstock supplies naturally produce a feedstock mix that, even when using EPA’s low 

GHG values, meets the thresholds for Advanced Biofuels. Moreover, to the extent necessary, 

EPA should use its authority and adjust the 50 percent reduction requirement downward to 40 

percent to ensure U.S. biodiesel can meet the biomass-based diesel requirements, as intended by 

Congress.” (2625 p.3) 

Our Response:

For the final rule we are not allowing averaging of soy-based biodesel and biodiesel 

produced from waste products since this is not necessary for threshold compliance of soy-based 

biodiesel 

7.2.5.4 Processing 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2360 

Organization: Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2360.1) noted that the EPA methodology inaccurately assesses the glycerin coproduct of biodiesel production from vegetable oil. While the approach used by the EPA with the 

FASOM and FAPRI models should deal with the agricultural co-products as part of the new 

equilibrium, the models are not capable of automatically compensating for non-agricultural coproducts, and these would have to be dealt with outside the models. (2360.1, p.3) 

Our Response: 

Glycerin is a co-product of biodiesel production. Our proposal analysis did not assume 

any credit for this glycerin product. The assumption for the proposal was that by 2022 the 

market for glycerin would be saturated due to the large increase in biodiesel production in both 

the U.S. and abroad and the glycerin would therefore be a waste product. We received a number 

of comments that we should be factoring in a co-product credit for glycerin as there would be 

some valuable use for this product in the market. Based on these comments we have included 

for the final rule analysis that glycerin would displace residual oil as a fuel source on an energy 

equivalent basis. This is based on the assumption that the glycerin market would still be 

saturated in 2022 and that glycerin produced from biodiesel would not displace any additional 

petroleum glycerin production. However, the biodiesel glycerin would not be a waste and a low 

value use would be to use the glycerin as a fuel source. The fuel source assumed to be replaced 

by the glycerin is residual oil. This inclusion of a co-product credit for glycerin reduces the 

overall GHG impact of biodiesel compared to the proposal analysis. 

7-331
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2360 

Organization: Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 

Comment: 

The commenter also believes that the EPA methodology inaccurately assesses the energy balance 

of biodiesel production. The input data used by EPA for the amount of energy used to create a 

gallon of biodiesel is overstated. EPA used a factor of 3.2 units of energy produced per unit of 

energy used. The updated factor should be 5.2 units of energy produced per unit of energy used. 

Updating this data point would decrease the biodiesel emissions factor by 1.5%. (2360.1, p.3) 

Our Response: 

We have updated our analysis to include the latest information available on process 

energy requirements. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2486 

Organization: Primafuel, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2486) believes that co-product allocation should be based on displacement 

methodology. Displacement methodology provides the greatest incentive to improve 

environmental performance per dollar invested. This will catalyze the uptake of new process 

technologies to produce new products from waste streams including renewable chemicals and 

other higher value materials. [[Docket number 2486.1, p. 1]] [[See docket number 2486.1, pp. 1-

2 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

EPA agrees that displacement methodology should be used to assign credits to coproducts. In EPA’s analysis, this methodology is used to assign the proper credits to particular 

renewable fuels based on their related co-products, such as distillers grains and soybean meal. 

Additional information on co-product credits and how they are attributed to renewable fuels can 

be found in the RIA. 

7.2.6 Petroleum Baseline 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2516.1 

Organization: Imperium 

7-332
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment: 

EPA’s analysis does not account for the fact that biodiesel is reducing and delaying the need for 

diesel derived from high carbon sources of crude oil such as Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan 

extra heavy crude. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1989 

Organization: Iowa Farm Bureau Federation 

Comment:

Two of the more apparent omissions in the study are GHG emissions as a result of required 

military presence in foreign countries to assure an undisturbed supply chain and changes in the 

proportion of fuel produced from more intensive GHG pathways such as fuel extracted from tar 

sands. Some studies have estimated conservatively that military emissions resulting from 

security requirements could easily double the amount of total life-cycle GHG emissions related 

to petroleum (Liska, 2009). 

In addition, as fuel continues to be more demanded, the argument can be made (Liska, et al) that 

gasoline pathways other than crude petroleum will become a larger part of the fuel mix. In order 

to accurately compare potential GHG savings from ethanol use, the baseline needs to include the 

future mix of all pathways given pre-2005 trends. Including both of these factors in the analysis 

will provide a much more accurate estimate of the GHG emissions from the fuel that ethanol will 

be replacing. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2152.1 

Organization: Minnesota Coalition for Ethanol 

Comment:

The commenter (2152) believes the 2005 gasoline baseline included in EISA should reflect the 

sources of crude oil that would have been used in the absence of the RFS – the carbon impact of 

the fossil fuel sources that ethanol and other biofuels will replace in the future. Biofuels are not 

replacing the “easy” sources of liquid fuels, such as light, sweet crude from West Texas. 

Biofuels are displacing the energy-intensive, environmentally-destructive sources such as fuel 

derived from tar sands, oil shale, and deep water drilling. It is equally critical to estimate the 

amount of carbon emissions that will be offset by the expanded use of ethanol and reduced 

reliance on traditional fossil fuels. (2152.1 Pg. 1). 

Our Response: 

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold gasoline assessment in the proposed 

rule and the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for 

7-333
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the renewable fuel) sold or 

distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that the 2005 baseline does not adequately address the 

increasing use of marginal sources of petroleum. The commenter believes that EPA cannot 

wholly ignore the fact that ethanol is reducing and delaying the need to resort to more and more 

high carbon sources of crude oil such as Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan extra heavy crude. 

(2329.1, p.55) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp.55-57 for a detailed discussion of this issue]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0981 

Organization: Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research, Department of Agronomy 

and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Comment:

The commenter (0981) states that as unconventional petroleum sources (tar sands, coal-toliquids, and oil shale) become more dominant in the future, the GHG-intensity of gasoline will 

increase, and the life cycle emissions estimates need to account for these changes. The 

commenter also provides estimates of the average additional GHG emission attributable to 

gasoline to account for military security in the Middle East. The commenter recommends that 

the gasoline baseline be updated either annually or biannually to accurately represent changes in 

the petroleum supply. If indirect effects are included for other fuels, then the marginal indirect 

GHG emissions associated with military security for oil need to be included in the life cycle 

emission of petroleum. (Pp. 9-12) 

7-334
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1001, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1005, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-1010, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1011, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1012, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1025, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1029, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-

1043, et al. 

Organization: Kurzman Clean Tech Research & Kurzman Capital, LLC, Cotner 

Consulting Services, CC Gas Systems, LLC, Atlantic BioFuels, Glenwood Farms, Law Offices 

of David Wilcox, C.I.B., University of Georgia Engineering Outreach Service, et al. 

Comment:

The commenters noted that EPA’s analysis does not account for the fact that biodiesel is 

reducing and delaying the need for diesel derived from high carbon sources of crude oil such as 

Canadian tar sands. EPA’s analysis also compares estimated future direct and indirect GHG 

emissions for biodiesel to direct (only) emissions for petroleum. This dramatically reduces 

biodiesel’s GHG benefits compared to petroleum and is an obvious violation of a basic scientific 

principle, that comparative analysis contains the same comparative criteria. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

The commenter (2101.1) recommends that EPA annually update the petroleum baseline to more 

accurately capture the carbon intensities of future sources of oil and gasoline. (2101.1, p.16) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1669 

Organization: Environmental Intelligence, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1669.1) noted that EPA’s analysis compares estimated, future direct and 

indirect GHG emissions for biodiesel to only direct emissions for petroleum. (1669.1, p.2)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079 

Organization: AE Biofuels, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2079.1) believes that EPA’s analysis does not account for the fact that biodiesel 

is reducing and delaying the need for diesel derived from high carbon sources of crude oil such 

as Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan extra heavy crude. EPA’s analysis compares estimated, 

future direct and indirect GHG emissions for biodiesel to direct (only) emissions for petroleum. 

This dramatically reduces biodiesel’s GHG benefits compared to petroleum and is an obvious 

violation of a basic scientific principle, that comparative analysis contains the same comparative 

criteria. (2079.1, p.7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2136 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFS) 

Comment:

The commenter (2136) notes that there is consensus that as we move from 2010 to 2022, the 

carbon footprint of the average gasoline or diesel fuel will be much higher than in 2005. The 

marginal barrel of oil will come from nontraditional sources, such as the Canadian tar sands, 

Venezuelan heavy crude, or super-deep drilling ocean rigs. The carbon footprint of these fossil 

7-335
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

fuels is significantly higher than light, sweet crude oil from Saudi Arabia. The DOE’s senior 

analyst Zia Haq agrees that the marginal barrel of oil will come from these nontraditional 

sources. As biofuels use increases, it will replace fuels from these nontraditional sources, not 

Saudi Arabian oil. Ignoring the indirect emissions due to land use changes results in a GHG 

analysis that bears little relationship to the real-world emission impact of fossil fuels. The 

commenter urges the Agency to recognize the most likely fossil fuels that increased biofuels 

usage will displace and credit biofuels with the avoided emissions compared to the 2005 baseline 

fossil fuels. [[Docket number 2136.1, p. 8]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2140 

Organization: John Deere Agriculture & Turf Division 

Comment:

The commenter (2140.1) believes that EISA created an inappropriate framework for estimating 

greenhouse gas emission from various fuels, comparing total future direct and indirect lifecycle 

emissions from renewable fuels to a 2005 petroleum baseline that only includes direct emissions 

impacts. Although calculating indirect emissions from petroleum is certainly complicated, the 

commenter believes that it is important that any assessment of the environmental benefits of 

renewable fuels be made using adequate and comparable assessments of conventional fuels. It is 

also critical to acknowledge that the 2005 petroleum baseline does not likely reflect the 

petroleum fuel mix of the future. (2140.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2148 

Organization: Hornbeck Agricultural 

Comment: 

The commenter (2148) noted that it is not clear that the indirect emissions of petroleum diesel 

(the baseline against which biodiesel is being measured) are adequately factored into that 

baseline. The commenter believes that it must be recognized that EPA’s use of an inaccurate 

baseline would distort and diminish the credit EPA gives to soy biodiesel for its ability to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. Biodiesel has been shown to reduce certain greenhouse gas emissions 

by 78%, but EPA proposes to credit soy biodiesel with a substantially lower GHG reduction. 

(2148, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2190 

Organization: Illinois River Energy, LLC. 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2190]] states that in contrast to the complicated model based treatment of 

biofuels, fossil fuel alternatives are treated overly simplistically and their very real indirect 

effects are not even seriously considered. There is very real evidence that the carbon intensity of 

fossil fuels is increasing and that biofuels are compared against an unreal, lower carbon intensity 

benchmark. [[#2190 p.1]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2302 

Organization: UC Berkeley - Energy Biosciences Institute 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2302]] states that a baseline of 2005 fossil fuel is not appropriate as a longterm baseline, in part because current fossil fuels are explicitly assumed to have the same value 

7-336
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

and it does not reflect changes in production. We disagree with the assessment presented in the 

DRIA (pg. 285) that the annual baseline emissions for gasoline and diesel do not change 

substantially over time; while that may have been acceptable in the past, current extraction 

practices as illustrated by tar sands and oil shale, along with the growing processing of heavier, 

more sour crude, require a more up-to-date evaluation of the fossil fuel baseline. [[#2302 p.4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2316 

Organization: University of Minnesota 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2316]] states: my fifth comment concerns the GHG impacts of petroleumbased fuels. Even though it is not strictly written into EISA, I encourage you to include indirect 

GHG emissions from gasoline and diesel in your baseline calculations, while also considering 

that the marginal increase in crude production should include advanced extraction technology 

and discovery of new fields. Indirect GHG emissions for petroleum may include land-use change 

and emissions due to international security. If the latter is considered it would also be appropriate 

first to allocate emissions in foreign conflicts over all applicable causes for international 

involvement beyond stabilization of foreign petroleum supplies, and second to consider allocated 

emissions due to homeland security when calculating emissions for domestic biofuel production. 

[[2316.1 p.2]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2350 

Organization: BioEnergy Producers Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2350) believes that common sense tells us that biofuels are not the only energy 

source that has indirect land use impacts. If EPA finds it difficult to identify an indirect land use 

change resulting from petroleum, the commenter suggests a look at the bayous of Louisiana that 

have been fouled by pollution from oil refining, the devastation being created in Canada by tar 

sands oil recovery, or the Exxon Valdez disaster. The commenter questions how EPA can 

conclude that no indirect land use impact results from the use of petroleum. The commenter also 

contends that if the EPA believes it is so easy to project the impact of a corn grower in Iowa on 

the many economic and social motivations of those who are removing forests in Brazil, it should 

be equally as easy to project the worldwide indirect land use change resulting from the 

worldwide recovery and transport of petroleum. [[Docket number 2350, pp. 2-3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2357 

Organization: Iowa Biodiesel Board 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2357]] states that EPA’s analysis does not account for the fact that biodiesel is 

reducing and delaying the need for diesel derived from high carbon sources of crude oil such as 

Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan extra heavy crude. In addition, EPA’s analysis compares 

estimated, future direct and indirect GHG emissions for biodiesel to only direct emissions for 

petroleum. [[2357.1 p.5]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2367 

Organization: New Fuels Alliance (NFA) 

Comment:

7-337
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The commenter (2367) is concerned about EPA’s assessment of petroleum and states that recent 

work suggests that there are significant omissions from the petroleum fuel carbon score. The 

commenter contends that oil has a direct land use effect and believes that EPA must assess 

petroleum-based fuels for indirect effects and points out that crude oil is a finite resource. The 

commenter also questions why EPA decided not to include military emissions as part of the 

petroleum carbon score. [[Docket number 2367.1, pp. 18-27]] [[See docket number 2367.1, pp. 

18-27 for a detailed discussion of these issues.]] 

The commenter also believes that EPA should assess the RFS2 policy for indirect effects, as 

opposed to individual fuel gallons; to put it another way, a gallon of biofuel would be compared 

to a gallon of petroleum based on their cumulative direct supply chain emissions, including 

upstream emissions such as direct biofuel land use and oil extraction. [[See docket number 

2367.1, pp. 29-30 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

In conclusion, the commenter adds that EPA has the responsibility, and challenge, of 

determining the GHG impacts of compliance fuels, as they relate to a petroleum baseline, for the 

RFS2 program. The only way the agency can objectively accomplish that legislative mandate is 

to measure the GHG profile of a particular gallon of biofuel with the GHG profile of a particular 

gallon of petroleum using the same metric in both scenarios. To do otherwise would be in direct 

conflict with the intent of EISA07 to assess the “relative global warming potential” of renewable 

and petroleum-based fuels and would leave the regulation vulnerable to criticism and potential 

legal challenge. If EPA is unable to precisely determine the range of direct and indirect 

emissions of both a gallon of biofuel and a gallon of petroleum, it must then identify a way in 

which the legislative intent of EISA07 can be followed so that significant GHG reductions are 

realized in the nation’s fuel stream. To achieve that requirement, the commenter strongly 

encourages EPA to implement a marginal displacement approach to carbon accounting. This 

would address the major problem of asymmetrical carbon accounting encompassed in EPA’s 

proposed regulation. [[Docket number 2367.1, p. 31]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2435 

Organization: R.W. Heiden Associates LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2435) believes EPA’s analysis does not account for the fact that biodiesel is 

reducing and delaying the need for diesel derived from high carbon sources of crude oil such as 

Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan extra heavy crude. In addition, EPA’s analysis compares 

estimated, future direct and indirect GHG emissions for biodiesel to direct (only) emissions for 

petroleum. This dramatically reduces biodiesel’s GHG benefits compared to petroleum and is an 

obvious violation of a basic scientific principle, that comparative analysis contains the same 

comparative criteria. GHG analyses should be “apples-to-apples” comparisons. It was surely the 

intent of Congress to compare alternative fuels on an equal basis with the fossil-fuels they 

replace. Such comparison is a basic requirement of lifecycle analysis as applied by competent 

science and is a specific requirement of the International Standards Organization (ISO) 14040 

standard for lifecycle analysis. [[Docket number 2435.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2478 

Organization: ZeaChem Inc. 

7-338
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment: 

The commenter (2478) believes that the 2005 petroleum baseline is not an accurate or proper 

baseline for which to calculate emissions going forward. Domestically produced ethanol is 

reducing and delaying the need for gasoline from marginal, high carbon sources of crude oil such 

as tar sands and extra heavy crude. These marginal sources of petroleum resources have 

significant indirect impacts that are not included in current calculations or comparisons. [[Docket 

number 2478.1, p. 3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2487 

Organization: Abengoa Bioenergy Corporation 

Comment:

The commenter (2487) believes that since biofuels reduce the need for additional gallons of 

petroleum, the lifecycle impact of biofuels should be compared to the lifecycle impact of the 

incremental additional gallons of petroleum that would be used if biofuels were not available. 

[[Docket number 2487, p. 1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2549 

Organization: Triton Energy LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2549.1) noted that EPA’s analysis compares estimated, future direct and 

indirect GHG emissions for renewable diesel to only direct emissions for petroleum. (2549.1, 

p.3)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2612 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 478 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by American Soybean Association) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2612) identified 8 “vital flaws and concerns with the RFS2 proposed rule,” 

including: “8) Petroleum Baseline – EPA’s analysis compares estimated, future direct and 

indirect GHG emissions for biodiesel to only direct emissions for petroleum.” (2612 p. 2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2617 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 72 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2617) notes that, “EPA’s analysis... ignores the direct land use impacts of future 

oil exploration and production, and doesn’t include any indirect emissions analysis for petroleum 

– a finite resource, creating an unfair comparison that disadvantages renewable fuel.” (2617 p. 1)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2625 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 400 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2625) notes that, “EPA’s analysis does not account for the fact that biodiesel is 

reducing and delaying the need for diesel derived from high carbon sources of crude oil such as 

Canadian tar sands. In addition, the agency’s analysis compares estimated future direct and 

7-339
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

indirect GHG emissions for biodiesel to direct (only) emissions for petroleum. This dramatically 

reduces biodiesel’s GHG benefits compared to petroleum and is an obvious violation of a basic 

scientific principle, that comparative analysis contains the same comparative criteria.” (2625 p. 

2)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2634 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 155 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by Prairie Pride Inc.) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2634) notes that, “The EPA’s analysis compares estimated future direct and 

indirect GHG emissions for biodiesel to only direct emissions for petroleum. This dramatically 

reduces biodiesel’s GHG benefits compared to petroleum and should be revised so the 

comparative analysis contains the same comparative criteria. EPA’s approach should account 

for increasing soybean yields and improving farm efficiencies. Soybean hybrids and farming 

techniques have continuously improved over the past fifty years and this trend is expected to 

continue.” (2634 p. 2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2002 

Organization: Novozymes North America, Inc. (Novozymes) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2002) is concerned about marginal biofuels production in 2022 vs. average 

petroleum production in 2005. The commenter points out that whereas the EPA has done 

extensive work on identifying the indirect effects of biofuels (most notably indirect land use 

change) and has also expanded the system boundaries to take into account the use of biofuels 

byproducts such as distiller’s grains, the agency has done little to account for the actual 

consequences of displacing fossil fuels. The commenter recommends that EPA performs an 

analysis to determine the type and status of marginal fossil fuels from now until 2022. 

Conceptually, this analysis will be no different from considering the market-mediated indirect 

effects of biofuels. On the contrary, identifying marginal fossil fuels is in complete alignment 

with the ILUC calculations. Furthermore, the commenter recommends that the EPA recalculates 

the “payback times” of biofuels (see e.g., DRIA page 286) to reflect the fossil fuel emissions 

actually avoided by use of biofuels. It is clear that the current approach overestimates the 

“payback times” due to the false comparison of marginal biofuels production in 2022 with 

average fossil fuel production in 2005. [[Docket number 2002.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0897 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment:

One commenter (0897) appreciates EPA support for the creation and extension of the renewable 

ethanol standards. This commenter states that EPA’s calculation on the land use CO2

 should 

favor ethanol production. The commenter believes that oil creates a large CO2 footprint through 

processes that EPA did not take into account, such as the fuel used by the U.S. military to 

safeguard the transport of foreign fuel from the Middle East to the U.S. (P. 1) 

Our Response:

7-340
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

7-341
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

 As stated in the proposal and restated in the preamble to the final rule, EPA has not 

included in its assessment of GHG impacts of petroleum the potential impacts due to military 

operations to protect sources of petroleum. While these potential military impacts have been 

estimated by some researchers, there is clearly no consensus on how much if any of the GHG 

emissions from military operations should be attributed to an assessment of petroleum’s GHG 

lifecycle impact. Do the the widely speculative nature of such an assessment, EPA chose to 

leave it out of our GHG assessment. This omission has been clearly noted in the pramble to this 

final rule. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

We also do not believe that emissions arising from military activities can be readily 

attributed to the protection of oil imports. Military activities, even in world regions that 

represent vital sources of oil imports, undoubtedly serve a broader range of security and foreign 

policy objectives than merely protecting oil supplies. In the peer review of the energy security 

analysis that EPA commissioned, a majority of peer reviewers believed that U.S. military costs 

should be excluded absent a widely agreed methodology for estimating this component of U.S. 

energy security. Since military impacts were not considered for the energy security analysis in 

this final rule, they were also excluded from any lifecycle GHG analyses 

Furthermore, increased domestic consumption of renewable fuels is expected to decrease 

oil demand and thus reduce oil imports. However, an incremental reduction in oil imports is not 

expected to cause an analogous reduction in U.S. military expenditures and activities. Hence, 

even if we were able to attribute GHG emissions to the protection of oil imports, it is unlikely 

that there would be a decrease in military-related GHG emissions as a result of this rule. More 

detail on this topic can be found in the Energy Security Analysis in Chapter 5 of the RIA. 

For the final rule, we performed an estimate of land use change emissions associated with 

oil extraction and production to determine if the value was significant enough to be included in 

our petroleum baseline calculation. As oil sands production incurs a greater degree of land use 

change versus conventional crude oil production, we made an estimate of the emissions from the 

conversion of Alberta forest for oil sands production. Using literature values, we found that land 

use change emissions for oil sands were negligible compared to the total well-to-tank values and 

did not change the overall petroleum baseline values. A more complete discussion of our 

analysis can be found in Chapter 2.5.7 of the RIA. 

7-342
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

For the final rule, we are using the model developed by the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory (NETL) to determine the 2005 petroleum baseline. The NETL model provides a 

more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the petroleum baseline than the approach used 

in the proposed rule by utilizing site-specific data, such as country-specific crude oil extraction 

profiles and port-to-port travel distances for imported crude oil and petroleum products. The 

NETL model utilizes recent data to determine the GHG emissions from crude oil extraction and 

transport, refining, and finished product transport. Furthermore, NETL uses 2005 data for major 

oil sands producers to determine the emissions from oil sands extraction. More detail on the 

methodologies used by NETL can be found in Chapter 2.5 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2514 

Organization: Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2514]] states that in regards to using the standard GREET model: 

1. With Canadian tar sands pipelines crossing WORC members in several states, WORC is 

acutely aware of the high carbon costs and net energy losses involved with tar sands. 

There is a significant carbon footprint and land use impact from stripping the boreal 

northern forests of Canada to surface mine crude bitumen. In addition, enormous 

quantities of energy are necessary to refine, heat, and pump the product in massive 

pipelines to southern U.S. refineries and markets. The pipelines stretching across 

thousands of miles of farm and ranch lands should be considered as well. 

2. Similarly, WORC members also reside in Northwest Colorado where oil shale 

developments would require huge amounts of energy, despoil enormous tracts of land, 

and consume vast quantities of water in an arid environment. The energy requirements 

for removing and processing the oil shale will be enormous as well. 

3. WORC members also live and work over coal seams that could be strip mined and 

refined into liquid fuels, again at enormous costs in land, water and net energy inputs. 

Much discussion of coal liquefaction presumes a viable technique for carbon capture and 

sequestration, an emerging and untested technology; but one which assuredly will require 

significant energy to bring into effect, and which has implications for land use and 

impacts off-site, including pipelines and drilling, jeopardizing precious groundwater 

sources. 

4. More conventional oil and gas developments are also incurring significant wide scale 

land use impacts across the Western U.S., including the salinization of the Tongue and 

Powder River basins from coal bed methane developments and the impacts of increasing 

use of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas on surface and groundwater across 

Wyoming, North Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, and Montana. [[#2514.1 p.2]] 

Our Response:

For the final rule, we performed an estimate of land use change emissions associated with 

oil extraction and production to determine if the value was significant enough to be included in 

our petroleum baseline calculation. As oil sands production incurs a greater degree of land use 

7-343
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

change versus conventional crude oil production, we made an estimate of the emissions from the 

conversion of Alberta forest for oil sands production. Using literature values, we found that land 

use change emissions for oil sands were negligible compared to the total well-to-tank values and 

did not change the overall petroleum baseline values. A more complete discussion of our 

analysis can be found in Chapter 2.5.7 of the RIA. 

We did not consider land use emissions associated with road or other infrastructure 

construction for petroleum extraction, transport, refining, or upgrading, as the land use change 

associated with roads constructed for crop and livestock production was also not included. 

Furthermore, land use associated with natural gas extracted for use in oil sands extraction or 

upgrading was not considered, as the land use change from natural gas extracted for renewable 

fuels production was also not considered. 

The petroleum production component of the system boundaries was specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel. In 2005, there were a negligible amount of liquid fuels 

synthesized from oil shale or coal liquefaction. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2491 

Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) 

Comment:

With respect to petroleum fuels, the commenter (2491) states that EPA has used default values of 

GREET, but does not describe which allocation method (value-based approach or system 

expansion approach—also called displacement method) was used in deriving the default values. 

The commenter believes that it would be helpful to specify the allocation method used to avoid 

the misunderstanding and possibility of manipulation by fuel providers. [[Docket number 2491.1, 

pp. 1-2]] 

Our Response: 

For the final rule, we are using the model developed by the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory (NETL) to determine the 2005 petroleum baseline. The NETL model provides a 

more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the petroleum baseline than the approach used 

in the proposed rule by utilizing site-specific data, such as country-specific crude oil extraction 

profiles and port-to-port travel distances for imported crude oil and petroleum products. The 

NETL model utilizes recent data to determine the GHG emissions from crude oil extraction and 

transport, refining, and finished product transport. Furthermore, NETL uses 2005 data for major 

oil sands producers to determine the emissions from oil sands extraction. More detail on the 

methodologies used by NETL can be found in Chapter 2.5 of the RIA. 

NETL employed a tiered allocation approach to partition the GHG emissions associated 

with refinery products. The allocation procedure was based on the ISO 14044 (Section 4.3.4.2 

Allocation procedure, (b) Step 2) standard for allocating emissions from co-product operations 

7-344
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

by first sub-dividing to the smallest unit process and then proportioning the emissions profile 

based on the dependent physical properties of the sub-unit (volumetric throughput of the subunit) when allocation cannot be avoided. The allocation procedure applied by NETL is outlined 

in Section 4.0 of their report, “Development of Baseline Data and Analysis of Life Cycle 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Petroleum-Based Fuels,” available in the RFS2 docket at EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2048 

Organization: BioPure Fuels 

Comment:

With regards to allocation of refining emissions to different petroleum co-products, the 

commenter (2048.1) requests that U.S. EPA apply an economic allocation approach. They 

reference the allocation methods discussed by the ISO or ASTM Committee in Sweden that was 

responsible for making decisions about life-cycle GHG emissions for petroleum in the EU capand-trade system. (2048.1, p.4) (See Docket Number 2048.1, pp.4-5 for a detailed discussion of 

this issue) 

Our Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter. The economic approach for allocation is more 

relevant to the EU Emissions Trading System, due to the importance of allocating emissions to 

specific industrial sectors. However, this is not relevant for our LCA for biofuels. ISO gives 

specific guidance on hierarchy of allocation methods for LCA, starting with: 1) avoid allocation 

– what we do for biofuels; 2) partition based on the underlying physical relationships-what we do 

for refining; and 3) economic value-which is not used in our analysis. 

For the final rule, we are using the model developed by the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory (NETL) to determine the 2005 petroleum baseline. The NETL model provides a 

more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the petroleum baseline than the approach used 

in the proposed rule by utilizing site-specific data, such as country-specific crude oil extraction 

profiles and port-to-port travel distances for imported crude oil and petroleum products. The 

NETL model utilizes recent data to determine the GHG emissions from crude oil extraction and 

transport, refining, and finished product transport. Furthermore, NETL uses 2005 data for major 

oil sands producers to determine the emissions from oil sands extraction. More detail on the 

methodologies used by NETL can be found in Chapter 2.5 of the RIA. 

NETL employed a tiered allocation approach to partition the GHG emissions associated 

with refinery products. The allocation procedure was based on the ISO 14044 (Section 4.3.4.2 

Allocation procedure, (b) Step 2) standard for allocating emissions from co-product operations 

by first sub-dividing to the smallest unit process and then proportioning the emissions profile 

based on the dependent physical properties of the sub-unit (volumetric throughput of the subunit) when allocation cannot be avoided. The allocation procedure applied by NETL is outlined 

in Section 4.0 of their report, “Development of Baseline Data and Analysis of Life Cycle 

7-345
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Petroleum-Based Fuels,” available in the RFS2 docket at EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The (2233) commenter supports the exclusion of indirect, including land use and military 

presence, impacts of petroleum in the petroleum LCA. The commenter believes these types of 

indirect effects are insignificant and speculative. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 51-52]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment: 

The commenter (2505.2) noted that during the public hearings, several parties suggested that 

EPA should change the methodology for determining the greenhouse gas emission reductions of 

biofuels by changing the gasoline and diesel baselines. The commenter agrees with EPA’s 

interpretation of this provision, and EPA’s conclusion that Congress did not authorize EPA to go 

beyond the definition in EISA. (2505.2, p.15) 

Our Response: 

EPA agrees with these comments. Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect 

impacts of petroleum use can be found in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the 

RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) notes several concerns with respect to EPA’s development of well-totank average GHG emissions factors for gasoline and diesel. Specifically, based on their 

assessment of EPA’s approach to modeling GHG emissions from oil refining as presented in 

Section 2.4.4 of the DRIA, the commenter believes that the lifecycle GHG emissions for 

gasoline and diesel fuel may be overstated. The commenter notes inappropriate data and 

information used in the baseline. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 51]] [[See docket number 2393.1, 

pp. 51-55 for a detailed discussion of the petroleum baseline including gasoline baseline, diesel 

fuel baseline, and indirect impacts of petroleum. The commenter also refers to docket number 

2393.4, Attachment 3; however, this is a copyrighted document not available on FDMS.]] 

Our Response: 

7-346
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

For the final rule, we are using the model developed by the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory (NETL) to determine the 2005 petroleum baseline. The NETL model provides a 

more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the petroleum baseline than the approach used 

in the proposed rule by utilizing site-specific data, such as country-specific crude oil extraction 

profiles and port-to-port travel distances for imported crude oil and petroleum products. The 

NETL model utilizes recent data to determine the GHG emissions from crude oil extraction and 

transport, refining, and finished product transport. Furthermore, NETL uses 2005 data for major 

oil sands producers to determine the emissions from oil sands extraction. More detail on the 

methodologies used by NETL can be found in Chapter 2.5 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2249.2) states that a lifecycle analysis must not include disproportionate 

treatment of crop-based biofuels. Comparing direct (only) emissions for petroleum to direct and 

indirect GHG emissions for biodiesel dramatically reduces biodiesel’s GHG benefits compared 

to petroleum and is an obvious violation of a basic scientific principle. Therefore, EPA must 

consider direct land use changes associated with petroleum exploration and production and must 

also consider indirect emission of baseline gasoline and adequately explain why it deems them 

not to be “significant.” [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 89-91]] 

The commenter also believes that the baseline for petroleum should be based on updated 

information. Baseline emissions are based on outdated information. Although the commenter 

generally supports use of the GREET model, as an excellent lifecycle assessment tool, the inputs 

in GREET need updating. Further, more recent data indicates that energy used for crude oil 

production has increased substantially from the information used by GREET. GREET also 

appears to underestimate the emissions attributable to oil sands and crude oil transportation. In 

addition, EPA uses the 1995 IPCC global warming potentials (GWPs) for methane and nitrous 

oxides. These numbers have been updated twice since these values were produced, resulting in a 

greater weighting on methane and a lower weighting on nitrous oxide. The most updated GWP’s 

should be used. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 107]] 

Our Response: 

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

7-347
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

7-348
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

For the final rule, we performed an estimate of land use change emissions associated with 

oil extraction and production to determine if the value was significant enough to be included in 

our petroleum baseline calculation. As oil sands production incurs a greater degree of land use 

change versus conventional crude oil production, we made an estimate of the emissions from the 

conversion of Alberta forest for oil sands production. Using literature values, we found that land 

use change emissions for oil sands were negligible compared to the total well-to-tank values and 

did not change the overall petroleum baseline values. A more complete discussion of our 

analysis can be found in Chapter 2.5.7 of the RIA. 

For the final rule, we are using the model developed by the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory (NETL) to determine the 2005 petroleum baseline. The NETL model provides a 

more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the petroleum baseline than the approach used 

in the proposed rule by utilizing site-specific data, such as country-specific crude oil extraction 

profiles and port-to-port travel distances for imported crude oil and petroleum products. The 

NETL model utilizes recent data to determine the GHG emissions from crude oil extraction and 

transport, refining, and finished product transport. Furthermore, NETL uses 2005 data for major 

oil sands producers to determine the emissions from oil sands extraction. More detail on the 

methodologies used by NETL can be found in Chapter 2.5 of the RIA. 

EPA uses the Global Warming Potential (GWP) values from IPCC’s Second Assessment 

Report. These GWP values have been agreed upon in the international framework for addressing 

climate change and are used in EPA’s Endangerment Finding for greenhouse gases and for the 

official U.S. GHG Inventory. 

7.2.7 Energy Sector Indirect Impacts 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

The commenter (2101.1) noted that if EPA insists upon applying indirect effects, they encourage 

EPA to apply indirect effects for all fuels. This includes undertaking a complete lifecycle 

assessment of the indirect emissions associated with petroleum. The commenter noted that direct 

effects are time-tested, peer-reviewed, reliable and verifiable scientific determinations about the 

lifecycle carbon footprint of fuels or sources of energy that enjoy broad scientific consensus. Socalled “indirect effects,” particularly ILUCs attributable to biofuels, are new, untested, 

unreliable, and controversial computer-generated predictions that are being selectively applied to 

corn ethanol only at this time. According to scientists, there are no peer-reviewed or published 

scientific models that accurately calculate the potential indirect carbon intensity of forms of 

biofuels today, including the models relied upon by EPA in the RFS2 rule. (2101.1, p.2) 

The commenter noted that while EPA determined that land use impacts of petroleum production 

would not have an appreciable impact on the 2005 baseline GHG emissions, the commenter 

7-349
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

finds it remarkable and bizarre that EPA fails to see that future sources of petroleum certainly 

will have appreciable indirect effects due to the massive expenditures in energy made annually 

by the U.S. military to protect oil supplies and transportation routes around the world, as well as 

land use effects (i.e., Alberta Tar Sands Oil). To ignore these petroleum-related indirect 

emissions means that EPA’s comparison of emissions from biofuels versus petroleum is at best 

intellectually dishonest, and at worst a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the truth. (2101.1, p.3) 

If EPA is intent on pursuing ILUC and indirect effects, the commenter would like EPA to fairly 

assess indirect effects on a level playing field. Indirect activities, such as military operations to 

protect oil supplies and shipping lanes with ships, aircraft, tanks, jeeps, and trucks powered by 

oil are not accounted for by EPA in their analysis on the carbon intensity of petroleum. (2101.1, 

p.10) 

The commenter also recommends that EPA revisit its lifecycle analysis comparisons and 

compare future barrels of ethanol to future barrels of oil in determining the carbon intensity of 

fuels. That approach is much more relevant to the real-world scenarios and would do a much 

more effective job of identifying what fuels will indeed be more low carbon. (2101.1, p.11) 

Our Response: 

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

7-350
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For the final rule, we performed an estimate of land use change emissions associated with 

oil extraction and production to determine if the value was significant enough to be included in 

our petroleum baseline calculation. As oil sands production incurs a greater degree of land use 

change versus conventional crude oil production, we made an estimate of the emissions from the 

conversion of Alberta forest for oil sands production. Using literature values, we found that land 

use change emissions for oil sands were negligible compared to the total well-to-tank values and 

did not change the overall petroleum baseline values. A more complete discussion of our 

analysis can be found in Chapter 2.5.7 of the RIA. 

We also do not believe that emissions arising from military activities can be readily 

attributed to the protection of oil imports. Military activities, even in world regions that 

represent vital sources of oil imports, undoubtedly serve a broader range of security and foreign 

policy objectives than merely protecting oil supplies. In the peer review of the energy security 

analysis that EPA commissioned, a majority of peer reviewers believed that U.S. military costs 

should be excluded absent a widely agreed methodology for estimating this component of U.S. 

energy security. Since military impacts were not considered for the energy security analysis in 

this final rule, they were also excluded from any lifecycle GHG analyses 

7-351
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Furthermore, increased domestic consumption of renewable fuels is expected to decrease 

oil demand and thus reduce oil imports. However, an incremental reduction in oil imports is not 

expected to cause an analogous reduction in U.S. military expenditures and activities. Hence, 

even if we were able to attribute GHG emissions to the protection of oil imports, it is unlikely 

that there would be a decrease in military-related GHG emissions as a result of this rule. More 

detail on this topic can be found in the Energy Security Analysis in Chapter 5 of the RIA. 

For the final rule, we are using the model developed by the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory (NETL) to determine the 2005 petroleum baseline. The NETL model provides a 

more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the petroleum baseline than the approach used 

in the proposed rule by utilizing site-specific data, such as country-specific crude oil extraction 

profiles and port-to-port travel distances for imported crude oil and petroleum products. The 

NETL model utilizes recent data to determine the GHG emissions from crude oil extraction and 

transport, refining, and finished product transport. Furthermore, NETL uses 2005 data for major 

oil sands producers to determine the emissions from oil sands extraction. More detail on the 

methodologies used by NETL can be found in Chapter 2.5 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2140 

Organization: John Deere Agriculture & Turf Division 

Comment: 

The commenter (2140.1) supports utilization of biofuels in the United States as a method of 

increasing energy stability and independence, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and generating 

rural economic opportunities. The commenter believes there is currently no scientific consensus 

regarding indirect land use impacts of biofuels. 

The commenter also believes the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) 

recently passed by the House of Representatives reflects Congressional concern that indirect 

emissions impacts not be considered at this time. (2140.1, p.1) 

Our Response: 

EPA believes there is a great deal of scientific consensus on the need to account for 

indirect emissions in assessing the lifecycle impacts of biofuels. EPA’s goal in developing this 

methodology was to use a scientifically sound approach and to appropriately characterize 

uncertainty. In an independent peer review or EPA’s methodology the reviewers in general 

supported the importance of assessing indirect land use change and determined that EPA used 

the best available tools and approaches for this work. This peer review, along with the extensive 

public comments the Agency received, supported the value of quantifying the magnitude of this 

uncertainty and its relative impact on the resulting lifecycle emission estimates as is done in this 

final rule. 

7-352
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA’s obligation is to implement EISA as enacted by Congress. We cannot comment on 

the motivations of proposed legislation. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

While the commenter (2146.1) supports EPA’s efforts to continually reduce GHG emissions 

from transportation fuels, the commenter is concerned about the approach being considered for 

evaluations of indirect effects of biofuels. Not only is it unjustified to apply indirect effects 

solely to biofuels and not other fuels, but the critical issue of land use change and deforestation 

should be examined more holistically, taking into explicit account all the complex factors 

contributing to these changes globally. The commenter urges EPA to delay inclusion of 

potential indirect effects in the LCA of biofuels until further, specific studies can be undertaken 

by respected, scientifically-skilled institutions. (2146.1, pp.6-7) [[See Docket Number 2146.1, 

pp.6-7 for a detailed discussion of this issue]]

Our Response: 

EPA’s analysis does take into account the different factors contributing to land use 

change. However, it is important to note that while many factors impact the certainty in 

predicting total land used for crop production, making accurate predictions of many of these 

factors are not relevant to our analysis. For example different assumptions about economic 

growth rates, weather, and exchange rates will all impact future agricultural projections including 

amount of land use for crops. However, we are interested only in the difference between two 

biofuel scenarios holding all other changes constant. So the absolute values and projections for 

crops, etc. in the model projections are not as important as the difference the model is projecting 

due to an increase in biofuels production. This limits the uncertainty of predicting total land 

used change from biofuel production. 

Furthermore, EPA believes that there is enough information available to include indirect 

impacts in this final rulemaking. EPA has used the best available models and substantially 

modified key inputs to those models to reflect comments by peer reviewers, the public, and 

emerging science. EPA has also modeled additional scenarios from those described in the 

NPRM. EPA recognizes that uncertainty exists with respect to the results, and has attempted to 

quantify the range of uncertainty. While EPA agrees that application of the models it has used in 

the context of assessing GHG emissions represents changes from previous biofuel lifecycle 

modeling, EPA disagrees that it has used faulty data, modeled unrealistic scenarios, or that its 

approach is otherwise scientifically indefensible. Although the results of modeling GHG 

emissions associated with international land use change are uncertain, EPA has attempted to 

quantify that uncertainty and is now in a better position to consider the uncertainty inherent in its 

approach. 

7-353
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0897 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment: 

One commenter (0897) appreciates EPA support for the creation and extension of the renewable 

ethanol standards. This commenter states that EPA’s calculation on the land use CO2 should 

favor ethanol production. The commenter believes that oil creates a large CO2 footprint through 

processes that EPA did not take into account, such as the fuel used by the U.S. military to 

safeguard the transport of foreign fuel from the Middle East to the U.S. (P. 1)

Our Response: 

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum co7-354
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

products due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For the final rule, we performed an estimate of land use change emissions associated with 

oil extraction and production to determine if the value was significant enough to be included in 

our petroleum baseline calculation. As oil sands production incurs a greater degree of land use 

change versus conventional crude oil production, we made an estimate of the emissions from the 

conversion of Alberta forest for oil sands production. Using literature values, we found that land 

use change emissions for oil sands were negligible compared to the total well-to-tank values and 

did not change the overall petroleum baseline values. A more complete discussion of our 

analysis can be found in Chapter 2.5.7 of the RIA. 

We also do not believe that emissions arising from military activities can be readily 

attributed to the protection of oil imports. Military activities, even in world regions that 

represent vital sources of oil imports, undoubtedly serve a broader range of security and foreign 

policy objectives than merely protecting oil supplies. In the peer review of the energy security 

analysis that EPA commissioned, a majority of peer reviewers believed that U.S. military costs 

should be excluded absent a widely agreed methodology for estimating this component of U.S. 

energy security. Since military impacts were not considered for the energy security analysis in 

this final rule, they were also excluded from any lifecycle GHG analyses 

Furthermore, increased domestic consumption of renewable fuels is expected to decrease 

oil demand and thus reduce oil imports. However, an incremental reduction in oil imports is not 

expected to cause an analogous reduction in U.S. military expenditures and activities. Hence, 

even if we were able to attribute GHG emissions to the protection of oil imports, it is unlikely 

that there would be a decrease in military-related GHG emissions as a result of this rule. More 

detail on this topic can be found in the Energy Security Analysis in Chapter 5 of the RIA. 

7-355
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

For the final rule, we are using the model developed by the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory (NETL) to determine the 2005 petroleum baseline. The NETL model provides a 

more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the petroleum baseline than the approach used 

in the proposed rule by utilizing site-specific data, such as country-specific crude oil extraction 

profiles and port-to-port travel distances for imported crude oil and petroleum products. The 

NETL model utilizes recent data to determine the GHG emissions from crude oil extraction and 

transport, refining, and finished product transport. Furthermore, NETL uses 2005 data for major 

oil sands producers to determine the emissions from oil sands extraction. More detail on the 

methodologies used by NETL can be found in Chapter 2.5 of the RIA. 

7.3 Fuel Specific GHG Emissions Estimates 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2133 

Organization: The Brazilian Vegetable Oil Industry Association (ABIOVE) and the 

Brazilian Biodiesel Union (UBRABIO) 

Comment:

The commenter (2133) requests the total exclusion of emissions attributed to the indirect effects 

of land use to Brazilian biodiesel, and that data on Brazilian soy presented in the report prepared 

by the University of Sao Paulo be used. This report concludes: 

1. The application of a consequential approach to Life Cycle Assessment created confusion in 

the interpretation of the GHG emissions. It would be helpful if the results for domestic and 

international GHG balances were also presented, setting as boundaries the soybean production 

itself, aside from the impact that increased production might have on other crops and the 

resulting emissions. 

2. International agricultural emission should be disaggregated into country-specific data for the 

main soybean producing countries. 

3. Data for Brazil should include currently available sources with a proper representation of low 

N fertilizer application due to see inoculation, clean energy matrix, low fuel use in no-till 

farming and use of renewable fuel in agricultural machinery.

4. No-till farming and crop-integration can potentially increase soil carbon stocks, thus 

removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Soil carbon sequestration under conservationist 

management practices should be included in the GHG balance of bio-based products, including 

soybean-derived biodiesel [[Docket number 2133.1, p. 21]] [[See docket number 2133.1, pp. 14-

21 for the University of Sao Paulo report.]] 

Our Response: 

1. Based on the definition of lifecycle GHG emissions specified in EISA, we determined 

that consequential lifecycle analysis was appropriate for this rulemaking. As discussed in RIA 

Chapter 2, there are many studies in the published literature that estimate attributional lifecycle 

GHG emissions from soy-based biodiesel production. However, to avoid confusion, we focused 

7-356
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

solely on presenting consequential lifecycle analysis results which are directly relevant for this 

rulemaking. 

To calculate GHG emissions impacts from crop production, we used data on agricultural 

inputs and energy use by crop and region. We specifically had this data peer reviewed by a 

panel of experts. The expert peer reviewers recommended several sources of data to augment 

our analysis. We used these recommendations to improve our estimates of crop-specific and 

country-specific GHG impacts from crop production. This data is discussed and presented in 

RIA Chapter 2. 

2. Given the nature of EPA’sl lifecycle analysis, which considers all significant direct and 

indirect emissions sources, presenting the results for only one country, or a handful of countries, 

can be misleading because all of the impacts must be considered together. As discussed above, 

all of the country-specific data inputs, assumptions and results are discussed in the RIA and 

included in the public docket. 

3. To estimate soil carbon emissions resulting from agricultural land conversions, we 

assumed medium inputs and full-tillage for new cropland. Following Table 5.5 in the IPCC 

AFOLU, in Brazil we used the soil land use (FLU) parameter of 0.48 for long-term cultivated 

crops in a tropical temperature regime and moist/wet moisture regime. However, we also 

considered the +/- 46% error estimate in Table 5.5 to quantify the uncertainty in our calculations. 

The IPCC default soil management factor (FMG) for no-till farming in tropical/moist regions is 

1.22. This means that in Brazil, the assumption that all new cropland uses no-till farming 

methods would reduce our soil C change estimates for land converted to cropland by 22%. Thus, 

by considering the +/- 46% uncertainty factor for the FLU parameter, our 95% confidence range 

encompasses the case where all new cropland uses no-till farming methods. Projecting future 

soil management practices internationally is an area for more work, and we intend to study this 

more as part of ongoing lifecycle analysis updates. 

4. Soil carbon stocks from different cropping practices internationally are included as part 

of the range of uncertainty around our land use change results. Soil carbon changes from 

different cropping practices domestically are included explicitly in our modeling for all the 

different biofuel pathways considered. 

7.3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Relative to the 2005 Petroleum Baseline 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2012 

Organization: Caribbean Basin Ethanol Producers Group 

Comment:

The commenter (2012.1) requests that their organization be allowed to voluntarily transition 

from the use of fossil fuels to power their plant to an alternative energy such as bagasse to reduce 

our emissions of CO2. (2012.1, p.3) 

7-357
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response: 

EPA has modeled sugarcane ethanol production assuming the use of bagasse for 

providing process energy. We have not model facilities using other energy sources for sugarcane 

ethanol production. A fuel producer using production technology that utilizes other energy 

sources will need to petition the Agency and supply the necessary information to allow 

calculation of the lifecycle emissions impact of the fuel it is producing. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2071 

Organization: Targeted Growth, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter states they have developed three new versions of potential feedstocks that should 

have much lower LCA GHG emissions, and would be inappropriately categorized by the current 

legislation; camelina, sugar corn, and algae. The commenter makes three suggestions: 

A. That the Final Rule make a distinction between feedstocks that are currently in large 

cultivation (corn, soybeans, canola, sugar, and timber) and pre-commercial dedicated 

energy crops. 

B. That pre-commercial dedicated crops not be subject to a formal LCA until they reach a 

threshold of 1 million acres of domestic cultivation; this will allow new crops to gain a 

commercial foothold and develop data at an appropriate scale that will allow for a more 

accurate analysis of that crops LCA GHG emissions from production. 

C. That for new crops which reach the 1 million acre milestone, the EPA have an expedited 

process for conducting an LCA GHG emission analysis that is timely; such pathways 

should be established within a timely 90 days after the year in which the 1 million acre 

milestone has been met. 

Our Response: 

The final rule clearly makes a distinction between fuel produced from current crops and 

technology and that produced from emerging alternative feedstocks and technologies. EPA has 

provided a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA to evaluate specific 

technologies or operating processes that distinguish their biofuel production LCA GHG impacts 

from those already considered by EPA. These new technologies or operating processes can then 

receive an alternative GHG threshold assessment, if appropriate. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2093 

Organization: Targeted Growth, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2093]] proposes that that EPA issue a final rule that supports the development 

of next generation feedstocks and brings transparency to the regulatory process. The final rule 

7-358
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

should make a distinction between feedstocks that are already in large scale cultivation - corn, 

sugar, soybeans - and pre-commercial dedicated energy crops. Pre-commercial energy crops 

should not be subject to a lifecycle analysis. They should be considered in compliance with the 

rule’s lifecycle greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements for biodiesel and cellulosic 

biofuels until they reach a threshold of 1 million acres of domestic cultivation. [[see docket 

#2093, p.2]]

Our Response: 

The final rule clearly makes a distinction between fuel produced from current crops and 

technology and that produced from emerging alternative feedstocks and technologies. EPA has 

provided a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA to evaluate specific 

technologies or operating processes that distinguish their biofuel production LCA GHG impacts 

from those already considered by EPA. These new technologies or operating processes can then 

receive an alternative GHG threshold assessment, if appropriate. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2111 

Organization: Arcadia Biosciences, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2011]] states that though it may be appropriate not to forecast improvements in 

the lifecycle GHG emissions over time based on yield and technological improvements, it would 

be inappropriate to assume that yield and technological improvements could not bring the 

lifecycle GHG emissions of corn ethanol or soy biodiesel down enough to qualify for the 

Advanced Biofuel or Biomass-Based Diesel definition. 

Our concern is that the given RFS2 structure does not provide proper incentive for adoption of 

GHG reducing technologies in feedstock and biofuel production. Without incentives from the 

EPA through the Renewable Fuels Standard program, these technologies may not be adopted 

unless they provide an economic benefit to the farmer or producer. [[see #2011.1 p.3-4]] 

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has updated its assessment of crop yields both domestically and 

internationally. We have calculated lifecycle emission performance assuming both base yields 

derived from projecting into the future longer term historical trends and also assuming a marked 

increase in future yields based on industry and other comments. 

EPA has provided a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA to 

evaluate specific technologies or operating processes that distinguish their biofuel production 

LCA GHG impacts from those already considered by EPA. These new technologies or operating 

processes can then receive an alternative GHG threshold assessment, if appropriate. 

7-359
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2112.1) believes that the percent reduction in GHG emissions is also arbitrary. 

If severe reductions do not allow the industry to rise to meet those standards, the law will fail far 

more completely than if the RFS standards are broadly inclusive to industry participation but the 

reductions are incremental. The conventional biofuel standards (starch-based ethanol) should 

include a 10 percent reduction in GHG emissions, while the advance renewable 

(biomass/cellulosic) fuels should include a 20 percent reduction. (2112.1, p.2) 

The commenter believes that the reduction targets should be treated as a safety valve rather than 

a prescriptive absolute. The current fixed percent reductions should serve only as a policy 

mechanism to keep technologies from commercialization that utilizes more fossil fuels in the 

generation of biofuels than they create. Lowering the percent reduction goals will also relieve 

the responsibility on EPA for guessing about long term effects. (2112.1, p.2)

Our Response: 

EPA notes that the four specific GHG thresholds as well as the requirements for EPA’s 

greenhouse gas assessments are provided in the EISA statute. 

 

Based on the analyses and approach described in the preamble, EPA is determining that 

ethanol produced from corn starch at a new (or expanded capacity from an existing) natural gas 

fired facility using advanced efficient technologies that we expect will be most typical of new 

production facilities will meet the 20% GHG emission reduction threshold compared to the 2005 

baseline gasoline. We are also determining that biobutanol from corn starch meets the 20% 

threshold. Similarly, EPA is making the determination that biodiesel and renewable diesel from 

soy oil or waste oils, fats and greases will exceed the 50% GHG threshold for biomass-based 

diesel compared to the 2005 petroleum diesel baseline. In addition, we have now modeled 

biodiesel and renewable diesel produced from algal oils as complying with the 50% threshold for 

biomass-based diesel. EPA is also determining that ethanol from sugarcane complies with the 

applicable 50% GHG reduction threshold for advanced biofuels. The modeled pathways 

(feedstock and production technology) for cellulosic ethanol and cellulosic diesel would also 

comply with the 60% GHG reduction threshold applicable to cellulosic biofuels. 

Under EISA, EPA is allowed to adjust the GHG reduction thresholds downward by up to 

10% if necessary based on lifecycle GHG assessment of biofuels likely to be available. Based 

on the results summarized above, we are not finalizing any adjustments to the lifecycle GHG 

thresholds for the four renewable fuel standard categories. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

7-360
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) noted that during the public hearings on the proposed RFS2 rule, 

several parties suggested that EPA should change the methodology for determining the 

greenhouse gas emission reductions of biofuels by changing the gasoline and diesel baselines. 

The commenter agrees with EPA’s stated view that EISA clearly specifies the baseline. The 

commenter agrees with EPA’s interpretation of this statutory provision, and EPA’s conclusion 

that Congress did not authorize EPA to go beyond this definition. (2124.1, p.28) 

Our Response:

EPA agrees with this comment. Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts 

of petroleum use can be found in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment: 

The commenter (2146.1) noted that in order for the comparisons with biofuels to be accurate 

over the time period covered by the RFS2, the biofuel LCA results should be compared to the 

incremental fossil fuels to be replaced over that same time horizon. The commenter encourages 

EPA to compare reductions in greenhouse gas emissions attributable to renewable biofuels 

displacement of gasoline and diesel through 2022, in addition to the 2005 baseline defined. 

(2146.1, p.6) 

Our Response:

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

7-361
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2153 

Organization: Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2153]] notes that technologies now on the cusp of commercialization and 

others under development will affect these variables and EPA’s analyses. The final rule should 

7-362
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

provide enough flexibility for EPA to review and revise these estimates and make program 

adjustments to reflect the quickly developing capabilities of evolving technology. Technology 

currently in development stands to increase yield and enhance nitrogen or water use efficiency, 

or by greater implementation of management practices such as conservation tillage, to better 

sequester carbon. Through the use of existing and future technology corn producers will 

continue to significantly increase yield and reduce the carbon footprint of agricultural 

production. The technologies in Syngenta’s pipeline also include new seed treatments that 

protect emerging plants, biotech traits to control a wide spectrum of pests, drought tolerance and 

nitrogen utilization traits, and new chemistries capable of reducing plant stress. Thus, Syngenta 

believes that the yield projections through 2022 employed by EPA in RFS2 are overly 

conservative. [[#2153.1 p.2-3]] 

Our Response: 

The specific mandates for advanced biofuel and the phase in of these mandates over time 

are specified in the legislation. EPA does not have authority to accelerate the phase in of these 

mandates. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2157) notes several issues which require EPA to update its modeling as it 

substantially underestimates the reduction of GHG emissions from biodiesel: (1) The baseline 

EPA assumes for biodiesel is too low, biodiesel production will be greater then mandate so there 

is no indirect land use impacts from biodiesel production, (2) EPA needs to update N2O 

emissions from soybean production, include a glycerin co-product credit, and update the energy 

balance for biodiesel production, (3) Emissions calculated for the domestic agriculture sector 

may be overstated, the energy use for soybean production is too high, and transport energy may 

be double counted, (4) the baseline for petroleum should be based on updated information, and 

(5) EPA should give biofuels credit for the avoidance of increased use of marginal sourced of 

crude oil. [Each point is discussed in detail on (2157 p. 104).] 

Our Responses: 

(1): On the baseline issue, we disagree with this comment, even if biodiesel volumes 

would have reached the mandated volumes in 2022 there is still an impact with producing these 

volumes compared to a case without them. The threshold analysis mandated by EISA requires 

EPA to determine the impacts of the different biofuels production which requires us to consider 

two scenarios with differing volumes of biofuels. So regardless of what volume might or might 

not actually be produced, our threshold analysis would still be based on two different volume 

scenarios and production of any amount of biofuels would still have an impact. Furthermore, 

since our analysis normalizes the greenhouse gas emissions impacts on a per BTU basis, the 

effect of using different volumes in our calculations is minimized. 

7-363
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

(2): For the final rule analysis EPA has updated the N2O emission estimates for soybean 

production to be consistent with the latest IPCC guidance. We have also updated our analysis to 

include a co-product credit from glycerin production. Finally we have updated our energy 

balance estimates based on the latest published reports from USDA on biodiesel energy use. 

(3): We disagree that the energy use for soybean production has been overestimated. 

Energy data (e.g., diesel fuel, gasoline, electricity, natural gas) included within the crop budgets 

in FASOM are based on USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data 

(http:www.ers.usda.gov/Data/ARMS/) and crop budgets developed by university extension 

offices. The differences with other sources of data are because the crop budgets included in the 

FASOM model include data on input use that varies by crop, management practices, and region. 

There is often considerable variation in the inputs used per acre, which implies that total input 

use and associated GHG emissions and other environmental impacts will be affected by changes 

in crop mix and management practices that result under the different scenarios considered. 

Furthermore, the energy use for transportation is not double counted in the modeling. The 

energy use for crop production is separate from the energy used to transport feedstocks. 

(4) & (5): The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the 

proposed rule and the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was 

due to the definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of 

the CAA. The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle 

threshold analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are 

defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

7-364
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For the final rule, we are using the model developed by the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory (NETL) to determine the 2005 petroleum baseline. The NETL model provides a 

more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the petroleum baseline than the approach used 

in the proposed rule by utilizing site-specific data, such as country-specific crude oil extraction 

profiles and port-to-port travel distances for imported crude oil and petroleum products. The 

NETL model utilizes recent data to determine the GHG emissions from crude oil extraction and 

transport, refining, and finished product transport. Furthermore, NETL uses 2005 data for major 

oil sands producers to determine the emissions from oil sands extraction. More detail on the 

methodologies used by NETL can be found in Chapter 2.5 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2190 

Organization: Illinois River Energy, LLC. 

Comment: 

7-365
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The commenter [[2190]] states that the model assumptions regarding agricultural productivity 

growth and biofuel processing efficiency improvements are simply unjustifiably pessimistic. 

[[#2190 p.2]] 

Our Response: 

There are many factors that go into the economic modeling but the yield assumptions for 

different crops has one of the biggest impacts on land use and land use change. Therefore, for 

our final rule analysis we ran a base yield case and a high yield case. 

EPA’s base yield projections are derived from extrapolating through 2022 long-term historical 

U.S. corn yields from 1985 to 2009. This estimate, 183 bushels/acre for corn and 48 

bushels/acre for soybeans, is consistent with USDA’s method of projecting future crop yields. 

During the public comment process we learned that numerous technical advancements-- 

including better farm practices, seed hybridization and genetic modification--have led to more 

rapid gains in yields since 1995. In addition, commenters, including many leading seed 

companies, provided data supporting more rapid improvements in future yields. For example, 

commenters pointed to recent advancements in seed development (including genetic 

modification) and the general accumulation of knowledge of how to develop and bring to market 

seed varieties—factors that would allow for a greater rate of development of seed varieties 

requiring fewer inputs such as fertilizer and pest management applications. Therefore, in 

coordination with USDA experts, EPA has developed for this final rule a high yield case 

scenario of 230 bushels/acre for corn and 60 bushels/acre for soybeans. These figures represent 

the 99% upper bound confidence limit of variability in historical U.S. yields. This high yield 

case represents a feasible high yield scenario for the purpose of a sensitivity test of the impact on 

the results of higher yields. 

Feedback we received indicated that corn and soybean yields respond in tandem and that 

a high yield corn case would also imply a higher yield for soybeans as well. The high yield case 

is therefore based on higher yield corn and soybeans in the U.S. as well as in the major corn and 

soybean producing countries around the world. 

While we modeled a high yield scenario for this analysis we continue to rely primarily on 

the base yield estimates in our assessments of different biofuel lifecycle GHG emissions. The 

reasons outlined above could lead to higher rates of yield growth in the future, however, there are 

mitigating factors that could limit this yield growth or potentially cause reductions in yield 

growth rates. For example, the water requirements for both increased corn farming and ethanol 

production could lead to future water constraints that may in some regions limit yield growth 

potential. Furthermore, one of the long term impacts of potential global climate change could be 

a reduction in agricultural output of different impacted regions around the world, including the 

U.S. This could also serve to reduce yield growth. As with many aspects of this lifecycle 

modeling, as the science and data evolves on crop yields, the Agency will update its factors 

accordingly. 

What Commenters Said:

7-366
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2245 

Organization: Illinois Corn Growers Association, et.al. 

Contributors to this comment letter include: Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Soybean 

Association, Illinois Soybean Association, Illinois Renewable Fuels Association, Kentucky 

Soybean Association, Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, Missouri Corn Growers 

Association, Missouri Soybean Association, Monsanto, the National Corn to Ethanol Research 

Center, Nebraska Corn Board, Nebraska Soybean Association, Novozymes, Ohio Soybean 

Association, South Dakota Soybean Association, University of Illinois Chicago, Energy 

Resources Center, University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana plant breeding, animal nutrition and 

agronomy, DuPont, Ethanol Technologies, John Deere, and the U.S. Grains Council 

Comment:

The commenters (2245.1) believe that EPA needs to establish the appropriate boundaries for 

GHG determinations. EPA has repeatedly indicated that their hands are tied by the legislative 

language indicating that renewable fuel production in 2022 must achieve a 20% reduction in 

lifecycle GHG emissions compared to the average for gasoline or diesel sold and distributed as 

transportation fuel in 2005. EPA is being inconsistent in its response to this legislative request. 

EPA should either exercise its discretion in resetting the baseline year for greenhouse gas 

emissions for the relative comparison of all fuels to 2022 or include the emission savings from 

marginal sources of petroleum as an indirect credit to the biofuel. (2245.1, p.30) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2339 

Organization: Illinois Com Growers Association 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2339]] states EPA’s proposal not only fails to calculate the full lifecycle GHG 

emissions of the displaced gasoline and diesel fuel in the baseline year, it also fails to credit 

renewable fuels with the reduction in the gasoline and diesel fuel lifecycle GHG emissions that 

will be achieved over time as those fuels are replaced. EPA admits that it has not included 

indirect land use impacts in its analysis of the petroleum lifecycle GHGs either domestic or 

international. [[#2339 p.6]] 

Our Response:

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

7-367
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2504 

7-368
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: American Frozen Food Institute 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2504]] states that EPA should restructure the RFS to accelerate the 

development of advanced biofuels. Modifying the food-to-fuel mandates and restructuring the 

RFS2 to give priority to advanced biofuels would limit the diversion of food to fuel. And that 

implementing the RFS2 proposal would pose economic harm by significantly increasing the cost 

of food. [[see #2504.1 p.1]]

Our Response: 

The specific mandates for advanced biofuel and the phase in of these mandates over time 

are specified in the legislation. EPA does not have authority to accelerate the phase in of these 

mandates. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2625 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 400 comment letters received 

from an anonymous organization) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2625) notes that, “All lifecycle analyses, including EPA’s without international 

land use changes, show well over 50 percent reductions in emissions. There is ample support, 

therefore, for EPA to essentially grandfather existing facilities by deeming these facilities to be 

in compliance with the 50 percent reduction requirement.” (2625 p. 1)

Our Response: 

“Grandfathering” of facilities is as provided for in EISA; this limits grandfathering of 

fuel for compliance with the basic renewable fuel standard of 20% reduction compared to 

petroleum fuel; it does not apply to fuels meeting the 50% reduction target for advanced biofuels. 

Additionally, EPA has determined it is appropriate to assess the full lifecycle impacts of biofuels 

including international land use impacts as directed by EISA. 

7.3.1.1 Corn Ethanol 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA’s substantial focus on corn ethanol in the Proposed 

Rule and DRIA appears to ignore the fact that the lifecycle emissions definition in the statute 

applies to both renewable fuels and the baseline petroleum. (2329.1, p.52) 

7-369
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response: 

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

For the final rule, we performed an estimate of land use change emissions associated with 

oil extraction and production to determine if the value was significant enough to be included in 

our petroleum baseline calculation. As oil sands production incurs a greater degree of land use 

change versus conventional crude oil production, we made an estimate of the emissions from the 

conversion of Alberta forest for oil sands production. Using literature values, we found that land 

use change emissions for oil sands were negligible compared to the total well-to-tank values and 

did not change the overall petroleum baseline values. A more complete discussion of our 

analysis can be found in Chapter 2.5.7 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

7-370
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter also noted that a traditional lifecycle analysis shows substantial reductions in 

GHG emissions from corn ethanol compared to petroleum. The commenter agrees with EPA’s 

exclusion of biogenic carbon based on corn uptake from tailpipe emissions associated with 

ethanol combustion. (2329.1, pp.64-65) 

Our Response: 

We do not use GREET factors for corn tethanol, either growing or processing, we use 

FASOM and FAPRI inputs for scorn growing, including a high yield scenario, we use 

projections to 2022 for technology and efficiency improvements for corn ethanol process energy 

use. 

Furthermore we do not calculate direct emissions specifically since our modeling 

includes indirect impacts of agriculture including livestock and crop shifting. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter noted that neither the FAPRI nor FASOM models included projections of the 

frequency of use of the following farm practices, which have been shown to reduce energy 

consumption on the farm, and in some cases, very significantly reduce N2O emissions from 

agriculture: 

-No till farming (reduces soil carbon and nitrogen loss, and reduces agriculture energy use) 

-Conservation till farming (also reduces soil carbon and nitrogen loss, and reduces agriculture 

energy use) 

-Winter cover and double cropping (reduces N2O emissions and increases soil carbon). 

The commenter believes that EPA should project agriculture emissions to 2022, estimating 

frequencies of the above practices on newly converted land. (2329.1, p.66) 

Our Response: 

Our domestic ag sector modeling does include different farming practices including notill and conservation tillage. We project out to 2022 the use of these different tillage practices 

based on the economics involved. 

Winter cover and double cropping are captured in our international Brazil module 

projecting out to 2022. As part of ongoing analysis we will look at feedstocks produced from 

winter and double cropping in terms of feedstocks for biofuels production. 

What Commenters Said:

7-371
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter believes that EPA should allow sources to submit their own facility-specific 

analysis to establish whether it can meet the GHG reduction requirements of RFS2. (2329.1, 

p.96) 

Our Response: 

EPA has established biofuel threshold decisions that apply nationally, to all facilities 

producing the same fuel, using the same feedstock and the same production technologies. EPA 

has also provided a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA to evaluate 

specific technologies or operating processes that distinguish their biofuel production LCA GHG 

impacts from those already considered by EPA. These new technologies or operating processes 

can then receive an alternative GHG threshold assessment, if appropriate. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter feels that while ethanol facilities have continued to improve efficiencies, EPA 

did not reflect this in the proposed pathways. 

Our Response: 

EPA’s analyses take into account expect improvements in facility performance over time. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter also believes that EPA’s proposed treatment of processing distiller grains does 

not adequately reflect practices. Facilities should be able to adjust EPA’s proposed percentages 

in its lifecycle analysis based on the amount of distiller grains it distributes as wet versus dry. 

Even thought the commenter disputes EPA’s estimated percentages in Table VI.C.1-2, this 

adjustment may allow additional production processes to qualify that are otherwise under the 20 

percent reduction requirement. The commenter believes that EPA should analyze and provide 

additional pathways, as few facilities dry their distiller grains or sell wet distiller grains 100 

percent of the time. (2329.1, p. 98) 

Our Response: 

7-372
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA has established biofuel threshold decisions that apply nationally, to all facilities 

producing the same fuel, using the same feedstock and the same production technologies. EPA 

has also provided a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA to evaluate 

specific technologies or operating processes that distinguish their biofuel production LCA GHG 

impacts from those already considered by EPA. These new technologies or operating processes 

can then receive an alternative GHG threshold assessment, if appropriate. 

EPA also recognizes that the amount of drying of distiller grains will have an impact on 

the overall lifecycle results for corn ethanol. For the final rule EPA has provided a number of 

pathways for corn ethanol that qualify for the 20% GHG lifecycle threshold depending on the 

type of technology, process fuel, and percentage of distiller grain drying used. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1989 

Organization: Iowa Farm Bureau Federation 

Comment: 

By implementing the rule as proposed, EPA sets a dangerous precedent for states to follow 

without the same consideration for existing ethanol production. The result very well could be a 

series of state regulations for low-carbon fuels which refuse to acknowledge EPA-2 Renewable 

Identification Numbers (RINs), or 38-character numeric codes assigned to grandfathered 

producers or importers of renewable fuel as a basic currency for the RFS program’s credits and 

trading. The resulting damage to the well-established ethanol industry compliance system would 

be based heavily on unsure and questionable analysis of ILU changes. 

Our Response: 

EPA has established these final rules in accordance with the mandates of EISA. As 

described in the final rule and referenced elsewhere in this summary and analysis of comment, 

EPA believes it has properly assed land use impacts including significant indirect land use 

changes which will results form ncreased demand of biofuel feedstock. Individual state actions 

regarding the acceptability of biofuels under state-specific programs are outside the scope of this 

rule. However, we note that for the final rule, EPA has determined several corn ethanol 

pathways that we believe represent anticipated technology that will meet the 20% threshold for 

renewable fuels. 

 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0981 

Organization: Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research, Department of Agronomy 

and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Comment:

The commenter (0981) states that empirical data concerning biorefinery operations for the LCA 

of corn-ethanol scarce. Because of industry growth and the lack of information concerning the 

performance of these biorefineries, the commenter recommends that EPA perform a survey of 

biorefinery efficiency across the U.S. ethanol industry for dry and wet mills, and use these actual 

7-373
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

data as the basis for establishing the baseline for GHG emissions from current corn-ethanol 

systems. (pp. 7-8) 

Our Response: 

EPA has used the most up to date information on current biorefinery performance based 

in part on recent survey data. Through the proposal process, EPA described its energy 

assumptions for biorefineries and reflected in its final analysis updated information. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2002 

Organization: Novozymes North America, Inc. (Novozymes) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2002) recommends that EPA modify the foregone carbon sequestration for the 

final rule to reflect the fact that old forests sequester less carbon than relatively young forests. 

[[Docket number 2002.1, p. 5]]

Our Response: 

In the proposed rule, to estimate international annual forgone forest sequestration, we 

used IPCC default data for the growth rates of forests greater than 20 years old. The expert peer 

reviewers noted that these estimates could be refined with more detailed information from the 

scientific literature. Many of the public commenters were also concerned that EPA’s approach 

overestimated foregone sequestration because it did not adequately account for natural 

disturbances, such as fires and disease. To address these comments, our analysis has been 

updated with peer reviewed studies of long-term growth rates for both tropical and temperate 

forests. These estimates are based on long-term records (i.e., monitoring stations in old-growth 

forests for the tropics and multi-decadal inventory comparisons for the temperate regions) and 

reflect all losses/gains over time. These studies show that the old-growth forests in the tropics 

that many once assumed to be in “steady state” (i.e., carbon gains equal losses) are in fact still 

gaining carbon. In summary, our analysis now includes more conservative foregone forest 

sequestration estimates that account for natural gains and losses over time. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2074 

Organization: GreenShift Corporation 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2094 

Organization: GreenShift Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2074, 2094) provides the three most significant effects of extracting corn oil 

from any ethanol plant: 

7-374
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

1. GHG emissions from ethanol production are actually 29 percent less than gasoline when corn 

oil is extracted, compared to the 19 percent EPA calculated in its draft impact statement on this 

RFS2 proposal. 

2. Corn oil extraction after fermentation allows a dry mill ethanol pant to produce 11 percent 

more total fuel energy by manufacturing biodiesel from its com oil. 

3. Additional corn oil extraction efficiency, coupled with corn varieties now available that have 

higher corn oil content (and the same starch content), have the potential to more than double 

these benefits. [[Docket number 2074, 2094, p. 1]] 

The commenter also notes that the EPA assumptions for the electrical energy use and oil 

recovery potential of corn oil extraction are flawed. [[Docket number 2074, p. 2; 2094, p. 3-5]] 

The commenter concludes that operating with corn oil extraction, every ethanol plant can reduce 

GHG emissions by more than the 20 percent threshold, so that all corn ethanol will meet the 

definition of a renewable fuel. [[Docket number 2074, p. 4]] [[See docket number 2074, p. 2-4 

for further discussion.]] 

Our Response: 

EPA has included both front-end corn oil fractionation, and back-end corn oil extraction 

as technologies available for dry mill corn ethanol plants as part of our life cycle GHG analysis. 

Our projections are that the majority of corn ethanol plants in 2022 will have either fractionation 

or extraction technology installed. We account for the energy use and co-product changes 

associated with removing corn oil from the process. The corn oil from extraction is assumed to 

be used as a biodiesel feedstock. The information provided in GreenShift’s comments, as well as 

conversations between GreenShift and EPA has been taken into account to update the electrical 

energy use and corn oil recovery potential of corn oil extraction modeling. 

Based on our final rulemaking analysis we have found that corn ethanol, including 

advanced technologies such as corn oil extraction/fractionation, reduce GHG emissions by more 

than the 20% threshold required for renewable fuels. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2153 

Organization: Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2153]] states that corn is one of the best understood crops in the world. The 

substantial infrastructure that is in place to harvest and store corn must not be overlooked. Some 

have estimated that dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass will require up to six times the 

current volume to achieve the same energy density as corn. Therefore, to reach national goals 

for cellulosic ethanol, the U.S. needs to develop the necessary harvesting and storage 

infrastructure necessary. While this is an admirable goal, such infrastructure development will 

require an increase in targeted investment and will take years. [[#2409.1 p.2]]

Our Response: 

7-375
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

As part of its cost analysis, EPA considered the needed energy and related greenhouse 

gas impacts for growing, harvesting, gathering, shipping, storing and producing biofuel from 

energy crops. In doing this analysis we also developed some information on the likely cost 

impacts. However, as energy crop production and use for biofuel production is in its infancy, 

these assessments will likely need to be updated as commercial production starts to occur. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

Using EPA’s proposed LCA GHG emissions for corn-based ethanol, the commenter (2233) 

notes that GHG emissions from corn-based ethanol will increase significantly for at least the next 

13 years and, everything else being equal, for the next 30 years, total cumulative GHG emissions 

from corn-based ethanol will be higher than at the beginning of the RFS2 program. It will not be 

until 2040 at the earliest that the corn-based ethanol portion of the RFS2 program begins to show 

some slight benefits. The commenter recommends that EPA submit this information to Congress 

and the Administration with a recommendation that the corn-based ethanol portion of RFS2 be 

removed. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 45]] 

Our Response: 

The recommendation to provide information to Congress and to recommend corn-based 

ethanol be removed from the RFS2 rule are outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

7.3.1.2 Imported Ethanol 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1958 

Organization: Institute for International Trade Negotiations, The Brazalian Institute for 

International Negotiations (ICONE) 

Comment:

The commenter (1958) believes that the GHG emissions in the proposed RFS2 Draft Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (DRIA) as a result of an increasing demand for sugarcane ethanol overstate the 

emissions associated to direct and indirect land use changes. This commenter shows that a more 

accurate land use model for Brazil derives new per hectare CO2-e emissions factors and, as a 

consequence, the reduction of GHG emissions of sugarcane ethanol compared to gasoline should 

be higher than the results presented by the draft analysis. Rather than 44 percent reduction for 

100 year with 2% discount and 26 percent for 30 years with 0% discount as published in RFS2's 

DRIA, our analysis indicates 69 percent for 100 year with 2% discount and 60 percent for 30 

year with 0% discount. The commenter strongly urges the EPA to revise its calculations, taking 

into account the methodology and the results presented in their comment letter and attachment. 

7-376
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

[[Docket number 1958.1, p. 1]] [[See docket number 1958.1, pp. 1-31 and 1958.2, comment 

attachment for extensive discussion of the commenter’s analysis and calculations on GHG 

emissions using the Brazilian Land Use Model (BLUM)]] 

Our Response: 

The Brazil module (an early version of which was used in the commentor’s analysis) was 

developed by Iowa State University with input from Brazilian agricultural sector experts and we 

believe it is an improvement over the approach used in EPA’s proposed rule. In the NPRM, we 

requested additional data for countries outside the U.S. We received comments encouraging us 

to use regional and country specific data where it was available. We also received comments 

encouraging us to take into account the available supply of abandoned pastureland in Brazil as a 

potential source of new crop land. The new Brazil module addresses these comments. Since the 

Brazil module contains data specific to six regions, this additional level of details allows FAPRI 

to more accurately capture real-world responses to higher agricultural prices. For example, 

double cropping (the practice of planting a winter crop of corn or wheat on existing crop acres) is 

a common practice in Brazil. Increased double cropping is feasible in response to higher 

agricultural prices, which increases total production without increasing land use conversion. The 

new Brazil module also explicitly accounts for changes in pasture acres, therefore accounting for 

the competition between crop and pasture acres. Furthermore, the Brazil module explicitly 

models livestock intensification, the practice of increasing the number of heads of cattle per acre 

of land in response to higher commodity prices or increased demand for land. 

The commentor’s analysis uses the Brazil model by itself based on the assumption that 

sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil has no effect or interactions with agricultural markets in 

other countries. We did not think this was a valid assumption, so instead of modeling Brazil in 

isolation we integrated the Brazil module into the FAPRI’s global modeling framework. We 

used this modeling structure to analyze all of the renewable fuels assessed with FAPRI in this 

rulemaking. Our analysis with the international FAPRI models indicates the sugarcane ethanol 

production in Brazil can impact global commodity prices and agricultural activities in other 

countries. However, in the scenarios we analyzed the impacts of sugarcane ethanol production 

outside of Brazil were relatively modest. Although there are several differences in our approach 

compared the analysis done by the commenters, including the modeling changes described 

above, our final lifecycle results for sugarcane ethanol are similar to the results derived by the 

commenter. As discussed in preamble Section V, with a 30 year time period and 0% discount 

rate, we estimate that imported sugarcane ethanol gives a 61% reduction in lifecycle GHG 

emissions compared to the petroluem baseline, with a 95% confidence range of a 53%-70% 

reduction. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2204 

Organization: Sierra Research, Inc. 

Comment: 

7-377
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The commenter [[2204]] states they have identified the following errors and omissions in the 

analysis of sugarcane ethanol: 1. Ignoring direct and indirect N2O emissions from crop residues; 

2. Use of inappropriately low fertilizer rates; 3. Failure to account for energy inputs for 

dehydration of hydrous ethanol; 4. Failure to accurately assess transport of ethanol from Brazil to 

U.S.; 5. Failure to assess actual cane harvesting practices and processing in Brazil; and 6. Use of 

the unrealistic assumption that all excess electricity resulting from ethanol production in Brazil 

will displace fossil fuel combustion. The commenter cites extensive quantitative analysis on 

pages 3-27.

Our Response: 

With respect to the first comment, it is correct that the proposal did not include N2O 

emissions from the direct and indirect emissions from crop residues for cotton, palm oil, 

rapeseed, sugar beet, sugarcane, or sunflower. These were not included for these crops because 

default crop-specific IPCC factors used in the calculation were not available. Comments from 

our peer review process suggested that we include proxy emissions from these crops based on 

similar crop types that do have default factors. Therefore, for our final rule analysis we have 

included crop residue N2O emissions from sugarcane production based on perennial grass as a 

proxy. See Section 2.4.3.2 of the RIA for more details. 

With respect to the second comment, we have updated our fertilizer rates based on a more 

recent International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) report as suggested by our peer review. 

This report provides more up-to-date and consistent datasets for fertilizer rates than that used for 

the proposal. 

With respect to the third comment, for the final rule we include the energy input required 

for ethanol dehydration regardless if it is dehydrated in Brazil or in a Caribbean country. All 

imported ethanol is assumed to be anhydrous once it enters the U.S. for consumption. See 

Section 2.4.7.5.5 of the RIA for more information. 

With respect to the fourth comment, we have reassessed our assumptions on 

transportation of ethanol from Brazil to the U.S. Updated feedstock transport assumptions are 

based on suggestions from UNICA as well as Brazilian researchers as further discussed in 

Section 2.4.6 of the RIA. We have also updated our sugarcane ethanol transport assumptions as 

described in 2.4.8.3 for the final rule. For example, we now assume that back-haul emissions are 

negligible for ocean tankers transporting ethanol from Brazil to the United States. We have also 

estimated the average distance for ethanol transported by ocean tanker to various U.S. ports 

instead of assuming default assumptions of only two ports. We have updated our assumptions on 

the average distance ethanol is transported by truck, barge, and rail within the United States 

(from import facilities to petroleum blending terminals) based on a recent study conducted by 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

With respect to the fifth comment, we have updated our analysis to include the potential 

for mechanical harvesting and crop residue burning emissions. We assume for the final rule that 

there will be 100% mechanical harvesting and that the majority (not all) of sugarcane will be left 

unburned in the field by 2022. Please refer to Section 2.4.3.5 of the RIA for more information. 

7-378
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

We account for the potential for increased diesel fuel consumption for mechanical harvesting as 

described in Section 2.4.3.3 in the RIA. 

With respect to the final comment, we have updated our analysis to provide better 

documentation on our assumptions for the anticipated amount of surplus electricity generated by 

a sugarcane facility by the year 2022. This is further described in Section 2.4.7.5.6 of the RIA. 

In addition, for the final rule we assume that surplus electricity will displace natural gas based 

electricity. Several commenters agree that this method is appropriate. We believe the use of 

marginal grid electricity instead of average electricity is reasonable given that 1.) We are 

crediting on the basis of displacement 2.) Electricity produced at the sugarcane ethanol facility is 

always dispatched when a mill is operating and this allows for reduction of the use of other 

thermal power plants. See Section 2.4.7.5.6.1 of the RIA for more information. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2362 

Organization: Canopy Prospecting, Inc. And Trinidad Dehydration Company, Limited 

Comment:

The commenter (2362) is concerned about EPA’s lifecycle analysis of cane-based ethanol from 

Brazil and that the draft rule does not take ethanol dehydrated in the Caribbean into account. If 

Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is determined to be an Advanced Biofuel, the commenter urges EPA 

to include Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBI) dehydrated Brazilian ethanol as an 

Advanced Biofuel as well. [[Docket number 2362, pp. 3 and 4]] [[See docket number 2362.1, pp. 

3-6 for further discussion of this issue.]]

Our Response: 

We have included this pathway in our final rule analysis including the change in GHG 

emissions associated with CBI dehydration of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol. This pathway 

qualifies as an advanced biofuel. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2426 

Organization: EthylChem, Ltd. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2426) urges EPA to avoid a regional approach to determining the GHG 

emissions associated with the dehydration of ethanol. Under the RFS2, renewable fuels from 

new facilities are required to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from a baseline by certain 

specified percentages. In EPA’s proposal, sugarcane ethanol is listed as having a 44% reduction 

in GHG emissions. If EPA makes the 10% adjustment in the specified threshold that it is 

considering, all sugarcane ethanol would qualify as an “Advanced Biofuel” regardless of where 

it was dehydrated. The commenter believes that such a region-neutral approach is the most 

rational approach. However, if EPA were to take a regional approach, the commenter argues that 

7-379
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

the Agency must at least establish a process by which fuel from low GHG-emitting dehydrators 

(e.g., larger plants, plants using gas as a fuel, etc.) can be exempted. To do otherwise would 

penalize those that have invested in dehydration processes that minimize GHG emissions. 

[[Docket number 2426.1, pp. 1-2]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2637.1 

Organization: EthylChem, Ltd. 

Comment:

The commenter (2637) is writing in regards to the dehydration of ethanol in the Caribbean before 

shipping to the U.S. The commenter states that since fuel type and fuel efficiency, and therefore 

GHG emissions, vary from plant to plant within a region, if EPA were to take a regional 

approach to adjusting GHG emission values, it must at least establish a process by which fuel 

from low GHG-emitting dehydrators (e.g., plants using gas as a fuel, larger facilities, etc.) 

receives a more favorable rating than that from other smaller facilities using fuel oil as an energy 

source. To do otherwise would penalize those that have invested in dehydration processes that 

minimize GHG emissions. (2637.1 Pgs. 1-2). 

Our Response: 

As part of the final rule LCA analysis EPA has considered Caribbean Basin ethanol 

dehydration. Based on our updated analysis imported ethanol would qualify for the Advanced 

category of fuels regardless of where or how it was dehydrated. As the rule only has specified 

thresholds for fuels to qualify the Agency does not have to distinguish between different 

producers or processes if they all fall within a given category. Therefore, we are not 

distinguishing fuels on a regional basis. 

7.3.1.3 Cellulosic Ethanol 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) believes that there is very large uncertainty in projected future GHG 

emissions of cellulosic ethanol due to the range in potential feedstocks and chemicals as well as 

yields and co-products, as well as the lack of any existing commercial operation. The commenter 

noted that EPA projected large improvements in performance to the 2022 time frame, but it is 

not clear these improvements will be realized. GHG emissions associated with enzyme 

production for cellulosic ethanol can be much larger than corn ethanol and a can be significant 

fraction of cellulosic ethanol GHG.The commenter believes that outlining current and possible 

future performance and tracking the progress over time would provide a better measurement of 

the LCA performance of cellulosic ethanol. (2124.1, p.47) 

Our Response: 

7-380
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA has based its projected improvements for cellulosic ethanol and other emerging 

technologies on guidance from the DOE’s laboratory, the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL). NREL has many years of expertise in this area and works closely with 

other researchers and industry groups in the area of advanced biofuels. As such, we believe 

these projections are reflective of what is possible in a future 2022 time frame. Refer to the 

technical documents available in the docket and the RIA for more information. As research 

evolves and commercial operation begins, we will have the opportunity to continue to update our 

analyses as necessary. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter also noted that the spreadsheet on cellulosic ethanol indicates that cellulosic 

ethanol causes a large reduction in GHG emissions from international livestock production. The 

commenter stated that the mechanism for such a reduction is not clear. (2124.1, p.48) 

Our Response: 

Our analysis of switchgrass ethanol produced with enzymatic technology for the final 

rule estimates a 10 kg CO2e / mmBTU reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions, i.e., a 110% 

reduction compared to the petroleum baseline. We estimate that emissions from international 

livestock production are reduced by 0.25 kg CO2e/mmBTU. The mechanism for this small 

reduction is based our projection that switchgrass feedstocks will be grown on fertile lands, 

which can increase land rents and displace production of other crops. As a result livestock feed 

prices increase slightly, which causes a small reduction in global livestock output. More details 

are provided in RIA Chapter 2. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2130) states that there is a very large uncertainty in projected future GHG 

emission of cellulosic ethanol due to the range in potential feedstocks and chemicals as well as 

yields and co-products, as well as the lack of any existing commercial operation. EPA has 

projected large improvements in performance to the 2022 time frame, but it is not clear these 

improvements will be realized. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 20]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2316 

Organization: University of Minnesota 

Comment: 

7-381
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

My third [[2316]] comment concerns the statement in the Proposed Rulemaking that increased 

stover removal was also associated with higher rates of reduced tillage or no tillage practices 

which results in soil carbon increase. That conservation tillage practices increase soil carbon is a 

widely held belief, such as reviewed by West and Post (2002), but more recent research very 

strongly suggests that this phenomenon may not exist. Rather, earlier studies showing increased 

carbon sequestration under conservation tillage may have in fact been reporting an artifact of not 

sampling the soil profile deeply enough. I am including a more detailed explanation of this point 

in Appendix A. [[2316.1 p.2]] 

Our Response: 

Our analysis for the final rulemaking updated the soil carbon accounting in our domestic 

agricultural sector modeling. Changes in soil carbon are a function of several parameters 

including tillage practice, crop type, irrigation, etc. In terms of tillage practices, agricultural soils 

have traditionally been tilled to create a suitable seedbed, reduce weed competition, and remove 

restrictions to crop root growth. However, by loosening the soil, tillage breaks up soil aggregates 

and increases the exposure of soil organic matter to oxygen, which speeds oxidation and results 

in reduced soil carbon with an associated release of CO2 into the atmosphere. The use of tillage 

alternatives that reduce soil disturbance and therefore reduce oxidation of soil organic matter will 

increase soil carbon sequestration. EPA understands there are studies to the contrary, that 

basically indicate no change in soil carbon with different tillage practices, however, we believe 

these new studies are inconclusive at this point. EPA understands this is an area for future 

research and will continue to examine this issue for future analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2478 

Organization: ZeaChem Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2478) discusses their ethanol process and states that the total lifecycle impacts 

of production and use of their cellulosic ethanol results in a 94% reduction in GHG emissions 

versus conventional gasoline. [[Docket number 2478.1, p. 2]] [[See docket number 2478.2 for 

the full LCA using the GREET model.]]

Our Response: 

EPA has analyzed the lifecycle GHG impacts of cellulosic ethanol from several feedstock 

sources. These results vary on the basis of the feedstock source. The results are underlying 

calculations are described in the preamble section V and with additional detail in RIA chapter 2. 

We have found that all the pathways modeled achieve the 60% GHG reductions required for the 

cellulosic ethanol category. If a fuel producer believes they have a process that is significantly 

different from the ones included in our final rulemaking and that will result in establishing a new 

or different threshold designation (D code), they can petition the agency for inclusion of their 

specific pathway. 

7-382
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2395.1 

Organization: Covanta 

Comment: 

The commenter (2395) indicates a life cycle analysis (LCA) performed on both a 30-year and 

100-year with a 2% discount rate basis reveals that, for a wide range of biogenic fractions of 

MSW, the process generates a fuel meeting the reduction requirements of the proposed RFS. An 

LCA performed in accordance with international and scientific precedents, where future 

emissions are not discounted or limited to a finite time period, results in even greater net 

reductions. These results fully support a finding by EPA that post-recycled MSW warrants 

inclusion as a defined renewable feedstock in the RFS. (2395.1 Pg. 7-8). 

Our Response:

As discussed in Section II.B.4.d of the Preamble, EPA has determined that the biogenic 

portion of post recycled MSW is eligible to produce renewable fuel and will largely be made up 

of cellulosic material. Therefore biofuel made from this waste-derived material will qualify as 

cellulosic biofuel. 

Furthermore, separated food and yard wastes, including food and beverage wastes from 

food production and processing are another category of waste product that would not have any 

land-use change impact. These waste products can be used as feedstock for advanced biofuel 

production or cellulosic biofuel production. 

7.3.1.4 Biodiesel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154

Organization: ConocoPhillips

Comment: 

The commenter (2154.1) does not support the potential averaging approaches outlined by EPA as 

a means to qualify biodiesel as biomass-based diesel. The current life cycle analysis results 

indicate that biodiesel produced from vegetable oils does not meet the 50% GHG emission 

reduction threshold requirement as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007. Although EPA has the authority to lower that threshold to as low as 40%, vegetable oil 

based biodiesel would still not meet that threshold. Based on projected availability of qualifying 

fuel, the commenter believes that EPA should immediately reduce the biomass-based diesel 

standard to reflect what qualifying volumes will be available. If the standard is effective starting 

in 2011, the commenter believes that the biomass-based diesel standard should be no more than 

0.8 billion gallons, the legislated target for 2011 volume. (2154.1, p.5) 

Our Response: 

7-383
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

EPA is not adopting averaging of biodiesel feedstock pathways for the final rule. We 

have determined that biodiesel for soy oil will meet the biodiesel threshold of 50%. Therefore 

averaging is not necessary nor is lowering the threshold performance standard. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment: 

The commenter opposes EPA’s option to combine/average biodiesels to reach the biomass-based 

diesel mandated volumes. If there is not enough biodiesel capacity to meet mandate, EPA can 

use general waiver authority. Also, the commenter believes that averaging would violate 

Congress’s stated intention by allowing biofuels that do not meet the GHG thresholds on their 

own. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 43]] 

Our Response: 

EPA is not adopting averaging of biodiesel feedstock pathways for the final rule. We 

have determined that biodiesel for soy oil will meet the biodiesel threshold of 50%. Therefore 

averaging is not necessary nor is lowering the threshold performance standard. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter (0994.1) believes that this section should specifically include animal fats in the 

evaluation and be included in Table VI.C.1-12 as a separate line item. (0994.1, p.17)

Our Response:

We agree and have included animal fats as meeting the lifecycle threshold of 50% for 

biomass-based diesel. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0999 

Organization: Darling International Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2151.1) supports U.S. EPA’s determination that animal fats and waste grease 

feedstocks (including tallow from rendering) have no land use impacts and will achieve at least 

an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions as compared to petroleum products. 

7-384
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

(2151.1, p.4) [[See Docket Number 2151.3 for a independent evaluation of the expected GHG 

reductions associated with biofuels produced from waste fats and greases from a third party 

consultant, Gal Consultants.]] 

Our Response:

We have continued to assume that animal fats and waste greases will meet the lifecycle 

threshold for biomass-based diesel for the final rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1001, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1005, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-1010, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1011, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1012, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1025, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1029, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-

1043, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1051, et al. 

Organization: Kurzman Clean Tech Research & Kurzman Capital, LLC, Cotner 

Consulting Services, CC Gas Systems, LLC, Atlantic BioFuels, Glenwood Farms, Law Offices 

of David Wilcox, C.I.B., University of Georgia Engineering Outreach Service, Aberdeen 

Development Corp., et al. 

Comment: 

The commenters noted that EPA’s analysis, on calculating international land changes, looks at 

the incremental change in biodiesel production based on two scenarios. Review of the EPA 

reference case reveals the fact that the agency has penalized the biodiesel industry when 

calculating potential global land use change by establishing an artificially low production 

baseline. Underestimating biodiesel volumes results in an overestimate of indirect land use 

changes, penalizing the biodiesel industry. 

The commenters also noted that EPA’s approach does not accurately reflect increasing crop 

yields, which have allowed the agricultural industry to keep up with demand. The EPA analysis 

also penalizes the biodiesel industry by not fully considering new fats and oils technology that 

can increase the contribution biodiesel will make to the Biomass-based Diesel category in RFS2. 

The proposed rule only considers soybean oil, vegetable oil from ethanol plants, and rendered 

fats and waste greases in its analysis. Lipid sources such as camelina, winter canola, and algae 

are not factored into the feedstock supply. 

 

The commenters noted that in Section VI.C.D of the preamble, it is stated that “the impact of any 

land-use change tends to be magnified with soybean biodiesel.” The statement is justified by 

asserting that soybeans have a low gallon-per-acre yield compared to corn ethanol. The 

commenters believe that this statement is simply false. For this to be true, soybean oil used for 

biodiesel must require additional soybeans to be grown somewhere else in the world to replace 

the oil used for biodiesel. The commenters strongly urge EPA to correct this statement in its 

final rule. 

Our Response: 

7-385
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

For the final rule, EPA has updated its assessment of crop yields both domestically and 

internationally. We have calculated lifecycle emission performance assuming both base yields 

derived from projecting into the future longer term historical trends and also assuming a marked 

increase in future yields based on industry and other comments 

EPA has considered data supplied by seed producers and others regarding its future 

projections of yield and has reflected these projections in its threshold assessments. In particular 

we have conducted sensitivity assessments using high yield cases and confirmed that high yields 

do not change the results of our analyses. However, we also plan to periodically update our 

analyses and should yield projections change, these changes would be captured in subsequent 

reassessments and appropriate updates to our threshold determinations. 

For biodiesel produced from soy, we note that as described in the preamble and further in 

the RIA, the LCA has been considerably updated since the proposal to reflect comments received 

and updated information. However, our analysis still predicts that the use of soy bean oil to 

produce biofuel means that it will no longer be available for other markets. This unmet demand 

means that additional acres of soy beans will be planted both domestically and in other countries. 

The final rule analyses also include analyses for algae-based biodiesel. It is noted in the 

preamble that since use of algae oil is early in its biofuel development, this analysis may need to 

be updated to reflect changes as this pathway approaches commercialization. 

Regarding other biofuel feedstock sources not modeled for the final rule (including 

camelina and winter canola, EPA has adopted a petition process whereby biofuel producers can 

request EPA review of new process technologies. Additionally, EPA has indicated its intention 

to periodically update its analyses to reflect new data and information including the development 

of new technologies. 

Additionally, EPA’s analysis considers oil sources other than soy beans in determining 

the impact of using soy oil for biodiesel production. This analysis is documented in the 

preamble section V and in additional detail in Chapter 2 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1052 

Organization: Pennsylvania Energy Resources Group (ERG) 

Comment:

The commenter (1052) has serious concerns over the lifecycle greenhouse gas methodology for 

biodiesel. There are multiple inaccuracies and assumptions which are flawed. Among the many 

items identified as such by the commenter are used of out of date data being used, ignoring world 

markets for feedstocks, coproducts and agricultural crop yield and production improvements. 

The commenter finds the inclusion of the language “the impact of any land use change tends to 

be magnified with soybean biodiesel” to be both inaccurate and problematic, adding that public 

policies must be driven by sound science, not political philosophy or assumption. [[Docket 

number 1052.1, p. 2]] 

7-386
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response: 

The Agency has updated and refined its modeling approach since proposal in several 

important ways, including a number of updates made in direct response comments from the 

public and peer reviewers. EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions is 

comprehensive and provides a reasonable and scientifically robust basis for making the threshold 

determinations. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant components 

of its analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with 

international land use change. Based on this analysis and approach, EPA has determined that 

biodiesel and renewable diesel from soy oil or waste oils, fats, and greases will exceed the 50% 

GHG threshold for biomass-based diesel. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2048 

Organization: BioPure Fuels 

Comment:

The commenter (2048.1) noted that CARB is currently undertaking studies looking at the effect 

of low blends on the fuel efficiency of the biofuel versus a pure fuel at common blend levels. 

The commenter recommends that EPA review this data when it is available from CARB studies 

or use other data of NREL or U.S. EPA as a guide and adjust the life cycle emissions of at least 

biodiesel to account for its actual fuel efficiency at the most common blend levels (2%, 5%, 10% 

and 20%). (2048.1, p.6) 

Our Response: 

EPA will consider this information when it becomes available for any future updates to 

the analysis performed for this rulemaking. Currently there is no data to suggest using anything 

different from energy value of the fuel to compare emissions (i.e., no change in engine 

efficiencies). 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2516.1 

Organization: Imperium 

Comment: 

Review of the EPA reference case, which was used to calculate the increased levels of biofuels 

needed to meet RFS2, reveals the fact that the agency has penalized the biodiesel industry when 

calculating potential global land use change by establishing an artificially low production 

baseline. EPA’s approach does not accurately reflect increasing crop yields, and does not fully 

consider new fats and oils technology. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079 

7-387
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Organization: AE Biofuels, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2079.1) noted that in reviewing the EPA reference case, which was used to 

calculate the increased levels of biofuels needed to meet RFS2, they revealed the fact that EPA 

has penalized the biodiesel industry when calculating potential global land use change by 

establishing an artificially low production baseline. In looking at an incremental change, EPA’s 

approach also does not accurately reflect increasing crop yields, which have allowed the 

agricultural industry to keep up with demand. The EPA analysis also penalizes the biodiesel 

industry by not fully considering new fats and oils technology that can increase the contribution 

biodiesel will make to the Biomass-based Diesel category in RFS2. (2079.1, p.8) (See Docket 

Number 2079.1, p.8 for a detailed discussion of this issue) 

The commenter believes that the statement the impact of any land-use change tends to be 

magnified with soybean biodiesel is false. For this statement to be true, soybean oil used for 

biodiesel must require additional soybeans to be grown somewhere else in the world to replace 

the oil used for biodiesel. The commenter urges EPA to correct this statement in its final rule. 

(2079.1, p.9) 

Our Response: 

With regard to their relationship between land use and soybean biodiesel lifecycle GHG 

emissions, EPA is making the GHG threshold determination based on a methodology that 

includes an analysis of the full lifecycle, including significant emissions related to international 

land-use change. As described in more detail below and in Section V of this preamble, EPA has 

used the best available models for this purpose, and has incorporated many modifications to its 

proposed approach based on comments from the public and peer reviewers and developing 

science. EPA has also quantified the uncertainty associated with significant components of its 

analyses, including important factors affecting GHG emissions associated with international land 

use change. As discussed below, EPA has updated and refined its modeling approach since 

proposal in several important ways, and EPA is confident that its modeling of GHG emissions 

associated with international land use is comprehensive and provides a reasonable and 

scientifically robust basis for making the threshold determinations described above. As discussed 

below, EPA plans to continue to improve upon its analyses, and will update it in the future as 

appropriate. 

The revised lifecycle assessment for soybean biodiesel predicts less overall indirect land 

use change (less land needed) and less impact from the land use changed that does occur (due to 

updates in types of converted land assumed). In addition, the latest IPCC guidance indicates 

reduced domestic soybean N2O emissions, and updated USDA and industry data show 

reductions in biodiesel processing energy use and a higher co-product credit, all of which further 

reduced the modeled soybean biodiesel lifecycle GHG emissions. This has resulted in a 

significant improvement in our assessment of the lifecycle performance of soybean biodiesel as 

compared to the estimate in the proposal. 

7-388
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA's final analysis indicates that, based on currently available information and our 

current analysis over the range of scenarios considered, the performance of soy oil-based 

biodiesel exceeds the 50% threshold. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2104 

Organization: US Canola Association 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2104]] states that EPA did not account for glycerin as a co-product. Glycerin 

is a co-product of biodiesel production and when the emissions value is calculated it will 

decrease emissions by 15%. The biodiesel process produces one pound of glycerin for every ten 

pounds of biodiesel produced. This means that 0.74 pounds are produced for every gallon of 

biodiesel or 6.2 pounds per mm BTU of biodiesel. GREET calculates the GHG emissions 

associated with the materials that are embedded in the glycerin. These emissions are 2,735 g CO2

eq/pound of glycerin. This amounts to 16,957 g CO2 eq/mm BTU. [[#2104.1 p.6]]

Our Response: 

Glycerin is a co-product of biodiesel production. Our proposal analysis did not assume 

any credit for this glycerin product. The assumption for the proposal was that by 2022 the 

market for glycerin would be saturated due to the large increase in biodiesel production in both 

the U.S. and abroad and the glycerin would therefore be a waste product. We received a number 

of comments that we should be factoring in a co-product credit for glycerin as there would be 

some valuable use for this product in the market. Based on these comments we have included 

for the final rule analysis that glycerin would displace residual oil as a fuel source on an energy 

equivalent basis. This is based on the assumption that the glycerin market would still be 

saturated in 2022 and that glycerin produced from biodiesel would not displace any additional 

petroleum glycerin production. However, the biodiesel glycerin would not be a waste and a low 

value use would be to use the glycerin as a fuel source. The fuel source assumed to be replaced 

by the glycerin is residual oil. This inclusion of a co-product credit for glycerin reduces the 

overall GHG impact of biodiesel compared to the proposal analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2104 

Organization: US Canola Association 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2104]] states the EPA methodology inaccurately assesses the energy balance of 

biodiesel production. It takes less energy to produce a gallon of biodiesel than considered by 

EPA. EPA used a factor of 3.2 units of energy produced per unit of energy used. The updated 

factor should be a factor of 5.2 units of energy produced per unit of energy used. Updating this 

data point decreases the biodiesel emissions factor by 1.5%. [[#2104.1 p.6-7]] 

7-389
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response: 

The EISA mandates setting up fuel GHG thresholds do not require the EPA to do site 

specific GHG analysis but rather determine for specific fuel pathways if they meet the thresholds 

for the different fuel categories. Therefore, we have developed an average energy use value for 

biodiesel production. As part of the final rule we updated the energy use assumptions for 

biodiesel production to be in line with the latest energy balance reports from USDA and the 

University of Idaho. Therefore, the final rule assumes lower energy use for biodiesel production 

compared to the proposal analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2104 

Organization: US Canola Association 

Comment: 

The commenter also stated that specifically, the proposed rule only considers soybean oil, 

vegetable oil from ethanol plants, and rendered fats and waste greases in their analysis. Lipid 

sources such as canola (spring and winter) are not factored into the feedstock supply. [[#2104.1 

p.7]]

Our Response: 

EPA establishs in the final rulemaking a petition process whereby a party can petition the 

Agency to consider new pathways for GHG reduction threshold compliance. We welcome 

parties, both domestic and foreign, to utilize the petition process described below to request EPA 

to examine additional pathways. EPA will process these petitions as expeditiously as possible. 

A full description of the petition process can be located in the Preamble Section V.C. 

EPA has focused our analysis on the fuels and feedstocks that we modeled as being used 

in the current or near term to meet the EISA mandates. That does not mean other fuels or 

feedstocks would not meet the requirements to be considered under the program. We have set up 

a process for fuels and feedstocks that do not specifically show up in the current rulemaking to 

petition the Agency for consideration. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2104 

Organization: US Canola Association 

Comment: 

The commenter states that EPA’s analysis compares estimated, future direct and indirect GHG 

emissions for biodiesel to direct (only) emissions for petroleum. [[#2104.1 p.8]]

Our Response:

7-390
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

7-391
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2157) notes several issues which require EPA to update its modeling as it 

substantially underestimates the reduction of GHG emissions from biodiesel: (1) EPA’s 

methodology calculates N2O emissions as it related to soybean production based on outdated 

information, (2) Credit for the glycerin co-product of biodiesel production from soybean oil 

should be included in the lifecycle analysis and (3) EPA should update the energy balance of 

biodiesel production. Each is discussed in detail on (2157 p. 99-103).

Our Response: 

(1) The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application 

and nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

The main issue is that because the N2O emission factors used in the proposal were based 

on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting they were overestimating N2O emissions from 

nitrogen fixing crops. As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed such that biological 

nitrogen fixation was removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of 

significant emissions arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that the N2O 

emissions induced by the growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function 

of the above-ground and below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This change 

effectively reduces the N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and nitrogen 

fixing hay from the 1996 to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

7-392
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

 (2) Glycerin is a co-product of biodiesel production. Our proposal analysis did not 

assume any credit for this glycerin product. The assumption for the proposal was that by 2022 

the market for glycerin would be saturated due to the large increase in biodiesel production in 

both the U.S. and abroad and the glycerin would therefore be a waste product. We received a 

number of comments that we should be factoring in a co-product credit for glycerin as there 

would be some valuable use for this product in the market. Based on these comments we have 

included for the final rule analysis that glycerin would displace residual oil as a fuel source on an 

energy equivalent basis. This is based on the assumption that the glycerin market would still be 

saturated in 2022 and that glycerin produced from biodiesel would not displace any additional 

petroleum glycerin production. However, the biodiesel glycerin would not be a waste and a low 

value use would be to use the glycerin as a fuel source. The fuel source assumed to be replaced 

by the glycerin is residual oil. This inclusion of a co-product credit for glycerin reduces the 

overall GHG impact of biodiesel compared to the proposal analysis. 

(3) The EISA mandates setting up fuel GHG thresholds do not require the EPA to do site 

specific GHG analysis but rather determine for specific fuel pathways if they meet the thresholds 

for the different fuel categories. Therefore, we have developed an average energy use value for 

biodiesel production. As part of the final rule we updated the energy use assumptions for 

biodiesel production to be in line with the latest energy balance reports from USDA and the 

University of Idaho. Therefore, the final rule assumes lower energy use for biodiesel production 

compared to the proposal analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

Additionally, the commenter (2157) notes that EPA should give biofuels credit for the avoidance 

of increased use of marginal sourced of crude oil, which have significantly higher GHG 

emissions. This is discussed in detail on (2157 p. 104-106). 

Our Response:

For this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum use. We 

performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by biofuels use. 

Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we were able to 

determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to the countries 

where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an average 

7-393
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this final 

rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

We also do not believe that emissions arising from military activities can be readily 

attributed to the protection of oil imports. Military activities, even in world regions that 

represent vital sources of oil imports, undoubtedly serve a broader range of security and foreign 

policy objectives than merely protecting oil supplies. In the peer review of the energy security 

analysis that EPA commissioned, a majority of peer reviewers believed that U.S. military costs 

should be excluded absent a widely agreed methodology for estimating this component of U.S. 

energy security. Since military impacts were not considered for the energy security analysis in 

this final rule, they were also excluded from any lifecycle GHG analyses 

Furthermore, increased domestic consumption of renewable fuels is expected to decrease 

oil demand and thus reduce oil imports. However, an incremental reduction in oil imports is not 

expected to cause an analogous reduction in U.S. military expenditures and activities. Hence, 

even if we were able to attribute GHG emissions to the protection of oil imports, it is unlikely 

that there would be a decrease in military-related GHG emissions as a result of this rule. More 

detail on this topic can be found in the Energy Security Analysis in Chapter 5 of the RIA. 

7-394
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

For the final rule, we performed an estimate of land use change emissions associated with 

oil extraction and production to determine if the value was significant enough to be included in 

our petroleum baseline calculation. As oil sands production incurs a greater degree of land use 

change versus conventional crude oil production, we made an estimate of the emissions from the 

conversion of Alberta forest for oil sands production. Using literature values, we found that land 

use change emissions for oil sands were negligible compared to the total well-to-tank values and 

did not change the overall petroleum baseline values. A more complete discussion of our 

analysis can be found in Chapter 2.5.7 of the RIA. 

For the final rule, we are using the model developed by the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory (NETL) to determine the 2005 petroleum baseline. The NETL model provides a 

more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the petroleum baseline than the approach used 

in the proposed rule by utilizing site-specific data, such as country-specific crude oil extraction 

profiles and port-to-port travel distances for imported crude oil and petroleum products. The 

NETL model utilizes recent data to determine the GHG emissions from crude oil extraction and 

transport, refining, and finished product transport. Furthermore, NETL uses 2005 data for major 

oil sands producers to determine the emissions from oil sands extraction. More detail on the 

methodologies used by NETL can be found in Chapter 2.5 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2212 

Organization: Chris Gould Farms 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2212]] states that his crop yields have increased dramatically in the last five 

years and sound science indicates they will continue to do so.

Our Response: 

EPA recognizes that crop yields will continue to increase over time. Modeling of the 

agriculture sector takes this increase into account, and yield projections are based on those of 

USDA. However, EPA’s analysis shows that while yields continue to increase over time in all 

scenarios, an increase in demand for renewable fuel production will still result in land use 

change. For more information on how increasing crop yields are taken into account in the 

FASOM and FAPRI models, refer to Chapter 5 in the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2516.1 

Organization: Imperium 

Comment: 

(1) The lifecycle GHG methodology for Biodiesel is Flawed and should not be used to regulate 

the biofuels industry – As was clearly set forth in EISA, the domestic concerns associated with 

importation of high carbon emitting foreign oil drove the Congressional dictate. Allowing 

7-395
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

international externalities (i.e., indirect land use effects) cannot be allowed to undermine the 

clear purpose. 

(2) EPA assumes increased U.S. biodiesel production will lead to land conversion in South 

America. If this assumption were correct, Brazilian soybean acreage would have increased from 

2004 through 2008, a time in which U.S. biodiesel production increased 25 million to 690 

million gallons. During this time, however, Brazilian soybean acres actually decreased by 1.5 

million hectares. Clearly, this shows the inaccuracy of EPA’s hypothesis and modeling. 

(3) Energy balance data used by EPA is out of date 

(4) EPA’s methodology calculates N2O emissions as it relates to soybean production based on 

outdated information. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2249.2) believes that EPA modeling substantially underestimates the reduction 

in GHG emissions from biodiesel and urges EPA to update the lifecycle analysis. The 

commenter points to three significant omissions in EPA’s methodology and when updated and 

corrected, the lifecycle GHG emission reductions for biodiesel derived from virgin vegetable oils 

will have a lifecycle GHG reduction performance of greater than 60 percent (including direct 

emissions and significant indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use 

changes). The commenter asks that these corrections be included in EPA’s analysis of the 

lifecycle GHG emissions of biodiesel: 

1. EPA’s methodology calculates N2O emissions as it relates to soybean production based on 

outdated information.

Our Response: 

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

The main issue is that because the N2O emission factors used in the proposal were based 

on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting they were overestimating N2O emissions from 

nitrogen fixing crops. As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed such that biological 

nitrogen fixation was removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of 

significant emissions arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that the N2O 

emissions induced by the growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function 

of the above-ground and below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This change 

7-396
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

effectively reduces the N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and nitrogen 

fixing hay from the 1996 to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

Credit for the glycerin co-product of biodiesel production from soybean oil should be included in 

the lifecycle analysis. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2516.1 

Organization: Imperium 

Comment: 

 Co-product allocations of glycerin were not incorporated. 

Our Response: 

 Glycerin is a co-product of biodiesel production. Our proposal analysis did not assume 

any credit for this glycerin product. The assumption for the proposal was that by 2022 the 

market for glycerin would be saturated due to the large increase in biodiesel production in both 

the U.S. and abroad and the glycerin would therefore be a waste product. We received a number 

of comments that we should be factoring in a co-product credit for glycerin as there would be 

some valuable use for this product in the market. Based on these comments we have included 

for the final rule analysis that glycerin would displace residual oil as a fuel source on an energy 

equivalent basis. This is based on the assumption that the glycerin market would still be 

saturated in 2022 and that glycerin produced from biodiesel would not displace any additional 

petroleum glycerin production. However, the biodiesel glycerin would not be a waste and a low 

value use would be to use the glycerin as a fuel source. The fuel source assumed to be replaced 

by the glycerin is residual oil. This inclusion of a co-product credit for glycerin reduces the 

overall GHG impact of biodiesel compared to the proposal analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

3. EPA should update the energy balance of biodiesel production. 

7-397
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response: 

The EISA mandates setting up fuel GHG thresholds do not require the EPA to do site 

specific GHG analysis but rather determine for specific fuel pathways if they meet the thresholds 

for the different fuel categories. Therefore, we have developed an average energy use value for 

biodiesel production. As part of the final rule we updated the energy use assumptions for 

biodiesel production to be in line with the latest energy balance reports from USDA and the 

University of Idaho. Therefore, the final rule assumes lower energy use for biodiesel production 

compared to the proposal analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that adjusting for the three issues above would result in a 62 percent 

reduction in GHG emissions for biodiesel compared to baseline petroleum diesel utilizing EPA’s 

proposed methodology. [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 101-106]] 

Our Response: 

EPA updated these factors as well as a number of other changes. New results for 

biodiesel are a 57% reduction in GHG emissions compared to petroleum fuel. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter also believes that EPA should give biofuels credit for the avoidance of increased 

use of marginal sources of crude oil, which have significantly higher GHG emissions. EPA’s 

analysis does not account for the fact that biodiesel is reducing and delaying the need for diesel 

derived from high carbon sources of crude oil such as Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan extra 

heavy crude. EPA’s lifecycle analysis is based on future production of biofuels, but the results 

are compared against baseline petroleum, which is defined as the “gasoline or diesel (whichever 

is being replaced by the renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005.” 

Based on this definition, EPA has focused on the mix of fuels in 2005 to determine the baseline 

against which biofuels are compared. EPA’s approach fails to recognize the increasing 

inefficiency of petroleum production compared to the increasing efficiency of renewable fuels. 

[[Docket number 2249.2, p. 107]]

The commenter states that EPA should account for this key omission in at least two ways: first, 

EPA can focus on the marginal sources of petroleum in identifying the baseline and second, EPA 

7-398
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

could credit biofuels with the avoidance of GHG emissions in replacing these marginal sources 

in the future. [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 108-109]] 

Our Response:

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

7-399
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found in 

Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix of crude 

oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further discussion 

of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2328 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2328.1) fully supports EPA’s efforts to discourage global deforestation which 

contributes to greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. The commenter believes that any lifecycle 

analysis used by the EPA to measure the effect of biodiesel production on greenhouse gas 

emissions and land use changes should more accurately reflect current soy crop and biodiesel 

production data. The commenter also believes that, for the immediate future, the continued 

reliance on soy crops for domestic biodiesel production is absolutely vital to achieving the 

renewable fuel mandates mandated in EISA and promoting the growth and acceptance of this 

homegrown renewable fuel to consumers nationwide. (2328.1, p.8) 

Our Response:

As indicated in the preamble and as reflected in the final regulations, EPA has modeled 

soy-based biodiesel as complying with the biodiesel GHG performance threshold. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2353 

Organization: Iowa Soybean Association 

Comment: 

The commenter states that Iowa’s soybean yields have been increasing faster than the national 

average, due to our naturally rich soils, ample rainfall and improved genetics. At the Kimberley 

farm (site of the Iowa visit), soybean yield has improved from 30 bushels per acre to 55 bushels 

per acre over the past 25 years. New seed technologies show promise of doubling yields within 

the next 10 years. Any models used to calculate resource use based on average U.S. yields over 

the past 10 years would not reflect current productivity. [[#2353 p.2]]

7-400
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response: 

It should be noted that EPA’s analysis takes U.S. regional yield productivity differences 

into account. For example, our analysis shows that the Corn Belt region is much more 

productive in terms of corn and has higher corn yields than other regions in the U.S. Similarly, 

other crops have different yield potentials across different U.S. regions. For EPA’s analysis, it is 

expected that the national average corn yield across all U.S. regions will reflect USDA 

projections. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2353 

Organization: Iowa Soybean Association 

Comment: 

The commenter states that new farming technology, including GPS yield monitors, satellite 

imaging of fields and farm energy use assessment are in use at thousands of Iowa farms, 

reducing their carbon footprint. This technology allows precision application of herbicides and 

fertilizer, reducing farm input costs and optimizing productivity. [[#2353 p.2]] 

EPA did not account for glycerin, which is a co-product of biodiesel production and decreases 

the calculated emissions for biodiesel by 15%. [[#2353 p.3]] 

Our Response: 

 Glycerin is a co-product of biodiesel production. Our proposal analysis did not assume 

any credit for this glycerin product. The assumption for the proposal was that by 2022 the 

market for glycerin would be saturated due to the large increase in biodiesel production in both 

the U.S. and abroad and the glycerin would therefore be a waste product. We received a number 

of comments that we should be factoring in a co-product credit for glycerin as there would be 

some valuable use for this product in the market. Based on these comments we have included 

for the final rule analysis that glycerin would displace residual oil as a fuel source on an energy 

equivalent basis. This is based on the assumption that the glycerin market would still be 

saturated in 2022 and that glycerin produced from biodiesel would not displace any additional 

petroleum glycerin production. However, the biodiesel glycerin would not be a waste and a low 

value use would be to use the glycerin as a fuel source. The fuel source assumed to be replaced 

by the glycerin is residual oil. This inclusion of a co-product credit for glycerin reduces the 

overall GHG impact of biodiesel compared to the proposal analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2357 

Organization: Iowa Biodiesel Board 

Comment: 

7-401
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Also lipid sources such as camelina, winter canola, and algae are not factored into the feedstock 

supply, along with higher yielding oilseed technology. [[2357.1 p.5]]

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has determined that biodiesel produced from algae oil will comply 

with the advance biofuel GHG performance threshold. We have not modeled camlina as a 

biofuel feedstock. While we do not have sufficient information to model these camlina for the 

final rule, EPA has adopted a petition process, explained in preamble Section V, whereby biofuel 

producers can request EPA review of new feedstocks and process technologies. Additionally, 

EPA has indicated its intention to periodically update its analyses to reflect new data and 

information including the development of new feedstock sources. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2362 

Organization: Canopy Prospecting, Inc. And Trinidad Dehydration Company, Limited 

Comment: 

The commenter urges EPA to consider a waiver of the Advanced biofuel baseline lifecycle GHG 

emissions reductions from a goal of 50% to an achievable 40% for the Caribbean Basin 

Economic Recovery Act (CBI) based dehydrators who have little to no control over indirect land 

use changes in Brazil. [[Docket number 2362.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has modeled sugarcane ethanol as complying with the 50% 

advanced biodiesel threshold, including that fuel which is dehydrated in the Caribbean Basin. 

Therefore there is no need to reduce the threshold to 40%. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2409 

Organization: Tennessee Department of Agriculture 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2409]] states that EPA’s GHG emissions methodology used outdated 

assumptions in the direct emission calculations for nitrogen. The 2006 Guidelines for National 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

concludes that nitrogen fixed in soil by soybeans should not be considered a GHG emission. The 

Argonne National Laboratory and the California Air Resources Board use the IPCC data in their 

models. EPA, however, does not incorporate the IPCC’s updated findings and thus attributes 

excess nitrogen emissions to soybean cultivation. Making the necessary adjustments to correct 

this error reduces the GHG score for soy biodiesel by more than 20 percent. [[#2409.1 p.2]]

Our Response: 

7-402
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

The main issue is that because the N2O emission factors used in the proposal were based 

on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting they were overestimating N2O emissions from 

nitrogen fixing crops. As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed such that biological 

nitrogen fixation was removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of 

significant emissions arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that the N2O 

emissions induced by the growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function 

of the above-ground and below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This change 

effectively reduces the N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and nitrogen 

fixing hay from the 1996 to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2409 

Organization: Tennessee Department of Agriculture 

Comment: 

The commenter also states that Administration (EIA) analysis that underestimates U.S. biodiesel 

production, which reached levels of 690 million gallons in 2008. In addition, multiple state 

policies and fleet requirements will be implemented between 2008 and 2022. These use 

requirements will increase the baseline volume of biodiesel that will be used regardless of the 

RFS2 program. Underestimating biodiesel volumes results in an overestimate of indirect land 

use changes, which penalizes the biodiesel industry. EPA’s approach also does not accurately 

reflect increasing crop yields. The EPA analysis does not fully consider new fats and oils that 

can increase the contribution biodiesel will make to the Biomass-based Diesel category in RFS2. 

Lipid sources such as camelina, winter canola, and algae are not factored into the feedstock 

supply. [[#2409.1 p.2-3]]

Our Response: 

As noted in the preamble and additionally in the RIA, EPA has significantly updated its 

soy-based biodiesel assessment for this final rule based on comments and new data. Regarding 

7-403
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

the issue of how underestimating the volume of biodiesel produced will impact the LCA, this 

would not have a significant impact on the per-gallon LCA. We have also modeled the use of 

waste oils, fats and greases and included these pathways as eligible for advanced biofuel credit. 

Regarding other biofuel feedstock sources not modeled for the final rule (including camelina and 

winter canola, EPA has adopted a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA 

review of new process technologies. Additionally, EPA has indicated its intention to 

periodically update its analyses to reflect new data and information including the development of 

new technologies. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2435 

Organization: R.W. Heiden Associates LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2435) believes that EPA’s characterization of the impact of land use changes 

from soy biodiesel is inaccurate. In Section VI.C.D of the preamble, it is stated that “the impact 

of any land-use change tends to be magnified with soybean biodiesel.” The statement is justified 

by asserting that soybeans have a low gallon-per-acre yield compared to corn ethanol. This 

statement is simply false. For this to be true, soybean oil used for biodiesel must require 

additional soybeans to be grown somewhere else in the world to replace the oil used for 

biodiesel. Everywhere in the world, soybeans are grown primarily for the demand for their 80% 

protein meal. By-products do not drive supply responses and soybean oil for biodiesel does not 

drive planting decisions for farmers. If it did, then farmers would plant crops, other than 

soybeans, that produce more oil per acre. This economic reality invalidates EPA’s link between 

use of soybean oil for biodiesel and magnified land use change impact. The commenter strongly 

urges EPA to correct this statement in its final rule. [[Docket number 2435.1, p. 5]] 

Our Response: 

As stated in other responses, we believe the quoted statement is being misinterpreted. 

This statement was a qualitative explanation for why land use changes projected by the 

agricultural sector models in the NPRM analysis may have been larger than the corn ethanol land 

use changes on a per BTU basis. We were not implying that soybeans were being planted 

exclusively for soybean oil. The agricultural sector models take into account the fact that 

soybeans are approximately 80% meal and 20% oil. Furthermore, the agricultural sector models 

assume that farmers choose to plant soybeans based on the expected net returns associated with 

the sum of both the oil and the meal ree streams. We believe this optimization approach 

accurately represents the soybean production markets. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2549 

Organization: Triton Energy LLC 

Comment: 

7-404
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2549.1) believes that EPA inaccurately assesses the energy balance of 

renewable diesel. (2549.1, p.3) 

Our Response: 

As part of the final rule we updated the energy use assumptions for biodiesel production 

to be in line with the latest energy balance reports from USDA and the University of Idaho. 

Therefore, the final rule assumes lower energy use for biodiesel production compared to the 

proposal analysis. 

7.3.2 Treatment of GHG Emissions Over Time 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2112.1) noted that EPA does not correctly account for the influence of 

time/discounting. For example, there is an absence of technical change in agriculture (yields, 

efficiency, etc.). EPA has no appreciation for the influence of technical change in agriculture. 

This phenomenon of constantly increasing output using fewer inputs is the essential 

underpinning of economic growth. (2112.1, p.10) (See Docket Number 2112.1, pp.10-12 for 

more discussion on this issue)

Our Response: 

In the analysis for both the proposal and the final rulemaking, EPA does not show an 

increase of input application rates for agricultural production. This is in keeping with historical 

data from the USDA Economic Research Service as cited by the commenter, which shows crop 

yields increasing over time, while agricultural input rates have remained relatively constant. 

Although the rates remain level over time in the analysis, total fertilizer use does increase as a 

result of an increased demand for renewable fuels. However, this is entirely due to increases in 

crop production. For additional information on the agricultural modeling portions of the 

analysis, please refer to Chapter 5 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1051 

Organization: Aberdeen Development Corp. 

Comment:

The commenter adds that GHG emissions from biodiesel derived from virgin vegetable oils 

should be depreciated over 100 years, as EPA has proposed, rather than the 30 years some have 

suggested. [[Docket number 1051.1, p. 3]] 

7-405
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response: 

The commenter argues that since liquid fuels are likely to be required for more than 30 

years, the benefits of biofuels should be counted for 100 years, not 30. EPA sought comment on 

both 30 years and 100 years for assessing biofuel impacts. Based on comments received, EPA 

deter mined it is most appropriate to limit the assessment time period to 30 years as a most 

reasonable time frame after 2022 to expect soy-based biofuel to continue to be produced and 

used in the U.S. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1045 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) 

Comment:

One commenter (1045.1) believes that EPA should consider recent model-based analyses of 

climate response to carbon dioxide emissions (e.g., “The proportionality of global warming to 

cumulative carbon emissions” by H.D. Matthews et al. Nature Vol 459, 11 June 2009, p. 829-

832). The commenter states that these analysis show that the amount of anthropogenic climate 

warming at some future target date (e.g., 100 years from now) depends mainly on the cumulative 

amount of emissions prior to the target date. In other words, the distribution of emissions in time 

over the next 100 years doesn’t matter - it is the total amount of emissions that is important. An 

important implication of this result is that there should be no preference in policy or regulations 

for an “early emission reduction strategy” (EERS) over a “delayed emission reduction strategy” 

(DERS) if cumulative emissions are less for DERS than for EERS over the analysis period. 

(1045.1, p. 1) 

EPA’s LCA results indicate that development and deployment of advanced biofuels with indirect 

land use effects can be viewed as a DERS that leads to lower cumulative emissions over the long 

term relative to an EERS’ “do nothing”. The commenter believes that in this context, there 

should be no preference for “do nothing” and the appropriate discount rate is zero. The 

commenter further believes that a time frame of 100 years is most appropriate because the GHG 

mitigation benefits of replacing petroleum with advanced biofuels will accumulate throughout 

the 21st century and beyond. (1045.1, p. 1) 

A counter argument is that an EERS puts society on a trajectory to reduce cumulative emissions 

over the next century. The commenter states that this counter argument is not relevant to EPA’s 

LCA analysis of advanced biofuels because the “do nothing” EERS in this case does not put 

society on a trajectory to reduce cumulative emissions. (1045.1, p. 1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

The commenter (2101.1) generally supports EPA’s approach to employ a 100 year time horizon 

and a 2 percent discount rate if the Agency insists on proceeding with ILUC effects estimates. 

(2101.1, P.4) 

7-406
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2119 

Organization: National Sorghum Producers 

Comment:

The commenter (2119.1) supports a 100 year time horizon with the proposed 2% discounting. 

Using a 30 year time horizon with no discounting does not promote the growth of the renewable 

fuels industry and does not further the goals of EISA. By using a 100 year time horizon with 2% 

discounting, the industry can continue to grow and make sound investments for the future. 

(2119.1, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment:

The commenter (2154.1) favors the use of 30 years for averaging and a zero discount rate which 

represents a more conservative and realistic approach than the 100 year, 2% discount factor 

approach proposed by EPA. The shorter time period gives more weight to the known, more 

immediate, effects of carbon release from clearing, burning and loss of soil sequestration while a 

zero discount rate values future impacts the same as current impacts. (2154.1, p.8) 

Our Response: 

In the proposed rule, EPA highlighted two time periods of 30 years and 100 years for 

consideration in GHG lifecycle analysis. The Agency discussed the relative advantages of these, 

and other, time periods. The expert peer reviewers discussed a number of justifiable time periods 

ranging from 13 to 100 years. The reviewers said that longer time frames, such as 100 years, 

were only appropriate if the Agency used positive discount rates to value future emissions. 

Almost all of the peer reviewers specifically said that a time frame of 20 to 30 years would be 

justifiable based on the average life of a biofuel production facility. The reviewers and the 

public commenters provided several arguments for the application of a 30 year time frame. A 30 

year time period is appropriate because future emissions are less certain and more difficult to 

value, so the analysis should be confined insofar as possible to the foreseeable future. Another 

argument is that a near-term time horizon is consistent with the latest climate science that 

indicates that swift and deep reductions of heat-trapping gasses are needed to avoid catastrophic 

changes due to a warming climate. One of the reviewers said that while “there is no unassailable 

basis for choosing a very specific timeframe” the expected average lifetime of a biofuel 

production facility is the “most sensible anchor” for the choice of a timeframe. Alternatively, a 

number of commenters argued that a 100 year time frame is the appropriate time period for GHG 

lifecycle emissions analysis principally since this is the time period over which climate change 

impacts are likely to occur. 

Based upon the comments received from the peer review and public between after the 

RFS2 proposal, EPA has decided to use a 30 year frame for assessing the lifecycle GHG 

emissions. There are several reasons why the 30 year time frame was chosen. The use of the life 

of a typical biofuel plant seems reasonable as a basis for the timeframe for assessing the GHG 

emissions impacts of a biofuel. Also, the 30 year time frame focuses on GHG emissions impacts 

that are more near term and, hence, more certain. 

7-407
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

EPA received numerous of comments on whether lifecycle GHG emissions should be 

discounted through time. For example, as part of the EPA-sponsored peer review, while many of 

peer reviewers thought that current GHG emissions reductions should be more strongly weighted 

than future reductions, the peer reviewers were in general agreement that a discount rate should 

only be applied to a monetary unit, rather than a physical unit, such as an GHG emission. One 

peer reviewer suggested that it is scientifically justifiable to use discounting procedures for GHG 

emissions if the procedure is broadened to capture more than the “time value of money” and 

includes biophysical relationships such as the changing value of damages produced by 

atmospheric GHG stocks, the persistence of GHGs in the atmosphere and the initial GHG stock 

levels. Alternatively, another peer reviewer argued that the provision of EISA that deals with 

lifecycle GHG emissions didn’t call for an economic assessment, therefore discounting of GHG 

emissions would not be appropriate. A majority of peer reviewers said that a 0% discount rate 

would be appropriate if EPA uses a short time horizon (13-30 years) to assess GHG impacts. The 

reasoning for not using discounting with shorter time periods is that for purposes of meeting the 

EISA GHG thresholds, a GHG emission now is not significantly different than a GHG emission 

30 years from now. 

In addition to the comments received in the peer review, EPA also received many 

comments in the public comment period. Commenters suggested that discounting is an essential 

part of long term cost benefit analysis but it is not necessary in the context of the physical 

aggregation of lifecycle GHG emissions called for in the EISA. Also, commenters expressed 

concerns that any discount rate chosen by the Agency would be based upon relatively arbitrary 

criteria. 

After considering the comments on discounting from the peer review and the public, EPA 

decided not to discount (i.e., use a 0% discount rate) GHG emissions due to the many issues 

associated with applying an economic concept to a physical parameter. First, it is unclear 

whether EISA intended lifecycle GHG emissions to be converted into a metric whose 

underpinnings rest on principals of economic valuation. A more literal interpretation of EISA is 

that EPA should consider only physical GHG emissions. Second, even if the principle of tying 

GHG emissions to economic valuation approaches were to be accepted, there would still be the 

problem that there is a lack of consensus in the scientific community about the best way to 

translate GHG emissions into a proxy for economic damages. Some of the issues that arise are: 

how to factor in the atmospheric residence times of GHG emissions in the atmosphere, and the 

evolution of atmospheric concentrations of GHG emissions through time both with and without 

renewable fuels. As mentioned previously, there is also a lack of consensus as to the appropriate 

discount rate to apply to GHG lifecycle emissions streams through time. Also, since EPA has 

decided to base threshold assessments of lifecycle GHG emissions on a 30 year time frame, the 

issue of whether to discount GHG emissions is not as significant as if the EPA had chosen the 

100 year time frame to assess GHG emissions impacts 

 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2154 

7-408
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: ConocoPhillips 

Comment:

The commenter urges EPA to pre-empt states from establishing unique state requirements that 

utilize differing life cycle analysis approaches than EPA. For example, California chose to use 

30 year averaging in their modeling efforts. Should EPA use a 30 year rather than a 100 year 

timeframe, it would help harmonize the California and EPA results (there would still be some 

differences due to remaining differences in models used and other assumptions). (2154.1, p.9) 

Our Response:

EPA is finalizing this rule under the authority of the CAA as amended by EISA. We do 

not have additional pre-emption authority. As noted in the preamble and further in the RIA, EPA 

has based its final rule LCAs on modeling impacts for 30 years, rather than 100 years. 

7.3.2.1 Time Horizon 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) supports EPA’s proposal to use a 100-year time frame, rather than the 

30 year time frame. One hundred years is the most appropriate option for three major reasons: 

(1) 100 years is a modest scope of time when the long-term impacts and atmospheric residence 

of GHG emissions are considered; (2) given that the focus is on emissions from the land and land 

is a permanent resource, a longer time period is justified; and (3) the 100-year time frame is 

consistent with other EPA and international, including IPCC, analysis of climate change impacts. 

(2320.1, p.61) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp.61-63 for a detailed discussion of this issue]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1001, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1005, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-1010, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1011, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1012, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1025, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1029, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-

1043, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079, et al. 

Organization: Kurzman Clean Tech Research & Kurzman Capital, LLC, Cotner 

Consulting Services, CC Gas Systems, LLC, Atlantic BioFuels, Glenwood Farms, Law Offices 

of David Wilcox, C.I.B., University of Georgia Engineering Outreach Service, AE Biofuels, Inc., 

et al. 

Comment: 

The commenters believe that the GHG emissions from biodiesel derived from virgin vegetable 

oils should be depreciated over 100 years, as EPA has proposed, rather than the 30 years some 

have suggested. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2134 

Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists 

7-409
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Comment:

The commenter (2134.1) believes that the timeframe over which reduced emissions from

substituting biofuels for gasoline are credited should be no longer than 30 years and perhaps 

even shorter because: 

-The certainty with which the future production patterns for a given crop diminishes dramatically 

for forecasts longer than 20-30 years. There are many other critical projections used to 

determine what credit is appropriate, and many of these projections become highly speculative 

more than two or three decades in the future. 

-The damage already being done by climate change and the potential tipping points in the near 

future require immediate action, and emissions reductions that accrue more than 20-30 years in 

the future will not occur in time to address these concerns, while land use emissions may 

exacerbate them. See attached document on the urgency of addressing climate change and 

references therein. 

-Between 20 and 30 years is consistent with typical lifecycle analysis based on projected facility 

lifetime. (2134.1, p.1) 

The commenter also believes that the 30 year timeframe without discounting is simple and 

adequate to achieve the goals of the RFS2. (2134.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) supports the use of the 100-year time period, consistent with the model 

used by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) and with the language contained 

in EISA, whereby the global warming potential of GHG emissions is based on impacts over 100 

years. (2146.1, p.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) supports the use of a 20 year time horizon, adding that it is virtually 

impossible to accurately predict which biofuels will be economically viable 50 to 100 years from 

now. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 47]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2249.2) supports EPA’s proposal to use a 100-year time frame for its lifecycle 

analysis. The GHG emissions from biodiesel derived from virgin vegetable oils should be 

depreciated over 100 years, as EPA has proposed (or an even longer timeframe commensurate 

with the timeframe it takes to sequester the carbon in fossil fuels that biodiesel displaces). The 

commenter believes that the 100year time frame is consistent with other EPA and international 

analysis of climate change impacts [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 92]] [[See docket number 

2249.2, pp. 92-95 for additional discussion of the commenter’s support on this issue.]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2337 

7-410
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: California Air Resources Board 

Comment:

The commenter (2337.1) urges the use of no more than a 30 year time horizon. 

Very significant reductions in GHG emissions are needed in the near term to diminish the 

potential for large and possibly irreversible damage from climate change. Achieving these 

reductions requires approaches which promote fuels that provide earlier benefits. 

Furthermore, it is very difficult to project the mix of fuels and production methods over the next 

three decades, much less through the remainder of the century. The assumption that the 

production techniques used for fuels supplied to meet the RFS will continue for many decades to 

come is very uncertain. Requiring a shorter “payback” period is far more likely to produce net 

benefits. (Page 3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2089 

Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2089.1) urges EPA to rely on the 30-year analysis so that appropriate market 

incentives are created for advanced biofuels that will result in true GHG benefits. 

By highlighting in the proposal the results of its analysis of two of the time horizons- 30 years 

and 100 years- the agency illustrates that biofuel-induced land use changes (i.e., the conversion 

of land to produce renewable fuel feedstock) can result in overwhelming GHG emissions in the 

near term with respect to certain renewable fuels, such as corn ethanol, sugarcane ethanol and 

soy-based bio-diesel, and that it can take significant time (much more than a few years) for these 

adverse emissions impacts to be negated by replacing petroleum with biofuels. Although the 

GHG impacts under the 100-year scenario are far more positive, it is unrealistic to base 

renewable fuel policies and regulations on such a long-term analysis. (Page 4) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2112.1) believes that the impacts of time used in the RFS2 proposed rule fall 

woefully short of what is necessary to have an accurate picture of the impact of RFS over time. 

(2112.1, p.13) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2124.1) believes that shorter time periods give more weight to the known, more 

immediate, effects of carbon release from clearing, burning, and loss of soil sequestration. Use 

of longer time periods gives more weight to activities that are much more uncertain. The 

commenter believes that the 100 year period is a poor choice because: 100 years is much longer 

than the life of individual biofuel plants, there is considerable uncertainty about benefits in the 

out years of a 100-year period and benefits are credited that occur well beyond the period 

covered by the current regulation. A time period of 30 years or less and simple averaging is a 

7-411
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

pragmatic approach that ensures that anticipated GHG benefits from the regulation are received. 

A thirty-year analysis period with no discounting is also consistent with recent CARB LCA. 

(2124.1, p.47) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment:

The commenters (2129.1) believe that the timeframe over which reduced emissions from 

substituting biofuels for gasoline are credited should be no longer than 30 years and perhaps 

even shorter. A 100 year time frame as proposed is impossible to justify. A 30-year time frame 

is more appropriate for the following reasons: 

-The certainty of the numerous assumptions and predictions that underlie the analysis diminish 

drastically for projections out further than 20-30 years. 

-The damage already being done by climate change and the potential tipping points in the near 

future require immediate action, and emissions reductions that accrue more than 20-30 years in 

the future will not occur in time to address these concerns, while near-term land use emissions 

may exacerbate them. 

- Between 20 and 30 years is consistent with typical lifecycle analysis based on projected facility 

lifetime. (2129.1, pp.9-10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2130) favors the use of 30 years for averaging because the shorter time period 

gives more weight to the known, more immediate, effects of carbon release from clearing, 

burning, and loss of soil sequestration. The commenter also supports periodic reevaluations and 

updates to the LCA (perhaps every three years) to adjust the analysis as technology and 

modeling evolve. [[Docket number 2130.1, pp. 3-4 and 19]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2393) states that if EPA’s objective is to increase the certainty of achieving 

GHG emission reductions in the near term, then it should use the more conservative and shorter 

30-year time period for the analysis. Shorter time periods give more weight to the known, more 

immediate, effects of carbon release from clearing, burning, and loss of soil sequestration. Use 

of longer time periods gives more weight to activities that are much more uncertain. The 

commenter believes that the 100-year time period is a poor choice because: 100 years is much 

longer than the life of individual biofuel plants, there is considerable uncertainty about benefits 

in the out years of a 100-year time period, and benefits are credited that occur well beyond the 

period covered by the current regulation. A longer time horizon also introduces a need for 

7-412
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

discounting emissions, but there is no clear rationale for selecting an appropriate discount rate. 

[[Docket number 2393.1, pp. 50-51]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2408.1) supports EPA’s 100 year averaging proposal as proposed. (2408.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2425 

Organization: PetroAlgae 

Comment:

The commenter (2425) believes that the 100-year lifespan for the net present value (NPV) of 

GHG emissions should not be used because there are too many uncertainties to allow such a 

timeframe. Renewable fuels must show environmental benefits over a much shorter time 

horizon, corresponding with a timeline that is reasonable and where land and future fuel demand 

risks are controllable. [[Docket number 2425.1, pp. 5 and 8]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2435 

Organization: R.W. Heiden Associates LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2435) believes that GHG emissions from biodiesel derived from virgin 

vegetable oils should be depreciated over 100 years, as EPA has proposed, rather than the 30 

years some have suggested. Historical data indicate that land converted to agricultural 

production tends to continue in that purpose for at least a century. Additionally, dramatic 

innovation is not occurring in the engine manufacturing industry in a way that suggests that 

heavy duty liquid transportation fuels will no longer be needed in as little as 30 years, or any 

remotely similar timeframe. [[Docket number 2435.1, pp. 4-5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2639.1 

Organization: Poet Ethanol 

Comment: 

In conclusion, there is no empirical support for the use of a limited, 20- to 30-year time frame to 

measure the benefits of corn ethanol as an alternative fuel in lifecycle analyses for the RFS 2 

proposal. The 100-year time horizon applied in the May 2009 Federal Register’s analysis is far 

more appropriate. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment:

The commenter (2472) supports EPA’s 100 year treatment of emissions over time versus the 30 

year alternative. [[Docket number 2072, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2474 

Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation 

Comment:

7-413
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The commenter (2474) believes that EPA should use the proposed 100 year timeline vs. a 30 

year timeline as some have suggested. (2474, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2516.1 

Organization: Imperium 

Comment: 

Supports use of 100 year time frame. A 30-year production time frame for all fuels applied 

across the board is too short a time-frame to compare accurately petroleum fuels that have 

already been in the marketplace for 100 years with advanced biofuels that have yet to reach 

commercialization 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2508 

Organization: Environmental Working Group (EWG) 

Comment:

The commenter (2508) encourages EPA to use a time horizon long enough to encompass all the 

impacts from the 2022 level of production and resultant emissions from indirect land use change 

(including all emissions from land clearing and sequestration foregone). (2508, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2512 

Organization: Conservation International 

Comment:

The commenter (2512.1) noted that specialists such as Winrock have noted that estimating 

beyond 30 years is often not scientifically rigorous - i.e., with a 95% confidence interval. Carbon 

policy currently allows for several options to choose from, allowing for a range of 20-60 years, 

and use of a discount rate to account for uncertainty. (2512.1, p.11)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2354 

Organization: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment:

The commenter (2354) recommends a time horizon of not more than 30 years. The commenter 

the following reasons: 

1. The expected benefits assume that biofuels will substitute for petroleum-based fuels. If 

petroleum-based fuels and biofuels are eventually replaced instead by, for example, renewable 

electricity, the long-term benefits of building biofuel production capacity will not be realized. 

2. The reliance on expected long-term emissions reductions ignores the fact that we are 

becoming increasingly concerned about the near-term stability of the climate system. Given this 

concern, a policy that relies on the expectation that reductions in the far future (i.e., more than 30 

years in the future) will compensate for significant emissions in the next several years does not 

seem appropriate. 

3. The analytic methods should reflect the normal tendency to value near-term benefits over 

long-term benefits. 

4. Land use changes caused by biofuels production will have impacts unrelated to climate change 

that are significant, adverse, and irreversible. (2354.pdf, p.4)

Our Response: 

7-414
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

In the proposed rule, EPA highlighted two time periods of 30 years and 100 years for 

consideration in GHG lifecycle analysis. The Agency discussed the relative advantages of these, 

and other, time periods. The expert peer reviewers discussed a number of justifiable time 

periods ranging from 13 to 100 years. The reviewers said that longer time frames, such as 100 

years, were only appropriate if the Agency used positive discount rates to value future emissions. 

Almost all of the peer reviewers specifically said that a time frame of 20 to 30 years would be 

justifiable based on the average life of a biofuel production facility. The reviewers and the 

public commenters provided several arguments for the application of a 30 year time frame. A 30 

year time period is appropriate because future emissions are less certain and more difficult to 

value, so the analysis should be confined insofar as possible to the foreseeable future. Another 

argument is that a near-term time horizon is consistent with the latest climate science that 

indicates that swift and deep reductions of heat-trapping gasses are needed to avoid catastrophic 

changes due to a warming climate. One of the reviewers said that while “there is no unassailable 

basis for choosing a very specific timeframe” the expected average lifetime of a biofuel 

production facility is the “most sensible anchor” for the choice of a timeframe. Alternatively, a 

number of commenters argued that a 100 year time frame is the appropriate time period for GHG 

lifecycle emissions analysis principally since this is the time period over which climate change 

impacts are likely to occur. 

Based upon the comments received from the peer review and public between after the 

RFS2 proposal, EPA has decided to use a 30 year frame for assessing the lifecycle GHG 

emissions. There are several reasons why the 30 year time frame was chosen. The use of the life 

of a typical biofuel plant seems reasonable as a basis for the timeframe for assessing the GHG 

emissions impacts of a renewable fuel. Also, the 30 year time frame focuses on GHG emissions 

impacts that are more near term and, hence, more certain. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment: 

The commenter also believes that EPA’s analysis of improvement in plant and agricultural 

efficiency underestimates GHG emission from biofuel facilities before 2022 and introduces 

uncertainty through use of projected factors instead of validated data. The commenter believes it 

would be better to base the analysis on a near-term date using actual data and update as needed if 

data indicates improvement. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 19]] 

Our Response: 

We continue to focus our final rule analyses on 2022 results for two main reasons. First, 

it would require an extremely complex assessment and administratively difficult implementation 

program to track how biofuel production might continuously change from month to month or 

year to year. Instead, it seems appropriate that each biofuel be assessed a level of GHG 

performance that is constant over the implementation of this rule, allowing fuel providers to 

anticipate how these GHG performance assessments should affect their production plans. 

7-415
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Second, it is appropriate to focus on 2022, the final year of ramp up in the required volumes of 

renewable fuel as this year. Assessment in this year allows the complete fuel volumes specified 

in EISA to be incorporated. This also allows for the complete implementation of technology 

changes and updates that were made to improve or modeling efforts. For example, the inclusion 

of price induced yield increases and the efficiency gains of DGs replacement are phased in over 

time. Furthermore, these changes are in part driven by the changes in earlier years of increased 

biofuel use. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

[[The following is from Growth Energy’s late supplemental comment document (2635.1)]] 

The commenter (2383) believes adopting the recommendations offered in some public comment 

submissions to address uncertainty by arbitrarily truncating the analytic horizon or applying 

higher discount rates would be especially unfortunate in the broader context of policies intended 

to address climate change and other environmental challenges for which the effects are long-term 

and uncertain. [[Docket number 2635.1, p. 3]] 

 

Our Response: 

In the proposed rule, EPA highlighted two time periods of 30 years and 100 years for 

consideration in GHG lifecycle analysis. The Agency discussed the relative advantages of these, 

and other, time periods. The expert peer reviewers discussed a number of justifiable time periods 

ranging from 13 to 100 years. The reviewers said that longer time frames, such as 100 years, 

were only appropriate if the Agency used positive discount rates to value future emissions. 

Almost all of the peer reviewers specifically said that a time frame of 20 to 30 years would be 

justifiable based on the average life of a biofuel production facility. The reviewers and the 

public commenters provided several arguments for the application of a 30 year time frame. A 30 

year time period is appropriate because future emissions are less certain and more difficult to 

value, so the analysis should be confined insofar as possible to the foreseeable future. Another 

argument is that a near-term time horizon is consistent with the latest climate science that 

indicates that swift and deep reductions of heat-trapping gasses are needed to avoid catastrophic 

changes due to a warming climate. One of the reviewers said that while “there is no unassailable 

basis for choosing a very specific timeframe” the expected average lifetime of a biofuel 

production facility is the “most sensible anchor” for the choice of a timeframe. Alternatively, a 

number of commenters argued that a 100 year time frame is the appropriate time period for GHG 

lifecycle emissions analysis principally since this is the time period over which climate change 

impacts are likely to occur. 

Based upon the comments received from the peer review and public between after the RFS2 

proposal, EPA has decided to use a 30 year frame for assessing the lifecycle GHG emissions. 

There are several reasons why the 30 year time frame was chosen. The use of the life of a typical 

7-416
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

biofuel plant seems reasonable as a basis for the timeframe for assessing the GHG emissions 

impacts of a renewable fuel. Also, the 30 year time frame focuses on GHG emissions impacts 

that are more near term and, hence, more certain. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter notes that one of the key issues in EPA’s analysis is the time horizon employed 

in the analysis. The commenter believes it is useful to define two different horizons. One is the 

Project Horizon, the period over which the biofuel in question will be produced and hence 

generate emission reductions by displacing gasoline. The second is the Impact Horizon, the 

period over which emissions will be projected and analyzed. Although EPA’s draft analysis 

identified these two types of time horizons, in practice its calculations treated them as being 

identical. The commenter believes that there is value in distinguishing the two types of horizons 

and that the two generally will not be equal in length. [[Docket number 2635.1, p. 5]] [[See 

docket number 2635.1, pp. 5-6 for further discussion of project and impact horizons]] 

Our Response: 

For the reasons discussed above, the Agency decided to use a 30 year frame for assessing 

lifecycle GHG emissions. We also did not set different time horizons for the project and impact 

horizons. In our analysis we adjust the mass values of the GHGs to account for their relative 

global warming potential (GWP). Specifically, we use the 100-year GWPs developed by the 

IPCC and published in the Second Assessment Report. Therefore, the climate impacts of each 

emission are, in effect, accounted for over 100 years. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter adds that the measure of radiative forcing proposed by O’Hare et al. - referred to 

as “fuel warming potential” or FWP - suffers from a major flaw as a result of the fact that its 

fixed horizon differentially truncates the tracking of GHGs emitted at different times. The FWP 

approach in O’Hare et al. applies a uniform end date in evaluating the radiative forcing of 

different emission streams. As a result, later emission reductions from biofuels receive relatively 

little weight simply because their impacts are considered for many fewer years than are the 

upfront emission increases from ILUCs. This distortion is particularly acute when the horizon 

used to compute the FWP measure is relatively short. 

The commenter suggests that the problems caused by this kind of arbitrary truncation can be 

addressed in various ways. One is to use a very long evaluation horizon so that the impact of the 

7-417
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

truncation effect is minimized. Another is to adopt a uniform horizon for how long the effects of 

emissions are tracked and evaluated from the time they are emitted; e.g., the radiative forcing 

effect is measured for a fixed number of years after the emissions occur, whether those emissions 

occur in year 1 or year 21. [[Docket number 2635.1, pp. 6-7]] [[See docket number 2635.1, pp. 

6-7 for further discussion of Fuel Warming Potential]] 

Our Response: 

In the proposed rule the EPA sought comment on metrics to account for GHG releases 

over time. One of the methods that EPA specifically sought comment on was the fuel warming 

potential (FWP) method proposed by O’Hare et al. Two of the expert reviewers agreed that the 

FWP could be an appropriate metric. However, they also said that the current FWP method has 

limitations which should be corrected before it is applied. One of the strongest arguments for the 

FWP method is that it is more amenable than 100-year GWP for use with non-zero discount 

rates. This is because the 100-year GWP is based on undiscounted impacts, so applying nonzero discount rates to GWP-weighted emissions can introduce accounting inconsistencies. 

However, these potential problems are avoided because EPA is using a 0% discount rate to 

evaluate GHG emissions over time. 

Based on the comments received, EPA has not adopted the FWP method in our analysis 

for this rule. We determined that aggregating GWP-weighted emissions is the best available for 

this rulemaking. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment: 

Projections of emissions from indirect land use change (ILUC) should incorporate estimates of 

potential credits that will occur after production of the biofuel in question ceases. Estimating 

such credits is necessary to provide a complete accounting of emissions changes due to the use of 

biofuels. Such credits would include cases in which the land freed following the end of 

production of a particular biofuel may be used for purposes that otherwise would require ILUCs 

and cause increases in emissions of sequestered GHGs. 

Presumably commenters that object to estimating post-production impacts would call for 

truncating the analysis because of uncertainty. However, uncertainty should be handled 

explicitly, not used as a reason to arbitrarily exclude uncertain effects. The commenter notes that 

if major uncertainty were used as a criterion for screening out effects, emission increases 

associated with ILUCs would not be considered at all given what we understand are the 

substantial uncertainties associated with their calculation. 

Our Response: 

7-418
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

In the proposed rule EPA sought comment on whether two separate time horizons should 

be established, i.e., the project horizons and the impact horizon. EPA also sought comment on 

whether we should account for emissions or credits that could occur between the end of the 

project horizon and the end of the impact horizon. For the reasons discussed above EPA decided 

to use a 30 year frame, and not to distinguish between the project and impact time frames. One 

result of this decision is that we did not evaluate potential emissions or credits that would occur 

after production of the biofuel in production ceases. 

In the proposed rule EPA sought commenter on whether sequestration from land 

reversion following the end of production of a particular biofuel should be considered in our 

analysis. A majority (3) of the expert peer reviewers responded that reversion should not be 

counted. Two of the peer reviewers offered conditional support: one advised EPA to consider 

land reversion impacts only if it had reason to believe that croplands dedicated to biofuels would 

be reverted; the other suggested that EPA try different scenarios to test if land reversion has a 

significant effect. 

The reviewers that objected to counting post-production land reversion offered a number 

of justifications to support their position. All of them said that there is no reason to assume that 

land would in fact revert following biofuel production. Instead, it is more likely that land would 

be kept in crop production for food or that the land would be developed. One of the reviewers 

recommended that EPA consider post-project salvaged carbon as part of a second independent 

land use change that occurs once the biofuel project terminates. Another reviewer noted that 

even if land were reverted, the benefits of sequestration would be attributed to the grazing, 

forestry, or conservation payment activities associated with the new land use, not to biofuel 

production. 

Dr. Fargione interpreted EISA to mandate reduced emissions during the project time 

frame, and therefore concluded that emission reduction calculations should be based only on land 

use change and foregone sequestration that occur during the project time frame. Indeed, EISA 

specifies that lifecycle GHG emissions shall include the “full fuel lifeycle, including all stages of 

fuel and feedstock production and distribution,” but the Act does not specifically mention postproject activities as part of the lifecycle. Thus, Dr. Fargione argued, the only accounting 

required following the project time horizon is based on fate of the emissions already released 

(and their radiative forcing and residence time in the atmosphere). According to Dr. Fargione, 

one potential exception to this would be if EPA were to include long-lived forest products, as 

these emissions are not dependent on assumptions about future land use change. (As discussed 

in preamble Section V, EPA has determined that long-lived wood products from international 

land conversion are not a significant factor). 

Based on comments from the expert reviewers and the public, and for the reasons 

discussed above, EPA decided that 30 years is a reasonable time frame over which to evaluate 

lifecycle GHG emissions. As part of this determination, EPA decided that the most reasonable 

approach is to expect that a particular biofuel pathway should achieve GHG reductions 

commensurate with the required reduction thresholds, as specified in EISA, during a 30 year 

time period, and not to give credit for potential post-project sequestrations. 

7-419
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

7.3.2.2 Discount Rate 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2329.1) opposes the use of any discount rate higher than zero percent. The 

commenter noted that EPA is not conducting a risk assessment or a valuation of benefits, it is 

attempting to assess physical emissions attributed to biofuel production. A discount rate is an 

economic consideration that is more appropriate when considering the value of the benefits of a 

regulation. While peer reviewers largely agreed that there should be no discount rate for shorter 

time frames, there is insufficient support to require a higher discount rate for the 100-year time 

frame. (232.1, p.63) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1001, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1005, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-1010, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1011, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1012, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1025, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1029, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-

1043, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1049, et al. 

Organization: Kurzman Clean Tech Research & Kurzman Capital, LLC, Cotner 

Consulting Services, CC Gas Systems, LLC, Atlantic BioFuels, Glenwood Farms, Law Offices 

of David Wilcox, C.I.B., University of Georgia Engineering Outreach Service, Prairie Pride, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenters believe that EPA should eliminate the arbitrary 2 percent discount rate applied 

to the carbon payback of biofuel use, adding that discounting is an economic consideration and 

should not be applied to physical emissions. 

Emissions will cost more in the future and not less, so discounting them to say they are worth 

less in the future is likely incorrect. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2516.1 

Organization: Imperium 

Comment: 

Because Congress asked EPA to assess physical amounts not to render a valuation estimate, EPA 

should not use a discount rate. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1051 

Organization: Aberdeen Development Corp. 

Comment:

The commenter (1051) urges EPA to eliminate the arbitrary 2 percent discount rate applied to the 

carbon payback of biofuel use. Discounting is an economic consideration and should not be 

applied to physical emissions. 

Emissions will cost more in the future and not less, so discounting them to say they are worth 

less in the future is incorrect. Biofuel production has shown a steady trend of decreasing carbon 

7-420
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

emission and increasing carbon sequestration and payback for land conversion. [[Docket number 

1051.1, p. 3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2357 

Organization: Iowa Biodiesel Board 

Comment: 

The commenter states that EPA should eliminate the arbitrary 2 percent discount rate applied to 

the carbon payback of biofuel use. Discounting is an economic consideration and should not be 

applied to physical emissions. Emissions will cost more in the future and not less. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1987 

Organization: Cornell University 

Comment: 

The commenter attached an academic paper [[1987]] argues that lifecycle analysis that assumes 

0% discount rates and a constant price of carbon are biased and distort policy recommendations. 

Specifically, the paper says, “LCA is based on GHG balance calculations, i.e., comparing overall 

GHG emission with overall GHG uptake over periods of time (e.g., 30 years), and such balances 

interpreted as economic benefits or costs only if (i) the (environmental) price of carbon is 

constant over time and (ii) the social discount rate (SDR) is zero. Both conditions are 

inappropriate: the price of carbon increases over time as long as atmospheric GHG concentration 

increases (with its ensuing climate change induced threats); and a positive (though not 

necessarily constant) discount rate is required to determine intergenerational tradeoffs when 

economic growth is expected to persist (even at a reduced rate). Existing sustainability standards 

(with or without iLUC) are therefore biased and distort the ensuing policy recommendation. In 

this paper we develop a cost-benefit test for biofuel production which relaxes these assumptions 

and allows for a changing carbon price and a positive SDR, thereby offering a genuinely 

sustainable standard for biofuel production.” 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079 

Organization: AE Biofuels, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2079.1) believes that EPA should eliminate the arbitrary 2 percent discount rate 

applied to the carbon payback of biofuel use. Discounting is an economic consideration and 

should not be applied to physical emissions. (2079.1, p.9) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2435 

Organization: R.W. Heiden Associates LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2435) believes that EPA should eliminate the arbitrary 2 percent discount rate 

applied to the carbon payback of biofuel use. Discounting is an economic consideration and 

should not be applied to physical emissions. Emissions will cost more in the future and not less, 

so discounting them to say they are worth less in the future is incorrect. Biofuel production has 

shown a steady trend of decreasing carbon emission and increasing carbon sequestration and 

payback for land conversion. [[Docket number 2435.1, p. 5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

7-421
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2466) suggests that use of physical science metrics such as actual quantities of 

climate forcing gasses in the atmosphere weighted by global warming potential, or cumulative 

radiative forcing should be used to evaluate emissions over time instead of use of a constant, 

somewhat arbitrary, value (e.g., 2%). (2466.1.pdf, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment:

The commenter (2472) supports EPA’s 2% discount rate treatment of emissions over time versus 

the 0% discount rate alternative. [[Docket number 2072, p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2466) suggests that use of physical science metrics such as actual quantities of 

climate forcing gasses in the atmosphere weighted by global warming potential, or cumulative 

radiative forcing should be used to evaluate emissions over time instead of use of a constant, 

somewhat arbitrary, value (e.g., 2%). (2466.1.pdf, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) favors the use of 30 years for averaging and a zero discount rate as a 

more conservative approach. The shorter time period gives more weight to the known, more 

immediate, effects of carbon release from clearing, burning and loss of soil sequestration while a 

zero discount rate values future impacts the same as current impacts. The commenter believes 

100 years of assumed use for a given biofuel and its pathway is simply assuming too much about 

future decisions beyond our control. (2124.1, p.24) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

Comment: 

The commenters (2129.1) noted that while discounting is an essential part of long term cost 

benefit analysis, it is not necessary in the context of the physical aggregation called for in the 

RFS, especially over a relatively short time frame. Longer timeframes introduce a great deal of 

unnecessary complexity and uncertainty, without meaningfully improving the accuracy or 

completeness of the result. The commenters believe that the discounting method proposed by 

EPA is inadequate because the proposed 2% discounting rate is a risk free rate that does not 

reflect, among other things, the significant risk that future climate benefits through avoided 

emissions may fail to materialize. The 30 year timeframe without discounting is simple and 

adequate to achieve the goals of EISA. (2129.1, p.10) 

7-422
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130) favors the use of a zero discount rate because it values future impacts the 

same as current impacts. [[Docket number 2130.1, pp. 3-4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2134 

Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists 

Comment:

The commenter (2134.1) believes that discounting is not necessary or appropriate in the context 

of the physical aggregation called for in the RFS2 for the following reasons. 

-Discounting is appropriately applied to economic rather than physical quantities. It is not 

obvious that the economic impact of emissions is constant over time, especially over 100 years, 

so the proposed discounting approach is inadequate. 

-The discounting rate being discussed is a risk free rate that does not reflect, among other things, 

the real risk that future climate benefits through avoided emissions fail to materialize. 

-There is no technical consensus or guidance in the law on the appropriate social cost of carbon 

to use in the regulation and questions of intergenerational equity and etc. need not be introduced 

into what is ostensibly a technical analysis. 

- A short time frame makes the result less sensitive to the discount rate, so these difficult 

questions can more reasonably be neglected by limiting the analysis to a relatively short time 

frame. (2134.1, pp.1-2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) believes that it is unclear that accounting methodologies can or should 

be used to evaluate impact of physical elements such as greenhouse gases. The commenter 

recommends a 0% rate be applied by EPA. (2146.1, p.6) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2634 

Organization: Citizen (sample of 155 comment letters received from mass comment 

campaign sponsored by Prairie Pride Inc.) 

Comment:

The commenter (2634) notes that, “EPA should eliminate the arbitrary 2 percent discount rate 

applied to the carbon payback of biofuel use. Discounting is an economic consideration and 

should not be applied to physical emissions. Emissions will cost more in the future and not less, 

so discounting them to say they are worth less in the future is likely incorrect.” (2634 p. 2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2157) notes that because Congress asked EPA to assess physical amounts not to 

render a valuation estimate, EPA should not use a discount rate. Discounting is an economic 

consideration and should not be applied when attempting to assess physical emissions. A use of 

7-423
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

a discount rate in this case in unwarranted. It is not clear whether a market-based rate of time 

preference is appropriate in this case. (2157 p. 92-93). Further discussion and various scenarios 

are discussed on (2157 93-95). 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) supports the use of a scientifically determined discount rate to value the 

relative importance of current versus future reductions in GHG emissions; however, EPA uses a 

very unscientific argument to support the selection of the arbitrary 2% rate. In addition, the 

commenter argues that it is inconsistent for EPA to propose using a discount factor for a 100 

year time period and then to propose that no discount factor be used for shorter time periods. 

The commenter adds that if EPA incorporates the use of a discount rate, it must determine this 

rate on a scientific basis. Using an appropriate climate change model would give EPA the 

information needed to calculate the effective discount rate. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 47-48]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2249.2) does not support use of a discount rate; Congress asked EPA to assess 

physical amounts, not to render a valuation estimate. The commenter urges EPA to eliminate the 

arbitrary 2 percent discount rate applied to the carbon payback of biofuel use. As EPA’s analysis 

shows, the choice of a discount rate can have significant effects on the results of a lifecycle 

analysis. A discount rate, however, is a policy assessment of costs and benefits, which is 

inapplicable here. EPA is not being asked to “value” emissions reductions over time, but to 

assess what those reductions actually will be. Discounting is an economic consideration and 

should not be applied when attempting to assess physical emissions. A use of a discount rate in 

this case is unwarranted. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 95]] [[See docket 2249.2, pp. 95-98 for a 

comprehensive discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2474 

Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation 

Comment:

The commenter (2474) believes that EPA should eliminate the arbitrary 2 percent discount rate. 

(2474, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2466) suggests that use of physical science metrics such as actual quantities of 

climate forcing gasses in the atmosphere weighted by global warming potential, or cumulative 

radiative forcing should be used to evaluate emissions over time instead of use of a constant, 

somewhat arbitrary, value (e.g., 2%). (2466.1.pdf, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2491

Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)

7-424
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment: 

The commenter (2491) believes that the EPA is correct in recognizing that not all GHG released 

over different time periods are equal. The GHG released now will likely to have more impact on 

climate change than GHG released after 50 or 100 years. Therefore, it is a scientifically good 

approach to discount GHG emissions if we consider a policy horizon of more than 50 years. 

However, due to future uncertainties regarding how biomass will be grown and processed, the 

complexity involved in GHG estimations for land use changes (both direct and indirect) and 

possible policy changes, the commenter believes that the 100year time frame may not be realistic 

for estimating GHG emissions. It might be better to use a 30year time period with 0% discount 

rate for calculating WTW GHG emissions of biofuels. [[Docket number 2491.1, p. 3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2466) suggests that use of physical science metrics such as actual quantities of 

climate forcing gasses in the atmosphere weighted by global warming potential, or cumulative 

radiative forcing should be used to evaluate emissions over time instead of use of a constant, 

somewhat arbitrary, value (e.g., 2%). (2466.1.pdf, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2508 

Organization: Environmental Working Group (EWG) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2508) recommends that EPA lay out those emissions as accurately as possible 

on their true time path, adjust them for their climate change potential, and discount those 

adjusted emissions back to present terms using a non-zero discount rate that reflects the 

uncertainty in the estimate of the damages. (2508, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2466) suggests that use of physical science metrics such as actual quantities of 

climate forcing gasses in the atmosphere weighted by global warming potential, or cumulative 

radiative forcing should be used to evaluate emissions over time instead of use of a constant, 

somewhat arbitrary, value (e.g., 2%). (2466.1.pdf, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2512 

Organization: Conservation International 

Comment: 

The commenter (2512.1) noted that discount rates provide a level of assurance to all calculations 

and allow for uncertainty and risk. The VCS standard includes a table for discount rates 

according to land use type and low, medium or high risk. (2512.1, p.12) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment:

7-425
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The commenter (2466) suggests that use of physical science metrics such as actual quantities of 

climate forcing gasses in the atmosphere weighted by global warming potential, or cumulative 

radiative forcing should be used to evaluate emissions over time instead of use of a constant, 

somewhat arbitrary, value (e.g., 2%). (2466.1.pdf, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2357 

Organization: Iowa Biodiesel Board 

Comment: 

The commenter states that EPA should eliminate the arbitrary 2 percent discount rate applied to 

the carbon payback of biofuel use. Discounting is an economic consideration and should not be 

applied to physical emissions. Emissions will cost more in the future and not less. 

Our Response: 

EPA received numerous of comments on whether GHG lifecycle emissions should be 

discounted through time. For example, as part of the EPA-sponsored peer review, while many of 

peer reviewers thought that current GHG emissions reductions should be more strongly weighted 

than future reductions, the peer reviewers were in general agreement that a discount rate should 

only be applied to a monetary unit, rather than a physical unit, such as an GHG emission. One 

peer reviewer suggested that it is scientifically justifiable to use discounting procedures for GHG 

emissions if the procedure is broadened to capture more than the “time value of money” and 

includes biophysical relationships such as the changing value of damages produced by 

atmospheric GHG stocks, the persistence of GHGs in the atmosphere and the initial GHG stock 

levels. Alternatively, another peer reviewer argued that the provision of EISA that deals with 

lifecycle GHG emissions did not call for an economic assessment, therefore discounting of GHG 

emissions would not be appropriate. A majority of peer reviewers said that a 0% discount rate 

would be appropriate if EPA uses a short time horizon (13-30 years) to assess GHG impacts. 

The reasoning for not using discounting with shorter time periods is that for purposes of meeting 

the EISA GHG thresholds, a GHG emission now is not significantly different than a GHG 

emission 30 years from now. 

 In addition to the comments received in the peer review, EPA also received many 

comments in the public comment period. The commenters suggested that discounting is an 

essential part of long term cost benefit analysis but it is not necessary in the context of the 

physical aggregation of lifecycle GHG emissions called for in the EISA. Also, commenters 

expressed concerns that any discount rate chosen by the Agency would be based upon relatively 

arbitrary criteria. 

 After considering the comments on discounting from the peer review and the public, EPA 

decided not to discount (i.e., use a 0% discount rate) GHG emissions due to the many issues 

associated with applying an economic concept to a physical parameter. First, it is unclear 

whether EISA intended lifecycle GHG emissions to be converted into a metric whose 

underpinnings rest on principals of economic valuation. A more literal interpretation of EISA is 

that EPA should consider only physical GHG emissions. Second, even if the principle of tying 

GHG emissions to economic valuation approaches were to be accepted, there would still be the 

problem that there is a lack of consensus in the scientific community about the best way to 

7-426
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

translate GHG emissions into a proxy for economic damages. Some of the issues that arise are: 

how to factor in the atmospheric residence times of GHG emissions in the atmosphere, and the 

evolution of atmospheric concentrations of GHG emissions through time both with and without 

renewable fuels. As mentioned previously, there is also a lack of consensus as to the appropriate 

discount rate to apply to GHG lifecycle emissions streams through time. Also, since EPA has 

decided to base threshold assessments of lifecycle GHG emissions on a 30 year time frame, the 

issue of whether to discount GHG emissions is not as significant as if the EPA had chosen the 

100 year time frame to assess GHG emissions impacts 

EPA is finalizing its assessments based on an analysis assuming 30 years of continued 

emission impacts with a 0 discount rate. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2466) agrees with the idea of an expert peer review regarding the issues 

surrounding time horizons and discount rates. (2466.1.pdf, p.10)

Our Response: 

A peer review of this specific issue was undertaken between the proposal and final rule. 

We have incorporated the comments received from the peer reviewers into our final rule 

analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment:

The commenter (2383) believes EPA’s “Discount” analysis greatly undervalues the GHG 

reductions provided by biofuels. Dr. W. Kip Viscusi, one of the nation’s foremost economists, 

analysis shows that the reductions in the present value of the longer-term GHG reductions 

produced by RFS2 are partially, and in some cases completely, offset once proper account is 

taken of the escalating social cost of carbon. The upshot is that the “discount rates” shown in the 

NPRM, which range from two to seven percent, would all need to be adjusted downward after 

accounting for the social cost of carbon. Those adjustments would readily place the majority of 

current U.S. corn ethanol biorefineries in compliance with the 20 percent GHG emissions 

reduction targets specified for new corn biorefineries in section 211(o)(2)(A)(I), if the nominal 

“discount rate” is set at three percent or below three percent being the discount rate applied by 

EPA in other recent GHG analyses. If EPA does not make the adjustments in “discount rates” 

recommended by Dr. Viscusi, it must present its reasons for not doing so. If EPA accepts the 

need for adjustments to reflect the future social cost of carbon, but believes a different valuation 

7-427
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

than the default valuation proposed by Dr. Viscusi should be used, it also needs to explain its 

reasoning, and it must permit public comment on its alternate selection. [[Docket number 2383.1, 

p. 52]] [[See docket number 2383.1, p. 52-53 and 2359.1 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

As part of the EPA-sponsored peer review we received numerous of comments on 

whether GHG lifecycle emissions should be discounted through time, while many of peer 

reviewers thought that current GHG emissions reductions should be more strongly weighted than 

future reductions, the peer reviewers were in general agreement that a discount rate should only 

be applied to a monetary unit, rather than a physical unit, such as an GHG emission. One peer 

reviewer suggested that it is scientifically justifiable to use discounting procedures for GHG 

emissions if the procedure is broadened to capture more than the “time value of money” and 

includes biophysical relationships such as the changing value of damages produced by 

atmospheric GHG stocks, the persistence of GHGs in the atmosphere and the initial GHG stock 

levels. 

The social cost of carbon is an economic valuation of a physical quantity of GHG 

emissions. As discussed in preamble Section V, in this final rule EPA is not applying economic 

concepts to physical GHG emissions for the purposes of determining which biofuels comply 

with the lifecycle GHG thresholds specified in EISA. Therefore, we did not include the social 

cost of carbon in our lifecycle GHG emissions calculations. 

 After considering the comments on discounting from the peer review and the public, EPA 

decided not to discount (i.e., use a 0% discount rate) GHG emissions due to the many issues 

associated with applying an economic concept to a physical parameter. First, it is unclear 

whether EISA intended lifecycle GHG emissions to be converted into a metric whose 

underpinnings rest on principals of economic valuation. A more literal interpretation of EISA is 

that EPA should consider only physical GHG emissions. Second, even if the principle of tying 

GHG emissions to economic valuation approaches were to be accepted, there would still be the 

problem that there is a lack of consensus in the scientific community about the best way to 

translate GHG emissions into a proxy for economic damages. Some of the issues that arise are: 

how to factor in the atmospheric residence times of GHG emissions in the atmosphere, and the 

evolution of atmospheric concentrations of GHG emissions through time both with and without 

renewable fuels. As mentioned previously, there is also a lack of consensus as to the appropriate 

discount rate to apply to GHG lifecycle emissions streams through time. Also, since EPA has 

decided to base threshold assessments of lifecycle GHG emissions on a 30 year time frame, the 

issue of whether to discount GHG emissions is not as significant as if the EPA had chosen the 

100 year time frame to assess GHG emissions impacts. 

7.4 GHG Thresholds 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0953 

7-428
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: Great River Energy 

Comment:

The commenter (0953) noted that in the examples illustrated in EPA-420-F-09-024 “EPA 

Lifecycle Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Renewable Fuels”, it appears that the 

closest proxy to determining the net benefit of CHP is comparing “Corn Ethanol - dry mill 

biomass” at 39%/18% Lifecycle GHG reduction with “Corn Ethanol - dry mill biomass with 

CHP” at 47%/26% Lifecycle GHG reduction. The commenter is disheartened that the net CHP 

benefit is so small. There are virtually no technology improvements that can be made to 

overcome the indirect land use penalty associated with conventional ethanol and soy biodiesel. 

The commenter believes that neither of these examples would qualify as an “Advanced” (50% 

reduction threshold) or “Cellulosic” biofuel (60% reduction threshold). (p.1) 

Our Response: 

As noted in the preamble and the regulations for this final rule, EPA has identified a 

number of technically feasible pathways for both corn ethanol and biodiesel which will allow the 

fuel to meet or exceed the 20% and 50% thresholds, respectively, for these products. We note 

that under EISA, ethanol from corn starch is not eligible for compliance with the advanced 

biofuel standard. A number of pathways have also been determined as meeting the cellulosic 

biofuel standard of 60%. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1000 

Organization: Environmental Consultant 

Comment:

The commenter (1000) believes that Section VI of the preamble for the proposed regulation 

incorrectly states that EISA establishes GHG thresholds for each category of renewable fuels. 

(P.1) 

Our Response: 

EPA disagrees with the commenter. As explained in the NPRM and the final rule, EISA 

requires that the lifecycle GHG emissions of a qualifying renewable fuel be less than the 

lifecycle GHG emissions of the 2005 baseline average gasoline or diesel fuel that it replaces. 

Four different levels of reductions are required for the four different renewable fuel standards. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2316 

Organization: University of Minnesota 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2316]] states: My second comment concerns the appropriate analytical time 

horizon. I propose that the most appropriate duration to use is 15 years, or the regulatory duration 

7-429
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

of the Renewable Fuel Standard in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). 

The proposed 30-year horizon is fixed to an assumed biorefinery production lifetime, but 

ultimately the impact of EISA is determined by the period over which it provides financial 

incentive to build and operate biorefineries, not by how long such facilities may stand. Any 

decisions to build and run biorefineries have been and will be made by investors with the 

knowledge that recovery of any capital and operating costs from EISA payments will occur prior 

to or during 2022. Likewise, any carbon debt associated with land conversion, which itself 

comes at a cost to society, should be attributed to EISA’s impact on decisions to build and 

operate biorefineries, which will all be made prior to 2022. [[2316.1 p.1]]

Our Response: 

In the proposed rule, EPA highlighted two time periods of 30 years and 100 years for 

consideration in GHG lifecycle analysis. The Agency discussed the relative advantages of these, 

and other, time periods. The expert peer reviewers discussed a number of justifiable time 

periods ranging from 13 to 100 years. The reviewers said that longer time frames, such as 100 

years, were only appropriate if the Agency used positive discount rates to value future emissions. 

Almost all of the peer reviewers specifically said that a time frame of 20 to 30 years would be 

justifiable based on the average life of a biofuel production facility. The reviewers and the 

public commenters provided several arguments for the application of a 30 year time frame. A 30 

year time period is appropriate because future emissions are less certain and more difficult to 

value, so the analysis should be confined insofar as possible to the foreseeable future. Another 

argument is that a near-term time horizon is consistent with the latest climate science that 

indicates that swift and deep reductions of heat-trapping gasses are needed to avoid catastrophic 

changes due to a warming climate. One of the reviewers said that while “there is no unassailable 

basis for choosing a very specific timeframe” the expected average lifetime of a biofuel 

production facility is the “most sensible anchor” for the choice of a timeframe. Alternatively, a 

number of commenters argued that a 100 year time frame is the appropriate time period for GHG 

lifecycle emissions analysis principally since this is the time period over which climate change 

impacts are likely to occur. 

Based upon the comments received from the peer review and public between after the 

RFS2 proposal, EPA has decided to use a 30 year frame for assessing the lifecycle GHG 

emissions. There are several reasons why the 30 year time frame was chosen. The use of the life 

of a typical biofuel plant seems reasonable as a basis for the timeframe for assessing the GHG 

emissions impacts of a renewable fuel. Also, the 30 year time frame focuses on GHG emissions 

impacts that are more near term and, hence, more certain. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2364 

Organization: Tyson Foods, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter (2364.1) supports reducing the GHG threshold for biomass-based diesel and 

advanced biofuel to 40 percent. (2364.1, p.5) 

7-430
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2365 

Organization: Neste Oil Holding, Inc 

Comment:

The commenter (2365.1) noted that there is still no scientifically undisputable methodology for 

precisely quantifying the ILUC effect of biofuels. The commenter believes that EPA should 

accommodate these uncertainties by reducing the GHG reduction requirement for advanced 

biofuels and biomass-based diesel from 50% to 40% - as the Congress intended. (2365.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2099 

Organization: Honeywell International, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2099.1) believes that EPA should maintain the statutory definitions of lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions thresholds in order to promote the second generation biofuels market 

and facilitate global trade. (2099.1, p.22) (See Docket Number 2099.1, pp.22-23 for more 

discussion on this issue) 

The commenter also believes that due to the sufficient feedstock available to meet the EISA 

standards, EPA must not lower the GHG emission performance threshold in the categories of 

advanced biofuel and biomass-based diesel. (2099.1, p.23) (See Docket Number 2099.1, pp.23-

24 for more discussion on this issue)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079 

Organization: AE Biofuels, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2079.1) believes that all of the GHG Reduction thresholds should be reduced by 

the maximum amount that the proposed rule provides for, or 10%, for all fuels in the RFS2. 

(2079.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2549 

Organization: Triton Energy LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2549.1) supports lowering the requirement to 40% until the GHG emission 

science, including indirect land use change (ILUC) is more fully developed and the biofuel 

industry is better established. (2549.1, p.7)

Our Response:

EPA is not finalizing any adjustments to the lifecycle GHG thresholds as the Agency has 

determined that such adjustments are not necessary given the threshold determinations explained 

in the final rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2425 

7-431
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Organization: PetroAlgae 

Comment: 

The commenter (2425) encourages EPA to establish a default list of fuels meeting the GHG 

thresholds based on a 2022 performance assessment. If a company does not agree with the LCA 

factor, they should have the right to submit a specific LCA for their fuel/operation. This process 

will accelerate the acceptance and issuance of RINs and will avoid a large level of LCA reviews 

by EPA. [[Docket number 2425.1, p. 6]]

Our Response: 

EPA provides in the final rulemaking a petition process by which those fuel pathways 

that have not yet been modeled EPA modeling can be evaluated to determine compliance with 

one or more of the renewable fuel categories. 

We are establish a process whereby a biofuel producer can petition the Agency to also 

consider additional new energy saving production facility designs or co-product pathways as 

eligible pathways in addition to those specifically listed in today’s regulations. We expect the 

petitioner will describe the alternative production facility technology applied and supply data 

establishing the amount of energy savings that will result from the use of the alternative 

technology. Similarly, for alternative co-products, we will expect the petitioner to document the 

energy required to produce the co-product and the intended use of the co-product (e.g., DGS as a 

replacement for corn and soy meal as animal feed is a current example). EPA will use the data 

supplied via the petition and technically evaluate whether the information is sufficient and allows 

EPA to determine the new pathways would indeed qualify. If we make such a technical 

determination, then the fuel producer will be allowed to generate RINs for fuel produced using 

such additional pathway(s). It will not be necessary to update the regulations to specifically list 

such additional pathways prior to their being used for this program. 

As technology develops, new feedstocks emerge, and information becomes available, we 

anticipate including emerging pathways and new feedstocks in periodic regulatory updates to this 

final rule. Including these new feedstock and fuel pathways will involve the same petition 

process as described above. Biofuel producers who would like to get their fuel or feedstock 

included would have to provide information on their process as outlined above. Furthermore if a 

new feedstock is being utilized, information regarding that feedstock would also be required. 

Information would include at a minimum, type of feedstock and source, data on market value of 

the feedstock and current uses if any. Other information required would include input 

requirements of chemicals (fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) and energy use by type of energy. Yield 

information would also be required for both the current situation as well as anticipated changes 

over time. 

For inclusion of new fuel and feedstock pathways, it may be important to seek public 

comment on the modeling. We would therefore intend to utilize the annual rulemaking process 

already planned for establishing the renewable fuel standards applicable for the following year, 

to also provide an opportunity to propose and finalize the inclusion of these emerging pathways 

on our list of eligible biofuels, as appropriate. 

7-432
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

 See section V.C of the Preamble describing the petition process details. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2512 

Organization: Conservation International 

Comment: 

The commenter (2512.1) agrees that the proposed thresholds for lifecycle GHG emissions 

reductions are reasonable, although the commenter feels that biofuels produced at existing plants 

should meet the same minimum requirements, rather than being “grandfathered” in. The 

commenter recommends thresholds be re-evaluated periodically and improved over time. 

(2512.1, p.2)

Our Response:

As stipulated by EISA, renewable fuel from existing facilities is exempt from the 

lifecycle GHG emission reduction threshold of 20% up to a baseline volume for that facility that 

will be established at the time of registration. As discussed in preamble Section II.B.3, the 

exemption from the 20% GHG threshold applies only to renewable fuel that is produced from 

facilities which commenced construction on or before December 19, 2007, or in the case of 

ethanol plants that use natural gas or biodiesel for process heat, on or before December 31, 2009. 

EPA recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area, 

the lifecycle GHG assessments for a variety of fuel pathways are likely to be updated. 

Therefore, while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory 

determinations for fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also 

committing to further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As specified by 

EISA, if EPA revises the analytical methodology for determining lifecycle greenhouse gas 

emissions, any such revision will apply to renewable fuel from new facilities that commence 

construction after the effective date of the revision. 

7.4.1 Advanced Biofuel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2110 

Organization: Chevron 

Comment:

The commenter (2110.1) believes that the final rule must provide appropriate incentives for 

advanced biofuel development while maintaining responsible environmental standards for those 

fuels. (2110.1, p.4) 

The ommenter recommended that EPA be flexible in its LCA so as to recognize the evolving 

science. 

7-433
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response: 

EPA has indicated in the preamble its intention to continue to develop improvements to 

lifecycle assessment of biofuels and to periodically update its analyses, consistent with EISA. 

Additionally, EPA has provided a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA to 

evaluate specific technologies or operating processes that distinguish their biofuel production 

LCA GHG impacts from those already considered by EPA. These new technologies or operating 

processes can then receive an alternative GHG threshold assessment, if appropriate. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2119 

Organization: National Sorghum Producers 

Comment:

The commenter (2119.1) is in favor of leaving the advanced biofuel threshold at the 50% GHG 

reduction level. The key to the RFS2 is to promote the use of alternative feedstocks that reduce 

GHG. By lowering the level, it would incentivize other feedstocks. However, if the indirect land 

use change penalty lowers grain or sweet sorghum feedstock GHG reduction levels below 50%, 

then the advanced biofuels threshold should be lowered to 40% as allowed by EISA. (2119.1, 

p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130) does not support the proposed adjustment in the advanced biofuel GHG 

reduction threshold to allow sugar ethanol to quality as advanced biofuel. [[Docket number 

2130.1, p. 9]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) supports the reduction of the advanced biofuels threshold to 40%, but 

adds that by proposing to lower the threshold level to only 44%, EPA implies far more modeling 

accuracy than there really is. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 53]] 

Our Response: 

EPA is not finalizing any adjustments to the lifecycle GHG thresholds as the Agency has 

determined that such adjustments are not necessary given the threshold determinations explained 

in the final rule. 

What Commenters Said:

7-434
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2348 

Organization: StateLine Cooperative 

Comment: 

The commenter (2348) believes that EPA should recalculate the GHG intensity value for 

advanced fuel given the assumption that 70 percent will come from crop residue. EPA should 

also refigure the water quality impacts resulting from greater erosion and water quality reduction 

when crop residues are removed. (2348, p.1)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2363 

Organization: Ag Processing Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2363) requests that EPA recalculate the GHG intensity value for advanced fuel 

given the assumption that 70% will come from crop residue. [[Docket number 2363.1, p. 7]] 

[[See docket number 2363.1, pp. 3-4 for further discussion of this issue.]]

Our Response: 

EPA has done an analysis of advanced and cellulosic fuels from a number of different 

feedstocks including crop residues. We have developed specific GHG lifecycle results for the 

different types of feedstocks separately, including one for crop residues vs. other feedstocks used 

for cellulosic or advanced biofuel production. 

We do not project significant levels of residue removal in the regions modeled as part of 

our water quality analysis so their impacts are not considered. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2374 

Organization: Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc. (Amyris) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2374) notes that legislatively, EPA has the authority to adjust the thresholds for 

each class of Renewable Biofuels by up to 10% and believes that EPA should use this authority 

to actively qualify as many biofuels for each category. [[Docket number 2374.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response: 

EPA is not finalizing any adjustments to the lifecycle GHG thresholds as the Agency has 

determined that such adjustments are not necessary given the threshold determinations explained 

in the final rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

7-435
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Comment: 

The commenter (2383) states that if EPA attributes any significant indirect emissions impact to 

conventional biofuels, it must set a 10 percent threshold for corn ethanol from new facilities. 

The statute does not limit EPA’s authority in the manner suggested by the NPRM. EPA is not 

directed to adjust the 20 percent requirement to allow only “at least a few of the best” corn 

ethanol processes at new biorefineries to participate in the program. To the contrary, the statute 

mandates that adjustments “shall” enable participation by a range of different natural gas fired 

corn-based ethanol plants. [[Docket number 2383.1, p. 54]] [[Also see docket number 2381.1, 

declaration of Lautt.]] 

The commenter also states that there are no grounds to treat ethanol from sugarcane as an 

advanced biofuel. The NPRM proposes to relax the requirement for 50 percent emissions 

reductions from sugarcane but this analysis is improper in numerous respects. [[Docket numbers 

2383.1, p. 55-56, 2204.1, declaration of James M. Lyons, and 2380.1, p. 2]] 

Our Response:

EPA is not finalizing any adjustments to the lifecycle GHG thresholds as the Agency has 

determined that such adjustments are not necessary given the threshold determinations explained 

in the final rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) states that the GHG reduction thresholds contained in the RFS2 mandates 

create a powerful incentive to produce low carbon fuels, but believes the agency should establish 

additional incentives to encourage production of low carbon fuels, beyond threshold levels, by 

establishing a lifecycle GHG reduction RIN multiplier. The commenter believes that the current 

proposal lacks incentives for biofuel producers and regulated parties to develop and utilize 

biofuel with greater lifecycle GHG reduction characteristics. The commenter provides 

guidelines to establish incentives in the form of a GHG reduction RIN multiplier. [[Docket 

number 2393.1, pp. 3-4]] 

Our Response: 

EPA has adopted regulations which differentiate fuels on, among other things, the basis 

of their compliance with the thresholds as determined by full lifecycle analysis as directed by 

EISA. All fuels achieving a threshold receive the same credit for generating RINs under this 

program. It is not clear whether EPA would have the authority under section 211(o) to adopt the 

kind incentive program suggested by the commenter. In any case, it would not be appropriate at 

this time to do so, in part because it would call for making more precise determinations of 

lifecycle GHG emissions than the single determination of compliance or non-compliance with 

7-436
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

the Act’s GHG thresholds. The lifecycle analyses performed by EPA for this rulemaking were 

not intended to serve that function. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

EPA has proposed to adjust the required reduction threshold for “advanced biofuels” from 50% 

to 44%. The commenter states that the 44% reduction value is based on the 100-year time 

period; on the 30-year time period this fuel pathway would not qualify. The same value is also 

based on the 2% discount rate, without which the fuel pathway would qualify as a 61% 

reduction. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 56]] 

Our Response: 

EPA has adopted final rules which include determining compliance assuming 30 years of 

GHG emission impacts, with no discount. Based on this analysis, a number of fuel pathways 

meet the 50% GHG threshold for advanced biofuels. Therefore we have determined it is 

unnecessary to adjust the threshold. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment:

The commenter (2511.1) supports reducing the GHG threshold of the advanced category to 40%. 

When correct NOx credits are applied, and EPA reduces the advanced threshold to 40-44%, 

soybean oil biodiesel appropriately qualifies as an advanced biofuel and for the biomass based 

diesel category. (2511.1, p.5) 

Our Response: 

EPA is not finalizing any adjustments to the lifecycle GHG thresholds as the Agency has 

determined that such adjustments are not necessary given the threshold determinations explained 

in the final rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2472 

Organization: Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) 

Comment: 

7-437
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The commenter (2472) supports making the hurdle for advanced biofuel a 40% reduction versus 

a 50% reduction. [[Docket number 2072, p. 2]]

Our Response:

EPA is not finalizing any adjustments to the lifecycle GHG thresholds as the Agency has 

determined that such adjustments are not necessary given the threshold determinations explained 

in the final rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment: 

The commenter also believes that the definition of Advanced Biofuel needs to be 

expanded where it states: “...as long as it meets the proposed 40 - 44% GHG emission reduction 

as it relates to the gasoline, diesel fuel or jet fuel that it displaces or replaces.” The commenter 

also supports the idea of reducing the GHG reductions emissions to 40% to allow sugar cane 

ethanol to be categorizes as an Advanced Biofuel. 

Our Response: 

EPA has not finalized adjustments to the Advanced Biofuel threshold since it has 

determined several pathways are capable of meeting the 50% threshold and therefore no 

adjustment is necessary. 

7.4.2 Biomass-based Diesel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1001, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1005, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-1010, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1011, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1012, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1025, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1029, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-

1043, et al. 

Organization: Kurzman Clean Tech Research & Kurzman Capital, LLC, Cotner 

Consulting Services, CC Gas Systems, LLC, Atlantic BioFuels, Glenwood Farms, Law Offices 

of David Wilcox, C.I.B., University of Georgia Engineering Outreach Service, et al. 

Comment:

The commenters noted that the U.S. biodiesel industry has been steadily growing over the past 

several years with 690 million gallons in production in 2008. Existing feedstock sources are 

already available to meet this production level. As such, no land use changes, and therefore no 

significant emissions from those changes, can be associated with existing production. All 

lifecycle analyses, including EPA’s without international land use changes, show well over 50 

7-438
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

percent reduction in emissions. The commenters also noted that there is ample support for EPA 

to grandfather existing facilities by deeming these facilities to be in compliance with the 50 

percent reduction requirement. 

The commenters also noted that fairness and good policy dictate that EPA’s regulations should 

not undermine investments made prior to the implementation of RFS2 regulations. EPA’s 

proposed rule does not meet these standards. By eliminating substantial portions of U.S. 

biodiesel production from the Biomass-based Diesel category, EPA has undermined existing 

investments and has created disincentives for continued investment in U.S. biodiesel production 

and distribution. 

Our Response: 

Based on analyses conducted for this final rule, EPA has determined that several 

pathways are available for the biodiesel industry which meet or exceed the advance biofuel GHG 

threshold. As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used the most up to date models, data 

and other information in its LCA. These indicate that indirect impacts including international 

land use impacts are significant and should appropriately be included in accordance with good 

practice and the requirements of EISA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2000 

Organization: Galva Holstein Ag, LLC. 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2000]] states that EPA should reduce the biomass-based diesel fuel GHG 

threshold to 40 percent, and recommends that for biomass-based diesel not meeting the advanced 

GHG reduction threshold, an energy content-based factor of 1.5 be continued. [[see docket#2000 

p. 1]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079 

Organization: AE Biofuels, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2079.1) believes that the existing production of biodiesel should be deemed to 

meet the 50 percent greenhouse gas emission reduction requirement for biomass-based diesel. 

(2079.1, p.6) (See Docket Number 2079.1, p.6-7 for a detailed discussion of this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2087 

Organization: Ag Partners 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2087]] states that EPA should reduce the biomass-based diesel fuel GHG 

threshold to 40 percent, and recommends that for biomass based diesel not meeting the advanced 

GHG reduction threshold, an energy content based factor of 1.5 be continued. [[see docket#2087 

p. 1]] 

7-439
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2106 

Organization: Endicott Biofuels II, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2106) suggests that reducing the GHG level to 40% on a temporary basis only 

since blending with other feedstocks will be difficult for EPA to measure and demonstrate 

compliance. [[Docket number 2106.1, p. 5]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) does not support an adjustment to the biomass-based diesel minimum 

GHG emissions reduction threshold, nor any of the averaging approaches outlined by EPA as a 

mechanism to qualify biodiesel that would otherwise not qualify as biomass-based diesel. If the 

final lifecycle analysis does not qualify vegetable oil-sourced biodiesel as biomass-based diesel, 

EPA should not resort to averaging techniques to artificially qualify such biofuels. The 

commenter believes that EPA should initiate a general waiver process to reduce the biomassbased diesel requirement to the level of available biodiesel or renewable diesel that does qualify 

as biomass-based diesel, taking into account geographical and seasonal factors. (2124.1, p.26) 

If EPA proceeds with an averaging approach to qualify vegetable oil-sourced biodiesel as 

biomass-based diesel, the commenter urges EPA to utilize a n averaging mechanism that allows 

both producers and obligated parties to average the appropriate ratio of RINs. (2124.1, p.26) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130) does not support an adjustment to the biomass-based diesel GHG 

reduction threshold, nor any of the averaging approaches outlined by EPA as a mechanism to 

qualify biodiesel that would otherwise not qualify as biomass-based diesel [[Docket number 

2130.1, p. 9]] [[See docket number 2130.1, pp. 9-10 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2249.2) believes that if the final EPA analysis of the GHG reduction of any 

biodiesel pathway fails to meet the 50 Percent GHG reduction requirement for Biomass-based 

Diesel and Advanced Biofuel, then the Agency should use its authority as provided by Congress 

and adjust the 50 percent GHG reduction requirement downward to 40 percent to ensure U.S. 

biodiesel can meet the Biomass-based Diesel and Advanced Biofuel requirements, as intended 

by Congress. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 12]] 

The commenter notes that the Proposed Rule restricts feedstock for Biomass-based Diesel to 

only animal fats and restaurant grease and points out that vegetable oils account for 

approximately 60 percent of the feedstock that is available to meet the RFS2 Biomass based 

Diesel targets, and disqualifying these sustainable oils from the program will significantly inhibit 

7-440
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

the domestic industry’s ability to meet the RFS2 volume goals established by law. [[Docket 

number 2249.2, p. 13]] 

[[See docket number 2249.2, p. 13 for additional discussion of this issue]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) notes that EPA and EIA both predict that there will not be sufficient 

quantities of fuels to meet the 50%, or even the 40% thresholds; however, 40% is the lowest 

level that EPA can set for the biomass-based diesel threshold. The commenter supports this 

revised level. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 54]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

EPA has asked for comment on whether to adjust the required reduction threshold for “biomassbased diesel” from 50% to 40%. Additionally, EPA has proposed to allow producers to mix 

biomass-based diesel fuels with varying reduction levels in order to meet a yearlong average of a 

40% reduction from the product. The commenter opposes the use of averaging to enable 

currently available bio-mass based diesel fuels “fit” the EISA requirement. The commenter 

expresses support for lowering of the threshold to 40%, provided that EPA determines that there 

are no feedstock pathways that can meet the 50% threshold. However, EPA does not have the 

authority to allow averaging. E PA instead should immediately waive future volumes of 

biomass-based diesel to levels that do not exceed those possible to be produced from biomass 

suitable to meet the allowable GHG threshold for advanced biofuels.

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2420 

Organization: Magellan Midstream Partners 

Comment:

The commenter (2420.1) is concerned that EPA’s proposed GHG threshold for biodiesel 

produced from soybean oil will not qualify under the biomass-based diesel category. The 

commenter noted that by limiting the market potential for soy-based biodiesel, EPA may be 

promoting drivability problems for unsuspecting diesel motorists particularly in the northern tier 

of the United States. This action may also eliminate a number of operating biodiesel plants from 

participating in the biomass based diesel program which will make it difficult for obligated 

parties to meet their RVO. The commenter urges EPA to carefully consider the technical data 

submitted by affected parties to determine if soy-based biodiesel will meet the biomass based 

diesel standard. (2420.1, pp.2-3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2425 

Organization: PetroAlgae 

Comment: 

Referring to the proposed 50% LCA threshold for biomass-based diesel that can be modified on 

a case-by-case basis and the adjustments that can be made to this threshold only if it is 

determined the threshold is not commercially feasible for fuels made from a variety of feedstock 

7-441
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

material, the commenter (2425) requests this definition to be clarified and explains that for 

certain smaller facilities, the economies of scale do not allow for the most energy efficient 

production rate. These facilities are still critical in the production of biomass-based diesel and 

should be allowed leniency with respect to the LCA threshold. [[Docket number 2425.1, p. 5]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2474 

Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2474) believes that EPA should adjust the 50 percent reduction requirement for 

biomass-based diesel to 40 percent. (2474, p.2)

 Our Response: 

Based on analyses conducted for this final rule, EPA has determined that several 

pathways are available for the biodiesel industry which meet or exceed the advance biofuel GHG 

threshold. Therefore there is no need to reduce the 50% threshold. Additionally, we are not 

allowing averaging of biodiesel from vegetable oils with those produced from waste oils, fats 

and greases as this is not necessary to allow compliance with the biomass-based diesel GHG 

performance threshold.

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2174 

Organization: Illinois Soybean Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2174) believes that the 50% GHG level that biodiesel must meet is arbitrary. 

Existing ethanol plants are exempt and do not have to meet any GHG reduction threshold. The 

statute does not require EPA to include international indirect emissions in their lifecycle analysis 

for biofuels. (2174, p.2)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2348 

Organization: StateLine Cooperative 

Comment: 

The commenter (2348) believes that EPA should reduce the biomass-based diesel fuel GHG 

threshold to 40 percent. The commenter also recommends that for biomass based diesel not 

meeting the advanced GHG reduction threshold, an energy content based factor of 1.5 be 

continued. (2348, p.1)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2363 

Organization: Ag Processing Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2363) supports reducing the biomass-based diesel fuel GHG threshold to 40%. 

[[Docket number 2363.1, p. 7]] [[See docket number 2363.1, p. 2 for further discussion of this 

issue.]]

7-442
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response:

The 50% threshold was established by Congress. EPA disagrees with commenter’s 

interpretation of the statute. EPA’s rationale and methodology is explained in detail in the final 

rule. 

7.5 Assignments of Pathways to Renewable Fuel Categories 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2112.1) believes that EPA can not replicate the archaic technology matrix used 

in this proposed rule for the dozens of technologies using dozens of feedstocks that are being 

developed. (2112.1, p.13)

Our Response:

As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA 

For the final rule, EPA has adopted a petition process whereby biofuel producers can 

request EPA review of new process technologies. Additionally, EPA has indicated its intention 

to periodically update its analyses to reflect new data and information including the development 

of new technologies. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2016 

Organization: Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2016.1) is thankful that EPA allows biofuels from foreign sources such as 

Malaysia. The commenter noted that on page 24917, it was stated that the agriculture crops for 

renewable transportation fuels will mostly be grown in the U.S. The report alludes that whatever 

little imports will mainly be for the three advanced biofuel categories but not the residual 

renewable fuels category which has lower GHG savings requirements. The commenter requests 

that the contribution from foreign sources be reflected in this category. Tables V.A. 1-1 and 

7-443
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

V.A. 2-1 should therefore also show the contribution from other non advanced biofuel other than 

corn ethanol. (2016.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2361 

Organization: Indonesian Palm Oil Commission 

Comment: 

The commenter (2361) is concerned about the statement that the agriculture crops for renewable 

transportation fuels will mostly be grown in the U.S. The report alludes that the imports will 

mainly be for the three advanced biofuel categories but not the residual renewable fuels category 

which has lower GHG savings requirements. It was predicted that all non-advanced biofuel will 

be from corn ethanol (U.S.) and the commenter (2361) requests that the contribution of non 

advanced biofuel from other countries allowed to be imported into the U.S. (2361.pdf, p.1) 

Our Response:

The lifecycle analysis of fuels is based on the characteristics of the fuel pathway rather 

than whether it is domestically produced or imported. The economic models project that a large 

volume of feedstocks will be produced in the U.S.; however, domestic and imported fuels are 

eligible for all four renewable fuel categories if they meet the lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction 

thresholds and the definition of renewable biomass. EPA also provides a petition process for 

fuel pathways not yet analyzed.

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA should promote the use of landfill gas, which may be 

transported through common carrier pipelines. EPA should include the use of methane from 

animal wastes and landfill gas, including methane transported through common carrier pipelines, 

as part of the pathways in the final rule implementing the RFS2 program. (2329.1, p. 99-100) 

Our Response: 

As part of the final rulemaking EPA has included a pathway for biogas from landfills, 

sewage and waste treatment plants, and manure digesters to qualify as an advanced biofuel. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment: 

The commenter (2471.1) noted that if in finalizing the rule EPA changes a particular biofuel’s 

qualification in a manner that in essence “demotes“ its “D-code” assignment, EPA should 

7-444
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

provide notice and allow an opportunity to comment before finalizing. The commenter believes 

that EPA should also allow for notice and comment before finalizing a new pathway assessment 

or revised assessment that demotes the previously-assigned “D” code for a fuel. (2471.1, p.11) 

Our Response: 

Any updates to the rulemaking and fuel’s D-code assignment will go through a proposal 

and final rulemaking process. Furthermore, any changes to a fuel pathway D-code would only 

apply to new facilities, constructed after the change, all existing facilities would be grandfathered 

under the original D-code rating. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2376 

Organization: Country Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2376]] states that waste-to-fuel advanced technologies such as those listed 

above have potential to produce significant volume of renewable fuels that could help EPA 

achieve the RFS2 volume mandates of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. However, 

the emerging waste-to-fuel industry needs additional incentives to improve the economic 

feasibility of such projects. Credit trading systems for renewable fuels such as the trading 

system in RFS will help the emerging waste to- fuel industry gain economic stability and 

promulgate long-term investments. Therefore, we again request that waste-derived renewable 

fuels be included in RFS2 in order to participate in the credit trading system. [[2376.1 p.6]] 

Our Response: 

As discussed in more detail in Section II.B.4.d of the Preamble, EPA has determined that 

the biogenic portion of post recycled MSW is eligible to produce renewable fuel and will largely 

be made up of cellulosic material. Therefore biofuel made from this waste-derived material will 

qualify as cellulosic biofuel. 

Furthermore, separated food and yard wastes, including food and beverage wastes from 

food production and processing are another category of waste product that would not have any 

land-use change impact. These waste products can be used as feedstock for advanced biofuel 

production or cellulosic biofuel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1044) states the Agency failed to assign Algae and a “D” code for Algae in the 

proposed rule. The commenter requests clarification from EPA as to how it considers this 

7-445
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

feedstock. In other words is this considered virgin plant oil? Or will it have its own LCA? How 

will water consumption factor into the equation? The commenter also states that the Agency 

fails to recognize the diversity of the Biomass Feedstocks for Biomass Based Diesels that are 

grown in the U.S. as rotation crops as a traditional farming practice. More importantly, most of 

these feedstocks can not be grown or are not grown in areas of global concern and should not be 

subjected to ILUC of those areas. The premise one acre of renewable biomass that is grown in 

the U.S. will force another acre in the rain forests of the world to vanish for the purposes of 

renewable fuels are severely misunderstood! Recent studies conducted by Greenpeace clearly 

identified the actual destruction of rainforest is a direct result poor livestock management 

practices. In addition, EPA should recognize, as required in EISA, the value of consulting the 

Department of Agriculture regarding those farming practices to accurately depict the LCA of 

those operations. [[Docket number 1044.1, pp 9-10]] 

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has determined that biodiesel produced from algae oil will comply 

with the advance biofuel GHG performance threshold and included a specific pathway in the 

rulemaking for biodiesel from algae. 

EPA also provides D-codes for secondary annual crops planted on existing crop land – 

such as winter cover crops. These secondary crops are assumed to have no land use impact since 

they are planted on land otherwise used for primary crop production. GHG emissions would 

only be associated with growing, harvesting and transporting the secondary crop and then 

processing into biofuel. See Preamble Section V.C for details. 

We have not specifically modeled other biomass based diesel feedstocks. However, EPA 

has adopted a petition process, explained in preamble Section V, whereby biofuel producers can 

request EPA review of new feedstocks and process technologies. Additionally, EPA has 

indicated its intention to periodically update its analyses to reflect new data and information 

including the development of new feedstock sources. 

In conducting the lifecycle assessment of biofuels for this rulemaking EPA worked 

closely with USDA and the models used incorporated USDA data in terms of farming practices. 

7.5.1 Assignments for Pathways Subjected to Lifecycle Analyses 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2075 

Organization: Sustainable Oils, LLC (SO) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2075) requests that the Final Rule make a distinction between feedstocks that 

are currently in large cultivation (corn, soybeans, canola, sugar, and timber) and pre-commercial 

dedicated energy crops. [[Docket number 2075.1, p. 3]] 

7-446
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter notes that EPA proposes to assign various combinations of feedstock, fuel type, 

and production process to one of four categories of fuels eligible for compliance under RFS2. 

Or, alternatively, it will determine that the combination is not eligible due to a failure to meet 

required thresholds. Thus the commenter believes that the NPRM is inherently backwardlooking and is based on the existence of historical data related to prior biofuel cultivation and 

processing technologies. Camelina would be lumped in with soybean-based biodiesel. [[Docket 

number 2075.1, pp. 2-3]] 

Additionally, EPA plans to update its analyses at three-to-five year intervals. The Proposed Rule 

may be adequate for existing commercialized biofuels with historical data sets and known 

technologies. However, innovative next generation biofuels simply will fly under the EPA’s 

radar. They will not be designated as compliant renewable fuels from the point of view of this 

NPRM. Next generation feedstocks will not be developed and commercialized in a timely 

manner. If the EPA process for approving new pathways is not timely, and a three-to-five year 

interval is not timely, the commenter believes that regulatory uncertainty will lethally inhibit the 

substantial private investment needed to create the improved feedstocks which, in turn, are 

needed to create a commercially viable biofuel industry. Contrary to Congressional intent, this 

NPRM will stifle innovation. [[Docket number 2075.1, p. 3]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2245 

Organization: Illinois Corn Growers Association, et al. 

Contributors to this comment letter include: Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Soybean 

Association, Illinois Soybean Association, Illinois Renewable Fuels Association, Kentucky 

Soybean Association, Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, Missouri Corn Growers 

Association, Missouri Soybean Association, Monsanto, the National Corn to Ethanol Research 

Center, Nebraska Corn Board, Nebraska Soybean Association, Novozymes, Ohio Soybean 

Association, South Dakota Soybean Association, University of Illinois Chicago, Energy 

Resources Center, University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana plant breeding, animal nutrition and 

agronomy, DuPont, Ethanol Technologies, John Deere, and the U.S. Grains Council 

Comment:

The commenters (2245.1) believe that EPA needs to define a mechanism by which the 

designated fuel pathways are routinely updated to ensure they reflect the most current GHG 

comparisons. (2245.1, p.30) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2365 

Organization: Neste Oil Holding, Inc 

Comment:

The commenter (2365.1) believes that EPA should consider allowing companies to present 

specific fuel pathways. If specific fuel pathways which employ sustainable and carbon 

mitigation processes are to be encouraged, they must be recognized and given credit under the 

RFS. (2365.1, p.3) 

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has established a petition process whereby biofuel producers can 

request EPA review of new process technologies or operating practices if it is expected they 

7-447
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

could qualify for a new or different threshold assessment (D code). Additionally, EPA has 

indicated its intention to periodically update its analyses to reflect new data and information 

including the development of new technologies. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2119 

Organization: National Sorghum Producers 

Comment:

The commenter (2119.1) noted that grain sorghum is not corn starch, and if meeting the 

greenhouse gas (GHG) requirements of the rule, should be assigned a separate pathway and 

classified as an advanced biofuel. (2119.1, p.2) 

The commenter also believes that sweet sorghum should also have its own pathway in the final 

rule. (2119.1, p.4) 

The commenter believes that energy sorghum should have its own dedicated pathway in the final 

rule. By having dedicated pathways for both energy sorghum and switchgrass, risk will be 

lowered as biorefineries can work with producers in an area to produce the feedstock with the 

best agronomic package for that region. (2119.1, p.6) 

Our Response: 

This final rule establishes a pathway for biofuel produced from switchgrass. As stated in 

the preamble to the final rule, EPA anticipates analyzing grain sorghum ethanol as a biofuel 

feedstock within the next 6 months. For other fuels not modeled for this rule, EPA has 

established a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA review of new process 

technologies. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2374 

Organization: Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc. (Amyris) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2374) believes that EPA should allow producers on a case-by-case basis to 

verify the carbon intensity of their specific process and feedstocks, and immediately certify to 

the new values. This certification process should be responsive to new innovations in production 

allowing for immediate benefit of their emissions reduction. By quickly rewarding innovation 

with improved performance metrics, the EPA will incentivize producers to continually improve 

their carbon footprint. [[Docket number 2374.1, p. 1]]

Our Response: 

7-448
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Based on analyses conducted for this final rule, EPA has determined that several 

pathways, including from soy oil, are available for the biodiesel industry which meet or exceed 

the advance biofuel GHG threshold. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment:

The commenter (2511.1) noted that several aspects of the fuel pathways need to be addressed 

including: yield data, fuel baselines including petroleum and indirect effects of petroleum 

lifecycle, co-product credits and emissions debits for petroleum co-products, time discounting 

and linkages of models. The commenter advocates that EPA needs to use real data where real 

data exists. This information should be modeled to determine the effectiveness of the predictions 

of the models. Models carrying the significance of this regulation need to be verified, the 

regulations should not be based on speculation, modeling and assumptions indefinitely. (2511.1, 

p.6) 

Our Response: 

As detailed in the final rule preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and 

other information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA. Our analyses indicate that indirect impacts including 

international land use impacts are significant and should appropriately be included in accordance 

with good practice and the requirements of EISA. 

For the final rule, EPA has updated its assessment of crop yields both domestically and 

internationally. We have calculated lifecycle emission performance assuming both base yields 

derived from projecting into the future longer term historical trends and also assuming a marked 

increase in future yields based on industry and other comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2549 

Organization: Triton Energy LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2549.1) noted that given the large carbon emissions due to ILUC, some biofuels 

may have to choose a 20% reduction category instead of an advanced biofuel where the carbon 

emissions reduction is 40 to 50%. (2549.1, p.4) 

7-449
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response: 

As noted in the preamble to the final rule, EPA believes it has appropriately determined 

the ILUC impact of a wide range of biofuels. Further, a number of pathways have been 

determined to meet the advance biofuel threshold performance of 50%. 

7.5.2 Assignments for Additional Pathways 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1044 

Organization: GEN-X Energy Group Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1044) offers the following remarks related to proposed §80.1426 table 1: This 

section represents the pathways available to the renewable fuel producers. The commenter 

firmly opposes this section as it does not accurately identify pathways for biodiesel or renewable 

diesel feedstocks and presumes that all virgin vegetable oils and waste oils are the same. The 

commenter provided an excel spreadsheet listed as exhibit A to this document that accurately 

depicts various feedstocks. The commenter proposes a review of this information and that EPA 

correctly place certain vegetable oil feedstocks in the correct pathways. In addition, algae was 

not identified as mandated by the language of the EISA. [[Docket number 1044.1, p. 6]] 

[[NOTE: Exhibit A (excel spreadsheet) referred to above is not available on FDMS.]]

Our Response: 

Based on analyses conducted for this final rule, EPA has determined that several 

pathways, including from soy oil, are available for the biodiesel industry which meet or exceed 

the advance biofuel GHG threshold. Therefore there is no need to reduce the 50% threshold. 

Additionally, we are not allowing averaging of biodiesel from vegetable oils with those produced 

from waste oils, fats and greases as this is not necessary to allow compliance with the biomassbased diesel GHG performance threshold.

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2106 

Organization: Endicott Biofuels II, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2106) suggests that EPA further evaluate at least two conversion pathways or 

modified pathways. In the first case, the commenter suggests that the renewable diesel 

conversion pathway is significantly different from conventional transesterification methods to 

produce a renewable diesel substitute and therefore it should be evaluated separately with a 

special focus on the source of hydrogen used in hydrotreating. In the second case, where 

extensive pretreatment and fat stripping equipment is added to existing transesterification plants 

7-450
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

to handle high FFA feedstocks, there can be a materially higher yield loss resulting in carbon 

conversion losses and hence a reduced GHG reduction from the base feedstock. [[Docket number 

2106.1, p. 6]] 

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has analyzed a number of biodiesel pathways as complying with 

the advance biofuel GHG performance threshold. EPA has adopted a petition process whereby 

biofuel producers can request EPA review of new process technologies. Additionally, EPA has 

indicated its intention to periodically update its analyses to reflect new data and information 

including the development of new technologies. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2302 

Organization: UC Berkeley - Energy Biosciences Institute 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2302]] strongly suggests that EPA create a transparent mechanism for the 

evaluation of emerging conversion technologies including submission and review. Such 

technological advances may result in significantly different lifecycle assessments. [[#2302 p.5]] 

The commenter also suggests that for: 1) thermochemical gasification followed by FischerTropsch synthesis; and 2) catalytic racking/depolymerization followed by catalytic fuel 

synthesis, that EPA add these to the table as additional lines rather than attempting to combine 

multiple possible pathways into a single line item to avoid ambiguity. [[#2302 p.5]] 

Our Response: 

Biofuels producers who believe that their production process is significantly different 

than those included in the list of pathways are eligible to petition EPA. The petition must 

include information necessary to allow EPA to determine the life cycle green house gas 

emissions of the fuel. This is further discussed in the preamble Section V.C. Please see Section 

7.5.2.5 of this Summary and Analysis of Comments document for EPA’s full response regarding 

the petition process for additional pathways. 

For inclusion of new fuel and feedstock pathways, it may be important to seek public 

comment on the modeling. We therefore intend to utilize the annual rulemaking process already 

planned for establishing the renewable fuel standards applicable for the following year, to also 

provide an opportunity to propose and finalize the inclusion of these emerging pathways on our 

list of eligible biofuels, as appropriate. 

The fact that the EISA requirements define specific categories of fuels with lifecycle 

GHG thresholds means that EPA does not have to define a specific lifecycle GHG value for each 

individual gallon of fuel. If different types of biofuel pathways each meet the requirements of a 

certain pathway there is no need to distinguish between them. 

7-451
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2486 

Organization: Primafuel, Inc. 

Comment: 

With a market-minded view of the regulations, the commenter (2486) believes that it is 

imperative that the process for proposing new or modified fuel pathways must be highly 

efficient. [[Docket number 2486.1, p. 2]] [[See docket number 2486.1, p. 2 for additional details 

of this issue.]]

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has adopted a petition process whereby biofuel producers can 

request EPA review of new process technologies or feedstock sources. Additionally, EPA has 

indicated its intention to periodically update its analyses to reflect new data and information 

including the development of new technologies and feedstock sources. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2395.1 

Organization: Covanta 

Comment: 

The commenter (2395) believes renewable fuels generated from waste biomass, including the 

biogenic fraction of MSW, do not lead to land use change. (2395.1 Pg. 6-7). 

Our Response:

For the final rule analysis EPA determined that biofuel from separated yard and food 

wastes (which may contain incidental and post-recycled paper and wood wastes) satisfy biofuel 

thresholds. Separated food waste is largely starch-based and thus qualifies for the advanced 

biofuel standard of 50% reduction. EPA believes that renewable fuel produced from feedstocks 

consisting of wastes that would normally be discarded or put to a secondary use, and which have 

not been intentionally rendered unfit for productive use, should be assumed to have little or no 

land use emissions of GHGs. The use of wastes that would normally be discarded does not 

increase the demand for land. For example, the use in biofuel production of food waste from a 

food processing facility that would normally be placed in a landfill will not increase the demand 

for land to grow the crops that were purchased by the food processing facility. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2487 

Organization: Abengoa Bioenergy Corporation 

7-452
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment:

The commenter (2487) believes that RFS2 rules as written provide little incentive for individual 

facilities to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint. By providing a limited number of 

“pathways” for GHG classification purposes, and no opportunity for individual facilities to 

provide a distinct lifecycle analysis for unique facilities which have (or wish to) incorporate 

GHG reduction technologies, there is no opportunity to benefit from these improvements. The 

commenter states that the opportunity to submit individual lifecycle analyses is critical for noncorn facilities which might qualify as an Advanced Biofuel after making process modifications 

to improve GHG reductions that are not recognized in the existing pathways. [[Docket number 

2487, p. 1]] 

In connection with the suggestion above, the commenter adds that it is critical that the methods 

of calculating the GHG footprint of each facility be transparent and reproducible by individual 

participants. EPA’s models and calculations are neither, and therefore put the industry in the 

position of having to comply with limitations that cannot be estimated or anticipated in advance. 

[[Docket number 2487, p. 1]] 

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has adopted a petition process whereby biofuel producers can 

request EPA review of new process technologies. Additionally, EPA has indicated its intention 

to periodically update its analyses to reflect new data and information including the development 

of new technologies. We note however, that for this rule, it is only necessary to meet the 

threshold; no additional credit is available for fuels produced at facilities which exceed the 

threshold. As detailed in the preamble and RIA, EPA has used up to date models, data and other 

information to assess the GHG impacts of biofuels. Throughout the development of EPA’s 

lifecycle analysis, the Agency has employed a collaborative, transparent, and science-based 

approach. EPA’s lifecycle methodology, as developed for the RFS2 proposal, required breaking 

new scientific ground and using analytical tools in new ways. The work was generally 

recognized as state of the art and an advance on lifecycle thinking, specifically regarding the 

indirect impacts of biofuels. We believe we have in a technically appropriate manner, 

implemented the mandates of EISA 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment:

With regard to the dedicated perennial energy grasses for use in the production of renewable 

biofuels, the commenter (2408.1) believes that EPA should recognize the wide variety of these 

types of feedstocks. To the extent possible, EPA should be as flexible and broad in its definition 

of these new types of feedstocks. Where appropriate, EPA should consider the inclusion of the 

term “other energy grasses” to qualify as a feedstock for use in the production of RFS2 fuels. 

[[See Docket Number 2408.1, p. 4]] 

7-453
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Our Response: 

We recognize that there is a wide variety of perennial energy grasses. More description 

is provided in Chapter 1 of the RIA. In terms of evaluating “other energy grasses” as meeting 

the GHG thresholds, we believe other perennial grasses likely to compete as feedstock sources 

will have similar land use and agricultural inputs as switchgrass (the energy grass modeled) and 

are therefore confident the results from switchgrass can be extended to miscanthus and other 

perennial grasses. However, we note that the energy crop industry is just starting to develop and 

therefore as favored perennial grasses start to emerge, additional analyses may be warranted 

7.5.2.1 Ethanol from Starch 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1036 

Organization: Vision FL I, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (1036.1) noticed upon review of the fuel pathway tables (VI.E.1-1, VI.E.2-1, 

VI.E.4-1), as well as the proposed Table 1 to 80.1426 (Applicable D codes for Each Fuel 

Pathway for use in Generating RINs), that Sweet Sorghum ethanol has been “unintentionally” 

omitted from the look up tables. The commenter is requesting that Sweet Sorghum ethanol be 

classified with Sugarcane Ethanol on all look up tables; this is because the facilities that are used 

for Sweet Sorghum ethanol are Brazilian Sugarcane processing plants tailored to handle the 

slightly different feedstock. (1036.1, p.3) 

Our Response: 

We did not model the use of sweet sorghum as a feedstock. For the final rule, EPA has 

adopted a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA review of new process 

technologies and feedstock sources. Additionally, EPA has indicated its intention to periodically 

update its analyses to reflect new data and information including the development of new 

technologies and feedstock sources. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2343 

Organization: Osage Bio Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2343) states that the proposed language to assign winter barley (and other noncorn starch) the same fuel pathway as corn prevents projects utilizing those feedstocks from ever 

achieving Advanced Biofuel status. The legislative mandate contained in EISA 2007 identifies 

barley as an eligible Advanced Biofuel feedstock. However, Proposed Rule language contained 

in Section VI.E.3.a seeks to apply a first-generation corn pathway to barley ethanol. According 

to the language and corresponding lookup table VI.E.4-1, it appears that all ethanol-from-grain 

7-454
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

starch processes would be assigned the same pathway as corn, even with lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions less than 50% of baseline. The commenter requests that EPA eliminate or modify 

the Proposed Rule language, uphold the spirit of the law provided for in EISA 2007, and make 

accommodations for the benefits of winter barley as an ethanol feedstock. [[Docket number 

2343, pp. 1 and 5]] [[See docket number 2343, pp. 1-5 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2547 

Organization: Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 

Comment: 

The commenter (2547) noted that Section VI.E.3 of the proposed rule references barley as an 

ethanol feedstock. It appears under the proposed rule, that all ethanol-from grain starch 

processes would be assigned the same pathway as corn, making it ineligible for benefits as an 

Advanced Biofuel. Barley as an Advance Biofuel has the potential to provide substantial 

benefits. The potential benefits of increased barley production are significant. It is in a unique 

position to increase biofuel feedstock without disrupting current production, and at the same time 

offers significant environmental benefits. (2547, p.1)

Our Response: 

EPA has not analyzed barley as a feedstock for this final rule. For the final rule, EPA has 

adopted a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA review of new process 

technologies or feedstock sources. Additionally, EPA has indicated its intention to periodically 

update its analyses to reflect new data and information including the development of new 

technologies and feedstock sources. However, we have determined that winter cover crops will 

provide feedstock which will allow biofuels to be produced that comply with the advance biofuel 

standard since they have negligible or no impact on land use. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2360 

Organization: Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2360.1) noted that in the proposed rule, a natural gas dry mill that dries 100% 

Distillers Grains (Dgs) has a GHG reduction of 16% (100 yr 2% discount) while a natural gas 

dry mill that produces only wet Dgs has a GHG reduction of 27% (100 yr 2% discount) in 

comparison to the petroleum baseline as shown in Table VI.C.1-2. The commenter believes the 

all-or-nothing approach is inappropriate and recommends including a pathway selection in the 

lookup table where a portion of the feed is dried. A facility could reduce their lifecycle GHG 

emissions by switching from drying all their feed to only drying a portion of the feed to increase 

the 16% reduction to the 20% reduction requirement specified in the RFS2 regulations for cornbased ethanol. The commenter also noted that since many pathways in existence today are not 

included in the lookup table, EPA should clarify how facilities with pathways that do not exactly 

match those in the rule will be handled. (2360.1, p.2) 

7-455
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

The commenter also recommends that EPA expands the wet mill pathways with mixed fuel 

options as well as process improvement options such as CHP and membrane separation along 

with a facility type that has wet feed, as is described for the dry mill cases. It is not reasonable to 

exclude facilities from the program that don’t completely match up with EPA’s stated pathways 

when their lifecycle GHG reductions would otherwise qualify them for inclusion. (2360.1, p.2) 

 

Our Response: 

EPA has determined that a facility drying no more than 65% of their distillers grain (and 

using natural gas, biomass or biogas as process energy sources) will meet the GHG threshold. 

Additionally, the application of advanced technologies will also allow corn ethanol to meet the 

20% threshold standard. The pathways for which corn ethanol will meet or exceed the 20% 

threshold are detailed in the preamble and in the regulations. EPA also has provided a petition 

process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA to evaluate specific technologies or 

operating processes that distinguish their biofuel production LCA GHG impacts from those 

already considered by EPA. These new technologies or operating processes can then receive an 

alternative GHG threshold assessment, if appropriate. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2075 

Organization: Sustainable Oils, LLC (SO) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2075) requests that pre-commercial dedicated crops not be subject to a formal 

LCA until they reach a threshold of 1 million acres of domestic cultivation. This will allow new 

crops to gain a commercial foothold and develop data at an appropriate scale that will allow for a 

more accurate analysis of that crop’s LCA GHG emissions from production. The commenter 

also requests that for new crops which reach the 1 million acre milestone, EPA have an 

expedited process for conducting an LCA GHG emission analysis that is timely. Such pathways 

should be established within a timely 90 days after the year in which the 1 million acre milestone 

has been met. [[Docket number 2075.1, p. 3]] 

Our Response: 

EPA appreciates the need to have accurate data. However, it should not necessary to 

reach a threshold of 1 million acres of domestic cultivation before accurate assessment of the 

agricultural production including inputs affecting GHG assessment can be determined. We also 

expect that agricultural production will occur in advance of using the feedstock for commercial 

biofuel production allosing additional time to appropriately assessment feedstock production. 

For the final rule, EPA has adopted a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request 

EPA review of new process technologies and feedstock sources. Additionally, EPA has 

indicated its intention to periodically update its analyses to reflect new data and information 

including the development of new technologies and feedstock sources. 

7-456
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA should clarify that ethanol from grain sorghum 

qualifies as an Advanced biofuel. Grain sorghum is not corn starch, and, if it meets the GHG 

requirements of the rule, should be assigned a separate pathway and classified as an advanced 

biofuel. (2329.1, p. 101) 

Our Response: 

As stated in the preamble to the final rule, EPA intends to analyze grain sorghum as a 

biofuel feedstock within the next 6 months. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2333 

Organization: Pennsylvania State Senate 

Comment: 

The commenter (2333) noted that In Section VI.E.3.a of EPA’s Proposed Rule, there is a 

reference to the use of barley as an ethanol feedstock. From the language in the noted section, it 

appears that all ethanol-from-grain starch processes would be assigned the same pathway as corn 

as reflected in the lookup table VI.E.4-1, regardless of lifecycle greenhouse gas performance. If 

assigning barley plants the same pathway as corn makes them ineligible for benefits associated 

with being an Advanced Biofuel, the commenter believes that the lifecycle benefits of winter 

barley will not be accurately reflected. In fact winter cover crops such as barley grown on fallow 

crop land, commonly rotated in a double crop cycle with summer soybeans provide incremental 

food and energy without displacing land or existing crops. The commenter also noted that 

growing winter barley for food and fuel has environmental and economic benefits that 

differentiate it from corn as an ethanol feedstock. (2333, p.1)

Our Response:

EPA has not analyzed the use of a priamary crop of barley to produce ethanol. However, 

EPA provides in the final rulemaking a petition process by which those fuel pathways that have 

not yet been modeled can be evaluated to determine compliance with one or more of the 

renewable fuel categories. Preamble Section V.C describes the petition process details. 

With regards to barley grown as a secondary, winter cover crop, EPA does provide Dcodes for secondary annual crops planted on existing crop land – such as winter cover crops. 

While different from crop residues, these secondary crops also have no land use impact since 

they are planted on land otherwise used for primary crop production. GHG emissions would 

only be associated with growing, harvesting and transporting the secondary crop and then 

processing into biofuel. In the case of secondary crops that might be used for cellulosic biofuel 

7-457
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

production, they would also have no land-use change impact, and consequently modeling 

conducted for corn stover is also being extended to these crops. See Preamble Section V.C for 

details. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2113 

Organization: Chesapeake Bay Commission 

Comment: 

The commenter (2113) requests to reclassify non-corn starch based ethanol as Advanced 

Biofuels as originally defined in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. (2113.pdf, 

p.1) 

The commenter (2113) is concerned about categorizing all non-corn starch ethanol, including 

barley-based ethanol, as a Renewable Fuel and not as an Advanced Biofuel. The classification 

would unfairly burden this promising new and emerging industry. The commenter (2113) 

provides several reasons to why barley based ethanol in particular should be categorized as an 

Advanced Biofuel including lifecycle greenhouse gas benefits, reduction in nutrients runoff by 

planting winter crops and a boost in income without disrupting the food and feed chain. 

(2113.pdf, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2086 

Organization: Pennsylvania State University 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2086]] states that EISA 2007 specifically includes barley starch as a feedstock 

option in the definition of Advanced Biofuel. In Section VI.E.3 .a of the rule, there is a reference 

to the use of barley as ethanol feedstock. It appears that all ethanol-from-grain starch processes 

would be assigned the same pathway as corn as in table VI.E.4-1, regardless of GHG 

performance. If assigning barley plants the same pathway as corn makes them ineligible for 

benefits associated with being an Advanced Biofuel, the lifecycle benefits of winter barley will 

not be accurately reflected. 

The commenter states that winter cover crops such as barley grown can be grown on fallow crop 

land too drought prone for corn, or commonly rotated in a double crop system with soybeans to 

provide incremental food and energy without displacing land or existing crops nearly as much as 

corn. Additionally, according to the Chesapeake Bay Commission 2007 report, winter cover 

crops could reduce nitrogen runoff by 17.1 million lbs per year. Dr. Thomas O’Donnell from the 

Global Emissions Exchange states that winter cover crops such as barley can help reduce carbon 

emissions by 6/10 ton per acre per year and qualify for carbon credits with no-till practices. 

Growing winter barley for food and fuel has environmental and economic benefits that 

differentiate it from corn as an ethanol feedstock. [[2086.1 p.1]]

Our Response: 

7-458
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA has not analyzed barley as a feedstock for this final rule. For the final rule, EPA has 

adopted a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA review of new process 

technologies or feedstock sources. Additionally, EPA has indicated its intention to periodically 

update its analyses to reflect new data and information including the development of new 

technologies and feedstock sources. However, we have determined that winter cover crops will 

provide feedstock which will allow biofuels to be produced that comply with the advance biofuel 

standard. 

7.5.2.2 Renewable Fuels from Cellulosic Biomass 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2022 

Organization: Lignol Innovations, Inc. 

Comment: 

Referring to production process requirements for fuel ethanol from feedstocks, the commenter 

(2022) believes that process heat should not be required to be obtained from lignin, but 

alternatively should be allowed from woody biomass residues, such as agricultural crop residues, 

forestry slash, bark, tree limbs, forestry thinning, lumber mill residues, pulp and paper mill 

wastes, demolition wastes, gas from anaerobic digestion systems, etc. The commenter states that 

this type of woody biomass waste is routinely used as boiler fuel for steam and power production 

to support pulp and paper mill operations. [[Docket number 2022.1, p. 1]] 

The commenter notes that that lignin is the only significant renewable source of aromatic ring 

chemical structures—currently the entire aromatic chemicals industry is dependent on benzene 

obtained from crude oil. Given the projected magnitude of the cellulosic ethanol and advanced 

fuels industry that will be needed to fulfill the RFS2 mandate and extrapolating that to the 

quantity of lignin that will be produced from biorefineries processing wood and woody biomass, 

it can be projected that this lignin could replace much of the crude oil-derived aromatic 

chemicals needed by the chemicals and materials industry [[Docket number 2022.1, p. 2]] [[See 

docket number 2022.1, pp. 2-3 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

EPA has determined in this rule that cellulosic biofuel made from a range of feedstock 

sources and using a range of processes will comply with the cellulosic biofuel GHG performance 

threshold. We do not require that biofuels only be made from the pathways modeled. Additional 

pathways can be used by biofuel producers including using lignin for other valuable products 

rather than burning it for energy at a biofuel facility or using it to add feedstock for biofuel 

production. EPA has provided a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA to 

evaluate specific technologies or operating processes that distinguish their biofuel production 

LCA GHG impacts from those already considered by EPA. These new technologies or operating 

processes can then receive an alternative GHG threshold assessment, if appropriate. 

7-459
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2171 

Organization: Mascoma Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2171) requests that EPA more clearly define cellulosic ethanol pathways in 

order to ensure maximum flexibility in developing successful commercial projects including 

making clear that cellulosic biofuel companies that sell lignin as a co-product of the biofuels 

process will receive proper credit in the lifecycle calculation and is an approved pathway to 

generate cellulosic RINs. The commenter also asks EPA to establish a mechanism to allow new 

fuels and/or fuels produced from new feedstocks to generate RINs while awaiting approval of a 

formal fuels pathway. [[Docket number 2171.1, p. 5]]

Our Response: 

EPA has determined in this rule that cellulosic biofuel made from a range of feedstock 

sources and using a range of processes will comply with the cellulosic biofuel GHG performance 

threshold. 

 Additionally, EPA has provided a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request 

EPA to evaluate specific technologies or operating processes that distinguish their biofuel 

production LCA GHG impacts from those already considered by EPA. These new technologies 

or operating processes can then receive an alternative GHG threshold assessment, if appropriate. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2342 

Organization: Burack Environmental Law Offices 

Comment: 

The commenter (2342) is requesting modification of the following pathway in Table 1 of 

proposed §80.1426 (Table VI.E.4-1 in the preamble at 74 FR 25054): 

Fuel Type: Ethanol 

Feedstock: Cellulose and hemicellulose from corn stover, switchgrass. Miscanthus. 

Wheat straw, rice straw, sugarcane bagasse, forest waste, yard waste, or planted trees 

Production process requirements: 

-Enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose 

-Fermentation of sugars 

-Process heat derived from lignin, 

The commenter’s requested modification is to broaden the universe of materials that may be used 

to produce process heat for ethanol production, to include appropriate materials other than lignin. 

(2342, p.1) 

Our Response: 

7-460
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Table V.C-6: D-Code Designations in the Final Rule preamble has been updated since 

the proposal. For cellulosic ethanol the table now broadly covers any process type using 

cellulosic biomass from agricultural residues; slash, forest thinnings and forest product residues; 

annual cover crops; switchgrass and miscanthus; cellulosic components of separated yard wastes, 

celluloisic components of separated food wastes and cellulosic components of separated 

municipal solid waste. 

7.5.2.3 Biodiesel 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0994 

Organization: Griffin Industries 

Comment:

The commenter (0994.1) supports the proposal to allow blends of waste grease and soy oil to be 

blended to create a feedstock that will qualify the Biodiesel product as Biomass-based Diesel. 

The commenter supports the reduction of this biofuel category to 40% GHG reduction to 

minimize the market disruption of these fats and oils when they are moved from animal feed to 

Biodiesel production. (0994.1, P.19) 

The commenter also supports the first blend proposal because most major Biodiesel Producers 

have the capability to convert waste greases and animal fats directly to Biodiesel. This option is 

the simplest method for the Obligated Party. The commenter believes that other Biomass-based 

Diesel feedstocks will want to have their feedstock qualify for this blending program. If these 

other feedstocks have different GHG reductions than the waste greases, EPA will have to 

develop a blend table for use with these different feedstocks. Under Option 1, this keeps the 

responsibility with the Biodiesel Producer, producing one product that meets Biomass-based 

Diesel requirements, and does not burden the Obligated Party to find and purchase the right mix 

of Biodiesels to qualify as a 2 (or 4 in the 6 Code system). (0994.1, p.19) 

The commenter does not support the second alternative. Without creating D codes (as proposed 

in the third alternative) this approach is not workable and probably not enforceable. The 

commenter also does not support the third alternative since this still places an undue burden on 

the Obligated Parties. If other Biomass-based Diesel feedstocks are allowed to be used for this 

blend scenario, the Obligated Party’s burden becomes greater since there may be different blend 

ratios. The commenter requests that in the whole discussion on blending that animal fats be 

designated with waste greases, as both have the 80% GHG reduction and therefore are identical 

blending components. EPA may want to consider all other Biomass-based Diesel feedstocks to 

qualify as a blend component for soy oil to meet the 50% GHG reduction. The other vegetable 

oils (in place of soy oil) should also be considered in this blending proposal. (0994.1, p.19) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1001, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1005, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-1010, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1011, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1012, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1025, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1043, et al. 

7-461
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Organization: Kurzman Clean Tech Research & Kurzman Capital, LLC, Cotner 

Consulting Services, CC Gas Systems, LLC, Atlantic BioFuels, Glenwood Farms, Law Offices 

of David Wilcox, University of Georgia Engineering Outreach Service, et al. 

Comment:

The commenters believe that the proposed Biodiesel pathway is unworkable. The proposed 

pathway is not workable in practice and should be viewed by the EPA as a barrier to compliance. 

Vegetable oils account for approximately 70 percent of the feedstock that is available to meet the 

RFS2 Biomass-based Diesel targets, and the RFS2 volume goals simply cannot be met if 

vegetable oils are disqualified from the program. The agency should fully consider the fact that 

feedstock supplies in the U.S. will inherently produce an industry wide feedstock mixture that, 

even utilizing the unfavorable GHG reduction values assigned by EPA, would meet the 

established thresholds for Advanced Biofuels. 

The commenters believe that EPA should use its authority as provided by Congress and adjust 

the 50 percent reduction requirement for Biomass-based Diesel downward to 40 percent to 

ensure U.S. biodiesel can meet the biomass-based diesel requirements, as intended by Congress. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1029 

Organization: C.I.B. 

Comment:

The commenter (1029) believes that the proposed biodiesel pathway is unworkable. EPA should 

use its authority and adjust the 50 percent reduction requirement downward to 40 percent to 

ensure U.S. biodiesel can meet the biomass-based diesel requirements, as intended by Congress. 

(1029, p.3)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1051 

Organization: Aberdeen Development Corp. 

Comment:

The commenter (1051) believes that the proposed biodiesel pathway is unworkable from a 

practical perspective. After concluding biodiesel from virgin vegetable oils does not qualify for 

the program, the agency attempts to restore it, in part, by creating a pathway for compliance 

purposes whereby virgin vegetable oils can be combined with waste oils in a 52-48 percent ratio. 

Instead, the commenter states that the EPA should recognize that U.S. feedstock supplies 

naturally produce a feedstock mix that, even when using EPA’s low GHG values, meets the 

thresholds for Advanced Biofuels. 

Moreover, to the extent necessary, EPA should use its authority and adjust the 50 percent 

reduction requirement downward to 40 percent to ensure U.S. biodiesel can meet the biomassbased diesel requirements, as intended by Congress. [[Docket number 1051.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1669 

Organization: Environmental Intelligence, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (1669.1) believes that the proposed pathway of using a 52-48 feedstock ratio of 

biodiesel feedstocks is not workable in practice. (1669.1, p.2)

7-462
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2010, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2011, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-2013, et al. 

Organization: SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC, Western Dubuque Biodiesel LLC, Central Iowa 

Energy, LLC, et al. 

Comment: 

The commenters state that multi-feedstock biodiesel production facilities are able to blend high 

fatty acids (animal fats/waste corn oil) with low fatty acid (soybean oil) feedstock at the 

beginning of the esterification process. The commenters’ recommendation is to aggregate high 

and low blends yearly to meet the GHG threshold. The commenters believe that biodiesel 

production facilities and obligated parties should be allowed to demonstrate that a minimum 

number of waste grease-based biodiesel RINs is used to meet the biomass-based diesel standard 

in comparison to the number of soybean oil-based biodiesel RINs. 

The commenters conclude that given the fuel pathway EPA is proposing for soy biodiesel and 

considering how the California Air Resources Board has proposed the fuel pathway for soy 

biodiesel with its Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS); a very peculiar marketing scenario for soy 

biodiesel is emerging. ARB does not require a minimum GHG reduction threshold for fuel; the 

only requirement is to meet or fall under a yearly carbon intensity (CI) target for fuel. Therefore, 

soy biodiesel can meet these CI reduction targets beginning in 2010 with a blend of B2. A soy 

biodiesel blend of B2 can be sold in California and meet the LCFS, but will not have a RIN 

attached. However, it will qualify for a LCFS carbon credit. The commenters believe this 

consequence illustrates well intended policy to reduce GHG emissions, but causes confusion and 

uncertainty in the marketplace.

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079 

Organization: AE Biofuels, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2079.1) believes that the proposed biodiesel pathway is not workable in practice 

and should be viewed by the EPA as a barrier to compliance. Vegetable oils account for 

approximately 70 percent of the feedstock that is available to meet the RFS2 Biomass-based 

Diesel targets, and the RFS2 volume goals simply cannot be met if vegetable oils are disqualified 

from the program. This outcome is not consistent with either sound science or sound energy 

policy. Instead, EPA should fully consider the fact that feedstock supplies in the U.S. will 

inherently produce an industry wide feedstock mixture that, even utilizing the unfavorable GHG 

reduction values assigned by EPA, would meet the established thresholds for Advanced Biofuels. 

(2079.1, pp.9-10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2099 

Organization: Honeywell International, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2099.1) supports EPA’s proposal to average biodiesel GHG performance for 

the purposes of achieving the GHG threshold. (2099.1, p.21)

Our Response: 

7-463
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Based on analyses conducted for this final rule, EPA has determined that several 

pathways are available for the biodiesel industry which meet or exceed the advance biofuel GHG 

threshold. Therefore there is no need to reduce the 50% threshold. Additionally, we are not 

allowing averaging of biodiesel from vegetable oils with those produced from waste oils, fats 

and greases as this is not necessary to allow compliance with the biomass-based diesel GHG 

performance threshold.

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2392.1 

Organization: The Boeing Company 

Comment:

The commenter (2392) states that the EPA plans to update its analyses at three-to-five year 

intervals may be adequate for existing commercialized biofuels with historical data sets and 

known technologies. They will, however, not work for the next generation of biofuels because 

these fuels will not be designated as compliant renewable fuels from the point of view of the 

proposed rule. This will mean that next generation feedstocks will not be developed and 

commercialized in a timely manner. If the EPA process for approving new pathways is not 

timely, and a three-to-five year interval is not timely, regulatory uncertainty will lethally inhibit 

the substantial private investment needed to create the improved feedstocks which, in turn, are 

needed to create a commercially viable biofuel industry. Contrary to Congressional intent, EPA’s 

proposed rule will stifle innovation. (2392.1 Pgs. 6-8). 

Our Response: 

 For those fuel pathways that are different than those pathways EPA has listed in today’s 

regulations, EPA is establishing a petition process whereby a party can petition the Agency to 

consider new pathways for GHG reduction threshold compliance. The petition process is meant 

for parties with serious intention to move forward with production via the petitioned fuel 

pathway and who have moved sufficiently forward in the business process to show feasibility of 

the fuel pathway’s implementation. The Agency will not consider frivolous petitions with 

insufficient information and clarity for Agency analysis. EPA will process these petitions as 

expeditiously as possible, taking into consideration that some fuel pathways are closer to the 

commercial production stage than others. In all events, parties are expected to begin this process 

with ample lead time as compared to their commercial start dates. 

 EPA anticipates that for some petitioned fuel pathways with unique modifications or 

enhancements to production technologies of pathways otherwise modeled for the regulations 

listed today, EPA may be able to evaluate the pathway as a reasonably straight-forward 

extension of our current assessments. We expect such a determination would be pathway 

specific, and would be based on a technical analysis that compared the applicant fuel pathway to 

the fuel a pathway(s) that had already been analyzed. In these cases, EPA would be able make a 

determination without proceeding through a full rulemaking process. In such cases, we would 

expect to make a decision for that specific pathway without conducting a full rulemaking 

process. We would expect to evaluate whether the pathway is consistent with the definitions of 

7-464
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

renewable fuel types in the regulations, generally without going through rulemaking, and issue 

an approval or disapproval that applies to the petitioner. We anticipate that we will subsequently 

propose to add the pathway to the regulations. 

 If EPA determines that a petitioned fuel pathway requires significant new analysis and/or 

modeling, EPA will need to give notice and seek public comment. For example, we anticipate 

that pathways with feedstocks or fuel types not yet modeled by EPA will require additional 

modeling and public comment before a determination of compliance can be made. In these cases, 

the determination would be incorporated into the annual rulemaking process established in 

today’s regulations. 

 When EPA makes a technical determination is made that a petitioned fuel pathway 

qualifies for a RFS volume standard, a D-code will be assigned to the fuel pathway. We 

anticipate that renewable fuel producers and importers will be able to generate RINs for the 

additional pathway after the next available update of the EPA Moderated Transaction System 

(EMTS) that follows a determination. EPA expects to update the EMTS quarterly, as long as 

necessary. Renewable fuel producers will be able to register the fuel pathway through the EPA 

Fuels Programs Registration System two weeks after the date of determination, but as described 

above, will not be able to generate RINs until the quarterly EMTS update. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1026 

Organization: Gradek Energy 

Comment:

The commenter (1026.1) is concerned with the provisions in the proposed rule that do not 

address the retention of waste oil feedstock, which may undermine, rather than advance, 

Congress intent in generating sufficient supply of renewable fuel and reducing GHG emissions. 

The removal of waste oil recovered from wastewater, from the definition of renewable feedstock 

is an issue that will have important consequences in the RFS Act as well as environmental 

impact. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), defines waste gas that 

would be flared or vented as a form of recoverable waste energy, in that useful thermal energy 

may be harnessed from that waste stream which would displace a conventional fuel source and it 

is a hydrocarbon based fuel that is in a gaseous state. In contrast waste oil which is in a liquid 

form and would be suitable for displacing conventional transportation fuel is not designated as a 

recoverable waste energy source. This form of inconsistency obviously needs to be corrected. 

The avoided GHG emissions and pollution achieved with the recovery of the waste energy from 

the waste oil exceeds 85% of the lifecycle GHG emissions for gasoline or diesel. (1026.1 p.1) 

The emission reductions from the inclusion of waste oil as a renewable fuel source which is 

immediately available are substantially greater than the impact of corn starch biofuels because 

of: 

-The avoided emissions from the biogenic degradation of the waste oil amount to: 

-One barrel of waste oil which undergoes anaerobic digestion in a wastewater stream has a MCF 

of 70% and will potentially generate 123 Kgs. of CH4 or the equivalent of 2.6 tons of CO2. 

7-465
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

-One barrel of waste oil which undergoes anaerobic digestion in a landfill has a MCF of 10% and 

will potentially generate 365 Kgs. of CO2. 

-One barrel of waste oil which undergoes aerobic digestion in a landfill has a carbon conversion 

factor of 100% and will potentially generate 478 Kgs. of CO2. 

-Carbon neutral resource (waste stream), providing for a lower carbon intensity fuel. 

-No additional infrastructure needed for refining, distribution and transportation to market as it is 

blended with conventional crude fuels. (1026.1, p.2) 

The transformation of oil wastes into an energy resource benefits all stakeholders by: 

-Increasing recoverable reserves in the U.S. domestic production by eliminating the oily wastes. 

-Alleviating environmental impact associated with disposal and storage of these wastes. 

-Reducing U.S. oil imports is an energy security benefit: 

-Obtaining higher liquid yield from crude import volumes. 

-Obtaining higher liquid yield from domestic crude production volumes. (1026.1, p.2) 

-Avoiding increased emissions in land use change impact 

-448 Million tons of CO2 eq. required acreage for energy crops in the U.S.A. 

-Impact reflecting the shift of crop production internationally to meet biofuels demand in U.S.A. 

-Reducing the pressure on international commodity prices for corn, soybean, canola, rapeseed 

-Help alleviate hunger in under developed countries which cannot afford higher food costs. 

-More than one-third of corn production in the U.S.A. in 2008 was being used to produce ethanol 

and about half the vegetable oils produced in the European Union were being used for biodiesel 

fuel. 

-IFRPI’s IMPACT, projects that real prices of maize and oilseeds in 2020 will be 26and 18 

percent higher respectively, compared with a scenario that keeps biofuels production at 2007 

levels. 

-Growth in world demand for food will mirror population growth, progressively declining from 

2.2% a year in the last decades of the 20th century, to 1.6% in 2015, 1.4% in 2015-30, and 0.9% 

in 2030-50. 

-Reduce the consumption of water for production of energy crops 

-Under current production conditions, it takes an average of roughly 2,500 liters of water to 

produce 1 liter of liquid biofuels. 

-Agriculture accounts for 70% of freshwater withdrawals from rivers, lakes and aquifers. 

-3% of the irrigation water in the U.S. is used for biofuels production. 

-Reduce the impact on water from the increased fertilizer usage for energy crops 

-Decrease the phosphorus load in water runoff which causes blue algae blooms (eutrophication) 

in freshwater bodies. 

-Eliminate significant nitrogen load increase in water runoff (estimated increase of 8.8 million 

pounds). 

-Facilitate compliance of regulatory obligations for the domestic refining industry. 

-Reduce the impact of water contamination from disposal of oily wastes 

-Groundwater concentration of leaching contaminants. 

-Reduce health risks associated due to leaching in soil and groundwater table. (1026.1, p.3) 

The commenter noted that consideration has to be given to retaining the inclusion of waste oil 

from wastewater treatment as an alternative renewable fuel feedstock as its benefits clearly 

address the objectives set out by the Clean Air Act and the Energy Security Act. It also ensures a 

7-466
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

level playing field for compliance between foreign and domestic producers of renewable fuels. 

(1026.1, p.3) 

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has determined that fuels made from waste biogenic oils will 

qualify as meeting the advance fuel category GHG performance threshold. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2104 

Organization: US Canola Association 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2104]] states the EPA methodology inaccurately assesses the energy balance of 

biodiesel production. It takes less energy to produce a gallon of biodiesel than considered by the 

EPA. EPA used a factor of 3.2 units of energy produced per unit of energy used. The updated 

factor should be a factor of 5.2 units of energy produced per unit of energy used. Updating this 

data point decreases the biodiesel emissions factor by 1.5%. [[#2104.1 p.6-7]]

Our Response: 

The EISA mandates setting up fuel GHG thresholds do not require the EPA to do site 

specific GHG analysis but rather determine for specific fuel pathways if they meet the thresholds 

for the different fuel categories. Therefore, we have developed an average energy use value for 

biodiesel production. As part of the final rule we updated the energy use assumptions for 

biodiesel production to be in line with the latest energy balance reports from USDA and the 

University of Idaho. Therefore, the final rule assumes lower energy use for biodiesel production 

compared to the proposal analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2104 

Organization: US Canola Association 

Comment: 

The commenter also states that specifically, the proposed rule only considers soybean oil, 

vegetable oil from ethanol plants, and rendered fats and waste greases in their analysis. Lipid 

sources such as canola (spring and winter) are not factored into the feedstock supply. [[#2104.1 

p.7]]

Our Response: 

EPA has not modeled canola for this final rule. For the final rule, EPA has adopted a 

petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA review of new process technologies 

and feedstock sources. Additionally, EPA has indicated its intention to periodically update its 

7-467
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

analyses to reflect new data and information including the development of new technologies and 

feedstock sources. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2104 

Organization: US Canola Association 

Comment: 

The commenter states that EPA’s analysis compares estimated, future direct and indirect GHG 

emissions for biodiesel to direct (only) emissions for petroleum. [[#2104.1 p.8]]

Our Response:

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule and 

the final rule did not include a marginal analysis of petroleum production was due to the 

definition of “baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” in Section 211(o)(1)(C) of the CAA. 

The definitions of the different renewable fuel categories specify that the lifecycle threshold 

analysis be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which are defined as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. Furthermore, as the EISA language specifies that the baseline emissions are to 

be only “average” lifecycle emissions for this single specified year and volume, it does not allow 

for a comparison of alternative scenarios. Indirect effects can only be determined using such an 

analysis; therefore there are no indirect emissions to include in the baseline lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

However, for this final rule, we did consider the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. We performed an analysis to determine the marginal crude that would be displaced by 

biofuels use. Using well-to-tank GHG values for crude extracted from various countries, we 

were able to determine an approximate “marginal petroleum baseline” by applying the factors to 

the countries where crude production increased. We found that the marginal baseline was, for an 

average gallon of gasoline, not statistically different than the average baseline value used in this 

final rulemaking. More details on this analysis can be found in the memo, “Petroleum Indirect 

Impacts Analysis” in the RFS2 docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 

We also considered whether the displacement of petroleum fuels could displace 

petroleum co-products. When crude oil is refined to produce gasoline and diesel, petroleum coproducts, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, are also produced. An increase in the 

7-468
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

demand for renewable fuels could impact the energy system’s utilization of petroleum coproducts due to the ripple effects of price impacts. We expect that an increase in domestic 

renewable fuels demand will lead to a decrease in domestic crude oil consumption due to lower 

demand for gasoline and diesel; however, this is unlikely to significantly impact demand for 

petroleum co-products unless the price for these co-products is significantly affected. Refiners 

respond to demand for fuels, and they may choose to produce a larger percentage of petroleum 

co-products per barrel of crude then they had in the past in response to lower gasoline or diesel 

demand. This increased supply and possible lower refinery costs could translate into a slight 

decrease in co-product cost and therefore marginally impact demand. 

Increased renewable fuel use domestically is expected to also have the effect of lowering 

the world crude oil price and therefore increase international demand for petroleum-based fuels 

and increase GHG emissions. This increase in demand outside of the U.S. due to price changes 

would partially negate the decrease in GHG emissions domestically from reduced petroleum fuel 

demand due to biofuels. 

Further discussion of our analysis of the indirect impacts of petroleum use can be found 

in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

For determining the overall GHG impacts of the rule, we did consider the projected mix 

of crude oil and finished product in 2022 that would be displaced by renewable fuels. Further 

discussion of this analysis can also be found in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2106 

Organization: Endicott Biofuels II, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2106) believes that any averaging or mingling of feedstocks raises compliance 

problems for EPA. The challenges associated with accurately monitoring feedstock consumption 

combined with the strong producer incentive in the form of achieving enhanced GHG values will 

potentially lead to abuse in the system. A similar compliance issue occurs where multiple 

finished products are comingled or blended for enhanced GHG values. For these reasons, the 

commenter believes it is best to not allow averaging of GHG values across mingling of 

feedstocks or across facilities owned by the same company. [[Docket number 2106.1, p. 5]] 

The commenter also suggests that EPA strongly consider setting more aggressive targets for 

biomass based diesel beginning in 2013 to provide the necessary pricing signals to the market to 

incent advancement of new technologies. The commenter’s analysis based upon a compilation 

of NREL, USDA, U.S. Bureau of Labor & Statistics, and National Renderer’s Association data 

concludes there is enough energy dense fats and oils neutral and non-neutral materials to support 

over 2 billion gallons of biomass based diesel already in the marketplace in the U.S. If foreign 

sources are included, the total is much higher. Technology exists today to convert these 

feedstocks into high quality methyl esters. The commenter also suggests that the only barrier to 

utilization of these feedstocks is price differential to crude oil and that the 30% suggested 

7-469
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

restriction is overly conservative. Therefore, we suggest the EPA target significantly greater 

than 1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel in 2013 and beyond. [[Docket number 2106.1, p. 

6]] 

In addition, the commenter suggests that with a sufficient supply of low GHG based feedstocks 

and available proven technology exists to convert those feedstocks to methyl esters, it is neither 

necessary nor desirable to reduce the biomass based biodiesel GHG threshold to 40%. [[Docket 

number 2106.1, p. 6]] 

Our Response: 

Based on analyses conducted for this final rule, EPA has determined that several 

pathways are available for the biodiesel industry which meet or exceed the advance biofuel GHG 

threshold. Therefore there is no need to reduce the 50% threshold. Additionally, we are not 

allowing averaging of biodiesel from vegetable oils with those produced from waste oils, fats 

and greases as this is not necessary to allow compliance with the biomass-based diesel GHG 

performance threshold. 

Regarding standards for 2013 and beyond, EPA is not taking action on these standards as 

part of this final rule. As required by EISA, EPA will establish these standards as part of future 

rulemaking actions. 

 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2392.1 

Organization: The Boeing Company 

Comment:

The commenter (2392) suggests EPA take steps to fully evaluate emerging advanced second 

generation energy crop feedstocks, like camelina, jatropha, halophytes, and algae and avoid 

categorizing them with first generation food crop feedstocks for the purposes of statutory 

definitions of qualifying biodiesel including RFS2. (2392.1 Pgs. 3-6). 

Our Response: 

 For this rulemaking lifecycle GHG analysis EPA focused on the fuels and feedstocks 

that are either being used currently or that we anticipated would be used in the near term. For the 

final rule analysis we did not specifically model camelina, jatropha, or halophytes as feedstocks 

for biofuel production. We do however have an algae pathway as part of our final rule analysis 

and show that it would qualify under the lifecycle GHG requirements. For the feedstocks not 

modeled we have yet to categorize them with respect to which compliance with the thresholds. 

For the final rule, EPA has adopted a petition process whereby biofuel producers can 

request EPA review of new process technologies and feedstock sources. Additionally, EPA has 

indicated its intention to periodically update its analyses to reflect new data and information 

including the development of new technologies and feedstock sources. 

7-470
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2249.2) does not support EPA’s proposed alternative 52/48 pathway to meet the 

50 percent GHG reduction requirement. The commenter believes that the proposed pathway is 

impractical. Vegetable oils account for approximately 60 percent of the feedstock that is 

available to meet the RFS2 Biomass-based Diesel targets, and the RFS2 volume goals may be 

difficult or perhaps impossible to meet if vegetable oils are disqualified from the program. The 

commenter states that there currently are not sufficient waste oils to produce enough biodiesel to 

meet the RFS2 volume mandates, and may not be sufficient supply available to biodiesel 

facilities to be used in the ratio suggested by EPA. [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 13-14]] 

The commenter states that if in the final regulations vegetable oils do not meet the GHG 

reduction to qualify as Biomass-based Diesel or Advanced Biofuels, then a method does need to 

be developed to allow for the blending of vegetable oils into the Biomass-based Diesel produced 

from waste oils that do meet the GHG reduction requirement and still count as Biomass-based 

Diesel. The commenter proposes allowing the blending of RINs by the obligated parties. EPA 

notes this as a possible option for comment in the Proposed Rule. 74 FR 25053. But, EPA notes 

that this approach would require a system with six D codes instead of four. The commenter does 

not believe that additional D codes are necessary as RINs are adequately coded under the current 

proposal to show compliance. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 14]] [[See docket number 2249.2, pp. 

14-15 for further discussion of the commenter’s proposed approach]] 

The commenter believes that EPA should expand the possible pathways for biodiesel to account 

for varying feedstocks used by facilities. The commenter maintains that all vegetable oils should 

qualify as Biomass-based Diesel and as a D code “2” RIN. The biodiesel industry uses a 

plethora of oil based feedstocks, many of which are not described in the Proposed Rule. In the 

event all virgin vegetable oils do not qualify for the Biomass-based Diesel program, then 

additional sources [[see docket number 2249.2, p. 16 for list of additional sources.]] should be 

incorporated into EPA’s pathways, providing flexibility to biodiesel facilities to utilize a mixture 

of these feedstocks. In addition, the commenter believes that Biodiesel from Fatty Acid 

Distillate Streams (FADS) should be considered a waste or recycled oil for purposes of RIN 

assignment and EPA should clarify the status of FADS in the final rule. [[Docket number 2249.2, 

p. 15-16]] 

The commenter states that EPA should allow producers to present a lifecycle analysis based on 

facility-specific configurations to address both pathways that have not been analyzed by EPA 

and to establish that the facility can meet the 50 percent GHG requirement based on its specific 

processes. This would provide facilities incentives to continue to become more efficient and 

invest in new technologies to limit their GHG emissions, promoting further reductions. The 

commenter further states that the opportunity should also be provided for facilities to submit 

7-471
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

updated lifecycle analysis where it undergoes an improvement to change its pathways. [[Docket 

number 2249.2, p. 15-16]] 

For renewable fuels that are not in the lookup table (proposed Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426) the 

commenter requests that EPA develop and document a process for the treatment of new fuels and 

processes not specifically addressed by the lookup table, and that EPA agree to respond within 

180 days of submission. This documentation will allow renewable fuel producers to estimate the 

length of time necessary to add a particular pathway to the regulations. Additionally, the 

commenter requests that EPA allow any new biodiesel, regardless of feedstock, to be able to 

generate a RIN with a D code of “4” until EPA accepts the new pathway. In this way, the 

biodiesel industry can continue to work toward newer and better feedstocks, but would not be 

hamstrung by any delay in approving a new pathway. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 16-17]] 

Our Response: 

Based on analyses conducted for this final rule, EPA has determined that several 

pathways are available for the biodiesel industry which meet or exceed the advance biofuel GHG 

threshold. Therefore there is no need to reduce the 50% threshold. Additionally, we are not 

allowing averaging of biodiesel from vegetable oils with those produced from waste oils, fats 

and greases as this is not necessary to allow compliance with the biomass-based diesel GHG 

performance threshold. 

For the final rule, EPA has adopted a petition process whereby biofuel producers can 

request EPA review of new process technologies and feedstock sources. Additionally, EPA has 

indicated its intention to periodically update its analyses to reflect new data and information 

including the development of new technologies and feedstock sources. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2357 

Organization: Iowa Biodiesel Board 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2357]] states the proposed pathway is not workable in practice and should be 

viewed by the EPA as a barrier to compliance. [[2357.1 p.6]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) opposes allowing producers to average biomass-based diesels. If EPA 

decides to proceed with an averaging approach to qualify vegetable oil sourced biodiesel as 

biomass-based diesel, the commenter urges EPA to utilize an averaging mechanism that allows 

both producers and obligated parties to average the appropriate ratio of RINs. This will provide 

the greatest degree of flexibility, and flexibility will be needed to overcome geographical and 

seasonal differences. [[Docket number 2393.1, pp. 40-41]] 

7-472
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2435 

Organization: R.W. Heiden Associates LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2435) believes that the proposed biodiesel pathway is not workable in practice 

and should be viewed by EPA as a barrier to compliance. Vegetable oils account for 

approximately 70 percent of the feedstock that is available to meet the RFS2 Biomass-based 

Diesel targets, and the RFS2 volume goals simply cannot be met if vegetable oils are disqualified 

from the program. This outcome is not consistent with either sound science or sound energy 

policy. Instead, the agency should fully consider the fact that feedstock supplies in the U.S. will 

inherently produce an industry wide feedstock mixture that, even utilizing the unfavorable GHG 

reduction values assigned by EPA, would meet the established thresholds for Advanced Biofuels. 

[[Docket number 2435.1, p. 5]]

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2510 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC 

Comment: 

Referring to achieving GHG thresholds with blending soybean oil and waste oil, the commenter 

(2510) states that it is correct that to maintain a constant mixture, or blend, of recycled oils/fats 

with virgin plant oils every day. Due to seasonal differences on availability, affordability, and 

use acceptance, this should be looked at on an annual basis, not a portion thereof. RINs used to 

meet biomass standards should have the flexibility to allow for availability of product as it is 

subject to change over time. [[Docket number 2510.1, p. 6]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2549 

Organization: Triton Energy LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2549.1) believes that the proposed pathway of using a 5248 feedstock ratio of 

biodiesel feedstocks is not workable in practice. (2549.1, p.3)

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2612 

Organization: Citizen (sample comment letter representing 478 comment letters received 

from mass comment campaign sponsored by American Soybean Association) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2612) identified 8 “vital flaws and concerns with the RFS2 proposed rule,” 

including: “6) Biodiesel Pathway - The proposed pathway of using a 52-48 feedstock ratio of 

biodiesel feedstocks is not workable in practice.” (2612 p. 2)

Our Response: 

Based on analyses conducted for this final rule, EPA has determined that several 

pathways are available for the biodiesel industry which meet or exceed the advance biofuel GHG 

threshold. Therefore there is no need to reduce the 50% threshold. Additionally, we are not 

allowing averaging of biodiesel from vegetable oils with those produced from waste oils, fats 

and greases as this is not necessary to allow compliance with the biomass-based diesel GHG 

performance threshold. 

7-473
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2016 

Organization: Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) 

Comment:

The commenter (2016.1) is thankful that EPA allows biofuels from foreign sources such as 

Malaysia. The commenter noted that on page 24917, it was stated that the agriculture crops for 

renewable transportation fuels will mostly be grown in the U.S. The report alludes that whatever 

little imports will mainly be for the three advanced biofuel categories but not the residual 

renewable fuels category which has lower GHG savings requirements. The commenter requests 

that the contribution from foreign sources be reflected in this category. Tables V.A. 1-1 and V.A. 

2-1 should therefore also show the contribution from other non advanced biofuel other than corn 

ethanol. (2016.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2361 

Organization: Indonesian Palm Oil Commission 

Comment: 

The commenter (2361) is concerned about the statement that the agriculture crops for renewable 

transportation fuels will mostly be grown in the U.S. The report alludes that the imports will 

mainly be for the three advanced biofuel categories but not the residual renewable fuels category 

which has lower GHG savings requirements. It was predicted that all non-advanced biofuel will 

be from corn ethanol (U.S.) and the commenter (2361) requests that the contribution of non 

advanced biofuel from other countries allowed to be imported into the U.S. (2361.pdf, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2110 

Organization: Chevron 

Comment:

The commenter (2110.1) believes that EPA should develop a credible, sustainable pathway in 

RFS2 for palm oil-derived biofuel. The commenter noted that EPA gave limited consideration in 

the NPRM to the possibility that palm oil-derived biodiesel or renewable diesel will find its way 

to the U.S. and be used for compliance with the RFS. The commenter strongly recommends that 

EPA consult with industry and create a sustainable pathway at its earliest convenience instead of 

categorically placing such material off limits for RFS compliance. (2110.1, p.4) 

Our Response:

The lifecycle analysis of fuels is based on the characteristics of the fuel pathway rather 

than whether it is domestically produced or imported. The economic models project that a large 

volume of feedstocks will be produced in the U.S.; however, domestic and imported fuels are 

eligible for all four renewable fuel categories if they meet the lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction 

thresholds and the definition of renewable biomass. 

7-474
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA anticipates modeling the palm oil biodiesel pathway after this final rule and 

including the determinations in a rulemaking within 6 months. In addition, EPA also provides a 

petition process for other fuel pathways not yet analyzed.

7.5.2.4 Renewable Diesel Through Hydrotreating

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment: 

The commenter also suggests that EPA utilize flexible ranges so as to afford the opportunity for 

newer technologies to demonstrate and comply with the greenhouse gas (“GHG”) reduction 

requirements under the rule. (2408.1, pp.1-2) 

Our Response: 

For the final rule, EPA has adopted a petition process whereby biofuel producers can 

request EPA review of new process technologies and feedstock sources. Additionally, EPA has 

indicated its intention to periodically update its analyses to reflect new data and information 

including the development of new technologies and feedstock sources. 

7.5.2.5 Lifecycle Analysis Petition Process

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment: 

The commenter (2146.1) believes that it is critical for EPA to clearly define a process for updates 

in the light of, and to address developments in, among other areas: 

-alternative or improved fuel pathways 

-alternative or improved farming practices 

-new feedstocks 

-evolving LCA methodology 

-emerging (international) policies (2146.1, p.7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2370 

Organization: NGVAmerica 

Comment: 

The commenter (2370.1) noted that EPA’s notice acknowledges the potential for biomethane to 

play a role as a transportation fuel. Biomethane is included under the RFS Program because it 

falls under the definition of advanced biofuel. EPA, however, has apparently concluded the use 

of biomethane as a transportation fuel is not sufficient at this time to warrant additional analysis 

7-475
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

of the greenhouse gas emission benefits of biomethane. The commenter believes that there is 

sufficient interest in this growing fuel to warrant taking the time to include the benefits of 

biomethane in this rulemaking effort. (2370.1, p.2) (See Docket Number 2370.1, pp.2-6 for a 

detailed discussion on this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2482 

Organization: Methanol Institute 

Comment: 

The commenter requested that EPA maintain a role for biomethanol and include this as a 

pathway. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2401 

Organization: Clean Energy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2401) urges EPA to quantify the emission reduction benefits of biogas 

produced from renewable sources for transportation purposes and consider advanced biofuels 

and cellulosic biofuels classifications for RIN generation. [[Docket number 2401.1, p. 1]] [[See 

docket number 2401.1, pp. 1-2 for discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2354 

Organization: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment: 

The commenter (2354) strongly encourages EPA to rigorously evaluate and publish the full 

lifecycle emissions for all renewable fuels. The commenter (2354) states that this information 

will be useful in developing state-specific biofuel blending mandate and a regional low carbon 

fuel standard. (2354.pdf, p.4-5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1036 

Organization: Vision FL I, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (1036.1) noted that since fuel pathways and applicable D codes have such a 

strong economic effect on ethanol sales from smaller producers (less than 100MGY), generalized 

fuel definition GHG reductions and D codes will put many companies at a severe competitive 

disadvantage because of the RIN generation and sales associated with those broad classes of fuel. 

The commenter suggests that a process can choose to prove through the EPA’s modeling (when 

completely finalized) they can produce GHG reductions in upwards of 60%; which would grant 

said process plant the ability to us a D code of 1 for use with the associated RINs. (1036.1, p.2) 

The commenter believes that the current wording and broad GHG definitions are 

“unintentionally subsidizing” the cellulosic fuel class by ignoring project/process specific 

fundamentals such as production costs, best management practices, and electricity sales via byproduct combustion from other advanced biofuels. The commenter recommends that the fuel 

pathway tables (VI.E.1-1, VI.E.2-1, VI.E.4-1) remain as is to be used as general look up values, 

but Table III.B.2-1 should reflect fuel classes such as Class I, Class II etc...that corresponds to 

the appropriate GHG lifecycle reductions. If such an approach is not acceptable, than the 

commenter suggests a provision be added where a fuel producer can apply for a D code higher 

7-476
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

than the recommended D code from their fuel pathway as long as work is completed with the 

EPA on a “case-by-case” basis to confirm through the GHG models such a reduction is indeed 

feasible. (1036.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2408.1) recognizes the limited resources and the tremendous variability and 

range of renewable fuels technologies which are currently exploring their commercial 

applicability under the proposed RFS2 rules. The commenter urges that EPA create an expedited 

process that would allow individual technologies utilizing specific feedstocks to be able to 

demonstrate their various greenhouse gas reduction capabilities. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment: 

The commenter also believes that EPA’s treatment of new fuels and pathways does not 

adequately protect investment or recognize the improved efficiencies of new facilities. (2329.1, 

p.100) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, p.100-101 for a more detailed discussion of this issue]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2115.1 

Organization: Corn Plus 

Comment: 

The commenter (2115) states that because they utilize a production process that reduces GHG 

emissions in additional respects, we request that EPA also consider these components and 

establish a fuel pathway for DDS Fuel in Table 1 to §80.1426 that recognizes the benefits of our 

process. The proposed fuel type we propose is “Dewatered Distiller Solubles.” The feedstock is 

“corn mash.” The production process requirements are “Dry mill plant- Process heat derived 

from biomass- Additional energy requirements met from 25% minimum on site renewable 

energy power generation- 25% minimum distillers wet grains.” We would propose that the D 

code for this pathway is 3, corresponding to the fuel’s proper categorization as advanced biofuel 

(“Advanced Biofuel”). 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2099 

Organization: Honeywell International, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2099.1) believes that EPA should include green gasoline by example in the 

definition of advanced biofuel. (2099.1, p.14) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2004 

Organization: NxENRG 

Comment: 

The commenter (2004.1) requests that EPA expressly acknowledge the eligibility of our fuel, 

methanol, as being eligible to be an advanced biofuel under 42 USC §7545(o)(1)(A)(ii)(VI): 

“Butanol and other alcohols produced through the conversion of organic matter from renewable 

7-477
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

biomass.” The commenter requests that renewable methanol be specifically approved for the 

following reasons: 

1. Conversion of syngas to methanol is a proven commercial scale technology that has been 

successfully utilized for over 60 years, 

2. Methanol is a proven transportation fuel used in over 15,000 cars in California in the 

1990s that were manufactured by U.S. automakers, 

3. Yield of fuel per ton of feedstock is higher and thus total Btu energy yield per ton 

exceeds ethanol when utilizing thermochemical gasification technology, 

4. The Open Fuels Standard, a Bill currently in congressional sub committees includes 

methanol as an M85 blend with gasoline, putting it on an equal footing with ethanol in the Bill. 

(2004.1, p.3) 

Our Response:

EPA recognizes that we did not analyze all pathways that might be feasible through 2022. 

For those fuel pathways that are different than those pathways EPA has listed in today’s 

regulations, EPA is establishing a petition process whereby a party can petition the Agency to 

consider new pathways for GHG reduction threshold compliance. The petition process is meant 

for parties with serious intention to move forward with production via the petitioned fuel 

pathway and who have moved sufficiently forward in the business process to show feasibility of 

the fuel pathway’s implementation. We welcome parties to utilize the petition process described 

below to request EPA to examine additional pathways. For full detail on the petition process, see 

the Preamble Section V.C and §80.1416. 

In addition, EPA also plans to continue to model additional pathways we expect will be 

commercially available in the U.S. as soon as sufficient information is available to complete a 

quality lifecycle assessment. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2519 

Organization: Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade 

Comment: 

The commenter (2519) believes it is important to note that lifecycle emissions of Canadian 

biofuel production may be different from those in the U.S., and that certain Canadian feedstocks 

(i.e., wheat and canola) are not included in the EPA proposed measure. Therefore, the 

commenter states that it would not be appropriate to apply U.S. emission factors to Canadian 

production. The commenter would welcome the opportunity to work with the U.S. to develop 

emission factors for fuel production pathways specific to Canada. [[Docket number 2519.1, p. 

1]] 

Our Response:

The application of the lifecycle analysis methodology is neutral to country of origin. 

7-478
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Fuels with the same feedstock, fuel production technology, as a pathway that has been 

analyzed will be treated the same as the relevant modeled pathway (i.e., corn ethanol, butanol, 

biodiesel from soy, waste and algae, sugarcane ethanol, and cellulosic including stover and 

switchgrass). 

EPA recognizes that we did not analyze all pathways that might be feasible through 2022. 

For those fuel pathways that are different than those pathways EPA has listed in today’s 

regulations, EPA is establishing a petition process whereby parties, both domestic and foreign, 

can petition the Agency to consider new pathways for GHG reduction threshold compliance. 

The petition process is meant for parties with serious intention to move forward with production 

via the petitioned fuel pathway and who have moved sufficiently forward in the business process 

to show feasibility of the fuel pathway’s implementation. We welcome parties, both domestic 

and foreign, to utilize the petition process described below to request EPA to examine additional 

pathways. For full detail on the petition process, see the Preamble Section V.C and §80.1416. 

7.6 Total GHG Emission Reductions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2149 

Organization: Dynamic Fuels, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2149.1) supports reducing the GHG threshold for biomass-based diesel and 

advanced biofuel to 40 percent. (2149.1, p.5) 

Our Response: 

Based on analyses conducted for this final rule, EPA has determined that several 

pathways are available for the biodiesel industry which meet or exceed the advance biofuel GHG 

threshold. Therefore there is no need to reduce the 50% threshold. Additionally, we are not 

allowing averaging of biodiesel from vegetable oils with those produced from waste oils, fats 

and greases as this is not necessary to allow compliance with the biomass-based diesel GHG 

performance threshold.

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2156 

Organization: Georgia Forestry Commission 

Comment:

The commenter (2156) agrees that GHG emission reductions using woody biomass from forests 

meet the 60% reduction necessary for the cellulosic fuels, as suggested by EPA. The commenter 

suggests that since biomass production from managed forests does not result in the loss of forests 

to dedicated crops, there should be no indirect effect on land use. Other analyses of the 

differences between biomass production from managed forests and biomass production from 

7-479
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

short rotation woody crops (switch grass, hybrid poplar, etc.) should be done prior to any change 

in the proposed D values. (2156.1.docx, p.5) 

Our Response: 

EPA did not have time to analyze the LCA GHG impacts of biofuel produced from 

managed forest feedstock, but intends to do so within 6 months of this final rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter believes that basing LCA GHG benefits on a single future calendar year (2022) 

broadens the uncertainty of EPA’s estimates. The commenter cites several reasons for their 

position, including: use of 2022 for biofuels versus 2005 baseline for petroleum; the fact that 

2022 is the year in which biofuel volumes are at maximum levels; and that larger marginal 

impacts of RFS2 biofuel volumes occur prior to 2022.[[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 48-49]] 

Our Response: 

We continue to focus our final rule analyses on 2022 results for two main reasons. First, 

it would require an extremely complex assessment and administratively difficult implementation 

program to track how biofuel production might continuously change from month to month or 

year to year. Instead, it seems appropriate that each biofuel be assessed a level of GHG 

performance that is constant over the implementation of this rule, allowing fuel providers to 

anticipate how these GHG performance assessments should affect their production plans. 

Second, it is appropriate to focus on 2022, the final year of ramp up in the required volumes of 

renewable fuel as this year. Assessment in this year allows the complete fuel volumes specified 

in EISA to be incorporated. This also allows for the complete implementation of technology 

changes and updates that were made to improve or modeling efforts. For example, the inclusion 

of price induced yield increases and the efficiency gains of DGs replacement are phased in over 

time. Furthermore, these changes are in part driven by the changes in earlier years of increased 

biofuel use. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2408.1) EPA initially should take full advantage of the statutory authority 

granted to it by Congress and reduce the requirements by the full 10 percent. Such action would 

enable the producers and the science to have the maximum flexibility and time to develop and 

7-480
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

perfect technologies and feedstocks so as to not only meet the initial GHG reduction 

requirements but also to lay the template for enhanced reductions in the future. (2408.1, p.3) 

Our Response: 

EPA is not finalizing any adjustments to the lifecycle GHG thresholds as the Agency has 

determined that such adjustments are not necessary given the threshold determinations explained 

in the final rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2419 

Organization: Cargill Incorporated 

Comment:

The commenter (2511.1) noted that the American Soybean Association and the National 

Biodiesel Board have raised substantial arguments with merit regarding the data on the nitrogen 

fixation of soybean row crops and on the lack of co-product credit for glycerin. Soybeans are not 

given the proper NOx credit from emissions, which skew the GHG emission reduction 

calculation. The 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that nitrogen fixed in soil by 

soybeans should not be considered a GHG emission. The commenter noted that EPA did not 

incorporate the IPCC’s updated nitrogen findings and thus attributes excess nitrogen emissions to 

soybean cultivation. (2511.1, p.5) 

Our Response: 

The proposal analysis calculated N2O emissions from domestic fertilizer application and 

nitrogen fixing crops based on the amount of fertilizer used and different regional factors to 

represent the percent of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied that result in N2O emissions. The proposal 

analysis N2O factors were based on existing DAYCENT modeling that was developed using the 

1996 IPCC guidance for calculating N2O emissions from fertilizer applications and nitrogen 

fixing crops. We identified in the proposal that this was an area we would be updating for the 

final rule based on new analysis from Colorado State University using the DAYCENT model. 

This update was not available at time of proposal. 

The N2O emission factors used in the proposal overestimated N2O emissions from 

nitrogen fixing crops, because they were based on the 1996 IPCC guidance for N2O accounting. 

As an update in 2006, IPCC guidance was changed such that biological nitrogen fixation was 

removed as a direct source of N2O because of the lack of evidence of significant emissions 

arising from the fixation process itself. IPCC concluded that the N2O emissions induced by the 

growth of legume crops/forages may be estimated solely as a function of the above-ground and 

below-ground nitrogen inputs from crop/forage residue. This change effectively reduces the 

N2O emissions from nitrogen fixing crops like soybeans and nitrogen fixing hay from the 1996 

to 2006 IPCC guidance. 

7-481
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Therefore, as part of the update to new N2O emission factors from DAYCENT used for 

our final rule analysis we have updated to the 2006 IPCC guidance which reduces the N2O 

emissions from soybean production. This has the effect of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions for 

soybean biodiesel production. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2486 

Organization: Primafuel, Inc. 

Comment: 

Regarding legislative intent, the commenter (2486) believes that inclusion of GHG regulations in 

the renewable fuel standard was intended to reduce the overall GHG emissions of the 

transportation sector, not simply to regulate the renewable fuels component of the transportation 

fuels mix. As such, regulatory rules which serve to reduce the GHG emissions of renewable 

fuels, while causing an increase in GHG from other fuels or even sectors of the economy would 

almost certainly violate the intent of EISA 2007 and RFS2. [[Docket number 2486.1, p. 3]]

Our Response:

EISA requires that the lifecycle GHG emissions of a qualifying renewable fuel must be 

less than the lifecycle GHG emissions of the 2005 baseline average gasoline or diesel fuel that it 

replaces—four different levels of reductions are required for the four different renewable fuel 

standards. Compliance with each threshold requires a comprehensive evaluation of renewable 

fuels, as well as the baseline for gasoline and diesel, on the basis of their lifecycle emissions. As 

mandated by EISA, the greenhouse gas emissions assessments must evaluate the aggregate 

quantity of greenhouse gas emissions (including direct emissions and significant indirect 

emissions such as significant emissions form land use changes) related to the full lifecycle, 

including all stages of fuel and feedstock production, distribution and use by the ultimate 

consumer. 

EPA also analyzed the overall GHG emission impacts of this rulemaking in parallel with 

the lifecycle analysis performed to develop the individual fuel thresholds. The same sources of 

emissions apply such that this analysis includes the effects of three main areas: a) emissions 

related to the production of biofuels, including the growing of feedstock (corn, soybeans, etc.) 

with associated domestic and international land use change impacts, transport of feedstock to 

fuel production plants, fuel production, and distribution of finished fuel; b) emissions related to 

the extraction, production and distribution of petroleum gasoline and diesel fuel that is replaced 

by use of biofuels; and c) difference in tailpipe combustion of the renewable and petroleum 

based fuels. 

Based on the range of results for the international land use change emissions the overall 

annualized average emission reductions of the rule could range from -136 to -140 million metrics 

tons of CO2-eq. emissions. 

7-482
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

7.7 Lifecycle GHG Thresholds 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1036 

Organization: Vision FL I, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (1036.1) recommends that under Table III.B.2-1 of the NPRM, the “Advanced 

Biofuel” reduction threshold of 50% be reduced to 44%. This would align with the GHG 

lifecycle modeling that has been completed thus far for Brazilian Sugarcane imports (EPA-HQOAR-2005-0161-0938.3). Considering that sugarcane ethanol (or “sugar juice ethanol”) is the 

only commercially viable pathway that can meet the requirements for the “Advanced Biofuel” 

classification volumes in the near term; the EPA and “public interests” would be putting this 

program at a great disadvantage by keeping the GHG reduction threshold at 50%. Domestic 

“sugar ethanol” projects have much greater GHG reductions than the Brazilian import cases due 

to International Land Use Change reductions however; the volumes required by RFS2 cannot be 

met by domestic projects for approximately four to five years considering the construction 

constraints due to the current credit market. (1036.1, pp.1-2) 

Our Response: 

Based on comments from UNICA and Brazilian researchers we have updated our 

imported sugarcane ethanol lifecycle analyses which have effectively improved the lifecycle 

GHG performance for imported sugarcane ethanol beyond 50%. As such, imported sugarcane 

ethanol meets the advanced biofuel lifecycle thresholds and no adjustment to the threshold is 

necessary. At this time we also assume that sugarcane ethanol produced in countries other than 

Brazil (e.g., U.S. or Caribbean) would also meet the threshold compliance value. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2137 

Organization: Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2137.1) states that EPA should adjust the advanced fuel lifecycle threshold to 

40% in the final rule. While the commenter believes that there is abundant scientific evidence 

that sugarcane ethanol reduces GHG emissions compared to conventional gasoline by up to 90%, 

they concur that the threshold should be set at 40% at this time. Furthermore, if EPA does not 

update the lifecycle analysis in the Final Rule, sugarcane ethanol would not qualify as an 

advanced biofuel at the 50% GHG threshold. The commenter believes this result would be 

unreasonable given the uncertainty in EPA’s lifecycle analysis and the clear Congressional intent 

to include sugarcane ethanol as an eligible advanced biofuel. [[Docket number 2137.1, p. 13]] 

In addition, to further emphasize the need to properly characterize sugarcane as an advanced 

biofuel is EPA’s own reasonable conclusion that any “advanced biofuel produced above and 

beyond what is required for the advanced biofuel requirements could reduce the amount of corn 

7-483
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

ethanol needed to meet the total renewable fuel standard. The commenter fully supports this 

conclusion, which is supported by the record. [[Docket number 2137.1, p. 14]] 

The commenter (2137.1) cautions EPA against only increasing the conventional biofuel mandate 

and presuming that all biofuels will be counted in the conventional pool. Congressional intent 

and President Obama clearly encourages the use of progressively cleaner, renewable fuels. The 

commenter believes that EPA has an abundance of information to make a determination that 

sugarcane ethanol meets the advanced biofuels lifecycle threshold and should implement the 

RFS2 without delay in 2010. [[Docket number 2137.1, p. 17]] 

Our Response: 

We have not adjusted the threshold to 40% for the final rule because based on comments 

from UNICA as well as others we were able to incorporate several updates to our lifecycle 

analyses for imported sugarcane ethanol. The final rule results indicate that imported sugarcane 

ethanol meets the 50% GHG threshold for advanced biofuel and as such, no adjustment to the 

advanced biofuel threshold is necessary. 

Regarding the recommendation to implement the RFS2 biofuel standards for 2010, this is 

what EPA is doing. 

7.8 Peer Review 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) does not support EPA’s peer review process. EPA’s process was 

closed to the public, and has the appearance of bias. Peer review guidance emphasizes public 

participation during the peer review process. (2329.1, p. 29) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, 

pp.29-30 for a more detailed discussion of the commenter’s concerns with the peer review 

process]] 

Our Response: 

To ensure the Agency made its decisions for this final rule on the best science available, 

EPA conducted a formal, independent peer review of key components of the analysis. The 

reviews were conducted following the Office of Management and Budget’s peer review guidance 

that ensures consistent, independent government-wide implementation of peer review, and 

according to EPA's longstanding and rigorous peer review policies. In accordance with these 

guidelines, EPA used independent, third-party contractors to select highly qualified peer 

reviewers. The independent contractors autonomously selected reviewers who are widely 

published in peer reviewed journals and recognized as leading experts in their respective fields. 

After identifying the most qualified individuals, the independent contractors screened candidates 

7-484
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

for possible conflict of interest, bias due to strong editorial positions taken on issues related to 

this rulemaking, contractual relationships to EPA, and overall perception of independence from 

the Agency. The reviewers selected are leading experts in their respective fields, including 

lifecycle assessment, economic modeling, remote sensing imagery, biofuel technologies, soil 

science, agricultural economics, and climate science. The full results of the peer review were 

added to the public docket during the comment period for this rulemaking. The comments 

provided by the expert reviewers were considered along with all of the public comments that 

EPA received.

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1050 

Organization: American Council for Ethanol (ACE) 

Comment:

The commenter (2101.1) is pleased that EPA decided to initiate an independent peer review to 

help respond to stakeholder concerns and to ensure that the agency makes decisions with respect 

to RFS2 and particularly ILUC on the best available science. Unfortunately, the commenter is 

shocked and deeply concerned that Timothy Searchinger, the attorney who has created 

extraordinary controversy with his unrelenting attacks launched against ethanol and American 

agriculture, was named to the peer review panel. While some of the individuals EPA relied upon 

to conduct the peer review of the lifecycle greenhouse gas assumptions have impeccable 

credentials, because Searchinger is so divisive, his service on the peer review perhaps 

unnecessarily tarnishes the efforts of the other esteemed individuals named to the panel to 

undertake this critically important work. (2101.1, p.14) 

The commenter noted that by insisting in the RFS2 proposed rule on arbitrarily ascribing GHG 

emissions to biofuels that cannot be shown empirically and which depend upon tortured use of 

computer models lacking the confidence of so many scientists, EPA has already exposed itself to 

a barrage of criticism. But to make matters worse, the naming of Timothy Searchinger to the 

peer review panel simply invites cynicism about the motives of EPA about the basic veracity of 

the lifecycle GHG analysis, and about the potential use of the lifecycle analysis tool as a political 

weapon against other energy sources in future GHG reduction programs. (2101.1, p.14) 

Our Response: 

The reviews were conducted following the Office of Management and Budget’s peer 

review guidance that ensures consistent, independent government-wide implementation of peer 

review, and according to EPA’s longstanding and rigorous peer review policies. In accordance 

with these guidelines, EPA used independent, third-party contractors to select highly qualified 

peer reviewers. The independent contractors autonomously selected reviewers who are widely 

published in peer reviewed journals and recognized as leading experts in their respective fields. 

EPA wanted to avoid the appearance of selecting or denying candidates based on 

previously stated positions. That is why the Agency followed federal guidelines and used thirdparty contractors to independently select the reviewers. The independent contractors selected 

7-485
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

reviewers based on their expertise in the relevant subject matter areas. It is not surprising that 

many of the most highly qualified individuals have done previous research or made public 

statements about biofuels. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2390 

Organization: Governors’ Biofuels Coalition 

Comment:

The commenter (2390.1) recommends and supports the use of a peer review approach to guide 

IILUC theory. However, some of the reviewers selected by EPA lack scientific training and are 

primarily anti-biofuel advocates. This casts doubt on a process that included many qualified 

expert reviewers who provided valuable input in a good faith effort to reach a reasonable 

consensus on this issue. (2390.1, p.1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2189 

Organization: Technical Consultant for Enzyme Development Corporation and 

Genencor International 

Comment:

The commenter (2189) noted that the proposal is based assumptions and analyses that aren’t the 

product of good science. The reviewers in the peer review process were not competent to assess 

the assumptions and science involved in EPA’s proposed rules. They were too far removed from 

agricultural business and technology. (2189, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment:

The commenter (2112.1) noted that nearly all the peer reviewers were biased toward greenhouse 

gas reduction. In fact, potential peer-reviewers were screened subjectively. This subjective 

screening created biases to the pool of peer reviewers. This limits the objectivity of the results. 

(2112.1, p.7) (See Docket Number 2112.1, pp.6-7 or more discussion on the peer review process) 

Our Response: 

To ensure the Agency made its decisions for this final rule on the best science available, 

EPA conducted a formal, independent peer review of key components of the analysis. The 

reviews were conducted following the Office of Management and Budget’s peer review guidance 

that ensures consistent, independent government-wide implementation of peer review, and 

according to EPA's longstanding and rigorous peer review policies. In accordance with these 

guidelines, EPA used independent, third-party contractors to select highly qualified peer 

reviewers. The independent contractors autonomously selected reviewers who are widely 

published in peer reviewed journals and recognized as leading experts in their respective fields. 

After identifying the most qualified individuals, the independent contractors screened candidates 

for possible conflict of interest, bias due to strong editorial positions taken on issues related to 

this rulemaking, contractual relationships to EPA, and overall perception of independence from 

7-486
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

the Agency. The reviewers selected are leading experts in their respective fields, including 

lifecycle assessment, economic modeling, remote sensing imagery, biofuel technologies, soil 

science, agricultural economics, and climate science. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2528 

Organization: U.S. Congress, House of Representatives 

Comment:

Upon seeing the peer review analysis and the designated peer reviewers, the commenter (2528) 

is disappointed by the absence of objectivity and a lack of unbiased opinions in the process. The 

commenter is dismayed by EPA’s disregard for an approach that is fair and balanced. The 

commenter is also frustrated that the United States Department of Agriculture, which has 

extensive knowledge related to this issue, was in no way included in the peer review process. 

Instead, individuals with long-standing agendas contrary to the goals of the RFS2 were given 

prominent placement on the review panel. (2528, p.2) (See Docket Number 2528, pp.2-3 for 

more discussion on this issue) 

Our Response: 

The reviews were conducted following the Office of Management and Budget’s peer 

review guidance that ensures consistent, independent government-wide implementation of peer 

review, and according to EPA's longstanding and rigorous peer review policies. In accordance 

with these guidelines, EPA used independent, third-party contractors to select highly qualified 

peer reviewers. The independent contractors autonomously selected reviewers who are widely 

published in peer reviewed journals and recognized as leading experts in their respective fields. 

EPA wanted to avoid the appearance of selecting or denying candidates based on 

previously stated positions. That is why the Agency followed federal guidelines and used thirdparty contractors to independently select the reviewers. The independent contractors selected 

reviewers based on their expertise in the relevant subject matter areas. It is not surprising that 

many of the most highly qualified individuals have done previous research or made public 

statements about biofuels. 

Beginning early in this rulemaking process and continuing throughout the development 

of this final rule, EPA held hundreds of meetings with stakeholders, including government, 

academia, industry, and non-profit organizations, to gather expert technical input. Our work was 

also informed heavily by consultation with other federal agencies. For example, we have relied 

on the expert advice of USDA and DOE, as well as incorporating the most recent inputs and 

models provided by these Agencies. Dialogue with the State of California and the European 

Union on their parallel, on-going efforts in GHG lifecycle analysis also helped inform EPA’s 

methodology. A key result of our outreach effort has been awareness of new studies and data 

that have been incorporated into our final rule analysis. 

7-487
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2245 

Organization: Illinois Corn Growers Association, et. al. 

Contributors to this comment letter include: Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Soybean 

Association, Illinois Soybean Association, Illinois Renewable Fuels Association, Kentucky 

Soybean Association, Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, Missouri Corn Growers 

Association, Missouri Soybean Association, Monsanto, the National Corn to Ethanol Research 

Center, Nebraska Corn Board, Nebraska Soybean Association, Novozymes, Ohio Soybean 

Association, South Dakota Soybean Association, University of Illinois Chicago, Energy 

Resources Center, University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana plant breeding, animal nutrition and 

agronomy, DuPont, Ethanol Technologies, John Deere, and the U.S. Grains Council 

Comment:

The commenters (2245.1) believe that EPA did not follow appropriate procedures or guidelines 

in conducting a peer review and needs to repeat the process once the rule and docket are 

complete. The commenters were disappointed in the lack of a transparent process for the 

identification of the capabilities required for peer reviewers or of a transparent selection process. 

The reviewers involved clearly lacked the appropriate breadth and depth of expertise to 

adequately review and comment on the extensive technical elements of the proposal and a 

number of the reviewers lacked impartiality. The commenters would like a subsequent peer 

review be commissioned once the docket is complete. The request for candidates, selection 

criteria and selection process must then be conducted in an open and transparent manner with a 

focus on the capabilities and independence of the reviewers. (2245.1, pp.27-28) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1989 

Organization: Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF) 

Comment:

The recent EPA peer review panel also reaffirmed many of the concerns the IFBF has about the 

EPA's proposed rule and rulemaking process. The panel expressed concern about using these 

incomplete and unreliable models to measure ILU changes and indicated that they didn't have 

enough time to review this convoluted and complicated proposal. We are also concerned that 

there is no evidence that the U.S. Department of Agriculture or any other federal agencies with 

expertise on these issues were included in the peer review process. This is exactly why the 

House of Representatives voted in the climate change bill to limit EPA's ability to implement 

international ILU provisions in the RFS-2. 

We respectively disagree with the EPA assessment “...that there were no direct and substantial 

[conflict of interest] or appearance of impartiality issues that would have prevented a peer 

reviewer’s comments from being considered by EPA.” Dr. Timothy Searchinger, for instance, 

has been an outspoken critic of biofuels and is clearly not impartial. His inclusion on the peer 

review panel casts serious doubt on the sincerity of EPA in wanting an unbiased, critical review 

of the issues associated with life-cycle analysis and the use of models to assess causality. 

Our Response: 

7-488
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA’s peer review process was fully transparent. All of the peer review documents, 

including explanations from the independent contractors about how reviewers were selected, 

were made publicly available on EPA’s website and in the public docket for this rulemaking. 

The reviews were conducted following the Office of Management and Budget’s peer 

review guidance that ensures consistent, independent government-wide implementation of peer 

review, and according to EPA's longstanding and rigorous peer review policies. In accordance 

with these guidelines, EPA used independent, third-party contractors to select highly qualified 

peer reviewers. The independent contractors autonomously selected reviewers who are widely 

published in peer reviewed journals and recognized as leading experts in their respective fields. 

After identifying the most qualified individuals, the independent contractors screened candidates 

for possible conflict of interest, bias due to strong editorial positions taken on issues related to 

this rulemaking, contractual relationships to EPA, and overall perception of independence from 

the Agency. The reviewers selected are leading experts in their respective fields, including 

lifecycle assessment, economic modeling, remote sensing imagery, biofuel technologies, soil 

science, agricultural economics, and climate science. 

EPA recognizes that as the state of scientific knowledge continues to evolve in this area, 

the lifecycle GHG assessments for a variety of fuel pathways are likely to be updated. Therefore, 

while EPA is using its current lifecycle assessments to inform the regulatory determinations for 

fuel pathways in this final rule, as required by the statute, the Agency is also committing to 

further reassess these determinations and lifecycle estimates. As part of this ongoing effort, we 

will ask for the expert advice of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as other experts, and 

incorporate their advice and any updated information we receive into a new assessment of the 

lifecycle GHG emissions performance of the biofuels being evaluated in this final rule. EPA will 

request that the National Academy of Sciences evaluate the approach taken in this rule, the 

underlying science of lifecycle assessment, and in particular indirect land use change, and make 

recommendations for subsequent lifecycle GHG assessments on this subject. As specified by 

EISA, if EPA revises the analytical methodology for determining lifecycle greenhouse gas 

emissions, any such revision will apply to renewable fuel from new facilities that commence 

construction after the effective date of the revision. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2079 

Organization: AE Biofuels, Inc. 

Comment:

With regards to the peer review process, the commenter (2079.1) encourages EPA to include 

experts from the biodiesel industry in the peer review process. Throughout the peer review 

process, the commenter encourages EPA to provide reviewers with additional independent 

studies and analyses that will help place the EPA lifecycle analysis in context and provide a 

holistic view of the debate over indirect effects. (2079.1, p.9) 

Our Response: 

7-489
Chapter 7: Impacts of the Program on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

7-490

 

The reviews were conducted following the Office of Management and Budget’s peer 

review guidance that ensures consistent, independent government-wide implementation of peer 

review, and according to EPA's longstanding and rigorous peer review policies. In accordance 

with these guidelines, EPA used independent, third-party contractors to select highly qualified 

peer reviewers. The independent contractors autonomously selected reviewers who are widely 

published in peer reviewed journals and recognized as leading experts in their respective fields. 

After identifying the most qualified individuals, the independent contractors screened candidates 

for possible conflict of interest, bias due to strong editorial positions taken on issues related to 

this rulemaking, contractual relationships to EPA, and overall perception of independence from 

the Agency. The reviewers selected are leading experts in their respective fields, including 

lifecycle assessment, economic modeling, remote sensing imagery, biofuel technologies, soil 

science, agricultural economics, and climate science. 

EPA provided the expert reviewers with all of the relevant materials needed to conduct a 

thorough and detailed review of EPA’s analysis. The expert reviewers, as well as the public 

commenters, referenced a wide range of additional studies and sources of data to inform there 

responses. One of the most important outcomes of the peer review and EPA’s efforts to 

maximize stakeholder feedback was the consideration of new studies and data sources in our 

lifecycle analysis for the final rule. 

i

 Amaral W. A. N., J.P. Marinho, R. Tarasantchi, A. Beber, and E. Giuliani. 2008, Environmental sustainability of 

sugarcane ethanol in Brazil. In: Zuurbier P.; van de Vooren J. (eds) Sugarcane ethanol: Contribution to climate 

change mitigation and the environment. Wageningen Academic, Wageningen, pp 121-124. 

ii Smith, D.M., N.G. Inman-Bamber and P.J. Thorburn. 2005. Growth and function of the sugarcane root system. 

Field Crops Research 92: 169-183. 
EPA-420-R-10-003

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Summary and Analysis of 

Comments

Chapter 8

Impacts on Criteria (NAAQS) and 

Toxic Pollutants
8 IMPACTS ON CRITERIA (NAAQS) AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS

8.1 Fuel Production and Distribution Impacts of the Proposed Program 8-1 

8.2 Vehicle and Equipment Emission Impacts of Fuel Program 8-7 

8.3 Air Quality Impacts 8-9 

8.3.1 Air Quality Modeling Methodology 8-9 

8.3.2 Impacts of Proposed Standards on Future Air Quality and Mitigation 

of Negative Impacts 8-14 

8.4 Health and Environmental Effects of Criteria and Air Toxic Pollutants 8-19 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

8 IMPACTS ON CRITERIA (NAAQS) AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section correspond to Section VII of the preamble to the proposed 

rule and address impacts of the program on non-GHG emissions. A summary of the comments 

received and our response to those comments are located below (and in Section VI of the 

preamble to the final rule). 

8.1 Fuel Production and Distribution Impacts of the Proposed Program 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) is concerned about the assessment of non-GHG emissions reported in the 

DRIA. The commenter lists specific concerns and refers EPA to a report that provides an indepth discussion of the issues. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 72]] [[See docket number 2393.1, pp. 

71-73 and docket number 2393.7, Attachment 6 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

EPA’s responses are made directly to the specific comments outlined in the supporting 

report authored by Sierra Research, summarized below. Many of these comments pertain to 

vehicle and equipment emission impacts, but are included in this section to keep responses to the 

Sierra report contiguous. 

What Commenter Said: 

Sierra Research expressed concern (pp. 12-13, 16-17) about the analysis using multiple sources 

of fuel consumption, VMT and fuel economy – namely AEO2007, AEO2008 and MOVES. In 

particular, Sierra pointed to discrepancies in fuel economy, vehicle class mix and VMT 

projections between AEO and MOVES as a “fundamental flaw”. 

Our Response: 

The primary reason MOVES and AEO fuel economies differ is because AEO reports a 

“CAFE-space” value, while MOVES deals directly in on-road fuel economy; EPA estimates onroad fuel economy to be about 20 percent lower than CAFÉ values. Additional differences are 

tied to different levels of fuel economy standards. While Sierra is correct that previous releases 

of MOVES have not accounted for the 2006 rules mandating increase in truck CAFÉ standards, 

these were accounted for in the RFS2 analysis. The primary difference between AEO2007 and 

AEO2008 is the inclusion of the EISA fuel economy mandates, which is why AEO2008 was 

8-1
Chapter 8: Impacts on Criteria (NAAQS) and Toxic Pollutants 

used for the overall gasoline volume estimates in the rule. These as of yet have not been 

accounted for in MOVES because the EISA requirements are being implemented through lightduty greenhouse gas standards which have not yet been finalized. 

In general, AEO was used for the projections of energy demand in the rule. MOVES was 

employed where supplemental information, not available in AEO, was needed—mainly nonGHG emission estimates, and the breakdown of car and truck sales. For non-GHG estimates, the 

fuel economy issues raised by Sierra aren’t relevant, but Sierra’s comment regarding inconsistent 

VMT is. MOVES was updated with AEO2009 VMT for the air quality and final rule analysis, 

so it does reflect the lower VMT growth contained in the AEO updates. With respect to 

car/truck sales breakdown, this analysis was updated to reflect the car/truck split used in the light 

duty greenhouse gas proposal, which is consistent with AEO2009. 

What Commenter Said: 

Sierra Research raised the concern (pp. 32-33) that using the pre-aggregation function in 

MOVES (temporally and geographically) would affect the accuracy of the modeled impacts, and 

suggested a sensitivity analysis to assess this. Sierra also expressed concern with the fuel 

“binning” approach in MOVES, stating it would be critical to perform a reanalysis when 

MOVES was updated with the Complex and Predictive models. 

Our Response: 

We acknowledge that using a limited number of months affects modeled impacts; we 

found that with MOVES this impact is similar in magnitude to that quoted by Sierra from the 

RFS1 analysis, and does not play an important role in the general magnitude and direction of the 

estimated impacts. For the air quality modeling work, the model was run over all 12 months. 

With respect to geographic pre-aggregation, the model develops a fuel supply which retains the 

market share of fuels at the county level rather than combining fuel properties into an average 

fuel. On the last point regarding fuel “binning”, in accordance with Sierra’s comment the 

analysis for the final rule was redone primarily to allow the updates based on Complex and 

Predictive model to be incorporated. 

What Commenter Said: 

Sierra Research states on page 34 that biodiesel impacts would likely increase if the new 

MOVES estimates were used, as the baseline emissions are expected to increase significantly 

between MOVES and MOBILE. On page 36 Sierra pointed out that not clear how biodiesel was 

apportioned between the onroad and offroad fleet. 

Our Response: 

Biodiesel was apportioned entirely to the onroad fleet, and Sierra’s comment regarding 

the magnitude of increase using MOVES is true, although we did not reflect this in the final rule 

8-2
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

as the MOVES heavy-duty numbers were not final at the time of the analysis. We estimate that 

the NOx increase due to the use of biodiesel would be closer to 4,000 tons nationwide, vs. 1,300 

tons used in the final rule analysis (the NPRM used an estimate of around 400 tons, but this was 

corrected in the final rule as it did not account for the dilution of biodiesel into B20 and lower 

blends). We project that this increase is still very small relative to the national NOx inventory 

(less than 0.05 percent). 

What Commenter Said: 

Sierra Research commented on page 35 that EPA apparently estimated naphthalene for E85 

vehicles incorrectly by combining naphthalene emissions data from one test program and PM 

from another to develop toxic to PM ratios which were then applied to PM emissions. 

Our Response: 

This is not what EPA did. EPA scaled the naphthalene to PM ratio from E0 vehicles by 

0.15, assuming naphthalene would decrease by the volume of ethanol in the fuel, which is not 

expected to produce any naphthalene emissions. 

What Commenter Said: 

On page 35, Sierra Research said that their analysis of the datasets we used to develop butadiene 

to VOC ratios for E85 did not show a statistically significant difference between vehicles 

running on E0 versus E85. 

Our Response: 

Our analysis of E85 data showed the butadiene to VOC ratio is roughly 5 times lower, 

which is roughly what one would expect from dilution with ethanol. 

What Commenter Said: 

On page 35, Sierra Research stated that their analysis showed a roughly 6000% increase in 

acetaldehyde emission rates for vehicles running on E85 versus E0. On page 36, they showed 

inventory results in tons per summer day that indicated a roughly 10-fold higher increase in 

acetaldehyde than EPA estimated for the draft RIA’s “more sensitive” control case. They 

explain this, stating, “For acetaldehyde, vastly different assumptions regarding acetaldehyde 

emissions from FFVs operating on E85 result in the DRIA more-sensitive values being about an 

order of magnitude lower.” 

Our Response: 

8-3
Chapter 8: Impacts on Criteria (NAAQS) and Toxic Pollutants 

As detailed in Section 3.1.1.2.2 of the RIA, EPA’s analysis of acetaldehyde emissions 

from E85 were based on data from the same two studies Sierra Research relied on, plus 

additional data from EPA’s Office of Research and Development which was consistent with the 

other two studies. Thus, it is difficult for us to understand how Sierra Research found an 

inventory impact an order of magnitude higher, as there is no documentation of how they derived 

this estimate. As noted in our response to API’s comment regarding acetaldehyde emissions 

below, we developed the acetaldehyde emissions based on ratios to VOC rather than direct 

application of this percent increase to an E0 emissions baseline, and perhaps a difference in how 

the increase was applied explains the large difference Sierra reports. 

What Commenter Said: 

On page 43 Sierra mentioned inconsistency in ag equipment emissions between FASOM ag fuel 

use and NONROAD model. 

Our Response: 

There is no way they would be consistent. They're totally different models. 

What Commenter Said: 

On page 44, Sierra commented on the lack of accounting for locations where marginal 

production of fertilizer and pesticides is going to occur. 

Our Response: 

We acknowledge that using a uniform distribution is a simplification; developing an 

analysis of localized impacts was beyond the scope possible for the rule. 

What Commenter Said: 

Sierra Research stated on page 46, “the total VOC emissions increase presented (32,278 tons per 

day) [by EPA] is smaller than the sum of the increases of ethanol, benzene, acetaldehyde, 

formaldehyde, and acrolein (43,754 tons per day). Given that these five species fall within the 

EPA definition for VOC, it is not possible that the method used to estimate the VOC impacts is 

consistent with the method used to produce the estimates for the specific compounds. Similarly, 

on page 46, Sierra Research notes a potential inconsistency in impacts of renewable fuel 

transport, with an increase in ethanol emissions much larger than the increase in total VOC. 

Our Response: 

These apparent discrepancies are, in fact, possible because some sources have increases 

in total VOC and others have decreases, and these sources have varying levels of ethanol and air 

8-4
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

toxics. For instance, while there is an overall increase in total VOC, there are also VOC 

reductions from displaced gasoline production and distribution (see impacts spreadsheet, Results 

Diff tab), and there are, of course, no ethanol emissions associated with gasoline production and 

distribution. 

What Commenter Said: 

Sierra mentioned on page 47 that the assumption that electricity can be generated from biomass 

without resulting in non-GHG emissions is unlikely. 

Our Response: 

We don't say that there aren't emissions. The emissions are included in the overall 

biofuel plant emissions in the cases where the electricity is not purchased. 

What Commenter Said: 

On page 48, Sierra Research noted a discrepancy in VOC emission factors for storage and 

distribution emissions on Table 3.1-21 and those in the impacts spreadsheet provided in the 

docket for the rule. (The emission factors in the impacts spreadsheet were larger.) 

Our Response: 

This was in fact an error discovered after publication of the draft RIA, and was corrected 

for the final rule. 

What Commenter Said: 

On page 49, Sierra Research noted that the draft RIA stated toxic emission factors for ethanol 

production facilities came from wet mill plants whereas most plants in the future will be dry mill 

plants, with much different emission rates. 

Our Response: 

This was actually a typographical error in the RIA. Over 90% of the available emissions 

data used to develop emission factors were from dry mill plants. 

What Commenters Said: 

Sierra Research stated on page 49: 

“EPA fails to point out that there may be biases introduced in its air toxic emission factor 

development when the 2005 NEI reporting is used. There were limited state data submitted for 

8-5
Chapter 8: Impacts on Criteria (NAAQS) and Toxic Pollutants 

calendar year 2005 because EPA de-emphasized state submittals for that year due to budgetary 

issues. Therefore, the state sample may be biased according to the states that elected to submit 

their data. This is an additional level of uncertainty that is introduced into the emission rates that 

were derived in this way.” 

Our Response: 

This is a good point and we have added text addressing this to the RIA. 

What Commenter Said: 

Sierra pointed out on page 47 and 49 the need to consider effects of emission trading programs. 

Our Response: 

It is not certain that the emission reductions projected in refineries would meet the criteria 

that would allow them to be traded upon under NSR provisions. 

What Commenter Said: 

Sierra points out on page 49 that U.S. refineries might increase exports as domestic demand 

shrinks. 

Our Response: 

We do not have any basis for the potential impact on exports, making this issue difficult 

to assess. However, increased exports are less likely for gasoline, since we project most of the 

reductions will be from imported gasoline, and demand for exported gasoline is low. Increased 

exports may be more of a possibility for diesel, but again, it is more likely that the impact will 

mainly be reduced imports. 

What Commenter Said: 

On page 50, Sierra points out that benzene emissions from pesticide application is 26% of VOC, 

which seems high. 

Our response: 

This estimate is used in EPA’s National Emissions Inventory. However, benzene is no 

longer used in pesticide products, and is no longer permitted as of 2004 (Federal Register, April 

4, 2002, 67(65): 16027-16030). Thus, the inventory is inaccurate. However, due to time 

constraints, this error could not be corrected for the final rule. 

8-6
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

8.2 Vehicle and Equipment Emission Impacts of Fuel Program 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) recommends that EPA review CRC E-65-3. CRC, Fuel Permeation 

from Automotive Systems: E0, E6, E10, E20, and E85, Final Report, 

CRC Project No. E-65-3 (Dec. 2006), available at http://www.crcao.com/reports

/recentstudies2006/E-65-3/CRC%20E-65-3%20Final%20Report.pdf. The commenter does not 

think permeation emission rates should be increased at all between E6 and E10. (2329.1, p. 109) 

Our Response:

For the final rule, EPA has updated permeation effects based on the most recent available data, 

as detailed in the technical memo from David Hawkins to the docket entitled “Analysis of 

Ethanol Evaporative Permeation Effects Update”. This analysis included data from the E-65-3 

program, and reflects the conclusion that a statistically significant difference in permeation effect 

between E5.7 and E10 was not found. 

What Commenter Said: 

The commenter noted that in Table 3.1-8 of the DRIA (at 447), EPA did not evaluate any change 

in PM emissions for nonroad SI engines. The commenter recommends that the Air Improvement 

Resource, Inc testing programs be included with other testing programs EPA will assemble for 

the final rule. (2329.1, pp. 110-111) 

Our Response: 

As EPA is in the midst of gathering data on ethanol effects on nonroad SI engines, we did 

not change our assumptions for these effects for the final rule. However, we did add language in 

the Regulatory Impact Analysis stating that the nonroad SI impacts presented in the rule do not 

account for a new requirement that many engines be certified on E10 beginning in 2011, 

meaning that by 2022 a significant share of engines in the fleet will effectively show no emission 

effect from E10, significantly reducing the nonroad SI impacts presented in this rule. 

What Commenter Said: 

The commenter (2329.1) provided comments on table 3.1-6 of the DRIA (at 446). One number 

that stood out in the table was the 3739.8% increase in acetaldehyde. This percentage is high not 

because acetaldehyde emissions are very high from these vehicles, rather the percent is so high 

because acetaldehyde emissions from E0 are very close to zero. . In situations like these, where 

8-7
Chapter 8: Impacts on Criteria (NAAQS) and Toxic Pollutants 

the increase in emissions is extremely sensitive to the denominator, it is far preferable to model 

this pollutant with an offset in mg/mi, rather than a multiplicative percentage. The concern is that 

as the non-methane organic gas (NMOG) emissions of the FFV increase with age, or with lower 

temperature, or some combination of the two, the acetaldehyde emissions still are assumed to 

increase by 3739.8%. It is likely that they increase as the vehicle ages or at low temperatures, but 

it is highly unlikely that they increase at the same percent that they do under relatively low 

mileage and 75F testing temperature. Thus, it is far preferable to develop an emission offset for 

acetaldehyde, and apply this under all conditions. (2329.1, pp. 109-110) 

Our Response: 

While the test results reported this percent increase, for the inventory calculation 

acetaldehyde impacts were not calculated by applying a percent increase to E0 emissions, but 

instead were estimated based on ratios to VOC. This is detailed in Section 3.1.1.2.2 of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter states that EPA has used a piecemeal application of both the current models 

(NMIM/MOBILE6) and now-obsolete versions of MOVES emission inventory models; as a 

result, the subsequent reanalysis proposed by EPA using updated information may yield 

substantially different results. 

Our Response: 

The use of draft components of MOVES was made only where there was enough 

confidence that the updated information, while still draft, would better represent the emission 

impacts of the rule. Specifically, it was important in this analysis to update the MOBILE6 E10 

impacts to the Predictive Model E10 impacts developed in the RFS1 rule; MOBILE6 was also 

incapable of breaking out evaporative permeation emissions, which are very sensitive to E10. 

The final rule analysis does update the version of MOVES used for the inventories, and is a 

closer reflection of the final model. Because the RFS2 final rule E10 impacts were in large part 

carried through to the final version of MOVES2010 , we would not expect substantially different 

impacts between the final rule analysis and MOVES2010. 

What Commenter Said: 

API expressed concern that the MOVES model did not employ restrictions on emissions below 

30 ppm sulfur, and recommended that ARB’s Predictive Model be used to updated the MOVES 

approach 

Our Response: 

8-8
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The sulfur assumptions in MOVES did not have bearing in the emission inventory 

analysis for RFS2. However, this comment was taken into consideration and addressed for the 

final version of MOVES2010. 

Note: API comments on vehicle and equipment emission impacts contained in the Sierra 

Research report are addressed in the previous section. 

8.3 Air Quality Impacts 

8.3.1 Air Quality Modeling Methodology 

What Commenters Said:

 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2310 

Organization: Low Carbon Synthetic Fuels Association (LCSFA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2310) expresses concern that EPA's air quality impacts analysis could be 

misinterpreted by policy officials and others who might wrongly conclude that all renewable 

fuels negatively impact air quality. This is not the case for biomass-to-liquids (BTL) fuels, which 

are far cleaner than both other renewable fuels (like ethanol) and the petroleum fuels they would 

displace. As a result, use of BTL fuels would improve air quality nationwide, and, in particular, 

in non-attainment areas. The commenter requests that EPA conduct an alternate analysis of the 

nationwide and local air quality impacts (or improvements) that would result from the use of 

BTL fuels to meet the 16 billion gallon cellulosic biofuel standard (which would require roughly 

9.4 gallons of BTL at a 1.7 equivalence value). Indeed, EISA Section 209 requires that EPA 

consider in its study of air quality impacts 'different blend levels, types of renewable fuels, and 

available vehicle technologies.' The commenter believes that EPA should develop accurate and 

objective evaluations of the air quality impacts of various renewable fuels that could be used to 

meet EISA mandates. Such an analysis should make clear to policy officials that improved air 

quality and increased use of certain clean renewable fuels are not mutually exclusive goals. 

[[Docket number 2310.1, p. 3] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2497 

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Comment: 

The commenter (2497.1) noted that the Midwest currently is and will likely continue to be a 

significant production center and user of renewable biofuels. The commenter believes that the 

modeling should acknowledge this by focusing sufficient resources to conduct the needed 

modeling in this region. The commenter requests that the needed modeling and information 

gathering be completed within two years of the rule becoming final (i.e., November 2011). If 

EPA does not have the resources to complete the required modeling in a timely manner, 

assistance from other credible entities, such as LADCO, should be utilized. (2497.1, p.2) 

The commenter also requests that the modeling take into consideration the ongoing, regular 

reviews of existing criteria pollutant and toxics rules. 

8-9
Chapter 8: Impacts on Criteria (NAAQS) and Toxic Pollutants 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2466) included additional comments from the State of New Jersey in addition to 

their own comments. The State of New Jersey supports EPA’s proposal to use a national-scale 

air quality modeling analysis to assess the impacts of the RFS2 program on future ambient 

concentrations of PM2.5, ozone and air toxics. The State of New Jersey supports the CMAQ 

modeling platform and provides suggestions regarding the modeling plan. A) 2007 meteorology 

is preferred over 2005 meteorology for PM2.5 and ozone modeling B) WRF use is currently 

more prevalent than MM5 for meteorology modeling as suggested by EPA. (2466.1.pdf, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter lists specific concerns about air quality modeling and refers EPA to a report that 

provides an in-depth discussion of the issues. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 72]] [[See docket 

number 2393.1, pp. 71-73 and docket number 2393.7, Attachment 6 for further discussion of this 

issue.]]. 

First, the commenter encourages EPA to perform air quality modeling of ozone, PM and 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) at one time, using CMAQ in the “one atmosphere” 

methodology. This method assures the atmospheric chemistry and physics represent the 

production of ozone, PM and HAPs simultaneously—not independently. 

Second, the commenter recommends that EPA model with 4 km nesting as well as 36km and 

12km in order to avoid dilution of urban point or mobile source emissions which – if it occurred 

– would lead to a possible understatement predicted concentrations. The commenter also 

recommends that EPA develop the urban emissions inventory at a minimum grid resolution of 

4km, such that dilution is not achieved through methods similar to CAMx’s flexi-nesting. 

Third, the commenter is concerned with EPA’s proposal to use the three-dimensional global 

atmospheric chemistry model, GEOS-CHEM, as an input to CMAQ or CAMx. The commenter 

believes that the application of CMAQ or CAMx mixes stratospheric ozone down to the surface 

and affects high altitude areas, inadvertently misleading decision-makers. 

Finally, the commenter is concerned that the chemical mechanism for modeling SOA in CMAQ 

is relatively new and the degree to which it has been validated other than by “internal EPA 

evaluation” is unclear. The commenter suggests that the DRIA provides no indication as to how 

EPA will adjust either emissions of total aromatics or of specific aromatic compounds such as 

toluene in performing CMAQ modeling given that benzene is the only aromatic compound for 

which it has even attempted to quantify the emissions impact of the RFS. The commenter 

believes it is unclear why the issue of aromatic impacts on SOA formation is included in the 

DRIA. 

Our Response: 

8-10
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

We believe that it is important to include biofuels other than ethanol in our analysis of air 

quality impacts. Time requirements for the air quality modeling necessitated starting the air 

quality modeling prior to finalizing the emissions inventories for the final rule. Time constraints 

also precluded us from analyzing multiple strategies for meeting the EISA renewable fuels 

mandate. Thus, we used interim inventories that reflected the use of ethanol in about 34 of the 

mandated 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel. The remaining gallons of renewable fuel were 

comprised of biodiesel and renewable diesel. The subsequent final inventories, not done in time 

for air quality modeling, reflect the use of other types of cellulosic biofuels in place of ethanol. 

We will incorporate the improvements made to this rule’s final inventories into our 

inventories for the “anti-backsliding” analysis required by Clean Air Act section 211(v). 

Further, some commenters suggested EPA should separately evaluate air quality impacts of 

various renewable fuels, and EPA should convey the message that increased use of certain 

renewable fuels may improve air quality. We will keep these suggestions in mind as we conduct 

our anti-backsliding analysis. 

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources suggested that EPA modeling efforts 

should focus on the Midwest region. We modeled the entire country, including the Midwest, and 

the modeling grid size provides sufficient resolution to characterize impacts in the Midwest. In 

addition, we note that the meteorological model used in our air quality modeling accounts for 

Midwest weather patterns. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources also commented 

that EPA’s modeling should take into account ongoing, regular reviews of existing rules. We 

regularly update our baseline/reference case to reflect all currently promulgated air quality 

regulations. 

 

In response to the State of New Jersey’s specific suggestions on EPA’s modeling plan, 

first, as noted in EPA modeling guidance, the choice of a model base year involves numerous 

considerations. The ultimate goal is to successfully model a variety of meteorological conditions 

conducive to a range of air pollution levels while using the best available model input data. 

Clearly, there are differences between the national simulations being done for the RFS2 analysis 

and the regional analyses being done by the State of New Jersey (and others) for upcoming 

attainment demonstrations of ozone and PM2.5. Based on an EPA analysis of the climatology of 

2005 and 2007, we concluded that the former year was more appropriate for this particular 

national analysis given the extreme drought conditions in the southeastern U.S. and extreme wet 

conditions in the central U.S. during 2007. The ability to use unadjusted 2005 National Emission 

Inventory (NEI) data as emissions inputs was another factor in favor of 2005. 

Second, while EPA is using the MM5 meteorological model for this rulemaking analysis, 

we are actively conducting MM5 and WRF comparisons for later base years. It is possible that 

we may be switching to WRF in subsequent analyses. However, as indicated in EPA modeling 

guidance, the most important consideration with respect to meteorological inputs is not which 

model is used, but instead how well the chosen model replicates the observed meteorology over 

the period in question. As is documented in the air quality modeling technical support document 

(AQ TSD) for the RFS2 final rulemaking (EPA-454/R-10-001 found in the docket for this rule), 

EPA is satisfied that the MM5 model performance is appropriate for use in this analysis with 

relatively low bias and error values for key meteorological parameters. 

8-11
Chapter 8: Impacts on Criteria (NAAQS) and Toxic Pollutants 

In regards to comments from API listing specific concerns about modeling methodology, 

first, EPA understands the importance of considering atmospheric chemistry interactions 

holistically. Accordingly, the CMAQ modeling was performed in "one-atmosphere" mode. 

Second, while the emissions inventories can be available at a 4-km resolution (via spatial 

surrogate techniques), EPA has concluded that 12-km resolution is the most appropriate choice 

for the model horizontal grids for simulating the national impacts of the RFS2 program on air 

quality. The 12-km grid resolution employed in this analysis is consistent with EPA guidance 

for attainment demonstration modeling of ozone and PM2.5. Several studies have shown that 

model performance does not necessarily improve with finer grid resolution, nor does the model 

response differ appreciably in models that used both 12- and 4-km grids (Arunachalam, 2006; 

Cohan, 2006; Gego, 2005) when considering air quality at the regional- or city-scale. Even at 

12-km resolution the RFS2 CMAQ modeling captures the NOx inhibition ozone effects resulting 

from new point sources associated with the production of renewable fuels. Even with short-cuts 

like "flexi-nesting" of non-emissions fields, conducting finer resolution modeling over some/all 

urban areas would involve a large increase in computational resources with no guarantee of 

improved, or even differing outcomes, from a national perspective. Based on all of the above 

factors, EPA is comfortable with the conclusion that the RFS2 air quality modeling approach is 

sufficient for estimating the national impacts of the program on air quality and human health. 

Third, like the commenter, EPA was also concerned about the potential for stratospheric 

ozone from the global model (GEOS-Chem) boundary conditions inappropriately affecting 

surface air quality over high-altitude and other locations. Initial sensitivity tests performed as 

part of the EPA model evaluation process indicated that this could be problematic in certain parts 

of the year. To remedy this problem, EPA capped the ozone levels within the upper levels of the 

GEOS-Chem boundary conditions to 70 ppb, in effect removing the potential for stratospheric 

ozone to impact the surface layer. Additionally, our testing showed that most episodes of 

stratospheric (or upper tropospheric) intrusions into the surface boundary layer occur outside the 

period between May and September. We are only using the 153 days between May 1st and 

September 30th to estimate the ozone impacts of the RFS2 program. More details on the 

aforementioned sensitivity tests and the ozone modeling period will be contained in the air 

quality modeling Technical Support Document (AQ TSD) that accompanies the final 

rulemaking. 

Finally, the issue of aromatic impacts on SOA formation is included in our air quality 

discussion because aromatic emissions can change with increased renewable fuel use and can 

therefore impact ambient SOA concentrations. As discussed in Section 3.4.1.2.2 of the RIA, 

toluene is an important contributor to anthropogenic SOA. Other aromatic compounds 

contribute as well, but the extent of their contribution has not yet been quantified. Mobile 

sources are the most significant contributor to ambient toluene concentrations as shown by 

analyses done for the 2002 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) (U.S. EPA, 2009) and the 

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Rule (U.S. EPA, 2007). Levels of toluene and other 

aromatics in gasoline are potentially influenced by the amount of ethanol blended into the fuel. 

The high octane quality of ethanol greatly reduces the need for and levels of other high-octane 

components such as toluene (which is the major aromatic compound in gasoline). Since 

8-12
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

toluene contributes to SOA and the toluene level of gasoline is decreasing, it is important to 

assess the effect of these reductions on ambient PM. 

Therefore, EPA did estimate emissions of aromatics for our emissions and air quality 

modeling of the impacts of RFS2 fuel volumes, as discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.3 of the RIA. 

In addition to developing emission inventories for explicit model species in CMAQ, we also 

developed inventories for a large number of precursor compounds, including aromatics, through 

application of speciation profiles in SMOKE (see also Section 3.4.1.2 of the RIA). We collected 

and analyzed new data on impacts of increased ethanol (E10 and E85) on aromatics and other 

compounds for Tier 2 vehicles, and developed new profiles for this rule (EPA 2009a). We used 

separate profiles for older vehicles that also account for ethanol impacts (Environ 2008), and 

accounted for the mix of Tier 1 and Tier 2 vehicles. Thus, the statement that we only accounted 

for impacts on benzene is incorrect. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.1.2.2 of the RIA, researchers recently developed a new 

aromatic SOA chemical mechanism that takes into account both the impact of NOx on SOA 

formation and the contribution of benzene to SOA formation (Henze et al., 2007). EPA has 

updated the SOA chemical mechanism in CMAQ v4.7 by using this new mechanism, along with 

(1) laboratory-determined thermodynamic enthalpies of vaporization and SOA to SOC 

(secondary organic carbon) ratios, (2) SOA contributions from sesquiterpenes, isoprene, and 

benzene and (3) an elementary treatment of acid catalyzed isoprene (Bhave et al., 2009). The 

impact of the new SOA mechanism has been fully evaluated using tracer-based SOA data as well 

as the more directly measured ambient OC concentrations. (Foley et al., 2009; Bhave 2009). 

References: 

Arunachalam, S., A. Holland, B. Do, and M. Abraczinskas, (2006), A Quantitative Assessment 

of the Influence of Grid Resolution on Predictions of Future-Year Air Quality In North Carolina, 

USA, Atmospheric Environment, 40 (26), 5010-5026. 

Bhave, P (2009) How Have PM Model Estimates Improved with Advances in Aerosol Process 

Representations? Board of Scientific Counselors Meeting, June 2009 

http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/presentations/Air_Jun09/1-30_Bhave_poster.pdf 

Bhave, P, C Nolte, K Foley, W Appel, A Carlton, S Napelenok (2009) Modeling Atmospheric 

Particulate Matter: Description and Evaluation of the CMAQ Aerosol Module (1.3). 

http://www.epa.gov/asmdnerl/peer/posters/Abstract_1.3.pdf. 

Cohan, D.S., Y. Hu, A.G. Russell, (2006), “Dependence of ozone sensitivity analysis on grid 

resolution”, Atmospheric Environment, 40, 126-135. 

ENVIRON International Corporation. 2008. Emission profiles for EPA SPECIATE database. 

EPA Contract No: EP-C-06-094. Available in the docket for this rule. 

8-13
Chapter 8: Impacts on Criteria (NAAQS) and Toxic Pollutants 

Foley, KM., SJ Roselle, KW Appel, PV Bhave, JE Pleim, TL Otte, R Mathur, G Sarwar, JO 

Young, RC Gilliam, CG Nolte, JT Kelly, AB Gilliland, JO Bash (2009) Incremental testing of 

the community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) modeling system version 4.7, Geosci. Model Dev. 

Discuss., 2: 1245-1297. http://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/2/1245/2009/. 

Gego, E., H. Hogreffe, G. Kallos, A. Voudouri, J. Irwin, and S. T. Rao, (2005), “Examination of 

Model Predictions at Different Horizontal Grid Resolutions”, Environmental Fluid Mechanics, 5, 

63-85. 

Griffin RJ, DR Cocker III, RC Flagan, JH Seinfeld (1999) Organic aerosol formation from 

oxidation of biogenic hydrocarbons, J Geophys Res 104: 3555-3567. 

Henze DK, JH Seinfeld (2006) Global secondary organic aerosol from isoprene oxidation. 

Geophys Res Lett 33: L09812. doi:10.1029/2006GL025976. 

Henze, DK, JH Seinfeld, NL Ng, JH Kroll, TM Fu, DJ Jacob, CL Heald (2007) Global modeling 

of secondary organic aerosol formation from aromatic hydrocarbons: High- vs. low-yield 

pathways, Atmos Chem Phys Discuss, 7: 14569–14601. www.atmos-chem-physdiscuss.net/7/14569/2007/. http://puck.che.caltech.edu/~daven/home/pubs/acpd-7-14569-2007-

print.pdf. 

Jaoui M, M Lewandowski, TE Kleindienst, JH Offenberg, EO Edney (2007) â -Caryophyllinic 

acid: An atmospheric tracer for â-caryophyllene secondary organic aerosol. Geophys Res Lett 

34: L05816. doi:10.1029/2006GL028827. 

Ng NL, JH Kroll, AWH Chan, PS Chabra, RC Flagan, JH Seinfeld (2007) Secondary organic 

aerosol formation from m-xylene, toluene, and benzene. Atmos Chem Phys 7: 3909-3922. 

U.S. EPA (2009a). Exhaust Emission Profiles for EPA SPECIATE Database: Engery Policy Act 

(EPAct) Low-Level Ethanol Fuel Blends and Tier 2 Light-Duty Vehicles. EPA-20-R-09-002, 

June 2009. 

U. S. EPA. (2009b) 2002 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002/risksum.html

U. S. EPA (2007) Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from 

Mobile Sources Rule, Chapter 3, Air Quality and Resulting Health and Welfare Effects of Air 

Pollution from Mobile Sources. 72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007. 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/420r07002.pdf 

8.3.2 Impacts of Proposed Standards on Future Air Quality and Mitigation of Negative 

Impacts 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2089 

8-14
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2089.1) is concerned that commitments to increase the use of renewable fuels 

for the purposes of energy security and GHG emissions reductions have been made without 

sufficient study of the potential adverse air quality and human health impacts. The commenter 

points out that EPA’s estimates of increases in upstream and downstream emissions of NOx, HC, 

PM, and acetaldehyde are not small and the renewable fuel standards program could 

substantially increase air pollution and imperil public health. 

The commenter (2089.1) believes that as increased volumes of renewable fuels displace gasoline, 

emissions will increase significantly unless appropriately rigorous controls are put in place now. 

Therefore, they urge strongly that before EPA takes final action on this rule, the agency ensure 

that the full range of air quality impacts of the RFS - upstream and downstream- is 

comprehensively quantified, that appropriate mitigation measures are identified and that 

provisions for timely implementation of these mitigation measures are included in the final rule 

(e.g., BACT review for all pollutants). (2089.1, Page 3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2354 

Organization: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

Comment:

The commenter (2354) is concerned that without appropriate complementary strategies the 

proposed program could result in adverse effects on criteria pollutants and air toxics. 

The commenter (2354) is concerned about the projected increases in VOC and NOx emissions 

because of possibility of non-attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. Also, the projected 

increase in SO2 emissions represents a setback to multiple air quality issues such as PM levels, 

regional haze, and acid rain. 

 

The commenter (2354) is very concerned about impacts on air toxics (acrolein) resulting from 

implementation of RFS2. The potential of increases in the evaporative emissions of air toxics 

from motor vehicles represents a significant public health threat. The commenter (2354) urges 

EPA to mitigate these impacts by strengthening existing regulatory strategies that address these 

negative air impacts. The commenter (2354) suggests that one option would be to ensure that 

federally mandated reductions from other transportation sources occur, such as more stringent 

tailpipe standards. Another is to tighten permitting requirements (e.g., BACT reviews) for 

biofuel production facilities. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1032 

Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Comment:

The commenter (1032.1) noted that EPA commented that the proposed expanded RFS Program 

will “result in significant increases in ethanol and acetaldehyde emissions-increasing the total 

U.S. inventories of these pollutants by up to 30-40 percent in 2022 relative to the RFS1 mandate 

case,” and with “more modest but still significant increases” in oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 

formaldehyde, and particulate emissions. These EPA comments indicate that increased use of 

renewable fuels under an expanded RFS program would result in a potential negative impact on 

8-15
Chapter 8: Impacts on Criteria (NAAQS) and Toxic Pollutants 

criteria pollutant emissions that are of critical importance for compliance with the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground level ozone, primarily volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and NOx emissions. Ground level ozone is created by a photochemical 

reaction of VOC and NOx emissions in the presence of sunlight. Additionally, acetaldehyde and 

formaldehyde are of concern from an air toxics perspective. (1032.1, p.1) 

The commenter has implemented a number of regulatory air quality control strategies in its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to reduce VOC and NOx emissions in the areas of Texas 

that have been designated by the EPA as nonattainment for ground level ozone. The commenter 

is concerned that the adoption of the proposed rules to expand the RFS program may have a 

negative impact on the efforts of the State of Texas to meet its SIP goals. (1032.1, p.1) 

The commenter (1032.1) recommends that the EPA reevaluate the appropriateness of requiring 

the increased use of renewable fuels in areas of the nation that are designated by the EPA as 

nonattainment areas under the NAAQS for ground level ozone or in areas that are considered to 

be near-nonattainment areas. (1032.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment:

The commenter (2143) argues that the discussion of environmental impact is inadequate and 

deprives public in submitting meaningful comments. (2143.2,p.9) 

 

The commenter (2143) urges the need to discuss and mitigate the increase in criteria and toxic air 

pollutant emissions and the impact on NAAQS as result of this rule.(2143.2,p.9). 

The commenter (2143) suggests that the issue of increase in toxic emissions must be addressed. 

(2143.2, p.10) Specifically, the commenter suggests that the EPA “take regulatory steps to 

ensure that the gasoline benzene reduction potential of renewable fuel blending is achieved in 

practice” and promulgate tailpipe standards for appropriate specific toxics. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2375 

Organization: Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee 

Comment: 

The commenter (2375.1) is concerned about the potential impact of the proposed rule on regional 

ground level ozone and particulate matter levels. The commenter believes that if the rule is 

implemented as proposed, EPA should mitigate the potential impacts and adopt appropriate, 

timely, and cost-effective controls that can be implemented on a national and regional scale. 

(2375.1, p.1) 

The commenter noted that EPA did not provide any results from air quality monitoring studies in 

the analysis that would enable a region to better understand the likely air quality impacts as a 

region develop plans to meet the new standard. The commenter believes that a comprehensive 

federal analysis of anticipated air quality impacts is essential before finalizing the proposal. EPA 

should initiate strong proactive steps to mitigate the anticipated increase in emissions through 

other regulatory initiatives. (2375.1, p.1) 

8-16
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2241 

Organization: Alliance for a Safe Alternative Fuels Environment (ALLSAFE) and the 

Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) 

Comment:

The commenter (2241) noted that EISA created a new CAA Section 211(v), which requires that 

EPA conduct a study of the potential air quality impacts of fuels and prevent air quality 

deterioration by promulgating regulations “that mitigate, to the greatest extent achievable, any 

adverse impacts on air quality” caused by the RFS2 mandates. EPA indicated in the RFS2 

preamble that it will have local air quality modeling completed for the final rule. As this 

modeling should constitute the EISA required study, EPA must mitigate air quality impacts in 

the final rule by ensuring that fuels and fuel additives do not negatively impact air quality. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2466) urges EPA to pursue a vigorous assessment of these effects and establish 

rigorous anti-backsliding provisions for air and water quality to ensure that increased production 

of renewable fuels does not increase air and water pollution. Alternatively, the commenter 

encourages EPA to waive the RFS2 volume requirements if appropriate, until such time as the 

potentially adverse environmental impacts are mitigated. 

The commenter (2466) points out that EPA states in the preamble to the proposed rule that the 

increased use of renewable fuels would also impact criteria pollutant emissions and there is a 

potential for increased emissions of acetaldehyde, acrolein, and other air toxics if the RFS 

volume requirements are implemented. (2466.1.pdf, p6,7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) lists specific concerns about air quality modeling and refers EPA to a 

report that provides an in-depth discussion of the issues. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 72]] [[See 

docket number 2393.1, pp. 71-73 and docket number 2393.7, Attachment 6 for further discussion 

of this issue.]]. In the report, the commenter is concerned that EPA had not yet performed the 

modeling required to assess the impacts of the RFS2 on ambient air quality and argues that this 

renders the DRIA incomplete and makes it impossible to provide informed comments. 

The commenter argues that EISA requires EPA to study air quality impacts and make a 

determination whether or not increased renewable fuels will adversely impact air quality as a 

result of changes in vehicle and engine emissions of air pollutants, and it would be beneficial if 

EPA publishes guidance on measuring “anti-backsliding” that will allow for a timely response. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0983 

Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (0983) argues that ethanol causes more pollution than gasoline when burned. 

8-17
Chapter 8: Impacts on Criteria (NAAQS) and Toxic Pollutants 

The commenter states, “Using ethanol actually creates more smog than using regular gasoline, 

and the EPA’s own attorneys had to admit that fact in front of the justices presiding over the 

Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995 (API v. EPA). First, the primary job of the 

Environmental Protection Agency is to protect our environment. Raising the pollution does not 

adhere to the principle, ‘Do no harm.’ Ethanol does harm. Increasing the percentage of ethanol 

increases the harm.” 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2421 

Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2421) believes that in coordination with EPA final action on this proposed 

renewable fuel regulation, the agency should quickly propose and put in place appropriate 

measures that would mitigate any air quality impacts associated with the final renewable fuels 

standard. (2421.1, p.5) 

Our Response 

The final rule presents the results of our modeling to determine the incremental air 

quality impacts of the renewable fuel standards, as compared to two reference cases: a 2022 

baseline projection based on the RFS1-mandated volume of 7.1 billion gallons of renewable 

fuels, and a 2022 baseline projection based on the AEO 2007 volume of 13.6 gallons of 

renewable fuels. While the process of modeling air quality impacts began in the earlier stages of 

this rulemaking, due to the considerable length of time required to conduct this modeling, EPA 

did not complete it in time to publish it in the NRPM. 

Like the commenters, EPA is concerned about the potential for negative air quality 

impacts of the renewable fuel standards finalized in this rule. The results of the air quality 

modeling conducted for this rule are presented in Section VI.D of the preamble and Section 3.4 

of the RIA. In addition to air quality modeling, EPA reviewed the literature on evaluation of 

renewable fuel impacts using air quality monitoring data (Section 3.4 of the RIA). 

The air quality modeling conducted for this rule does not constitute the “anti-backsliding” 

study required by Clean Air Act section 211(v). That study, and any regulatory measures to 

mitigate air quality impacts considering the results of that study, are separate from this 

rulemaking action. The anti-backsliding study is required to include consideration of “different 

blend levels, types of renewable fuels, and available vehicle technologies.” In addition, the antibacksliding exercise will be able to include inventory improvements, including additional 

emissions test data, that we could not include in this rulemaking analysis due to time constraints. 

While some commenters argued that the RFS2 requirements should be waived until mitigation 

measures are in place, EISA includes deadlines for EPA action in issuing the RFS2 regulations, 

the 211(v) anti-backsliding study, and any regulations designed to mitigate the adverse impacts 

identified in the 211(v) study. These deadlines clearly demonstrate that Congress did not intend 

that the RFS2 regulations be delayed pending completion of either the study or issuance of 

mitigation measures. As to the suggestion that EPA waive the RFS2 volume mandates until 

such time as adverse environmental impacts are mitigated, EPA notes that its general waiver 

authority requires a determination that implementation of the standards would severely harm the 

8-18
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

economy or environment of a State, a region or the United States, or that there is inadequate 

domestic supply to fulfill the mandates. EPA's analyses to date do not indicate that the criteria 

for issuing a waiver are present at this time. However, EPA may exercise this general waiver 

authority at any time on its own motion or in response to a petition. We also note that EISA does 

not provide EPA with authority to exempt ozone nonattainment areas from the RFS2 standards 

and the statute clearly envisioned that to the extent that adverse impacts occurred, they would be 

mitigated by additional regulations. 

 

EPA appreciates the commenters’ specific suggestions on measures for mitigation of 

negative air quality impacts. EPA will consider these suggestions in the context of rulemaking 

under CAA section 211(v). One of the commenters suggested that EPA should publish guidance 

on measuring anti-backsliding that will allow for a “timely response”; because EPA is 

conducting the anti-backsliding study, this is not necessary. The draft anti-backsliding study will 

be released for comment, as required by CAA section 211(q). 

8.4 Health and Environmental Effects of Criteria and Air Toxic Pollutants 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0984 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment: 

The commenter (0984) noted that there has been virtually no toxicology research conducted to 

date that directly compares biodiesel and diesel in the same well conceived experiment 

specifically designed to evaluate a number of relevant health-effect endpoints in a biological 

system. The toxicology research community has been engaged in research related to diesel and 

other mobile source air pollutants for several decades. As a result of these investigations, 

petroleum diesel exhaust today is recognized to induce tissue-specific and systemic 

inflammation, aggravated allergic disease, and cardiopulmonary injury. Biodiesel is a monoalkyl ester derived from either edible or non-edible plant oils and can be used unblended or 

blended with traditional petroleum diesel in an unmodified diesel engine. The chemistry of 

biodiesel is different than that of petroleum diesel and therefore the combustion processes and 

emissions profiles are disparate. It is plausible that different types of feedstocks used in biodiesel 

production and the requisite fuel additives may produce or contribute to combustion products 

that exceed current emissions regulations in some locations and could adversely affect human 

health. (0984, pp.1-2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2010; EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2011; EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-2013; EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2123 

Organizations: SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC; Western Dubuque Biodiesel, LLC; Central Iowa 

Energy, LLC; Renewable Energy Group® 

Comment: 

The commenters (2010, 2011, 2013, 2023) state that initial studies have shown a dramatic 

reduction in particulate matter for biodiesel emissions when compared to regular diesel. And, 

specific additional studies are being completed such as one published this year, “Release of the 

8-19
Chapter 8: Impacts on Criteria (NAAQS) and Toxic Pollutants 

8-20

Pro-Inflammatory Markers by BEAS-2B Cells Following In Vitro Exposure to Biodiesel 

Extracts,” Swanson et. al. This study demonstrated that the organic extracts of biodiesel can 

increase the amount of healthy cells which can counteract the damaged cells resulting from petro 

diesel emissions. While more studies need to be completed; the commenter believes it’s apparent 

and should not be overlooked that biodiesel may actually increase positive health related effects 

and should be accounted for with an economic and health social cost in an LCA. [[Docket 

number 2010.1, p. 12]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2510 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2510) states that all their employees know that if we had a choice of sucking 

fumes from diesel truck using petroleum-based fuel or fumes from a French fry vat, we’re going 

with the fries. The commenter adds that biodiesel is better than 100% petroleum diesel - another 

reason to get on with using biodiesel and stop delaying the RFS2 program. [[Docket number 

2510.1, p. 6]] 

Our Response:

EPA’s assessment of the emission impacts resulting from the use of biodiesel is 

contained in the appendix to the RIA. These emission impacts were reflected in the emission 

inventory and air quality assessments also contained in the RIA (though the air quality analysis 

used draft estimates of the emission impacts of biodiesel). The use of biodiesel fuel seems to 

produce less PM, VOC, and CO emission than petroleum diesel, and slightly more NOx. The 

difference in composition, and resultant health impacts, of the PM may be different from that 

from conventional diesel. Under the fuel registration regulations at 40 CFR 79, the National 

Biodiesel Board conducted health-effects testing on biodiesel in the late 1990’s and EPA had that 

information reviewed by a contractor. While regulatory responsibility for health effects testing 

resides with manufacturers under Clean Air Act section 211(b), EPA’s Office of Research and 

Development is conducting some research in this area. It has in vitro and installation studies 

underway, development of test strategies for animal inhalation studies, and studies of formation 

of reaction products from biodiesel exhaust. 

Commenters 2010, 2022, 2013 and 2023 noted that biodiesel may improve health and 

that these improvements should be included in an economic benefits analysis. As stated above, 

the estimated emission impacts of biodiesel were reflected in our air quality modeling, which 

was then used in our assessment of the monetized health impacts of the increased use of 

renewable fuels needed to meet the RFS2 standards. The impacts of biodiesel are reflected along 

with those for the other renewable fuels. In addition, the emission impacts were treated the same 

as those from other fuels (i.e., the PM emissions from biodiesel were treated the same as PM 

from other sources). 
EPA-420-R-10-003

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Summary and Analysis of 

Comments

Chapter 9

Costs
9 COSTS

9.1 Renewable Fuel Production Costs 9-1 

9.2 Distribution Costs 9-4 

9.3 Total Estimated Cost Impacts 9-5 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

9 COSTS

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section correspond to Section VIII of the preamble to the proposed 

rule and address impacts of the program on costs of the program. A summary of the comments 

received and our response to those comments are located below (and in Section VII of the 

preamble to the final rule). 

9.1 Renewable Fuel Production Costs

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: Varied 

Organization: Renewable Energy Group, SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC, Western Dubuque 

Biodiesel LLC, Central Iowa Energy, LLC, et al. 

Comment: 

Referring to cost impacts of renewable fuel and glycerin as a co-product, the commenter (1015) 

notes that given the rapid growth of national biodiesel production, this non petroleum based coproduct has lead to significant ongoing research at USDA-ARS and several top agricultural 

universities. This research has stimulated new applications for both crude and refined glycerin in 

several industries domestically and overseas. The commenter adds that the market average price 

for crude 80% basis glycerin is $0.1175, as reported by the Jacobsen Fats & Oils Bulletin 

between 1/ 2008 to 7/ 2009. The highest price was reported last year of $0.30/lbs. Glycerin will 

continue to be a valuable co-product for vegetable and fats based biodiesel. [[Docket number 

2123.1, pp. 4-5]] 

The commenter concludes that the final rule implemented by EPA will dramatically impact the 

biodiesel industry. Manufacturing facilities are running much below capacity or are shut down. 

Credit markets continue to be tight until lenders see signs of confidence from agencies like EPA. 

The commenter is seeing signs that the petroleum industry is delaying biodiesel purchases until 

rules are in place, in turn, making working capital difficult to obtain. [[Docket number 2123.1, p. 

16]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2510 

Organization: Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2510) states that as research continues, new uses for glycerin are coming to the 

table everyday, again reducing some of the need for foreign oil and its derivatives. [[Docket 

number 2510.1, p. 3]] 

Our Response: 

9-1
Chapter 9: Costs 

We have adjusted glycerin co-product price to $0.15/lb (2007$) to better reflect new uses. 

Though prices may go higher, to be conservative we chose this value as a sort of baseline, 

equivalent to glycerin’s heating value based on our control case refinery modeling work. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2021 

Organization: Fulcrum Energy 

Comment:

The commenter (2021.1) noted that EPA requested comments on the costs of sorting urban waste 

and the costs avoided by diverting cellulosic materials from landfills. The commenter has done 

extensive analysis regarding the processing of urban waste into a feedstock suitable for 

conversion technologies. The commenter concluded that the processing costs are generally less 

than $10 per ton (far lower than expected tipping fees for waste), which demonstrates that urban 

waste is in fact a zero or negative cost feedstock. The commenter noted that the processing costs 

for a waste-to-fuels feedstock preparation facility require much less commodity-driven 

separation, less labor and benefit from the ability to shred and reduce the incoming waste to a 

more manageable size that enables the facility to meet its sole objective: remove the inorganics 

from the waste stream. The remaining material organic and reduced in size makes excellent 

feedstock for a gasifier, which is capable of handling a heterogeneous stream of waste for 

conversion to synthesis gas. (2021.1, p.42-44) 

Our Response: 

We have added text to Section 4.1.1.2.1 discussing the research by Fulcrum, as well as 

other companies intending to use MSW as a feedstock for the production of biofuels, that 

indicates MSW may be available as a zero or even negative cost material. While this may be the 

case for the scenarios Fulcrum has investigated, we believe there are several factors that will 

cause the average price of MSW for use as a biofuel feedstock to be higher. First, in order for 

MSW to be eligible as a feedstock, a certain level of separation of recyclable materials must first 

occur, including separation of not only inorganic material (glass and metals), but also inorganic 

materials such as paper and plastics. Furthermore, some biofuel processes, especially 

biochemical processes, may be more sensitive to contaminated materials and therefore require an 

even more thorough and costly separation of waste materials. Additionally, we believe that 

while initial sources of MSW may indeed be zero cost feedstocks, the average cost of MSW will 

increase as additional quantities of MSW are used for biofuel production and more expensive 

sources are utilized. Competition for MSW from other biofuel producers as well as waste to 

energy companies may further increase the cost of MSW. For our final rule we have adjusted the 

cost of MSW downward, assuming that it is available at a cost of $15 per ton if sourced from 

within the same count as the biofuel production facility. If the MSW is being brought in from 

neighboring counties and additional transportation cost is added. 

What Commenters Said:

9-2
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2048 

Organization: BioPure Fuels 

Comment:

The commenter (2048.1) supports the implementation of the RFS2 regardless of consumer cost. 

However, the commenter believes the oil companies will try to fight the rule adoption in other 

states, nationally or internationally by pointing out the impact it could have on fuel cost. (2048.1, 

p.7) 

Our Response: 

After proposing the RFS2 program, EPA gathered all comments advocating both for and 

against the proposed program or aspects of the proposed program. We considered all these 

comments and reassessed the program partially on these comments. We then issued the final 

rulemaking. 

The cost impacts are one of the many impacts of the program that we assess and consider. 

Since we proposed the RFS2 program, the Department of Energy has reevaluated its crude oil 

prices and now believes that crude oil prices will be much higher in the future. If crude oil prices 

will be as high as projected, our analysis shows that the RFS2 program will cause a cost savings 

in the future, not a cost increase. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2311 

Organization: Wyoming Refining Company 

Comment:

The commenter (2311.1) believes that that the financial burden of compliance with the proposed 

rules will be so great as to seriously threaten the continued business existence of one or more 

Small Business Refiners in Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PADD) IV. (2311.1, 

p.2) [[See Docket Number 2311.1 pp.2-5 for detailed discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

While the RFS2 standards as written by Congress will have impacts on all refiners, we 

don’t believe that the RFS2 renewable fuels requirement will cause a large impact on PADD IV 

refiners as expected by the commenter. As discussed in Section 7 of the RIA, we estimate that 

the costs to small refiners will in all cases be less than 1 percent including PADD IV refiners. In 

addition, as crude oil prices rise and renewable fuels prices fall, these costs will be further 

minimized. 

Since the program is a nationwide average program with credits (RINs) being traded 

nationwide to demonstrate compliance, the economic impacts in PADD IV should be similar to 

the impacts nationwide. Furthermore, since the obligation is a function of gasoline and diesel 

fuel production, the economic impacts on an annual average basis for small refiners are reduced 

in proportion to their production volume. 

9-3
Chapter 9: Costs 

9.2 Distribution Costs 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter questions the accuracy of EPA’s cost estimates for installing E85 refueling 

equipment, adding that EPA’s rationalization of the costs of the E85 upgrade fails to account for 

the upfront affordability of this upgrade. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

The commenter stated that the cost of installing one underground storage tank, related piping 

dispensers would range from $200 to $600 thousand. The commenter stated this would be 

extremely burdensome for independent retailers and that the time needed to complete such 

installations would contribute to an extended delay before renewable fuels can be safely and 

legally stored and dispensed at retail facilities. 

Our Response:

While the RFS2 standards could be met using a range of different renewable fuels, for 

our analysis of the impacts of the standards, we have assumed a large portion would be met with 

ethanol, some of which is in the form of E85. To cost this out, we project the need for a 

significant number of new E85 retail dispensers and storage tanks at existing fuel retail facilities. 

Our cost estimates are based on input from fuel retailers familiar with installation of E85 

facilities. We project that depending on the number of dispensers at a facility, the cost per 

facility would range from $130 to $175 thousand dollars (see Section 4.2 of the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis). We believe that given the projected crude oil costs in the future, the cost of 

ethanol may compare favorably to gasoline (see the response to the comment from the Engine 

Manufacturers Association [2147] in Section 6.4 of this document. Therefore, the demand for 

E85 may be sufficient for retailers to justify the installation of E85 dispensing/storage 

equipment. There are also government assistance programs in place that will help retailers 

recoup a significant fraction of the cost of installing E85 refueling equipment. 

We acknowledge that the timeline for the addition of new E85 facilities is aggressive. 

Nevertheless, we believe the addition of these numbers of new E85 facilities may be possible for 

the industries that manufacture and install E85 retail equipment. 

We believe that no changes to retail infrastructure will be needed to handle biodiesel 

blends up to 5% and blends of cellulosic distillate/renewable diesel fuel. 

 

9-4
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

9-5

9.3 Total Estimated Cost Impacts 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company 

Comment: 

Overly aggressive biofuel mandates are expensive because (1) both corn-based and cellulosic 

ethanol are costly to produce relative to conventional fuels, (2) a gallon of ethanol has only twothirds the energy content of a gallon of gasoline, and (3) corn-based ethanol production uses a 

significant amount of energy obtained from fossil fuels. MathPro estimates that replacing a 

barrel of crude oil with an energy-equivalent volume of ethanol would cost between $260 and 

$310 per barrel of crude displaced, depending upon the full cost of ethanol production. The 

MathPro cost estimates relied upon recent U.S. government estimates of the full costs of 

cellulosic ethanol: $3.50 to $4.00 per gallon – roughly twice the current cost of corn ethanol 

production. 

Our Response: 

Whether renewable fuels increases or decreases fuel costs is partially driven by the 

production cost of renewable biofuels. Since corn-based ethanol is largely phased in by the time 

the RFS2 program takes effect, the RFS2 program will mostly require expanded use of cellulosic 

ethanol and cellulosic diesel fuel. Therefore the costs of the program are dependent to a great 

extent on what happens with the cellulosic biofuel production costs over years that the program 

phases in. In the RIA we provide our projections for the production costs of cellulosic biofuels. 

Crude oil prices are another factor and they are expected to increase over the period that the 

RFS2 program is phasing-in. 

In our analysis, we estimate that the RFS2 program will be a zero cost program when 

crude oil is priced at $88 per barrel. At EIA’s projected crude oil price of $116 per barrel in 

2022, the RFS2 program is expected to incur a significant cost savings. 
EPA-420-R-10-003

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Summary and Analysis of 

Comments

Chapter 10

Economic Impacts and 

Benefits of the Rule
10 ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND BENEFITS OF THE RULE

10.1 Economic Impact Analysis 10-1 

10.2 Agricultural Impacts 10-7 

10.3 Energy Security Impacts 10-10 

10.4 Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions 10-13 

10.5 Economy-Wide Impacts 10-20

10-1
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

10 ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND BENEFITS OF THE RULE

The comments in this section correspond to Section IX of the preamble to the proposed 

rule and address economic impacts and benefits of the program. A summary of the comments 

received and our response to those comments are located below (please also see Section VIII of 

the preamble to the final rule for a further discussion of these issues). 

10.1 Economic Impact Analysis

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) agrees that the RFS is not likely to impact food prices, and incorporates 

by reference its comments on the Texas waiver request. The commenter noted that EPA’s 

analysis on food prices, while correct, is additional evidence that the RFS will have little, if any, 

impact on land use changes. (2329.1, p. 112-113) [[See Docket Number 2329.1, pp.112-113 for a 

detailed discussion of the Economic Analysis]] 

Our Response: 

EPA’s analysis of the RFS2 rule estimates that there will be a modest impact on both 

U.S. food prices and land use as a result of the rule. For instance, the FASOM model estimates 

that requiring the Control Case renewable fuel volumes results in an increase in U.S. corn price 

of roughly $0.27 per bushel (8.2 percent) above the AEO 2007 Reference Case price in 2022. 

By 2022, FASOM projects that U.S. soybean prices increase by $1.02 per bushel (10.3 percent) 

above the AEO 2007 Reference Case soybean price. Higher corn and soybean prices also result 

in higher meat prices. In 2022, it is estimated that the average price for all meat production in 

the FASOM model increases by 0.1 percent. Due to higher agricultural commodity prices, 

FASOM estimates that U.S. food costs increase by roughly $10 per person per year by 2022, 

relative to the AEO 2007 Reference Case. Total effective farm gate food costs increase by $3.6 

billion (0.2 percent) in 2022. To put these changes in perspective, average U.S. per capita food 

expenditures in 2007 were $3,778 or approximately 10 percent of personal disposable income. 

The RFS2 rule is also anticipated to have modest impacts on land use patterns in the U.S. 

In 2022, FASOM projects that total cropland increases by 3.1 million acres (1.0 percent) relative 

to the Reference Case. The increase in cropland is derived primarily from a combination of 

decreased idle cropland acres, a decrease in idled cropland pasture acres, and a decrease in forest 

acres. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2107 

10-1
Chapter 10: Economic Impacts and Benefits of the Rule 

Organization: Goldsboro Milling Company 

Comment: 

The commenter (2107.1) noted that economists have shown that EPA models of the RFS2 

severely underestimate its effects on consumer food prices. The commenter requests that in 

EPA’s final analysis, they work to include a more comprehensive study on commodities, which 

have a direct impact on food prices. (2107.1, p.2)

Our Response:

EPA’s analysis of the RFS2 rule estimates that there will be a modest impact on U.S. 

food prices as a result of the rule. See previous response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

(Renewable Fuels Association). 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2317 

Organization: National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2317) agrees with EPA that the RFS program has not had any meaningful effect 

on food prices. EPA should confirm this conclusion in the final rule. [[Docket number 2317.1, 

pp. 43-44]] 

Our Response:

EPA’s analysis of the RFS2 rule estimates that there will be a modest impact on U.S. 

food prices as a result of the rule. See previous response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

(Renewable Fuels Association). 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2047 

Organization: Terrabon 

Comment: 

Commenter [[2071]] states the rule’s exclusive focus on crop-based feedstocks undermines the 

sustainability of the biofuel industry as a whole. The Texas biofuel industry is illustrative. With 

the record costs of corn, fanners supplanted soybeans with corn, which led to a significant lack of 

feedstock supply for biofuel producers in Texas. As a result of the limited feedstock supply, at 

least two Texas biodiesel plants were forced to cease operations. [[#2071.1 p.5]] 

Our Response: 

A variety of different renewable fuels are capable of qualifying for use under the RFS2 

rule. The RFS2 rule allows for renewable fuel to be produced from a variety of feedstocks. These 

feedstocks can be crop-based, crop residues, waste-based, or dedicated energy crops. Most of the 

10-2
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

expanded RFS2 volume requirements must come from cellulosic feedstock sources. While there 

are specific definitional requirements for each feedstock, the Act allows the market to determine 

which feedstock will be used to satisfy the EISA volume requirements, assuming that feedstock 

meets the applicable greenhouse gas reduction threshold and renewable biomass definition 

requirements. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2074 

Organization: GreenShift Corporation 

Comment: 

EPA estimated in its impact assessment that corn oil extraction after fermentation will be 

incorporated in about 20 percent of ethanol plant production by the year 2022. The commenter 

(2074) believes this number is much too low. Today’s penetration of corn oil extraction 

technology is about 12 percent, representing only systems with the initial efficiency of extracting 

30 percent of the available oil. In the next 10 to 15 years, the commenter suggests the majority of 

the industry will add corn oil extraction, including new extraction technology, as a means to add 

revenue, reduce costs and decrease GHG emissions, all at the same time. [[Docket number 2074, 

p. 4]] 

Our Response: 

For the final rulemaking, EPA’s agricultural models have been updated with revised 

estimates for fractionation and extraction use in the future. Based on engineering cost analysis, it 

is expected that by 2022, 70% of dry mill corn ethanol plants will adopt extraction technology, 

20% will adopt fractionation technology, and 10% will not adopt either technology. Corn oil 

that is withdrawn from the extraction process is not food-grade, and is considered only suitable 

as a biodiesel feedstock. By 2022, it is estimated that corn oil from extraction is a significant 

contributor to the biodiesel volume required by the RFS2 rule. Corn oil that is withdrawn via the 

fractionation process is considered food-grade, and is assumed to only enter those markets due to 

favorable economics there. 

Additional information regarding the assumptions behind corn oil extraction can be found 

in chapters 1, 2, and 5 of the RIA, as well as in the technical reports on the FASOM and FAPRI 

models for the final rulemaking analysis. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2112.1) noted that the economy wide impact analysis was not completed when 

the rule was written. Without that analysis, EPA anticipated the need for taxes to increase to pay 

for this rule. The benefits from the rule should be sufficient to pay for the implementation of the 

10-3
Chapter 10: Economic Impacts and Benefits of the Rule 

RFS. EPA does not understand that building a biofuel infrastructure will also enhance the 

environment. Although EPA’s entire analytical effort is biased against biofuel adoption, it 

doesn’t change the fact that increasing energy independence and economic growth (the supply, 

demand, and technical efficiency of biofuel production) will reduce ancient carbon emissions 

and promote sequestration. However, the opposite is not true. Reducing carbon emissions will 

not promote energy independence and economic growth. (2112.1, p.3) 

The commenter noted that EPA chose to remove military effects from their work on the basis 

that it is too difficult, but constructed a global indirect land use model with limited data. The 

commenter noted that it is not clear why one analysis was deemed unworkable, while the other 

apparently unworkable analysis was deemed ok. (2112.1, p.12) 

Our Response: 

As the commenter notes, for the RFS2 proposal an economy-wide analysis was not 

undertaken. However, for the final RFS2 rule, EPA did conduct an economy-wide analysis. As 

described in the January 11, 2010 Memorandum to Docket Re: Economy-Wide Impacts of the 

Renewable Fuels Standard, our analysis shows that the combined impact of higher agricultural 

commodity prices and higher transportation fuel prices decrease U.S. GDP in the early years of 

the program. However, the costs of renewable fuels are projected to decrease over time, while 

the cost of petroleum products is projected to increase significantly over time. By 2016, 

renewable fuels are projected to be cheaper than the gasoline and diesel that they replace. By 

2030, the impacts of lower transportation fuel costs and lower world oil prices outweigh the 

impacts of higher agricultural commodities, resulting in an increase in U.S. GDP with the RFS2 

rule. 

EPA believes that all of the impacts of the RFS2 rule—including international impacts—

should be estimated when assessing the impacts of the rule. In the case of EPA’s analysis of the 

RFS2 rule’s impacts on agricultural commodities, it is well understood that domestic and 

international markets are linked by changes in the price of agricultural commodities and net 

exports of agricultural commodities. Thus, increasing use of renewable fuels in the U.S. will 

have market impacts that transmit to agricultural production patterns outside the U.S. and result 

in international land use change. Agricultural sector modeling tools have been used for decades 

to analyze the impacts of different policies on the price and production of different commodities 

worldwide. Therefore, we were able to use the well-established, peer-reviewed FAPRI/CARD 

model to estimate the amount of additional crop acres that would be brought into production as a 

result of the renewable fuel standard volumes. . 

In contrast, the link between energy security benefits and military expenditures to secure a steady 

flow of petroleum is less well understood and established. See related responses to comments by 

Renewable Energy Group (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1015), SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC (EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-2010), and Western Dubuque Biodiesel LLC (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-

2011) in Section 10.3 on Energy Security. 

What Commenters Said:

10-4
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2502 

Organization: Verenium Corporation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2502.1) believes that in its final cost-benefit analysis, EPA should provide full 

and fair consideration, e.g., through probabilistic analysis, of the economic and consumer 

benefits that can be expected over time from the addition of volumes to the total U.S. fuel supply 

called for by the RFS2 program. (2502.1, p.11) (See Docket Number 2502.1, pp.10-11 for a 

detailed discussion of this issue) 

Our Response: 

 For the final rulemaking, EPA has conducted a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the 

required renewable fuel volumes. Please refer to Section VIII of the preamble and Chapter 5 of 

the RIA for more detail about, and the results of, the economic impact analysis. While not all of 

the analyses lend themselves to thorough probabilistic analysis, we have conducted a 

probabilistic analysis of the quantified and monetized health impacts associated with the required 

renewable fuel volumes. We also present certain economic impact results in terms of ranges to 

reflect uncertainty when appropriate.

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) noted that under Executive Order 12866, EPA is required to analyze the 

economic impacts of the proposed regulation, and if significant, to obtain review by the Office of 

Management and Budget. EPA’s analysis is incomplete because it is missing an assessment of 

the costs to automakers, the public and others due to misfueling. The commenter also believes 

that EPA must conduct and publish this analysis for comment before finalizing the rule. (2132.1, 

p.7) [[See Docket Number 2132.1, pp.27-28 for detailed discussion on this issue]] 

Our Response: 

This issue is not unique to this rulemaking. E85 is already a fuel in the marketplace 

being supported by the Alliance and its members and already raises concerns of misfueling 

conventional vehicles on E85. It is for this very reason that the FTC is considering E85 pump 

label requirements, and why we proposed similar pump label requirements in the NPRM. 

Furthermore, while we have modeled its use, E85 is not required to be used by this program. It 

is up to the industry and marketplace to determine which renewable fuels are produced and how 

they are used in order to meet the RFS2 standards. E85 is one of several options currently being 

considered by industry. If E85 continues to be pursued and its use continues to grow, then the 

potential for such misfueling concerns may also grow, and as a result efforts to mitigate and 

alleviate potential in-use concerns should then be considered and investigated. Given the 

uncertainty in the future use of E85, the uncertainty in projecting misfueling rates in a future 

10-5
Chapter 10: Economic Impacts and Benefits of the Rule 

marketplace that looks very different from today's E85 market, and the uncertainty of potential 

misfueling mitigation measures, it is not possible at the present time to quantify costs associated 

with this potential misfueling, and we have no basis to believe that they would be large enough 

to have a significant impact on the overall economic impacts of the program. Finally, the 

standards we are setting were specified in EISA by Congress and are not being set on the basis of 

the economic impacts. Thus, there is no compelling need to assess these costs prior to finalizing 

the rule. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2305 

Organization: The Soap and Detergent Association 

Comment: 

The commenter [[2305]] stated that federal biofuel policies have persistently threatened its 

continued viability as a domestic industry. If animal fats are lost as a raw material to the 

oleochemical industry, the logical replacement for tallow is palm oil. However, a shift to palm 

oil will set the stage for the U.S. oleochemical industry to be lost to offshore producers. 

The commenter states that at present animal fats are competitively priced in comparison to palm 

oil. This is in turn allows U.S. domestic producers to compete effectively with palm oil-based 

competitors. However, if animal fats either become unavailable for oleochemical production 

because of government policies directing them to biodiesel production, or, they lose their price 

advantage for the same reason, the U.S. industry will be forced offshore to be near palm oil 

sources. It is critically important to understand that current policies threaten both availability 

and price. [[#2305.1 p.2]] 

Our Response: 

The RFS2 rule allows for renewable fuel to be produced from a variety of feedstocks. 

These feedstocks can be crop-based, crop residues, waste-based, or dedicated energy crops. The 

analysis presented in Chapter 1 of the RIA indicates that biodiesel could be produced from a 

number of sources, including soybean oil, yellow grease, fractionated corn oil, and animal fats. 

The volumes presented in Chapter 1 represent only one possible pathway for meeting the RFS2 

volume requirements. We expect that biodiesel will be produced from feedstocks on a least-cost 

basis. 

However, we are sensitive to the concerns raised by commenters that increases in 

renewable fuels will affect industries beyond the transportation and fuels industries. While we 

have attempted to model the economy-wide impacts of the RFS2 rule, as described in the 

January 11, 2010 Memorandum to Docket Re: Economy-Wide Impacts of the Renewable Fuels 

Standard, our current modeling framework does not have sufficient detail to determine the 

impact on the oleochemical industry. In addition, the commenter has not provided EPA will any 

specific data or information that can be used to estimate the impacts of the RFS2 on the 

oleochemical industry. 

 

10-6
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

It should be noted that Darling International, a large rendering company and marketer of 

rendered fats and recycled greases, submitted comments and analysis suggesting there would be 

adequate supply of this material for significantly increased use in renewable fuel production (see 

Docket item OAR-2005-0161-2151.2). They point out that only about 20 percent of rendered 

materials are currently used by the oleochemical industry, and suggest exports (totaling some 3 

billion lbs/yr, or about 30 percent of current supply) as a potential source of additional domestic 

feedstock. Another mitigating factor is increased contribution of non-food grade corn oil from 

dry mill ethanol production. We project this will bring as much as 5 billion lbs/yr of additional 

inedible and relatively low-cost feedstock to the market, helping to balance supply issues. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2112 

Organization: Biomass Rules, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2112.1) believes that the weak summary of the agricultural, forestry, MSW 

(none), and energy security costs and benefits are disappointing. Much of the text in the RFS2 

preamble on benefits is dedicated to explaining why these economic and energy security issues 

could not adequately be developed with EPA’s allotted time frame. (2112.1, p.3) 

Our Response: 

As detailed in the RIA, we have projected a wide range of costs and benefits associated 

with the increased use of renewable fuels needed to achieve the RFS2 standards. Most of these 

analyses have been updated considerably from the work done for the NPRM and have taken into 

account information provided to us during the public comment period. More work can always be 

done, but we balance our analyses to provide a perspective which is both sufficient and valuable 

on what the environmental and economic impacts are of increased renewable fuel use. 

10.2 Agricultural Impacts 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2305 

Organization: The Soap and Detergent Association 

Comment: 

Commenter [[2305]] states total fat and greases production has been flat over the last three years 

at circa 10 billion lbs according to the National Renderers Association (NRA). This includes 

everything from inedible tallow, hog grease, yellow grease, lard, edible tallow and poultry fat. 

Last year, 863 million lbs, or over 8% of the 10 billion lbs, went to biodiesel according to an 

NRA report. This was more than a 200% increase over the previous year. Over the last three 

years, fat prices have jumped from the mid teens (historical range) to as much as $0.50/lb. The 

U.S. oleochemical industry has historically used around 2 billion lbs of fats and greases as raw 

material for a viable and important contributor to the U.S. economy. If soya is excluded from 

qualification under the RFS2, then essentially 100 percent of United States fats and greases are 

likely to be consumed in meeting the biodiesel mandates. There would be nothing that the 

oleochemical industry could do to stop it. Unfortunately, even if soya is qualified under the 

10-7
Chapter 10: Economic Impacts and Benefits of the Rule 

RFS2, fat prices will likely rise to soya price which is almost equally catastrophic for 

oleochemical producers as described above. [[#2305.1 p.3-4]] 

Our Response: 

Based on the lifecycle analysis conducted for this final RFS2 rule, soybean-based 

biodiesel will qualify as a biomass-based diesel renewable fuel. Therefore, the commenters 

concern that 100 percent of the U.S. fats and greases will be needed to meet the biofuel mandates 

is not applicable. The RFS2 allows for renewable fuel to be produced from a variety of 

feedstocks. These feedstocks can be crop-based, crop residues and waste-based or dedicated 

energy crops. The analysis presented in Chapter 1 of the RIA indicates that biodiesel could be 

produced from a number of sources, including soybean oil, yellow grease, fractionated corn oil, 

and animal fats. In addition, EPA estimates that a significant contribution of non-food grade 

corn oil from dry mill ethanol production will be produced to meet the EISA biodiesel 

requirement. We project this will bring as much as 5 billion lbs/yr of additional inedible and 

relatively low-cost feedstock to the market, helping to balance supply issues. The volumes 

presented in Chapter 1 represent only one possible pathway for meeting the RFS2 volume 

requirements. In reality, we expect that biodiesel will be produced from feedstocks on a least 

cost basis. 

As renewable fuel volumes increase to meet the RFS2 volumes, the prices of all biodiesel 

feedstocks are generally expected to increase, not just the price of rendered fats. As described in 

Chapter 5 of the RIA, our analysis shows that soybean oil prices will also increase as a result of 

the RFS2 volume requirements. Therefore, it is unlikely that the biodiesel mandate will result in 

fat prices that rise to the same level as soybean oil prices. Since soybean oil has several higher 

value uses (e.g., as a food source) than rendered fats and oils, we expect that soybean oil prices 

will continue to remain higher than rendered fats and oil prices even with the higher biodiesel 

volumes required by the RFS2 rule.

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2138 

Organization: American Meat Institute, National Chicken Council, National Turkey 

Federation, Farm Econ LLC 

Comment: 

Commenter [[2138]] states that contrary to the EPA analysis in the NPRM, the RFS and other 

policies are likely the major cause of the increase in corn prices since 2005. The U.S. is the only 

country with a biofuel policy that subsidizes and encourages a grain-based ethanol industry. U.S. 

tax credits and the RFS have offered financial support and a guaranteed market for the use of 

corn to produce ethanol. Since the advent of the RFS the only major increase in GLOBAL grain 

demand has come from the U.S. ethanol sector. For that reason, we believe that in the absence of 

the RFS and direct subsidies the U.S. ethanol sector would be much smaller, and agricultural 

price much lower, than is the case today. We also believe that future increases in the RFS will 

exacerbate the current effects of the RFS. [[2138 p.12]] 

10-8
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response: 

We disagree with the commenter that the U.S. increase in renewable fuels is the only 

cause for the increase in agricultural commodities since 2005. A number of factors have 

contributed to the recent increase in corn prices, such as higher foreign demand for coarse grains, 

sustained drought in major international crop producing regions, and historically high energy 

prices. Furthermore, increasing world demand for vegetable oils can also contribute to higher 

overall agricultural commodity prices, including grains, since increased production of oil crops 

may crowd out production of alternate crops. Since the majority of additional renewable fuel 

required by the RFS2 must be cellulosic or advanced renewable fuels, our analysis shows that 

there will be only a modest increase in crop prices as a result of the RFS2 requirements. For 

instance, the FASOM model estimates that between the AEO2007 Reference Case and the 

Control Case renewable fuel volumes will result in an increase in the U.S. corn price of $0.27 per 

bushel (8.2 percent) above the Reference Case price in 2022. By 2022, FASOM projects that 

U.S. soybean prices increase by $1.02 per bushel (10.3 percent) above the Reference Case price. 

Higher corn and soybean prices also result in higher meat prices. In 2022, it is estimated that the 

average price for all meat production in the FASOM model increases by 0.1 percent. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2010, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2011, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-2013 

Organization: SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC, Western Dubuque Biodiesel LLC, Central Iowa 

Energy, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (2010) states that FASOM assumes the increased cost/person for food due to 

higher usage of soy biodiesel in 2022 without considering the policy impacts of banning trans fat 

by policy makers. Data from the U.S. census bureau shows a 56% drop in soy oil used for baking 

and frying since 2002. The commenter adds that even as soy oil used for baking and frying has 

dropped dramatically, soy oil used to produce biodiesel in the U.S. has declined 35% from July 

2007 to May 2008. [[Docket number 2010.1, pp. 13-14]], [[Docket number 2011.1, pp. 13-14]] 

Our Response: 

EPA’s analysis using the FASOM and FAPRI models are only analyzing the impact of 

increased demand for renewable fuels. Certain assumptions, such as population growth, 

developed land use, as well as laws, regulations, and policies (e.g., conservation reserve 

program) are held ceteris paribus between model scenarios. Thus, since EPA analyzes the 

difference between modeling scenarios, we are only observing the effect of change in demand 

for renewable fuel. Additional information on how the FASOM and FAPRI models were used to 

estimate the impact of increased demand for renewable fuel can be found in the RIA and in their 

respective technical reports in the docket. 

What Commenters Said:

10-9
Chapter 10: Economic Impacts and Benefits of the Rule 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2143) mentions that it is not clear where the depicted feedstock inventory for 

cellulosic biofuel production in 2022 comes from, given that no cellulosic biofuel is being 

produced in the reference case and suggests that EPA should discuss, by State, the sources of 

expected cellulosic biofuel feedstocks. [[See Docket Number 2143.2, p.8]] 

Our Response: 

 For the proposal and the final rulemaking, EPA provides regional crop production at the 

state level in each scenario analyzed in the docket as part of the FASOM modeling results. 

Specifically, in regard to cellulosic renewable fuel, the two primary feedstocks projected for 

cellulosic renewable fuel production are switchgrass and corn residue. The RIA for the final 

rulemaking includes the top ten producing states for each of these feedstocks in Chapter 5. More 

information on these feedstocks, and other cellulosic feedstocks by region can be found in the 

docket. 

10.3 Energy Security Impacts 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1015, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2010, EPAHQ-OAR-2005-0161-2011, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2510 

Organization: Renewable Energy Group, SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC, Western Dubuque 

Biodiesel LLC, Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC 

Comment: 

The commenter (1015) states that policy makers, administration officials, and agency personnel 

have told the American public that energy security is a top priority and necessitates complex 

public policy and enormous public expenditure to achieve. The cost of the protection of the 

imported crude oil supply has been studied and analyzed. One report by the International Center 

for Technology Assessment concluded that the cost of protection could be as high as $0.30/gal 

just for gasoline. It is disingenuous for EPA to acknowledge the costs, but conclude that it’s not 

worth the time and effort to add this component to the full life cycle analysis of petroleum fuel 

because of a lack of LCA availability. The commenter suggests commissioning a model to 

address the carbon cost of petroleum. The Department of Defense estimates show the cost to 

protect Persian Gulf oil interests at $50B/yr. The commenter questions EPA’s conclusion that 

the carbon cost of this mission is not noteworthy. [[Docket number 2123.1, p. 13]] 

The commenter (2510) states that as long as we are importing foreign oil, there will be a military 

presence required to prevent disruptions in the supply and distribution chain. These costs are not 

included in the government models but are real costs that make biofuels more attractive. The 

commenter finds it interesting the EPA doesn’t think it is important to figure the costs because it 

10-10
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

is too difficult; however, if the government can’t do it, how does EPA expect a small business to 

do it effectively? [[Docket number 2510.1, p. 6]] 

Our Response: 

For the RFS2 rule, U.S. military costs associated with energy security, and resulting 

greenhouse gas emissions from military activities, are excluded because their attribution to 

particular missions or activities is not well understood or established. Most U.S. military forces 

serve a broad range of security and foreign policy objectives. Attempts to attribute some share 

of U.S. military costs or greenhouse gas emission to changes in U.S. oil imports are further 

challenged by the need to estimate how those costs and greenhouse gas emissions might vary 

with incremental variations in U.S. oil consumption and imports as a result of the RFS2 rule. In 

the RFS1 rulemaking, a peer review was undertaken of the methodology that is the basis for 

U.S.’s energy security analysis. Most of the peer reviewers were in agreement that U.S. military 

costs should not be quantified in EPA’s energy security analysis. While studies that were 

submitted to the Agency did attempt to quantify the military costs associated with maintaining a 

stable flow of petroleum to the U.S., even the studies’ authors concede that the estimates 

developed should not be used for policy analysis’s purposes, but rather for illustrative and 

discussion purposes only. 

The reason the system boundaries used for threshold assessment in the proposed rule did 

not include indirect emissions from petroleum production was to be consistent with the goals and 

scope of the analysis as defined by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). 

The text of EISA specifies that the lifecycle threshold analysis for the different renewable 

fuel categories be compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. EISA defines 

baseline lifecycle GHG emissions as: 

The term ‘baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the average lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for comment, for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the 

renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. 

Therefore, the petroleum production component of the system boundaries is specifically 

mandated by EISA to be based on the 2005 average for crude oil used to make gasoline or diesel 

sold or distributed as transportation fuel, and not the marginal crude oil that will be displaced by 

renewable fuel. 

However, for this final rule, we did analyze the potential indirect impacts of petroleum 

use. Discussion of our analysis can be found in Section V.B.3 of the preamble and Chapter 2.7 

of the RIA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2138 

10-11
Chapter 10: Economic Impacts and Benefits of the Rule 

Organization: American Meat Institute, National Chicken Council, National Turkey 

Federation, Farm Econ LLC 

Comment: 

Commenter [[2138]] states the table [[on p.4]] shows that as we moved into 2007 there was a 

marked increase in the relationship between energy prices, as represented by gasoline, and corn 

prices. As ethanol production and energy prices increased in 2008 the correlation increased to 

0.89. The increased correlation coincides with the rapid expansion in ethanol production that we 

believe was largely a result of the RFS and a guarantee of a market. As the RFS expands from 

the current 10.5 billion gallons to 36 billion in 2022 the fuel and agricultural price linkage will be 

strengthened. This is important and highly relevant information to EPA analysis. It also casts 

serious doubts on the results obtained from the FAPRI, FASOM and other models used to assess 

the impact of RFS2. These models used in EPA analysis contain substantial historical data prior 

to 2007. In that data there is essentially no correlation between energy sector prices and 

agricultural prices. Recent developments represent a fundamental structural change. In particular, 

predicted impacts of energy markets and price changes on agricultural sector prices and 

production will be substantially underestimated by models that do not include such a 

relationship. [[2138 p.4]] 

Our Response: 

As the commenter notes, the market price of oil-based and renewable fuels are 

increasingly linked since the fuels in their end-use form tend to be relatively close substitutes for 

each other. In the analysis of the RFS2 rule, EPA has focused on the production costs of 

renewable fuels in comparison to oil prices. We believe that the models that we are using—

FAPRI , FASOM and engineering processing models—are accurately assessing the costs of 

producing renewable fuels, which we are using to assess the impacts of the RFS2 program. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) believes that the energy security impacts of increased ethanol mandates 

are marginal and costly. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 65]] [[See docket number 2233.2, pp. 65-66 

for additional discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

Energy security is generally agreed to be the U.S.'s ability to obtain and maintain a steady 

and affordable flow of energy for its use. By requiring the wider use of renewable fuels, the 

RFS2 rule promotes diversification of transportation fuels in the U.S. and helps to improve the 

U.S.’s energy security. The wider use of renewable fuels has two effects. First, by reducing U.S. 

oil imports and consumption, the RFS2 rule lowers the world oil price, which decreases the costs 

of purchasing imported crude oil/refined products (the so called “monopsony/import cost” 

effect). In addition, the wider use of renewable fuels lowers the potential macroeconomic 

10-12
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

disruption impacts to the U.S. economy of potential future oil supply disruptions. In addition, 

the Agency conducted an extensive cost analysis for the RFS2 rule and determined that costeffective renewable fuel technologies will be developed and deployed, and that the resulting cost 

of the renewable fuels will be competitive with petroleum products. Thus, the Agency does not 

believe that the energy security benefits impacts of increased use of renewable fuels are costly or 

marginal. 

 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) believes that the energy security impacts of increased ethanol mandates 

are marginal. The commenter further states that the biofuel mandates impact energy security only 

at the margin as a gallon of ethanol has only two-thirds the energy content of a gallon of gasoline 

and corn-based ethanol production uses a significant amount of energy obtained from fossil 

fuels. In fact, higher corn-based ethanol production could actually increase natural gas imports. 

Additionally, biofuel mandates are expensive because both corn-based and cellulosic ethanol are 

costly to produce relative to conventional fuels, and the energy content of ethanol is only twothirds that of a gallon of gasoline.[[Docket number 2393.1, pp. 70-71]] 

Our Response: 

Energy security is generally agreed to be the U.S.'s ability to obtain and maintain a steady 

and affordable flow of energy for its use. For every gallon of ethanol produced, roughly twothirds of a gallon of imported gasoline or equivalent crude oil product is likely to be displaced 

(since imported gasoline/crude oil is likely to be the “marginal” supply of petroleum products to 

the U.S.) Furthermore, imported gasoline/crude oil is likely to come from portions of the world 

where oil supply is unstable. As a result, decreased use of this petroleum imports increases the 

energy security of the U.S. The Agency conducted an extensive cost analysis for the RFS2 rule 

and determined that cost-effective renewable fuel technologies will be developed and deployed, 

and that the resulting cost of the renewable fuels will be competitive with petroleum products. 

10.4 Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions

What We Proposed:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2114 

Organization: Pew Center on Global Climate Change 

Comment: 

The commenter (2114) suggests that given that future economic growth and interest rates are 

uncertain, and could even be negative in the worst case, using the minimum recommended rate is 

justified on both ethical and analytical grounds. 

10-13
Chapter 10: Economic Impacts and Benefits of the Rule 

The commenter is concerned that in more recent social carbon cost estimate by an Interagency 

Working group, a high discount rate (3-5%) was used. The justification for such a high discount 

rate is faulty, therefore, and should be abandoned on the grounds of analytical inaccuracy and 

incompatibility with the ethical standards embodied in current OMB and EPA guidance. 

(2114.1.pdf, p1) 

The commenter (2114) mentioned that it is critically important that the EPA analyze discount 

rate uncertainty as planned and that it employs the resulting SCC estimate in developing the final 

standard. (2114.1.pdf, p2) 

The commenter (2114) comments that many expected and potential impacts are omitted from the 

SCC calculation, including nonmarket impacts and potential abrupt, catastrophic, or irreversible 

outcomes. The commenter comments that by this omission, the benefits of avoiding these 

impacts is effectively set to zero- the only value known to be incorrect. The commenter suggests 

that until EPA is better able to quantify omitted impacts directly, analysts should compensate by 

an alternative method. One option is to solicit expert opinions on the value of omitted impacts. 

Another option is to add a risk premium. ((2114.1.pdf, p.3) 

The commenter (2114) comments on the unjustified optimism of IAM results and suggests that 

since current IAMs do not capture the impacts of changing extremes, it is folly to accept their 

estimates of net positive benefits, especially in climate-sensitive sectors like agriculture and 

forestry. (2114.1.pdf, p.3) 

Our Response:

 As mentioned in the response to Commenter [[2117]] the Interagency Workgroup is 

actively working on the development of new SCC values. The workgroup is aware of the critical 

role played by discount rates in the ultimate ranges of SCC values. Under certain discounting 

schemes, such as the Ramsey equation, the growth rate is highly correlated to the choice of 

discount rate. Other discounting schemes allow for uncertainty in the discount rate over time. All 

comments on discounting, both on how the rate is determined and uncertainty over the rate, are 

being considered by the Interagency Workgroup for the development of new SCC values. 

 Omitted impacts are an important issue when examining the benefits of emissions 

reductions. To some extent, many of these impacts are captured in the three integrated 

assessment models used for the interim values, including non-market impacts and some 

catastrophic impacts. However, the models are imperfect and EPA therefore feels it is important 

to discuss qualitatively the nature and extent of these omitted impacts, indicating the likely 

direction of the bias, in order to better inform policy makers. In the case of the RFS2, however, 

the standards have been prescribed by Congress, so the exclusion of these benefits does not 

impact the setting of the standard. Commenter’s suggestions on how to address these issues in 

future standard settings are appreciated and will be considered. 

 As the commenter rightly points out, the impacts in the integrated assessment models are 

based primarily on changes in average temperatures. Impacts are also likely to occur because of 

increasing variance in weather extremes (increased droughts, floods, severe weather events). 

10-14
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

These impacts are also not currently well captured by IA models and EPA has sought to address 

this issue in a similar fashion to other omitted impacts. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2117 

Organization: NYU School of Law 

Comment: 

Commenter [[2117]] states that according to best practices, and as required by EPA’s internal 

guidelines and Executive Order 12,866, 39 EPA must analyze the potential costs and benefits of 

its proposed regulation, and must quantify those impacts to the extent possible. To estimate the 

projected benefits of reducing GHG emissions, EPA must calculate the reductions achieved by 

switching to renewable fuels, multiplied by the monetary measure of incremental damage 

resulting from each additional ton of GHG emissions, often called the social cost of carbon 

(SCC). 

Commenter [[2117]] states that EPA does employ a range of SCC estimates in both its proposed 

rule on the Renewable Fuel Standard program and in its draft regulatory impact analysis. IPI 

largely supports EPA’s approach to the use of SCC estimates. However, as EPA readily admits, 

its SCC figures are preliminary and uncertain. More recently, a collection of federal agencies 

has been working on a more refined methodology to calculate the SCC. In a separate rulemaking 

released this month, EPA used these newer Interagency figures to calculate the benefits of 

reducing GHG emissions from motor vehicles. These comments do not promote the use of any 

specific range of SCC figures over another. Instead, these comments seek to remind EPA of 

certain methodological considerations that must be taken into account no matter what SCC range 

is selected. [[2117.1 p.7]] 

Commenter offers extensive further commentary on pages 7-12. 

Our Response: 

EPA thanks the commenter [[2117]] for the extensive methodological input. The 

commenter raised several key issues. The first of these is the treatment of omitted impacts and 

ancillary benefits. The commenter notes the importance of an in-depth discussion, rather than 

simply a listing of omitted impacts. Additionally, the commenter notes that to the extent 

possible, ancillary impacts should be separately identified and calculated. The RFS2 standards 

we are setting were specified in EISA by Congress and are not being set on the basis of the 

economic impacts, including the value of the SCC. However, the commenter’s suggestions will 

be taken into account in the development of new SCC values. 

The commenter additionally noted the importance of accounting for catastrophic and 

irreversible events and suggested several alternate methodologies for doing so. Again, this work 

continues to be ongoing and all comments will be considered in the derivation of new SCC 

values. 

10-15
Chapter 10: Economic Impacts and Benefits of the Rule 

In a discussion about the omitted benefits to the domestic SCC values, the commenter 

notes that there are specific omitted benefits that should be taken into account, above and beyond 

those listed by EPA. Work continues to better estimate and understand all impacts, both those 

that occur domestically as well as globally. 

The commenter discusses discounting choices and notes that EPA and OMB guidance 

both place ranges of discount rates for long-term, intergenerational issues between 0% and 3%. 

Commenter suggests that updated SCC values should reflect this guidance. These comments 

will be taken into account by the Interagency Workgroup as new values are developed. 

Finally, the commenter notes that the presentation of the results is critically important, 

noting both that it is mathematically incorrect to take the arithmetic mean of the discount rates 

(as opposed to the discount factors) and that presentation of only means obscures the distribution 

and uncertainty around the SCC estimates. EPA agrees with both these points and will strive to 

address these issues within the context of the Interagency Workgroup process to develop a new 

set of SCC estimates. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1987 

Organization: Cornell University 

Comment: 

Commenter [[1987]] states it is difficult to overstate the role played by the social discount rate in 

cost benefit analyses of public projects. And it is even more difficult to do so when the project 

under consideration extends into the distant future, as is the case when dealing with climate 

change consequences of GHG emissions. A case in point is the recent controversy surrounding 

the Stern Review (Stern, 2007), which revolves around the parameters of the SDR (Dasgupta 

2007, Nordhaus 2007, Weitzman 2007). The SDR is often represented in the form r =  + g*, 

where  is the pure (utility) discount rate, is the elasticity of marginal utility of consumption 

and g is the growth rate of per capita consumption. This expression separates between the two 

main motives of discounting, namely impatience () and economic growth (g). While 

discounting for impatience (or pure time discounting) is reasonable for private investments, it is 

harder to justify in public investments. [[1987.1 p.6-9]] 

Our Response: 

EPA agrees that SCC estimates are highly sensitive to selection of the discount rate. EPA 

will strive to address this issue through the Interagency Workgroup’s ongoing development of 

new SCC numbers. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2326 

Organization: N/A 

10-16
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment:

The commenter’s (2326) remarks are directed primarily to the new interagency social cost of 

carbon (SCC) estimates that have appeared in a recent DOE rulemaking. The commenter focuses 

on methodological issues that the interagency process might consider. It is important to note that 

in the RFS2 proposed rule, the estimates are not used for setting the standard, which has already 

been legislatively prescribed. That stands in stark contrast to other rules considering SCC 

estimates, such as recent DOE rules for beverage machines and appliances and DOT CAFE 

standards, where the chosen SCC estimates can influence the standard. For this reason (standard 

setting), the commenter believes it will be important for the Administration to settle on a few 

specific estimates that can be applied across rules that have incremental effects on global 

emissions (i.e., non-climate policies). Clearly, that is what the Interagency process that has 

developed new tentative estimates is attempting to do, and they should be commended for it. 

[[Docket number 2326.1, p. 1]] 

The commenter provided the following specific comments about SCC, as it was presented in the 

DOE final beverage machines rule, Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 

Standards for Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines; Final Rule, Federal 

Register, Vol. 74, No. 167, August 31, 2009, pp. 44914-44968, 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/beverage_machines.ht

ml. 

Our Response: 

EPA thanks the commenter [[2326]] for the various comments regarding the presentation 

of interim SCC estimates in the DOE final beverage machines rule, Energy Conservation 

Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending 

Machines; Final Rule, (74 FR 44914; August 31, 2009). EPA has since then presented a similar 

discussion about the derivation and use of the Interagency Workgroup’s interim SCC estimates 

in the Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emission Standards (74 FR 

49454, September 28, 2009). 

The commenter noted that socioeconomic uncertainty cannot be resolved and has 

implications for future emissions, climate change, and adaptive capacity. The Interagency 

Workgroup plans to examine the implications of various socioeconomic scenarios on the SCC. 

The commenter discussed the filtering exercise conducted as part of the interim SCC 

derivation, and noted that little has changed in SCC modeling since 2001. The Interagency 

Workgroup decided to limit the sample size as a trade-off for SCC estimates from the most 

recent versions of the three models. Although the sample size is smaller, the estimates are 

presumed to be superior to estimates from earlier versions of the models. The distribution of the 

SCC is planned to be explored in the next phase of SCC development within the workgroup. 

The commenter discussed statements made in the Vending Machine rule regarding the 

possibility of future consideration of SCC estimates based off of business-as-usual projections. 

We agree that this type of departure is not warranted. 

10-17
Chapter 10: Economic Impacts and Benefits of the Rule 

The commenter stated that the estimates resulting from the filtering and averaging 

approach do not fully capture SCC uncertainty and climate change risk. EPA, as a part of the 

Interagency Workgroup, has begun a process that will better, and more systematically, 

characterize the uncertainty surrounding estimates of the SCC. 

The commenter stated that estimates based on different discount rates cannot be 

averaged. As described in the referenced text, both 3 percent and 5 percent are reasonable 

estimates of the discount rate under specific economic assumptions. EPA agrees and will strive 

to address this issue through the Interagency Workgroup’s ongoing development of new SCC 

estimates. In addition, EPA has judged other rates to be reasonable (e.g. 2 percent) for prior 

analysis (such as the NPRM for this rule). The current work to better characterize the uncertainty 

surrounding SCC estimates will also explore different approaches to uncertainty in the discount 

rate. 

The commenter recommended that EPA reconsider providing an odd number of SCC 

estimates. EPA continues to examine the appropriateness of these five values and expects to 

release new ranges in the coming months. EPA agrees with the commenter on the importance of 

developing SCC estimates based on methodological soundness and places high emphasis on this 

issue. 

The commenter asked why the Hope (2006) estimates were labeled as 5 percent. One 

common equation used to calculate the discount rate is the Ramsey equation: r =  + g*, where 

 is the pure rate of time preference, g is the growth rate, and  is the elasticity of the marginal 

utility of consumption. The pure rate of time preference cited in the Hope (2006) article is 3 

percent per year. While the actual discount rate varies over time, it is relatively common to refer 

to the discount rate as the pure rate of time preference plus 2 percent, where the 2 percent is 

roughly the growth rate times the elasticity of the marginal utility of consumption. A more 

accurate categorization would be “approximately 5 percent” or “a pure rate of time preference of 

3 percent.” On-going efforts to develop a range of SCC estimates will address this issue directly. 

The commenter requested more information to understand the application of Newell and 

Pizer discounting. The undiscounted stream of benefits was not available for each of the studies 

included in this analysis. The way that the Newell and Pizer (2003) findings were adapted for the 

interim values was to apply the adjustment factors implied by either their preferred random walk 

model or mean-reverting model. According to the random walk model, SCC estimates based on 

a 3 percent or 5 percent discount rate are adjusted by 70.733 percent and 89.8 percent, 

respectively. The mean-reverting model implies adjustments of 10.733 percent and 16.8 percent 

for estimates based on a 3 percent or 5 percent discount rate. 

Note Newell and Pizer based adjustment factors were not applied to estimates from Guo 

et al. (2006) that use a different approach to account for discount rate uncertainty. 

The commenter also stated that Newell and Pizer discounting will be inconsistent with 

various alternative futures. On-going work within the Interagency Workgroup is exploring the 

implications of uncertainty over socio-economic futures. 

10-18
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter presented various observations about efficiency and ethical judgments 

underlying discount rates, intergenerational implications, interpretation of a risk premium, and 

dynamic discount rates. The Interagency Workgroup is considering all comments when 

developing new ranges of discount rates to use for updated SCC values. 

The commenter noted difficulty in discussing domestic SCC estimates without more 

guidance about how the agencies would use such estimates. EPA will take this comment into 

consideration if and when it explores domestic estimates in the development of updated SCC 

values. 

The commenter requested information about base years and Newell and Pizer 

discounting. Please see table below. 

 

Model Study Base year (Best available info) Year Dollars (Best available info) 

FUND Anthoff et al. 2009 2000 2000 

FUND Link and Tol 2004 1995 1995 

FUND Guo et al. 2006 1995 1995 

PAGE Wahba & Hope 2006 2000 2000 

PAGE Hope 2006 2000 2000 

DICE Nordhaus 2008 2005 2005 

Additionally, the commenter requested a complete list of references. The references are 

as follows: 

Anthoff, D., C. Hepburn, and R. Tol. 2009. Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of 

climate change. Ecological Economics 68: 836:849. 

Guo, J., C.J. Hepburn, R. Tol, and D. Antoff. 2006. Discounting and the social cost of carbon: a 

closer look at uncertainty. Environmental Science and Policy 9: 205-216. 

Hope, Chris. 2008. Optimal carbon emissions and the social cost of carbon over time under 

uncertainty. The Integrated Assessment Journal 8(1): 107-122. 

Hope, Chris. 2006. The Marginal Impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: An Integrated Assessment 

Model Incorporating the IPCC’s Five Reasons for Concern. The Integrated Assessment Journal 

6(1): 19-56. 

Link, P.M., and R. Tol. 2004. Possible Economic Impacts of a Shutdown of the Thermohaline 

Circulation: an Application of FUND. Portuguese Economic Journal 3: 99-114. 

Newell, R., and W. Pizer. 2003. Discounting the Distant Future: How Much Do Uncertain Rates 

Increase Valuations? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46: 52-71. 

Nordhaus, William. 2008. A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming 

Policies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

10-19
Chapter 10: Economic Impacts and Benefits of the Rule 

Tol, R. 2008. The Social Cost of Carbon: Trends, Outliers and Catastrophes. Economics: The 

Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal 2(25): 1-24. 

Wahba, Mohammed, and Chris Hope. 2006. The Marginal Impact of Carbon Emissions Under 

Two Scenarios of Future Emissions. Energy Policy 34: 3305-3316. 

The commenter also identified an incorrect reference—EPA notes that Nordhaus (2007) 

does not exist. 

10.5 Economy-Wide Impacts 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2093 

Organization: Targeted Growth, Inc. 

Comment: 

Commenter [[2093]] states that as a company that is pursuing a business strategy focused on new 

energy crops, we have spent considerable time understanding how the proposed rules will treat 

new energy crops and are extremely concerned that the rules as written will negatively impact 

our ability to continue developing next generation biofuel crops. The RFS2 as currently written 

will have a chilling effect on the development of new energy feedstocks, impeding investment 

and innovation. [[see docket #2093, p.2]] 

Our Response: 

A variety of different renewable fuels are capable of qualifying for use under the RFS2 

rule. These feedstocks can be crop-based, crop residues and waste-based or dedicated energy 

crops. While there are specific definitional requirements for feedstocks, the Act is feedstockneutral and allows the market to determine which feedstock will be used to satisfy the EISA 

requirements. EISA set volume requirements that encourage significantly higher volumes of 

advance renewable fuels from cellulosic feedstock sources that can include energy crops. Thus, 

we do not believe that EISA will have a “chilling effect” on new energy feedstocks, or act as an 

impediment to investment and innovation in the development of energy feedstocks. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2309 

Organization: Grocery Manufacturers Association, National Council of Chain 

Restaurants, and Snack Food Association 

Comment: 

Commenter [[2309]] states that the RFS would pose severe economic and environmental harm 

by significantly increasing the cost of food and feed, potentially damaging more than 400 

millions of engines and injuring their operators, contributing to poor air and water quality in 

many communities, and by driving millions of people around globe into poverty. [[#2309.1.p.1]] 

10-20
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response: 

 The commenter [2309] raises a number of issues associated with the RFS2 rule. The first 

issue the commenter raises is about the impacts of the RFS2 on the cost of agricultural 

commodities. Our analysis shows that the increase in renewable fuel volumes required by the 

RFS2 rule will raise food prices modestly, as described in more detail in our response in Section 

10.2 to SoyMor Biodiesel, LLC (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2010 ), Western Dubuque Biodiesel 

LLC, (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2011), and Central Iowa Energy, LLC (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-2013). 

 The second concern that the commenter raises is about the potential of the RFS2 rule to 

adversely impact vehicles and their operators. With regard to fuel utilization and motor vehicles, 

all fuels and fuel additives are required to be registered with the Agency and ultimately approved 

for use prior to being put into the commercial fuel market. Therefore, the use of these fuels 

should not pose a risk to the equipment and operators if used in appropriate applications. The 

RFS2 program defines which fuels and fuel additives are renewable with respect to the program 

itself, however it does not approve fuels or fuel additives for use. That is done through other 

Clean Air Act authorities and regulations where applicable. 

 The third concern the commenter raises is about the air and water quality impacts of the 

RFS2 rule. The Agency conducted a detailed air quality analysis of the RFS2 rule. In that 

analysis, we found that there are both air quality benefits (e.g., reductions in benzene and carbon 

monoxide) and disbenefits (e.g., ozone) associated with the wider use of renewable fuels. These 

impacts will vary based the type of fuel utilized and the geographic location of its use. See 

Chapter Three of the RIA for more information on the air quality impacts of the RFS2 rule. EPA 

agrees that water quantity is an important consideration in the development of renewable fuels, 

especially in some local or regional areas with limited water supplies. See Chapter Six of the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for more information on the water quality and quantity impacts of 

the RFS2 rule. EPA will further evaluate water quantity and quantity impacts in the report to 

Congress required under Section 204 of EISA due December 2010. The last issue that the 

commenter raises is the issue of the impact of the RFS2 rule on global poverty. Estimating the 

effects of the RFS2 rule on global poverty is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2396 

Organization: CVR Energy 

Comment:

The commenter (2396.1) is concerned the mandate for yet-to-be developed and/or adequately 

tested transportation fuels will have an adverse economic impact not only on the general 

petroleum refining industry, and the SBR in particular, but also on our nation’s entire 

transportation system. (2396.1, p.2) 

Our Response: 

10-21
Chapter 10: Economic Impacts and Benefits of the Rule 

In the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), Congress expanded upon the 

renewable fuels mandate of RFS1 to further reduce our reliance on imported petroleum. 

Although renewable fuel use has increased beyond that required in RFS1 (most likely due to 

higher average crude oil prices), the RFS2 program is expected to further expand the use (or 

ensure the expansion) of renewable fuels. 

The principal renewable fuels expected to be used are ethanol, biodiesel and renewable 

and cellulosic diesel fuel. Although the commenter questions whether these renewable fuels 

have been adequately tested, ethanol has been tested extensively in motor vehicles and has been 

adapted into the gasoline pool for many years. While the volume of biodiesel blended into diesel 

fuel is small, there has been extensive vehicle and fuel testing of biodiesel fuel. Renewable and 

cellulosic diesel fuel are the newest of the principal renewable fuels which we expect to be used, 

however, they are also the most like petroleum-based diesel fuel so their blending with 

petroleum-based diesel fuel should be straightforward. The petroleum industry has demonstrated 

that it is up to the challenge of adapting to and using these new fuels. However, if a particular 

refiner does not wish to attempt to use a particular renewable fuel, or any renewable fuel, it has 

the option to allow other refiners to blend its required share of renewable fuels into the gasoline 

and diesel fuel pool, and purchase the RINs generated by those refiners. 

 There are many impacts of this program. For example, cellulosic biofuels will require the 

development of a whole new infrastructure for the planting and harvesting of cellulosic 

feedstocks, as well as the construction of biofuel plants that will convert the cellulosic feedstocks 

into viable biofuels. Then the cellulosic biofuels will have to be transported from the plants that 

produce them to the terminal where they will usually be blended into the gasoline and diesel fuel 

pools, requiring new fuel distribution hardware. In some cases, the retail sector may need to 

modify its fuel dispensing hardware to enable selling the new renewable fuels. All these steps 

will require extensive capital investments and incur other costs associated with these various 

steps. The RIA contains our assessment of these many impacts and their related costs. Despite 

these new capital costs and other costs, because the price of crude oil is expected to increase 

significantly, the net impact of the RFS2 program is expected to be a cost savings to consumers. 

Even if the price of crude oil does not increase to the point as projected by DOE and the RFS2 

program increases costs, the RFS2 program will reduce our dependence on foreign oil which was 

a primary reason why Congress included the RFS2 provisions in EISA. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2508 

Organization: Environmental Working Group (EWG) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2508) recommends that EPA cast a sufficiently broad net in its criteria for 

determining harm to the economy or the environment. The Administrator should look at the 

following economic factors: impact on commodity/feed prices; consequent impact on food 

prices; impact on exports of agricultural commodities and global food supply. The 

Administrator should also look at the following environmental factors: impact on soil quality; 

10-22
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

10-23

impact on water quantity and quality; impact on aquatic and terrestrial fish and wildlife habitat 

and biodiversity. (2508, p.4) 

Our Response: 

 We have carried out an extensive set of analyses to quantify the impacts of the increased 

renewable fuel volumes projected to be used to comply with the RFS2 standards, including many 

of the economic and environmental impacts highlighted by the commenter. Specifically, the 

Agency has conducted an economy-wide analysis to determine the impact of this rule on the U.S. 

economy and has examined subsectors of the economy, including the agricultural sector, to 

determine the impacts on commodity/feed prices and the resulting impact on food prices and 

annual costs to American families. For additional details, see the January 11, 2010 

Memorandum to Docket Re: Economy-Wide Impacts of the Renewable Fuels Standard. Further, 

the Agency examined air and water quality impacts, quantifying impacts to the extent possible 

with the models and tools available to the Agency. Where it was not possible to quantify 

impacts, the Agency qualitatively described those impacts and invites the public to provide tools 

and methods to quantify those impacts that could only be qualitatively described. These analyses 

are described in detail in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the final rule. Additional analyses 

will continue to be carried out by the Agency over time in response to section 204 of EISA 

entitled "Environmental and Resource Conservation Impacts," and section 209 of EISA entitled 

"Anti-backsliding." 
EPA-420-R-10-003

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Summary and Analysis of 

Comments

Chapter 11

Impacts on Water
11 IMPACTS ON WATER

11.1 Ecological Impacts 11-1 

11.2 Additional Water Issues 11-3 

11.2.1 Ethanol Production 11-4 

11.2.2 Ethanol Leaks and Spills 11-4 

11.3 Water Quantity 11-4 

11.4 Request for Comment on Options for Reducing Water Quality Impacts 11-5 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

11 IMPACTS ON WATER

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section correspond to Section X of the preamble to the proposed 

rule and address impacts on water. A summary of the comments received and our response to 

those comments are located below (as well as Section IX of the preamble to the final rule). 

11.1 Ecological Impacts 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0982 

Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. 

Comment:

The commenter noted that water is as precious as fuel and if we run out, water will be more 

precious. The country cannot afford more ethanol! (0986.1, p.1) 

Our Response:

 EPA agrees that water quantity is an important consideration in the development of 

biofuels, especially in some local or regional areas with limited water supplies. EPA will further 

evaluate water quantity impacts in the report to Congress required under Section 204 of EISA 

due December 2010. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2466 

Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2466) urges EPA to pursue vigorous assessment on impact on water quality as a 

result of increase in corn production for ethanol. The commenter points out that the agency 

states in its Regulatory Impact Analysis that it anticipates that increased corn production for 

ethanol will increase the occurrence of nitrate, nitrite, and atrazine in sources of drinking water. 

It may exacerbate existing serious water quality problems in the Gulf of Mexico and may 

potentially cause adverse human health effects due to increase in pesticides usage. (2466.1.pdf, 

p7) 

Our Response:

For this rulemaking, EPA quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed certain water quality 

impacts of the increase in corn production for ethanol. The quantitative analysis of the Upper 

Mississippi River Basin estimated that this rulemaking will lead to an increase in nitrogen loads 

to the Mississippi River from the Upper Mississippi River Basin by 1.2% in 2022 compared to 

11-1
Chapter 11: Impacts on Water 

the AEO 2007 ethanol volumes. Phosphorus loading is estimated to increase 0.7%. In addition, 

Section 204 of EISA requires EPA, in consultation with USDA and DOE, to produce a report to 

Congress every three years on the impacts to date and likely future impacts of the RFS on : (1) 

environmental issues (air quality, effects on hypoxia, pesticides, sediment, nutrient and pathogen 

levels in waters, acreage and function of waters, and soil environmental quality); (2) resource 

conservation issues (soil conservation, water availability, and ecosystem health and biodiversity 

including impacts on forests, grasslands and wetlands), and (3) the growth and use of cultivated 

invasive or noxious plants and their impacts on the environment and agriculture. The first report 

is due December 2010. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2363 

Organization: Ag Processing Inc. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2363) urges EPA to refigure the water quality impacts resulting from greater 

erosion and water quality reduction when crop residues are removed. [[Docket number 2363.1, p. 

7]] [[See docket number 2363.1, pp. 4-5 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response:

 The preamble (Section IX) and RIA (Section 6) includes a qualitative discussion of the 

value of crop residues for both soil and water quality and the potential negative environmental 

impacts when residues are removed. We were unable to conduct a quantitative analysis at this 

time. However, as stated in the RIA, different conservation systems and conservation practice 

standards will need to be developed and adopted for cellulosic feedstocks, such as corn stover, 

switchgrass, and trees for biofuels production. USDA will need to continue to adjust current 

standards and develop additional standards, where needed, to permit cellulosic feedstocks to be 

produced and utilized in a sustainable manner. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2111 

Organization: Arcadia Biosciences, Inc. 

Comment: 

Commenter [[2011]] states that the impact of future biofuel production on water quality can be 

most cost effectively addressed with the development and employment of Nitrogen Use 

Efficiency (NUE) technology. Increased corn demand as a result of biofuels incentives and 

policies could potentially harm water quality, depending on other factors that impact production 

and yields. Widespread deployment of NUE would decrease demand and use of nitrogen 

fertilizer and logically decrease nitrogen use for corn production and improve water quality. 

[[See #2011.1 p.2]] In addition the commenter states that drought-tolerant technology will 

improve farming efficiencies and reduce the demand for water 

11-2
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response:

EPA analysis shows that the increase in corn demand as a result of this rulemaking will 

increase nitrogen loadings to water with current agricultural genotypes. A variety of 

conservation practices are needed to minimize nitrogen runoff and leaching from corn fields. 

EPA will have an opportunity to consider improvements in crop performance in its periodic 

reports under EISA 204 on the environmental impacts of the RFS 

What Commenters Said:

Document No: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2526 

Organization: Coskata 

Comment: EPA should take a lifecycle view of water impacts 

EPA appropriately recognizes the non-agricultural sources of water quality and quantity impacts 

from ethanol production. In completing its Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA should however 

consider the water impacts of the fossil fuels these biofuels are displacing, as well as consider a 

more complete landscape of water management practices in the ethanol industry. 

The biofuels industry is also making great strides in reducing its water needs. As EPA points 

out, new corn ethanol plants use about half as much water than older designs thanks to increased 

recycling and process heat management. Cellulosic ethanol furthermore is expected to have 

water requirements that are substantially less than corn ethanol on a “lifecycle” basis (including 

water needed for feedstock and fuel production). A recent study by Argonne National Lab found 

that switchgrass-based cellulosic ethanol could have water use requirements in line with, or even 

lower, than all major sources of gasoline in the U.S. Coskata is furthermore specifically 

designing its process for minimum water utilization through innovative process heat integration 

and advanced recycling, and expects to have one of the lowest water requirements in the 

emerging advanced biofuel industry. Finally, crop genetics companies are developing advanced 

varieties of corn and biomass crops, such as drought tolerant corn and energy crops that don’t 

require irrigation, which will further lessen the water impacts of the industry. 

Our Response: 

EPA did not conduct a lifecycle analysis of the water quality and quantity impacts of this 

rulemaking, nor was it required under EISA. However, Section 204 of EISA requires EPA, in 

consultation with USDA and DOE, to produce a report to Congress every three years on the 

impacts to date and likely future impacts of the RFS including: environmental issues (air quality, 

effects on hypoxia, pesticides, sediment, nutrient and pathogen levels in waters, acreage and 

function of waters, and soil quality; resource conservation issues (soil conservation, water 

availability, and ecosystem health and biodiversity), and the growth and use of cultivated 

invasive or noxious plants and their impacts on the environment and agriculture. The first report 

is due December 2010. EPA will consider this comment in the context of that undertaking. 

11.2 Additional Water Issues 

11-3
Chapter 11: Impacts on Water 

11.2.1 Ethanol Production 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2526 

Organization: Coskata 

Comment: 

The commenter (2526) believes that EPA should take a more complete view of water impacts 

and not seek to regulate corn fertilizer use by regulating biofuel manufacturers. [[Docket number 

2526.1, p. 2]] [[See docket number 2526.1, pp. 11-12 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response:

 EPA agrees with the concerns expressed by the commenter and is not regulating fertilizer 

use on corn production through this rulemaking. EPA and USDA are working together to help 

agricultural producers implement practices to minimize water pollution from corn production. 

11.2.2 Ethanol Leaks and Spills 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment: 

The commenter suggests a full exam of the water and air pollution risks associated with spills 

and releases from using existing fuel dispensing facility infrastructure [[Docket number 2384.1, 

p.1 10]] 

Our Response:

More detail on ethanol biodegradation and a summary of laboratory and field studies of 

ethanol spills will be forthcoming in the EPAct 2005 Report to Congress on Fuel Additive 

Replacements for MTBE in 2010. In addition, EPA is undertaking analyses designed to assess 

the potential impacts of ethanol blends on tank infrastructure and leak detection systems and 

determine the resulting water quality impacts. 

11.3 Water Quantity 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment:

11-4
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2249.2) believes that EPA need not, and should not, address Section 211(c) in 

the context of this rulemaking. EPA’s authority under Section 211(c) is not intended to address 

any potential impact that might arise as a result of the RFS program, but is limited. 42 U.S.C. 

75458. The commenter notes that EPA does not have the authority to regulate agricultural 

practices, and believes that attempts to regulate agricultural practices by imposing additional 

requirement on the feedstock that can be used by renewable fuel producers is beyond the 

authority provided in Section 211(c). [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 109-110]] 

Nonetheless, the commenter notes that soybean farming and biodiesel production provide water 

quality benefits. For example, soybean is often used as part of a crop rotation program, which 

promotes sustainability, including reducing impacts of agricultural production on water. 

Soybeans require an insignificant amount of fertilizer, pesticide, and irrigation inputs, and 

therefore represent significantly less potential water quality and quantity impacts. In addition, 

biodiesel production also involves little water per gallon. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 110]] 

Our Response:

 The final rule does not include any controls related to agricultural practices under 

authority of CAA Section 211(c). EPA and USDA are working together to help agricultural 

producers implement practices to minimize water pollution from corn production. EPA 

understands that soybeans use fewer inputs than corn. However soybeans also have less residue 

than corn which can result in greater sediment losses from fields as a result. 

11.4 Request for Comment on Options for Reducing Water Quality Impacts 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that this is not the appropriate forum for EPA to seek comment 

on regulation of renewable fuel to address water quality. EPA’s authority under Section 211(c) is 

limited and is intended to addresses the fuel itself or emissions, not any potential impact that 

might arise as a result of the RFS program. In particular, EPA does not have the authority to 

regulate agricultural practices, and there is no indication Congress intended EPA to regulate 

agricultural practices by imposing additional requirement on the feedstock that can be used by 

renewable fuel producers through Section 211(c). The commenter believes that this is a blatant 

example of EPA seeking to overstep its authority to regulate the agricultural industry. (2329.1, p. 

111) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

11-5
Chapter 11: Impacts on Water 

Comment:

The commenters (2129.1) believe that EPA should exercise its authority under Section 211(c) to 

protect against water pollution that threatens public health or welfare. The commenters do not 

see a rationale for singling out corn ethanol however, but support applying such authority to all 

biofuels produced under the RFS2. EPA could use this authority in combination with restrictions 

on the volume of environmentally damaging biofuels that are produced under the RFS2, pursuant 

to either its waiver authority under Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act or its control or prohibit 

authority under Section 211(c) of the CAA. (2129.1, p.13) 

The commenters support EPA’s suggestion to impose restrictions on farming practices used in 

the production of biofuels that cause, or contribute to water pollution (including any degradation 

in the quality of groundwater) that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health 

or welfare. The commenters suggest that EPA impose eligibility requirements on feedstock 

production for fuel that ensure the following conditions are met: 

-No current violations of the Clean Water Act or Swampbuster have been identified on the land; 

-The land used to grow crops is not eroding in excess of tolerable levels—soil is eroding faster 

than new soil is naturally produced; and 

-A soil and water conservation plan is in place and being implemented for the land, or 

alternatively, a certain score could be required on the USDA’s Soil and Water Evaluation tool or 

EPA could adapt this tool for this specific purpose. (2129.1, pp.13-14) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2374 

Organization: Amyris Biotechnologies, Inc. (Amyris) 

Comment: 

Regarding EPA’s request for comment on how and if to include water issues related to biofuels 

production, the commenter (2374) supports clear definitions of sustainability that allow 

companies to verifiably produce better biofuels. If in completing its Regulatory Impact 

Analysis, EPA should consider the water impacts of biofuels, the commenter believes that 

biofuel water use should be weighed against the water use in fossil fuel just as EPA is doing for 

GHG emissions. The mandate to use biofuels should always be measured against the petroleum 

alternative being displaced. [[Docket number 2374.1, p. 3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) states that the potential water quality impacts of biofuels are important 

and EPA should look at them carefully. EPA will likely need the results of the study required by 

section 204 of EISA before it can make a finding that a fuel, or its emission product, “causes or 

contributes” to air pollution or water pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

the public health or welfare. The commenter recommends that EPA OAR consult with the 

Office of Water, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, and Office of Research and 

Development, as they prepare the section 204 report. The commenter also recommends that 

EPA review the recommendations made by the Agency’s MTBE Blue Ribbon Panel 1999 

recommendations included conducting a full, multi-media assessment of effects on air, soil, and 

water of any major new additive to gasoline prior to its introduction. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 

11-6
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

11-7

66]] [[See docket number 2393.1, pp 65-69 and docket number 2393.6, Attachment 5 for a 

detailed discussion of water quality assessment.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2497 

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Comment: 

The commenter (2497.1) believes that impacts to water quality and quantity from expanded 

biofuel production need to be carefully considered. Putting additional land into crop production 

increases the risks of surface water and groundwater contamination from agricultural chemicals 

and additional aquifer depletion. The commenter believes that the future diversification of 

biofuel stocks, such as cellulosic-based ethanol production, can not only minimize impacts to 

land and water, but can create enhanced environmental benefits from agriculture and forestry 

practices. The commenter recommends that EPA financially support research to minimize 

groundwater and surface water impacts from increased biofuel production. Specifically, the 

research should be focused in the Midwest region. (2497.1, p.2) 

Our Response:

 The final rule does not include any controls related to agricultural practices under 

authority of CAA Section 211(c). However, EPA may consider using this authority in the future. 

EPA and USDA are working together to help agricultural producers implement practices to 

protect water quality through voluntary conservation programs. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2111 

Organization: Arcadia Biosciences, Inc. 

Comment: 

Commenter [[2011]] states that imposing additional feedstock certification that requires 

manufacturers to certify that they used specific cultivation practices for corn would be expensive 

and impractical. Tracking the practices under which a feedstock was grown and maintaining that 

throughout the supply chain would require a costly revamping of the grain delivery process. 

Certification requirements would increase production costs and be a disincentive to sustainable 

biofuel production. 

Our Response: 

The final rule does not include the type of certification procedures the commenter finds 

objectionable. 
EPA-420-R-10-003

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Summary and Analysis of 

Comments

Chapter 12

Administrative Requirements and 

Legal Authority
12. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND LEGAL AUTHORITY

12.1 Paperwork Reduction Act/Information Collection Requests (ICR) 12-1 

12.2 Regulatory Flexibility Act/SBREFA 12-1 

12.3 Other Executive Orders 12-4 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

12. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND LEGAL AUTHORITY

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section correspond to Section XII of the preamble to the proposed 

rule and address compliance burden and program impacts. A summary of the comments 

received and our responses to those comments are located below (and in Section XI of the 

preamble to the final rule). 

12.1 Paperwork Reduction Act/Information Collection Requests (ICR)

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2157) is concerned with additional registration, certification, and reporting 

requirements that EPA is proposing. The commenter finds these are impractical, burdensome 

and unnecessary. Generally the current RFS RIN program has been working, and EPA should 

not add undue burdens that may be cost prohibitive and, in fact, may result in having the 

opposite of the intended effect. Specifically, EPA should presume the existing agricultural lands 

are met, and not require certification and, at most, should utilize an approach similar to the 

baseline production approach identified in the Proposed Rule (taking into account increased 

yields). Additionally, price information, on-site engineering reviews, and production outlook 

reports are unnecessary and burdensome, may require release of confidential business 

information, and should not be required. (2157 p. iv-v and 21-23). 

Our Response:

Please see Chapter 4 of this Summary and Analysis of Comments document for 

responses related to compliance burdens. We note that a final Supporting Statement with 

detailed cost estimates has been prepared for the final rule and has been submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval under EPA ICR Number 2333.02. A copy of 

the Supporting Statement has been placed in the docket for the final rule. The Supporting 

Statement contains detailed estimates of the costs associated with recordkeeping and reporting by 

party and by recordkeeping and reporting activity. Interested parties are urged to review the 

Supporting Statement. 

12.2 Regulatory Flexibility Act/SBREFA

12-1
Chapter 12: Administrative Requirements and Legal Authority 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2118 

Organization: CountryMark Cooperative, LLP 

Comment:

The commenter (2118.1) believes that EPA has the legal authority to adopt the recommendations 

of the SBREFA panel conceding the impact of RFS2 proposed regulation on SBRs. RFS2 will 

have a substantial financial impact and create operating problems for SBRs. The SBREFA 

process was properly conducted and resulted in the determination that SBRs would be impacted 

by the proposed regulations and EPA should grant appropriate relief to SBRs as a result of the 

recommendations of the SBREFA panel. (2118.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2135 

Organization: Ad Hoc Coalition of Small Business Refiners (SBR) 

Comment:

Under Section 604 of SBREFA, EPA is required to perform a thorough analysis of the 

implications of the RFS2 proposal on small entities and potential alternatives to minimize 

significant economic impacts on such entities. The commenter (2135) notes that to date, EPA has 

not offered factual, policy, and legal reasons necessary to satisfy the SBREFA mandates. 

[[Docket number 2135.1, p. 15]] 

The commenter states that EPA’s disregard of flexibility considerations cannot be sustained 

under SBREFA. In view of the conclusory nature of EPA’s legal reasoning described above, the 

commenter submits that EPA’s regulatory flexibility analysis, as well as the proposals and nonproposals it purports to support, cannot pass muster under Section 604 of SBREFA. Moreover, 

because EPA has valid legal authority to permit the Panel recommendations, EPA’s conclusion 

to the contrary is a clear error in judgment, not in accordance with law, and therefore, arbitrary 

and capricious. [[Docket number 2135.1, pp. 19-20]] 

The commenter further states that EPA’s bases for disregarding the relief being sought by the 

SBR Coalition is inimical to the safeguards that the RFA and SBREFA were set in place to 

address and, therefore, are not in the public interest. In this regard, it should be noted that Section 

611(a)(4)(2) requires that a Court remand a rule to the agency for non-compliance with SBREFA 

unless the Court determines that the enforcement of the rule is in the public interest. As set forth 

above, unless EPA satisfies its obligations to conduct a meaningful evaluation of the impact on 

small businesses and considers reasonable alternatives, then the outcome of the rulemaking is 

clearly at odds with the public interest. Indeed, the “harm” that EPA hypothesizes relative to the 

commenter’s proposals is precisely the type of relief that the RFA and SBREFA were enacted to 

provide. EPA must demonstrate a greater showing of harm to the public interest in order to 

disregard the proposals of the SBR Coalition. [[Docket number 2135.1, p. 20]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2105 

Organization: Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy 

Comment: 

12-2
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2105.1) noted that small entity fuel refiners have expressed concern over the 

general impracticability of the rapid implementation schedule of the RFS2 program. Many 

commercially unavailable and untested fuels are required to be blended into petroleum fuel 

stocks in the near future, and small refiners are concerned that they will be disadvantaged in the 

marketplace by the uncertainty caused by this situation. (2015.1, p.2) 

Our Response:

As discussed in detail Section III.E of the preamble to the final rule and Chapter 7 of the 

Final RIA, Congress spoke directly to the relief that EPA may provide for small refineries, 

including those small refineries operated by small refiners, and limited that relief to a blanket 

exemption through December 31, 2010, with additional extensions if the criteria specified by 

Congress are met. EPA believes that an additional or different extension, relying on a more 

general provision in section 211(o)(3) would be inconsistent with Congressional intent. Further, 

we do not believe that the statute allows us the discretion to give relief to small refiners only—as 

this would result in a subset of small refineries (those that also qualify as small refiners) 

receiving relief that is greater than the relief already given to all small refineries under EISA. 

The criterion specified by the statute for providing a further compliance extension to small 

refineries is a demonstration of “disproportionate economic hardship.” The statute provides that 

such hardship can be identified through the DOE study, or in individual petitions submitted to 

the Agency. However, the DOE study has concluded that no disproportionate economic 

hardship exists, at least under current conditions and for the foreseeable future under RFS2. 

Therefore, absent further information that may be provided through the petition process, there 

does not currently appear to be a basis under the statute for granting further compliance 

extensions to small refineries. If DOE revises its study1

 and comes to a different conclusion, 

EPA can revisit exemption extension at that time in accordance with section 211(o)(9)(A)(ii). 

We note that we are finalizing a petition process for small refiners, based upon 

disproportionate economic hardship, which is similar to the provision for case-by-case 

extensions for small refineries. We believe that these avenues of relief can and should be fully 

explored by small refiners who are covered by the small refinery provision, as well as those not 

covered by the small refinery provision. In evaluating applications for this hardship provision 

EPA will take into consideration information gathered from annual reports and RIN system 

progress updates, as recommended by the SBAR Panel, as well as information provided by the 

petitioner and through consultation with DOE. 

In response to the comment stating that the rapid RFS2 implementation schedule will 

harm small refiners, EPA notes that small entities qualifying as small refiners and small 

refineries are temporarily exempt from renewable fuel standard obligations through 2010. 

Therefore they will have most of this calendar year to prepare for compliance. Furthermore, a 

compliance demonstration for 2011 will not be required until February of 2012, providing 

 

1

 In Senate Report 111-45, the Senate Appropriations Committee “directed [DOE] to reopen and reassess the Small 

Refineries Exemption Study by June 30, 2010,” noting a number of factors that the Committee intended that DOE 

consider in the revised study. The Final Conference Report 111-278 to the Energy & Water Development 

Appropriations Act (H.R. 3183), referenced the language in the Senate Report, noting that the conferees “support the 

study requested by the Senate on RFS and expect the Department to undertake the requested economic review.” 

12-1
Chapter 12: Administrative Requirements and Legal Authority 

additional flexibility and lead time for compliance. Finally, compliance does not require actual 

blending of renewable fuel, but can be achieved merely through the purchase of RINs. 

Therefore, EPA does not foresee that small refineries or small refiners will have difficulty 

complying with their obligations under RFS2 as a result of the RFS2 implementation schedule. 

12.3 Other Executive Orders

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) supports voluntary consensus standards. EPA should follow the 

guidance from OMB, let the marketplace work, and not step in to regulate when there is a 

voluntary standard. (2124.1, p.22) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2105 

Organization: Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2105.1) noted that small refiners are concerned that RFS2 mandates, under the 

auspices of the EISA, could, in fact, threaten regional energy security and independence within 

the U.S. Many small refiners serve isolated regions of the U.S. without many substitute fuel 

suppliers, or serve as primary suppliers to military bases or installations. If the requirements of 

the RFS2 program interfere with the ability of these refiners to meet the demands of their 

isolated and unique customers, it could have the unintended consequence of disrupting U.S. 

energy markets rather than making them more independent and secure. The commenter believes 

that EPA should consider the energy independence and security impact of this rule on 

geographically isolated regions of the country and military bases and installations, and find 

flexibility options to alleviate these potential problems before they happen. (2105.1, p.7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2105 

Organization: Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy 

Comment: 

The commenter (2105.1) noted that there are issues with the availability of “exotic” renewable 

fuels, those made using methods that are not yet commercially viable. This additional GHG 

reduction requirement adds significant cost and uncertainty to a rule that is already costly and 

filled with uncertainty for small entities. (2105.1, p.6) 

 

The commenter noted that given that the production, price, and availability of RINs are very 

uncertain, further narrowing the types of renewable fuels acceptable for compliance will further 

decrease the availability of RINs. RFS2 was designed with a focus on the importance of energy 

independence and security rather than greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Areas within the 

United States that currently grow soybeans and produce soybean-based diesel will be drastically 

affected by the elimination of this fuel from certification for blending. The commenter believes 

that EPA should consider waivers to assist these regions in compliance. (2105.1, p.6) 

12-4
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter also believes that the approval and selection of renewable fuel technologies will 

create limitations on innovation. These limitations would put restraints on potentially beneficial 

and cost-effective improvements. (2105.1, p.6) 

Our Response:

We appreciate the commenters’ remarks and concerns regarding the various executive 

orders including the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (voluntary consensus 

standards) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). 

We note that we are incorporating by reference the most recent version of the voluntary 

consensus standard ASTM D-6751-08, which the RFS1 rule already contains at 40 CFR Part 80 

Subpart K, and are adding several more voluntary consensus standards (ASTM D-1250-08, 

“Standard Guide for Use of the Petroleum Measurement Tables”; ASTM D-4442, “Standard Test 

Methods for Direct Moisture Content Measurement of Wood and Wood-Base Materials”; ASTM 

D-4444, “Standard Test Method for Laboratory Standardization and Calibration of Hand-Held 

Moisture Meters”; ASTM D-6866-08 “Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased 

Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples Using Radiocarbon Analysis”; ASTM E-711, 

“Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Refuse-Derived Fuel by the Bomb 

Calorimeter”; and ASTM E-870, “Standard Test Methods for Analysis of Wood Fuels”.) 

Information about these standards may be obtained through the ASTM website (www.astm.org) 

or by contacting ASTM at (610) 832-9585. 

While the RFS2 standards as written by Congress will have impacts on all refiners, we do 

not believe that the RFS2 renewable fuels requirement will cause a large impact on small refiners 

as expected by the commenter. As discussed in Section 7 of the RIA, we estimate that the costs 

to small refiners will in all cases be less than 1 percent. In addition, as crude oil prices rise and 

renewable fuels prices fall, these costs will be further minimized. 

Since the program is a nationwide average program with credits (RINs) being traded 

nationwide to demonstrate compliance, the economic impacts to small refiners should be similar 

to the impacts nationwide. Furthermore, since the obligation is a function of gasoline and diesel 

fuel production, the economic impacts on an annual average basis for small refiners are reduced 

in proportion to their production volume. Finally, EPA does not believe that compliance by 

small refiners providing fuel to military bases or other small markets will be more onerous than 

compliance for other small entities or refiners at large. Compliance can be achieved through the 

purchase of RINs on the marketplace, and there is no need to alter fuel production or delivery 

practices. 

Additionally, the final rule makes a distinction between fuel produced from current crops 

and technology and that produced from emerging alternative feedstocks and technologies. EPA 

has provided a petition process whereby biofuel producers can request EPA to evaluate specific 

technologies or operating processes that distinguish their biofuel production LCA GHG impacts 

12-1
Chapter 12: Administrative Requirements and Legal Authority 

12-6

from those already considered by EPA. These new technologies or operating processes can then 

receive an alternative GHG threshold assessment, if appropriate. 

One commenter expressed a concern about the qualification of soy-based biodiesel under 

EISA, and the impact that constraints on that product would have on RIN availability and price. 

EPA’s proposed lifecycle analysis of soy-based biodiesel suggested that it would not meet the 

required 50% reduction in GHG emissions as compared to baseline fuel for qualification as 

biomass-based diesel. However, EPA’s revised lifecycle assessment for the final rule indicates 

that it does qualify, so EPA believes that this change has addressed the commenter’s concerns. 
EPA-420-R-10-003

February 2010

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Summary and Analysis of 

Comments

Chapter 13

Other
13 OTHER

13.1 Public Participation Process (Public Hearing and Comment Process) 13-1 

13.2 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) 13-3 

13.3 Biodiesel Temperature Standardization 13-6 

13.4 Comments Outside Scope of the Proposal 13-10 

13.4.1 Fuel Quality 13-10 

13.4.2 Low Carbon Fuel Standard & Cap and Trade 13-14 

13.4.3 E15 Waiver 13-15 

13.4.4 General Waiver Authority 13-27 

13.4.5 EPA Requirements for E85 Blenders and Compositional Gasoline 

Blendstocks Used to Manufacture E85 13-29 

13.4.6 Other Comments Outside Scope of the Rule 13-31 

13.5 Other 13-31 
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

13 OTHER

What We Proposed:

The comments in this section do not necessarily correspond to specific section of the 

preamble to the proposed rule, but rather are comments that span various areas and issues. A 

summary of the comments received and our responses to those comments are located below. 

13.1 Public Participation Process (Public Hearing and Comment Process) 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA has not provided sufficient opportunity to comment 

as required by the Clean Air Act. Significant portions of EPA’s lifecycle analysis that was 

included in the Proposed Rule lack sufficient transparency required for scientific analysis and 

public review and comment. The commenter believes that prior to finalizing its lifecycle 

analysis, EPA must give the public an opportunity to review and comment on revisions, 

including the numerous elements that EPA acknowledges were not completed prior to proposal, 

to the analysis. (2329.1, p.20). 

The commenter also believes that while EPA has provided some information on its lifecycle 

analysis, the information regarding its analysis of land use changes is insufficient to make its 

analysis transparent and cannot be reproduced, undermining the public’s ability to comment and 

placing into question the scientific validity of its analysis. (2329.1, p.22) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2204 

Organization: Sierra Research, Inc. 

Comment:

Commenters [[2204]] review has been limited due to the failure of U.S. EPA fully to document 

and explain in the DRIA its direct lifecycle emissions analysis (LCA) for Brazilian sugarcane 

ethanol. Based on my experience related to regulatory development while employed by the 

California Air Resources Board, it is not acceptable to attempt to finalize a regulation without 

providing an opportunity for public review of and comment on a reasonably complete set of data 

and assumptions used in preparing an emissions analysis. [[2204 p.2-3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2339 

Organization: Illinois Com Growers Association 

Comment:

Commenter [[2339]] states that EPA repeatedly states that it will develop additional data and 

convene peer review work groups after the close of the public comment period to address holes 

in its analysis. But this does not solve the problem that the proposal that has been presented to 

13-1
Chapter 13: Other 

the public is not documented by good science in the EPA record. Moreover, EPA’s opaque postcomment period peer review process cannot retroactively cure the failure to disclose the 

scientific basis of the proposal to the public before finalizing the rule. This peer review should 

have taken place before this rule was proposed. EPA’s Peer Review Handbook states as much. 

[[#2339 p.4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2347 

Organization: Illinois Farm Bureau 

Comment:

Commenter [[2347]] states EPA’s proposal is not transparent. The proposal does not allow the 

public to effectively comment on the rule. [[#2347.1 p.2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2471 

Organization: Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP 

Comment:

The commenter (2471.1) believes that before finalizing the rule, EPA must hold public hearings 

on the entirety of the rule. The commenter noted that EPA did convene a broader hearing on the 

proposal in June; however, that hearing occurred only a few weeks after the Proposed Rule was 

published. Both EPA’s and stakeholders’ understanding of key issues since has evolved 

considerably, and will continue to do so as EPA considers public comments on the rulemaking. 

Transition issues and obstacles are likely to arise if the final rule is adopted without additional 

EPA-stakeholder interaction in the form of a second multi-topic hearing. The best way to 

effectuate the goals of EPAct and EISA is to implement an RFS2 program that has been 

thoroughly examined and crafted to address valid concerns, incorporate sensible flexibilities and 

correct inconsistencies or misperceptions before being finalized. (2471.1, p.3) 

Our Response:

 EPA held a public hearing on the proposed rule on June 9, 2009. At the hearing, any 

interested party was invited to provide public comment, and a great many did so. In addition, 

we initially provided a 60-day public comment period for interested parties unable to attend the 

hearing to submit written comments, and for those who attended the hearing to submit 

supplementary or revised comments. At the request of a number of individuals, we later 

extended the comment period an additional 60 days to provide the public and the regulated 

community additional time to review and provide comments on the proposed rulemaking. We 

received some comments after the close of the comment period, and to the extent possible, we 

have considered and responded to these late comments as well. Finally, it is important to note 

that EPA was directed by Congress to issue the final RFS2 rule by December 19, 2008. 

Although EPA missed this deadline due to the complexities inherent in the rulemaking and the 

time needed to evaluate the many comments received, EPA was mindful that it had an obligation 

to proceed expeditiously to issuing a final rule, and therefore had to weigh the benefits of further 

extensions of comment opportunities with the statutory imperative to issue a final rule as 

promptly after the statutory deadline as possible. In sum, EPA believes that the public was 

provided ample opportunity for public comment, especially in light of the tight deadlines 

imposed by the statute for issuing a final rule. 

13-2
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

 A significant development that occurred during the public comment period was the 

release of the report of the peer review that EPA sought with respect to its proposed lifecycle 

analyses. We promptly added the report to the public docket, and the extension of the comment 

period allowed the public the ability to consider the peer reviewers comments in evaluating 

EPA’s proposal and preparing their own written comments on the rule. 

 With regard to holding an additional hearing, we do not agree with the commenter’s 

assessment. The proposed rule was signed by the EPA Administrator on May 5, 2009 and the 

signature version was made available on EPA’s website the same day. The hearing date of June 

9, 2009 was chosen due to the time constraints for completing the final rule. We do understand 

the commenters’ point that our understanding and our stakeholders’ understanding of key issues 

evolve as we consider public comments on the rulemaking, and for this reason, but we note that 

commenters had ample opportunity after the public hearing to submit written comments, as 

discussed above. 

13.2 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA’s assumptions regarding carbon sequestration are 

flawed. EPA should revise its 80-year assumption for the final rule. EPA should also be using 

the same average age for carbon sequestration and for developing the emission factors for forest 

conversion. (2329.1, p.60) 

The commenter noted that ethanol facilities have taken great strides in addressing GHG 

emissions, including carbon capture and sequestration projects, which are not reflected in EPA’s 

pathways. EPA should allow facilities to submit a facility specific analysis in order for the 

facility to take advantage of the measures they are taking to reduce their overall carbon footprint. 

(2329.1, p. 99) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1033 

Organization: Poet Ethanol Products 

Comment:

The commenter (1033.1) submits to EPA for consideration the concept that by capturing and 

making carbon dioxide available for commercial use, that Renewable Fuel Producers are 

displacing carbon dioxide that has been sequestered in the earth and would otherwise remain 

there were it not for its market value. Whether under an offshoot of the Carbon Capture and 

Storage program or as simply as being evaluated as a separate fuel pathway, the commenter 

believes this production process should be separately considered for its contribution to lowering 

GHG emissions. (1033.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2097 

13-3
Chapter 13: Other 

Organization: North American Carbon Capture and Storage Association (NACCSA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2097) addresses the need for clear and cohesive regulation. For example, the 

Proposed UIC Rules are focused on protecting underground sources of drinking water (USDW) 

and cannot address, for example, issues related to use of CCS to satisfy existing or future 

emissions reductions requirements under the SDWA rulemaking. While recognizing the 

resulting necessity of some ad hoc rulemaking in the CCS context, NACCSA encourages the 

Agency to work toward creation of a comprehensive framework for CCS, rather than a 

patchwork of context-specific CCS provisions. (2097.1.pdf, p3) 

The commenter (2097) suggests avoiding potential conflicts with the UIC program. EPA’s 

Proposed RFS Rules identify a number of program elements that will require treatment in order 

for fuel producers to utilize CCS as a means to reduce life-cycle GHG emissions from fuels, 

these are listed on page 3, page4 and page 5 of the document. (2097.1.pdf, p3-5) 

The commenter (2097) suggests developing a comprehensive framework and avoiding a 

regulatory patchwork. For example, rather than develop rules specific to the use of CCS in 

reducing life-cycle GHG emissions for RFS purposes, EPA should work toward development of 

a comprehensive regulatory framework for all aspects of a CCS project. (2097.1.pdf, p 5) 

The commenter (2097) would welcome the opportunity to work with EPA in crafting an 

appropriate framework for CCS. (2097.1.pdf, p 5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2146 

Organization: DuPont Applied BioSciences 

Comment:

The commenter (2146.1) recommends no provisions for generating RINs based on carbon 

capture be allowed until approaches / means of CO2 capture, transportation and storage have 

been fully tested and regulated by the EPA. (2146.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2335 

Organization: Edison Electric Institute 

Comment:

The commenter (2335.1) believes that CCS technologies are a critical element in the full 

portfolio of options needed to reduce GHG emissions and combat climate change, and that the 

promise of CCS is not limited to its use in connection with coal-fired electricity production. The 

commenter applauds EPA for its recognition that CCS can be a key element in reducing the lifecycle GHG emissions of renewable fuels. Not only does EPA’s acknowledgement lay the 

groundwork for use of CCS in reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with 

renewable fuels, it also serves to support commercial development and deployment of CCS 

technologies more generally. The commenter supports the development of clear, flexible and 

appropriately tailored regulatory regimes that will facilitate development of and investment in 

CCS technology and projects. Of particular importance in this context is the need to avoid 

piecemeal regulation of CCS. In particular, the commenter urges EPA to ensure that any 

monitoring requirements that may be considered for purposes of the Proposed Rules are not 

duplicative of potential SDWA monitoring requirements and do not impose additional 

13-4
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

unnecessary burdens on CCS projects. (2335.1, p.4 & p.6) (See Docket Number 2335.1, pp.4-9 

for a more detailed discussion of these issues) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2360 

Organization: Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 

Comment:

The commenter (2360.1) noted that the development and deployment of carbon capture and 

storage technologies is an important means of reducing GHG emissions. The commenter 

recommends that EPA should provide a mechanism for GHG reductions due to CCS to be 

credited for a given fuel pathway. The commenter believes that EPA should deem compliance 

with the UIC permit issued for CCS as adequate assurance that the monitoring and recordkeeping 

necessary to ensure the carbon is captured. These programs are designed to ensure this is 

occurring. This rule should not try to reinvent the wheel for the existing programs under which 

CCS are implemented. (2360.1, p.5) 

The commenter noted that EPA requested comment on efficacy of capturing CO2 from 

combustion of fossil fuels. The commenter believes that EPA correctly concluded that 

immediate source CO2 for capture is that from fermentation. There are numerous issues to be 

resolved before combustion emissions will be efficiently captured, but that should not stop EPA 

from proposing an ethanol with CCS pathway. Such a pathway, which could be used now for 

ethanol fermentation, would be available for future use from fossil fuel combustion. (2360.1, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment:

The commenter (2383) states that EPA’s proposed regulations do not provide any “pathway” or 

mechanism for a renewable fuel producer that captures and stores CO2 to use associated GHG 

reductions in establishing that a fuel qualifies for generation of RINs as either “renewable fuel” 

or “advance biofuel.” The commenter recommends that EPA establish a process to expedite 

assignment of new D codes based on case-by-case demonstrations of the lifecycle GHG 

emissions of a particular fuel. The commenter urges EPA to clarify in RFS2 that, for purposes of 

any “additionality” analyses under carbon legislation and programs, while CCS systems may be 

used to qualify a fuel for a specific D code classification of renewable fuel, to the extent such 

systems are not necessary for a fuel to achieve a particular D code, any carbon reductions from 

CCS systems should be fully creditable as “additional” reductions or offsets. [[Docket number 

2383.1, p. 62]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2303) believes that companies should be encouraged to pursue a broad suite of 

solutions, including carbon capture and storage (CCS), to reduce GHG emissions. However, 

establishing monitoring requirements and performance standards for CO2 leakage from CCS 

implies EPA support for a specific pathway for renewable fuel producers to reduce the GHG 

emissions associated with renewable fuel production. Additionally including CCS regulations in 

the RFS2 regulations would create a patchwork of requirements for CCS. The commenter 

13-5
Chapter 13: Other 

supports establishment of CCS regulations separately from the RFS regulation. Separate 

regulations would facilitate commercial deployment of this important technology while avoiding 

duplicative rules. If EPA chooses to include CCS requirements in the RFS regulation, the 

commenter offers suggestions on capturing CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels for process 

heat, monitoring to demonstrate long-term storage of CO2, and performance standard for CO2 

leakage during transport, injection, and/or geologic storage. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 61]] 

[[See docket number 2393.1, pp. 61-65 for a detailed discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response: 

EPA recognizes the necessity of clear and cohesive regulation regarding carbon capture 

and sequestration (CCS). We acknowledge the difficulty that conflicting and/or patchwork CCS 

regulations would impose on this developing technology; however the establishment of 

comprehensive CCS regulations is beyond the scope of this rule. 

EPA has not finalized a pathway allowing a biofuel producer to generate RINs using 

carbon capture and storage to reduce lifecycle green house gas emissions to meet the thresholds 

in this rule. The many uncertainties surrounding CCS regulations, as well as the wide range of 

green house gas emission reductions achievable depending on how CCS is utilized, are primary 

factors in this decision. Biofuel producers who desire to generate RINs using CCS as part of 

their fuel production process will be eligible to petition EPA. Biofuels producers using CCS as 

part of their fuel production process will be considered to have a significantly different pathway 

than those described in Table V.C-7. For a description of the petition process see Section V.C of 

the Preamble. These petitions will be evaluated on a case by case basis. Biofuel producers who 

capture CO2 for commercial sale, displacing naturally sequestered CO2 that would otherwise be 

collected and used in a variety of industries, and desire to generate RINs are also eligible to 

petition EPA. In addition to the information that must be submitted as part of the petition 

process described in Section V.C of the Preamble, these biofuel producers must also demonstrate 

that the sale of this CO2 replaces naturally sequestered CO2 in the market. 

13.3 Biodiesel Temperature Standardization 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2233) notes that Section 80.1426(d)(10) provides formulas for the 

standardization of volume for ethanol and biodiesel. However, paragraph (iii) in this section 

allows the standardization of volume for other renewable fuels to be determined by an 

appropriate formula commonly accepted by the industry which may be reviewed by the EPA for 

appropriateness. The commenter recommends that EPA extend this courtesy to biodiesel. 

[[Docket number 2233.2, p. 15]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249 

13-6
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2249) requests that EPA revise its renewable identification numbers (RIN) 

temperature correction factors for biodiesel. The commenter has collected significant industry 

data and polled the commercial marketplace and is providing the following recommendations to 

EPA for temperature compensating biodiesel RINs: 

-Allow the use of the API tables for temperature compensating of biodiesel RINs, or; 

-Allow the use of the current EPA equation for calculating RINs with adjusted values contained 

below; and 

-Require, under either scenario, that the method of temperature compensation (API tables, 

updated EPA formula) be recorded and disclosed by the biodiesel company for purposes of RIN 

generation on each RIN transaction. [[Docket number 2249.2, pp. 44-45]] 

The commenter stands willing to work with EPA to fine tune the record keeping associated with 

this option. The commenter believes that the option above represents a significant step forward 

in simplifying the generations of RINs and harmonizing the RIN and sales gallon accounting 

systems of both biodiesel and obligated parties. This simplification will reduce the overall cost 

of compliance and significantly reduce the possibility of invalid RINs and the costs and lost 

productivity in dealing with possible invalid RINs. [[Docket number 2249.2, p. 46]] [[See docket 

number 2249.2, pp. 44-48 for further explanation of the rational and basis for this 

recommendation.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2360 

Organization: Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2360.1) noted that in September 2008, EPA published an equation for biodiesel 

volume corrections to be used to calculate RINs as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard. This 

equation utilized a coefficient of expansion of 0.0008008 for all biodiesel regardless of feedstock 

or processing. Now EPA is proposing to change the coefficient of expansion significantly to 

0.00045767. The commenter recommends that EPA use the API values (widely used by 

traditional fuel suppliers) rather than the value proposed in that it is confusing to use different 

values for calculating RINs volumes and sales volumes. It is imperative to have a single, 

uniform calculation to apply throughout the industry. (2360.1, p.7-8) [[See Docket Number 

2360.1, pp.7-8 for a detailed discussion of this issue]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2157 

Organization: World Energy Alternatives, LLC. 

Notes: 

The same comment has been submitted and posted multiple times under the following docket 

numbers: 2157-2157.1, 2294-2294.1, 2295-2295.1, 2296-2296.1, 2297-2297.1, 2298-2298.1, 

2340-2340.1, 2226-2226.1, 2227-2227.1, 2293-2293.1, 2170-2170.1, 2159-2159.1. 2157 

contains all of the summary information. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2157) requests that EPA revise its renewable identification numbers and 

temperature correction factors for biodiesel. Additional detail given on (2157 p. 41-26). 

13-7
Chapter 13: Other 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2172.1 

Organization: Minnesota Soybean Processors. 

Comment: 

The commenter (2172) requests that EPA revise its renewable identification numbers (RIN) 

temperature correction factors for biodiesel to the 2008 Minnesota Hedman equation. 

Our Response:

The volume of a batch of renewable fuel can change under extreme changes in 

temperature. The volume of a batch of renewable fuel can experience expansion as the 

temperature increases, or can experience contraction as temperature decreases. The Agency 

requires temperature standardization of renewable fuels at 60 ° Fahrenheit (°F) so renewable fuel 

volumes are accounted for on a uniform and consistent basis over the entire fuels industry. In the 

May 1, 2007 Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) final rule the Agency required biodiesel 

temperature standardization to be completed as follows: 

Vs,b = Va,b X(-0.0008008 X T + 1.0480) 

Where 

Vs,b = Standard Volume of biodiesel at 60 degrees F, in gallons; 

Va,b = Actual volume of biodiesel, in gallons; 

T = Actual temperature of batch, in degrees F. 

This equation was based on data from a published research paper by Tate et al.

1

 

Members of the petroleum industry have indicated that the current biodiesel temperature 

standardization equation in the regulations provides different results than that commonly used by 

both the petroleum and biodiesel industry for commercial trading of biodiesel. These 

commercial values are either based on American Petroleum Institute (API) tables for petroleum 

products or on empirical values from industry measurements at common temperatures and 

pressures observed in bulk fuel facilities. The difference between RIN calculated volumes and 

commercial sales volumes has created confusion within the record keeping system of both the 

petroleum and biodiesel industry. 

In the RFS2 proposed rule, the Agency proposed the temperature standardization of 

biodiesel remain unchanged from the RFS1 requirements.2

 The Agency received comments 

from Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM), World Energy Alternatives, Marathon 

Petroleum Company (Marathon), Minnesota Soybean Processors (MSP), and the National 

Biodiesel Board (NBB) to revise the biodiesel temperature standardization equation. 

Both ADM and NBB agreed on the necessity for biodiesel temperature standardization at 

60 °F. ADM, MSP, and NBB commented on several empirical calculations which have been 

developed specific to biodiesel temperature standardization since the 2007 RFS1 final rule. 

These include a 2004 data set developed by the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the 

 

1

 Equation was derived from R.E. Tate et al. “The Densities of Three Biodiesel Fuels at Temperatures up to 300°C.”, 

Department of Biological Engineering, Dalhousie University, April 2005. “Fuel 85 (2006) 1004-1009, Table 1 for 

soy methyl ester.” 

2

 74 FR 24943, May 26, 2009. 

13-8
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Renewable Energy Group and updated in 2008; information embedded in the European Biodiesel 

Specification EN 14214; and information from the Alberta Research Council. The table below 

provides values from NBB for 1000 gallons of biodiesel standardized to a temperature at 60 °F 

for these empirical calculations, along with the current EPA equation, and the American 

Petroleum Institute (API) Refined Products Table 6. 

Table 1: NBB Comparison of Biodiesel Temperature Standardization Calculations to 60°F for 

1000 gallons of Biodiesel at 90°F 

2007 EPA Biodiesel Formula 975.28 gallons 

2008 Minnesota (Hedman) data 986.270 gallons 

API Refined Products Table 6 (biodiesel 

density @ 7.359) 

986.625 gallons 

Alberta Research Council 986.238 gallons 

EN 14214 data 986.401 gallons 

2004 Minnesota Renewable Energy Group data 986.830 gallons 

As illustrated by the results from the above table, the values for the various biodiesel 

temperature standardization empirical calculations are within 1 gallon of agreement of each other 

for a 1000 gallon biodiesel batch, except for the current biodiesel temperature standardization 

equation in the regulations. 

To ensure consistency in RIN generation, ADM commented EPA should adopt only one 

biodiesel temperature standardization calculation. ADM commented that all biodiesel 

temperature standardization calculations developed, including the API Refined Products Table 6, 

are in very close agreement with each other and the differences between them all are 

insignificant. They further commented the API Refined Products Table 6 has provided a 

uniform measurement of volume for years for the entire liquid fuels industry. Thus, ADM 

believes the API Refined Products Table 6 should be adopted for biodiesel to be consistent with 

the calculation of sales volumes. Finally ADM comments adoption of the API Refined Products 

Table 6 would allow for easier verification within the marketplace, eliminate the need for 

calculating one volume for sales and trades and another for RINs, and prevents the entire 

distribution network from facing the financial burden of reprogramming existing meters that 

already are based on the API Refined Products Table 6. 

NBB commented that earlier surveys from its members indicate a fifty-fifty split between 

members using the API Refined Products Table 6 or some variation of the current EPA biodiesel 

formula for biodiesel temperature standardization. Some NBB members indicated that the API 

Refined Products Table 6 was more commonly used by the petroleum industry and embedded 

into the meters, pumps and accounting systems of the petroleum industry. Companies already 

using the API Refined Products Table 6 would have a reduction in required paperwork with RIN 

generation and tracking because already existing commercial documents could serve that 

purpose and they thus could eliminate or reduce their current dual tracking system. Other NBB 

members have already embedded the current EPA biodiesel equation within their accounting and 

sales systems and would like to continue using that type of biodiesel temperature standardization 

approach rather than the API Refined Products Table 6. The NBB and MSP recommended EPA 

revise its current equation in the regulations to the 2008 Hedman biodiesel temperature 

13-9
Chapter 13: Other 

standardization equation. Thus, NBB commented EPA should provide flexibility to their 

members by allowing the use of either the API Product Table 6 or the use of a biodiesel 

temperature standardization equation. 

Marathon commented the regulations allow for the standardization of volume for other 

renewable fuels to be determined by an appropriate formula commonly accepted by the industry 

which may be reviewed by the EPA for appropriateness. They recommended that EPA extend 

this courtesy to biodiesel. 

The Agency acknowledges that the current biodiesel temperature standardization 

equation is likely not correct for biodiesel temperature standardization at ambient temperatures 

observed in the fuel distribution system. Based on the comments received, the Agency is 

amending the regulations to allow for two ways for biodiesel temperature standardization: 1) the 

American Petroleum Institute Refined Products Table 6B, as referenced in ASTM D1250-08, 

entitled, “Standard Guide for Use of the Petroleum Measurement Tables”, and 2) a biodiesel 

temperature standardization equation that utilizes the 2008 data generated by the Minnesota 

Department of Commerce and the Renewable Energy Group. These two methods for biodiesel 

temperature standardization are within one gallon of agreement of each other for a 1000 gallon 

biodiesel batch and thus in very close agreement. ADM, MSP and NBB acknowledged that the 

differences between these two methods are insignificant and the resulting corrected volumes 

from these two methods of calculation are within accuracy tolerances of any metered 

measurement. Thus, the Agency believes the allowance of both of these methods for biodiesel 

temperature standardization will increase flexibility while still providing for a consistent 

generation and accounting of biodiesel RINs over the entire fuel delivery system. 

13.4 Comments Outside Scope of the Proposal 

13.4.1 Fuel Quality 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2465 

Organization: Ford Motor Company 

Comment:

The commenter believes that vehicle compatibility, refueling infrastructure improvement and 

appropriate pricing are all important to achieving the RFS2 goals; however, there is a need for 

strict adherence to fuel quality needs as outlined by automakers. Automakers are best suited to 

define the requirements for their engines and vehicles. As such, fuel experts from the auto 

industry worldwide have created the WorldWide Fuel Charter (WFFC). The WFFC includes 

guidelines for all transportation fuels including biofuels and was created to assist countries with 

implementation of transportation fuels. The commenter believes that both the base fuel as well 

as the final blended biofuel needs to meet minimum automaker fuel specifications. (2465.1, p.13) 

The commenter also believes that ethanol should become an accepted transportation fuel. 

However, in order for ethanol to gain acceptance in the marketplace, it is essential to avoid the 

13-10
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

kind of consumer backlash that developed with early and flawed diesel applications in the U.S. 

car market. (2465.1, p.14) (See Docket Number 2465.1, p.14 for more discussion on this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter recommends against EPA including E85 quality specifications to the RFS2 

regulation because it will be unnecessary to do so. (Docket Number 2132.1, pp.18-19) [[See 

Docket Number 2132.1, pp.18-20 for a detailed discussion on the ATSM Fuel Quality Standard 

for E85) 

To the extent the expansion of renewable fuels in the marketplace may cause an increase in 

emissions, the commenter (2132.1) that EPA recognizes such increases will need to be mitigated 

through fuel quality changes and not through regulations on other sources. (2132.1, p.8) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment: 

The commenter (2143) suggests that if E85 must be regulated if it is expected to be a significant 

motor fuel. (2143.2, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2127 

Organization: Caterpillar Inc 

Comment: 

The commenter notes that significant uncertainty with today’s bio-diesel fuels (FAME), and 

despite their availability, there is a lack of adequate clarity to their effects, shorter term and 

longer term. Engine manufacturers need predictability and consistency of fuel in order to design 

future engine technologies. Because of this, engine manufacturers need adequate lead-time to 

develop the requisite technologies that offer optimum performance, coupled with the most cost 

effective GHG reductions. [[Docket number 2127.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2141 

Organization: American Trucking Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2141.1) noted that the rule does not require that fuel used to satisfy the 

biomass-based diesel portion of the mandate comply with ASTM D975. This oversight must be 

remedied to avoid potential damage and operating challenges for the legacy fleet. The 

commenter noted that last year, ASTM-International approved a modification to the on-road 

diesel fuel standard (i.e., ASTM D975), which will facilitate the use of biodiesel in blends up to 

five percent (B5). Five percent of the diesel fuel consumed by the U.S. trucking industry is 1.95 

billion gallons almost double the amount mandated by RFS2. The commenter believes that 

requiring compliance with ASTM D975 will not impede the ability to achieve the biomass-based 

diesel targets under RFS2. There is no reason that EPA should not require fuel sold in the U.S. 

to meet this universally accepted standard. (2141.1, p.2) 

13-11
Chapter 13: Other 

The commenter also noted that the rule may result in certain obligated parties distributing blends 

of biodiesel that exceed five percent. These higher biodiesel blends do not meet the ASTM 

D975 standard. While renewable diesel that meets the ASTM D975 standard is expected to 

perform comparably to today’s ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel, first generation biodiesel has 

been shown to present operational challenges for the trucking industry as the blend rate 

increases. (2141.1, p.2) [[See Docket Number 2141.1, pp.3-5 for a detailed discussion of the 

operational challenges.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2127 

Organization: Caterpillar Inc 

Comment:

The commenter (2127) is concerned about two interrelated issues: certification fuel and 

certification testing. The commenter believes it is very premature to discuss any changes to the 

current diesel engine certification testing process or the current certification fuel used in that 

process. Renewable fuels currently available in the marketplace significantly vary in 

compositions and quality. Engine manufacturers should not be required to test or otherwise 

demonstrate compliance to a variety of possible renewable fuels or blends. That would be 

extremely cumbersome, cost prohibitive, and not practical. [[Docket number 2127.1, p. 4]] 

The commenter adds that an engine manufacturer should not be liable, or implicitly accountable, 

for emissions when a fuel different than the certification fuel, is used. Emissions certification 

tests are based on using a well-defined certification fuel and need to continue in this course. 

[[Docket number 2127.1, p. 4]] 

The commenter states that EPA needs to provide assurance and enforcement for the technical 

and quality specifications for both renewable fuels and the resulting finished fuel blends in the 

market. The commenter states that such enforcement of current renewable fuels and finished 

fuels to the latest industry specifications and standards by EPA will be critical to the success of 

this renewable fuels initiative. The commenter (2127) believes that transparency to the end user 

about the “finished” fuel being purchased will be another important element of assuring the 

market about the quality and consistency of the transportation fuel pool. [[Docket number 

2127.1, p. 4]] 

The commenter urges EPA to work with Agency counterparts in other major geographic areas 

with the goal of achieving this global harmonization of renewable fuel specifications and 

standards. [[Docket number 2127.1, p. 4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2127 

Organization: Caterpillar Inc 

Comment:

The commenter (2127) is concerned that the proposal does not address the demand side of 

renewable fuels, nor the compatibility of the mandated renewable fuels with current and future 

engine technologies. The commenter and the engine industry have long stressed that engine 

technology and fuels need to be developed together, as a “system”, in order to address the needs 

of customers and society. The commenter believes that promoting much greater use of renewable 

fuels (by and through this RFS2 NPRM) should only be done in parallel with a thorough 

13-12
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

investigation of the implications and compatibility of the various renewable fuels/fuel blends 

with the engine technologies. [[Docket number 2127.1, pp. 3-4]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0984 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment: 

The commenter noted that the fuel quality standards currently in development by standards 

organizations in the U.S., Europe and Brazil tend to be feedstock neutral, performance-based 

standards. Achieving fuel production quality standards is a worthy goal because longer term, 

standardization of biofuels will hopefully enable us to more clearly identify the public health 

benefits of biofuels from an air pollution stand point. (0984, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2127 

Organization: Caterpillar Inc 

Comment:

The commenter states that EPA needs to provide assurance and enforcement for the technical 

and quality specifications for both renewable fuels and the resulting finished fuel blends in the 

market. The commenter states that such enforcement of current renewable fuels and finished 

fuels to the latest industry specifications and standards by EPA will be critical to the success of 

this renewable fuels initiative. The commenter (2127) believes that transparency to the end user 

about the “finished” fuel being purchased will be another important element of assuring the 

market about the quality and consistency of the transportation fuel pool. [[Docket number 

2127.1, p. 4]] 

Organization: Engine Manufacturers Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2147.1) recommends that EPA combine the RFS2s increased renewable fuel 

production requirements with the necessary finished fuel specification requirements in a single 

comprehensive rulemaking package providing both the timing and logistics required to 

coordinate the production and use of the renewable fuel requirements as specified by EISA. 

(Page 10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2125 

Organization: Mercedes Benz 

Comment:

The commenter (2125.1) noted that there are a number of forms of biomass-based diesel, such as 

renewable (non-ester) diesel, which represent excellent solutions for meeting the aggressive 

EISA volumetric mandate for biomass-based diesel. These non-ester renewable diesels, such as 

biomass-to-liquid fuels and hydrotreated vegetable oil, do not present the types of performance 

and reliability problems associated with traditional biodiesel. In contrast, in order to use 

traditional biodiesel to meet the EISA mandates, these performance and reliability problems 

must be addressed. (2125.1, p.2) [[See Docket Number 2125.1, pp.2-3 for a detailed discussion 

of this issue.]] 

Our Response:

13-13
Chapter 13: Other 

 The RFS2 final rulemaking is implementing the new provisions of section 211(o) of the 

CAA. In so doing, it is establishing a program for the generation and use of renewable credits 

(RINs) for fuels that meet the requirements for a renewable fuel under section 211(o). Other 

sections of the CAA address standards for and approvals for the use of fuels and fuel additives. 

New specifications for fuels and fuel additives and new mechanisms to enforce those 

requirements are outside the scope of the RFS2 rule. The current EPA requirements which apply 

to finished motor fuels will continue to apply to finished motor fuels which contain biofuels. For 

example in the case of diesel fuel used for highway consumption, such fuel must meet a 15 ppm 

sulfur specification which EPA enforces throughout the fuel distribution system. 

13.4.2 Low Carbon Fuel Standard & Cap and Trade 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0952 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2329.1) believes that EPA should preempt state programs designed to address 

carbon content and lifecycle analysis of fuels. The commenter believes that EPA should use its 

authority to preempt state low carbon fuel standards. (2329.1, p. 107) [[See Docket Number 

2329.1, pp.107-108 for a detailed discussion of this issue]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) questions EPA’s discretionary authority to control fuels for GHG 

impacts. The commenter states that Congress has sometimes chosen to establish fuel standards 

itself rather than looking to EPA to rely on authority delegated by §2118 of the Clean Air Act to 

set those standards and believes that this is exactly what Congress did when it enacted EISA. 

EPA action under §2118 to set additional fuel standards such as a low-carbon fuel standard 

(LCFS) is unneeded and duplicative. [[Docket number 2393.1, pp 76-77 and 2523.1, pp. 2-3]] 

[[See docket number 2393.1, pp 76-78 for details of this discussion.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) questions EPA’s discretionary authority to control fuels for GHG 

impacts. The commenter states that Congress has sometimes chosen to establish fuel standards 

itself rather than looking to EPA to rely on authority delegated by §2118 of the Clean Air Act to 

set those standards and believes that this is exactly what Congress did when it enacted EISA. 

EPA action under §2118 to set additional fuel standards such as a low-carbon fuel standard 

(LCFS) is unneeded and duplicative. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 66]] [[See docket number 

2233.2, pp. 66-68 for additional discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2337 

13-14
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: California Air Resources Board 

Comment:

The commenter (2337.1) would like to see future RFS proposals reflect the existing standards in 

place in California’s LCFS (low carbon fuel standard) in a variety of ways: California’s LCFS 

avoids volumetric requirements and instead promotes carbon intensity reductions from a broad 

mix of fuels without applying set limits to individual fuels. No fuel production is 

“grandfathered”, rather the LCFS applies a carbon intensity performance standard. Fuel 

producers are allowed to pursue the cost-effective mix of fuels of their choosing so long as they 

meet the overall emissions reduction requirement. (Page 5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2127 

Organization: Caterpillar Inc 

Comment:

Regarding a fuel-based carbon pricing mechanism, the commenter points out that there are two 

basic approaches to a “fuel based carbon pricing mechanism” (FBCPM). Including all 

transportation fuels under a “cap & trade” system would be one approach. The other approach 

would be a “carbon tax” on transportation fuels. The commenter believes this price based 

approach, or a market based approach would be technology neutral and would be the most 

efficient approach; hence, the comment recommends a FBCPM. 

However, the commenter also believes that a FBCPM and a RFS can be complimentary 

approaches to mitigating GHG emissions and improving energy efficiency; and thus, are not 

necessarily mutually exclusive. They could possibly be implemented in concert with one another. 

[[Docket number 2127.1, p. 8]] 

Our Response:

 EPA through the RFS2 final rule is implementing the Renewable Fuel Standards program 

as required by Congress through EISA. Issues associated with State LCFS programs, and 

potential future Federal fuel standards, are not germane to the final RFS program. However, 

where possible we have attempted to structure the RFS2 program so as to be compatible with 

existing State LCS programs, including coordination on lifecycle modeling. 

13.4.3 E15 Waiver 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

The commenter (2233) is concerned about retail dispensing and consumer acceptance of E10+ 

fuels. The commenter notes that the equipment at retail sites has only been approved for use 

with up to 10% ethanol and there are regulatory issues, safety consideration, and concerns with 

dispensing equipment to resolve. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 17-18]] 

13-15
Chapter 13: Other 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2303 

Organization: American Bakers Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2303.1) believes that EPA should not increase fuel blend levels until advanced 

biofuels are available and the ongoing science has been completed. EPA should also ensure that 

it has its Science Advisory Boards (SAB) ethanol blends compatibility study completed prior to 

altering existing ethanol blend levels is significant. The commenter urges EPA to oppose 

proposals that recommend increasing the amount of corn ethanol that can be blended into 

gasoline. EPA should take the appropriate steps to bring advanced biofuels into the marketplace. 

According to the Grocery Manufacturers Associations study, more than half of the U.S. corn 

crop will be diverted from food and feed to fuel if EPA permits the use of E15, leading to 

significant increases in food and feed prices and potentially, creating food security issues for the 

U.S. population in the future. (2303.1, pp.1-2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2504 

Organization: American Frozen Food Institute 

Comment:

Commenter [[2504]] states that EPA should not increase fuel blend levels until advanced 

biofuels are available and the ongoing scientific research has been completed. And that EPA 

should oppose proposals that recommend increasing the amount of corn ethanol that can be 

blended into gasoline. [[#2504.1 p. 2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0933 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment:

The commenter (0933) reports excellent performance of his FFV fleet and chainsaws using 

ethanol blends. The commenter suggests that EPA move the allowable blends upward until UL 

finishes the certification for E85, investment in pumps follow, E85 vehicles are brought to 

market with new technologies to maximize ethanol efficiency, and the public embraces high 

ethanol blends. The commenter also sees no issues with a voluntary cap of E15. [[See Docket 

Number 0933, pp.1-2]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2329 

Organization: Renewable Fuels Association 

Comment:

The commenter noted that EPA dedicated several pages of the preamble to the so-called “blend 

wall” issue. The commenter noted that the “blend wall” is largely irrelevant to the RFS mandate 

requirements. The commenter believes that this discussion is best addressed in context of the 

petition for a waiver that is currently pending before EPA, rather than as part of the final rule. 

Ultimately, allowing mid-level blends will be an important part of meeting the RFS2 volume 

requirements under the EISA, and EPA should move expeditiously to approve the waiver request 

or otherwise allow increased use of ethanol in gasoline. The commenter incorporated by 

reference its comments on the E15 waiver request (Appendix O). [[See Docket Number 2329.1, 

p. 107]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0964 

13-16
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Organization: Citizen 

Comment:

The commenter (0694) asks EPA to consider potential damage to engines and invalidation of 

engine warranties as the amount of ethanol allowed in gasoline mixes rises. (P. 1) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1397 

Organization: United Refining Company 

Comment:

The commenter (1397) is concerned that blending beyond E10 and B5 is the liability issue. If 

ethanol blends and biodiesel blends are to be increased above 10% by volume and 5% 

respectively, the commenter would need a liability waiver to protect against engine damage 

claims which could result in ruinously large expenses for defending such claims and paying 

judgments. (1397, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2102 

Organization: RENTECH, INC 

Comment:

Given the limited benefit that midlevel ethanol would have in helping EPA to achieve EISA 

mandates, the commenter (2102.1) believes it would be shortsighted to risk damaging vehicles 

and equipment that were not designed to operate on more than 10 percent ethanol. We support a 

careful review of the E15 waiver, as negative consumer experiences with midlevel ethanol would 

create a stigma in the marketplace against all renewable fuels and undermine the ability of 

ultimately achieving EISA mandates. (2102.1, pp.5-6) (See Docket Number 2102.1, p.6 for more 

discussion on this issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2105 

Organization: Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy 

Comment:

The commenter (2105.1) believes that EPA should not approve the E15 waiver until definitive 

research has been conducted showing the viability of E15 for safe and effective use. Small 

refiners are concerned that the blending requirements will force them to produce E15 as the only 

alternative for the volume of ethanol that they must use, and doing so will cause damage to 

gasoline powered engines that will result in legal liability for the fuel producers. Until engine and 

vehicle producers certify their vehicles as safe for E15 use, and E15 is found through extensive 

research not to be harmful for already produced engines, EPA should not approve any E15 

waiver and should instead find alternative methods for mitigating the blend wall stalemate. 

(2105.1, p.7) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) opposes the proposal to approve E15 as gasoline and urges EPA to 

reject Growth Energy’s petition for the following reasons: 

(1) the science on the impact of mid-level ethanol blends on consumer safety, engine 

performance, and potential environmental harm has not been completed and likely will not be 

completed for at least two years; 

13-17
Chapter 13: Other 

(2) the information submitted by Growth Energy in support of its petition is a woefully 

inadequate foundation upon which to base such an important change in the nation’s supply of 

gasoline; 

(3) the potential approval of Growth Energy’s petition is not an effective short- or medium-term 

solution to avoiding the “blendwall” problem caused by the increasing conventional biofuels 

volumes mandated under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and thus EPA 

should not rush such an important decision until a scientifically-based rationale can be reached 

regarding consumer safety, engine reliability, and environmental concerns of mid-level ethanol 

blends use in all gasoline-powered motor vehicles and engines in use in the United States; and 

(4) this seemingly modest petition will, if granted, have wide-ranging implications on other 

federal and state fuels programs and will require a series of complex and lengthy rulemakings to 

harmonize these programs with the introduction of mid-level ethanol blends. (2124.1, p. 37) 

The commenter also opposes the grant of a “partial waiver” to permit the use of mid-level 

ethanol blends in some gasoline-powered engines for the following reasons: 

(1) it would cause significant disruption in the nation’s wholesale and retail gasoline distribution 

infrastructure, widespread consumer confusion and potential misfueling, and potential liability 

for engine and fuel manufacturers for any damage caused to gasoline-powered engines not 

compatible with mid-level ethanol blends; and 

(2) EPA does not have the statutory authority under Section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act to grant 

a partial waiver. (2124.1, p.38) 

[[See Docket Number 2124.2 for detailed comments on this issue]] 

The commenter also believes that there are several mid-level ethanol blend infrastructure 

compatibility issues; including OSHA regulations, EPA UST regulations, UST leak detection 

equipment, Fire Codes, and Vapor Recovery. (2124.1, p.38) [[See Docket Number 2124.1, 

pp.38-40 for a detailed discussion of this issue]]. 

The commenter proposes that EPA provide for conventional gasoline the blending flexibility 

EPA provides for reformulated gasoline (RFG). The commenter noted that EPA regulations 

allow retailers to sell non-ethanol-blended RFG that has been combined with ethanol-blended 

RFG under certain conditions (“commingling”). Providing this flexibility for conventional 

gasoline would provide flexibility while retail stations transition to ethanol-blended gasoline in 

the summer and transition out of ethanol-blended gasoline when there may be an ethanol 

shortage in a given area. (2124.1, p.41) [[See Docket Number 2124.1, pp.41-42 for a detailed 

discussion of this issue]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2130 

Organization: ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company (ExxonMobil) 

Comment:

The commenter (2130) urges EPA to require that new vehicles be certified on E10 as it is the 

prevailing fuel in the marketplace. Moreover, if EPA subsequently grants a substantially similar 

waiver for an E10+ blend, the new E10+ blending level should become the new certification fuel 

for new vehicle production and testing. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 11]] 

13-18
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter believes that a mid-level blend substantially similar waiver is needed to permit 

growth in the use of ethanol as the RFS2 mandates intend. However, long term durability testing 

of the legacy fleet must be completed so the potential impacts of a mid-level blend waiver 

decision can be adequately assessed. In addition, the adequacy of distribution and retail 

infrastructure to accommodate mid-level blends must be assessed as well and a path available to 

enable any upgrading that may be needed. [[Docket number 2130.1, pp. 14-15]] 

The commenter does not support a “testing tolerance” approach to avoid the full testing and 

analysis requirements of a substantially similar waiver. [[Docket number 2130.1, p. 15]] 

In addition, the commenter states that when EPA reaches a decision regarding the Growth 

Energy waiver petition or any subsequent petition that may result in approval of a mid-level 

blend for use, EPA must clarify the status of the 1 psi RVP waiver for 10% ethanol blending. 

[[Docket number 2130.1, p. 15]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) noted that one of the issues highlighted in the RFS2 rulemaking 

preamble is the possibility that EPA might partially grant the E15 waiver request, thereby 

allowing mid-level ethanol blends to be used in some, but not all, vehicles. EPA has rightly 

recognized that such a step would require careful implementation strategies to prevent the 

misfueling of vehicles and products that cannot safely use E15. The commenter believes that 

EPA still needs more data to determine whether any vehicles may successfully use E15, 

including models meeting Tier 2 emission standards as suggested in the proposed rule. Since E15 

has not yet been proved safe for any vehicles, discussing ways to implement a split market may 

be premature. (2132.1, p.2) [[ See Docket Number 2132.1, pp.21-23 for a detailed discussion 

E15 & E85) 

With regards to the partial waiver implementation, the commenter noted that EPA asked for 

comment on a variety of ways to identify the fleet that might be allowed to use a higher ethanol 

blend, such as a model year cut-off or a technology group, such as Tier 2. This discussion is 

premature because we don’t know yet what the research will show. Assuming some class of 

vehicles is shown capable of using some blend above E10, for discussion purposes, the 

commenter believes that EPA will need to clearly define the class and explain how the owners 

will learn what fuel is appropriate for their vehicle. (2132.1, p.26) [[See Docket Number 2132.1, 

pp.26-27 for a detailed discussion on the partial waiver implementation]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2147 

Organization: Engine Manufacturers Association 

Comment:

The commenter (2147.1) asserts that blends greater than E10 are not compatible with the existing 

spark ignition (SSI) engine powered equipment fleet. 

They specify that data generated through DOE contracts for testing SSI engines confirmed that 

significant increases in regulated emissions were identified when engines were aged using E15 

13-19
Chapter 13: Other 

fuel. The combination of EPA’s own experience with ethanol blends increasing evaporative 

emissions and DOE’s experience with ethanol blends increasing exhaust emissions provides 

clear and compelling evidence that blends greater than E10 are not compatible with the existing 

SSI engine powered equipment fleet. While it does not appear that EPA is proposing to breach 

the E10 blend wall within the RFS2 NPRM, the substantial preamble discussion concerning the 

relationship between the RFS2 mandated ethanol volume and the ability to adsorb that volume 

with E10 and E85 blends, results in the obvious conclusion that EPA intends to make a change to 

finished fuel specifications at some point in the near future. (Page 8) 

 Additionally, the commenter (2147.1) raises strong objections to the bifurcated fuel distribution 

system where traditional gasoline (E10 maximum) and E85 would remain in the market but an 

additional category (E15, E20, etc.) would be introduced for use in a sub-set of existing non-flex 

vehicles. The commenter notes this is not viable for a number of reasons including: (i) fuel 

infrastructure; (ii) customer acceptance; (iii) misfueling of engines/vehicles; (iv) unintentional 

misfueling of small portable containers; and (v) potential to consume the volume of ethanol 

required by the proposed rule. (Page 8) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2233) believes there are many challenges related to the E10 blendwall, fuel 

distribution and the FFV fleet. After 2013, the volumes of ethanol mandated by EISA will be in 

excess of the market’s capability to absorb under current regulations. If gasoline demand falls (as 

it is currently doing), there will be even less gasoline volume to absorb ethanol, and the 

blendwall would come sooner. In addition, it is unrealistic to believe that 100% of the gasoline 

pool will have 10% ethanol blended into every gallon. If only 95 or 90% of the gasoline pool 

blends ethanol, the blendwall could occur in 2012 or 2011. Regarding the distribution issues, the 

commenter states that huge sums of money will need to be invested in new infrastructure before 

either of the two proposed solutions (E85 and mid-level blends) have an impact on the blendwall. 

In addition E85 has marketing problems and mid-level ethanol blends require years of research 

before they can be introduced into the current fleet without creating very large liability concerns. 

[[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 15-16]] [[See docket number 2233.2, pp. 15-20 for further 

discussion of these issues.]] 

The commenter also notes significant consumer acceptance issues associated with E85 that will 

make it an unworkable solution to the E10 blendwall problem. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 18-

19]] 

The commenter also states that the measurement tolerance for ethanol value can not be used to 

allow biofuels blenders to deliberately blend above the legal limit. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 

32-33]] 

The commenter urges EPA to reject the current Growth Energy E15 waiver application because 

the technical justification is inadequate, adding that the waiver application no more supports a 

partial waiver than it does a full waiver. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 33]] [[See docket number 

13-20
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

2233.2, pp. 33-38 and pp. 71-73, Attachment A for an extensive discussion of the issues of 

concern associated with the E85 waiver.]] 

The commenter believes that EPA should change future vehicle certification fuel to E10 and that 

FFVs should be certified on E85 and E10. [[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 63-64]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2241 

Organization: Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI); Alliance for a Safe Alternative 

Fuels Environment (AllSAFE) 

Comment:

The commenter (2241.1) noted that EPA must not only consider companion provisions in 

Section 211, but it must also consider all other CAA Title II programs and ensure that the RFS2 

is not causing unintended consequences in each class of regulated on-road and nonroad mobile 

sources. In addition to considering whether emissions failures are occurring and whether 

emissions are increasing (and mitigating those increases), EPA must also ensure that RFS2 

mandates will never unintentionally result in de facto more stringent emission standards without 

first going through notice and comment rulemakings based on complete administrative records. 

(2241.1, p.6 

The commenter (2241.1) recognizes the daunting challenges EPA faces in meeting the EISA 

mandate for 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel (including 16 billion gallons of cellulosic 

biofuel) by 2022. Adoption of provisions that promote mid-level ethanol will result in profound 

impacts on our nation’s air quality and on the performance, efficiency, and operability of over 

400 million pieces of legacy equipment. The commenter believes that EPA should promote fuels 

that will meet the EISA mandates and improve the emissions, performance and efficiency of 

engines, vehicles and equipment. Given the limited benefit that mid-level ethanol would have in 

helping EPA to achieve EISA mandates, the commenter believes it would be shortsighted to risk 

damaging vehicles and equipment that were not designed to operate on more than 10% ethanol. 

(2241.1, pp.7-8) (See Docket Number 2241.2 exhibit A, for more discussion on this issue) 

To the extent EPA wants to pursue a ”partial waiver“ approach (or a similar approach), the 

commenter believes that EPA should initiate a separate future rulemaking process (under section 

2118) and develop a well-supported, specific proposal and administrative record that carefully 

evaluates all the complex issues associated with potentially bifurcating the national fuel supply 

system through practical and specific proposals to avoid misfueling. (2241.1, pp.9-10) (See 

Docket Number 2241.1, pp.8-11 for more discussion on this issue) 

The commenter also believes that the misfueling controls proposed by EPA fall short of those 

that were proven ineffective during the leaded gasoline transition. These include labeling of fuel 

inlets and pumps, notification to owners through outreach efforts and owner’s manuals, and use 

of cards/transponders that would limit the dispensing of mid-level ethanol to flex-fuel vehicles. 

(2241.1, p.11) (See Docket Number 2241.1, pp.10-12 for more discussion on this issue) 

The commenter is also concerned about the continued market availability of fuels with lower 

levels of ethanol. (2241.1, p.12) (See Docket Number 2241.1, pp.12-13 for more discussion on 

this issue) 

13-21
Chapter 13: Other 

Although not specifically mentioned in the RFS2 proposal, the commenter is concerned that 

illegal misfueling now occurs at existing blender pumps dispensing mid-level ethanol fuels and 

will continue to occur at even greater rates if gasoline stations are misled into believing they are 

not responsible, accountable, or liable for such misfueling. (2241.1, p.14) (See Docket Number 

2241.1, pp.14-16 for more discussion on this issue) 

The commenter noted that EPA solicited comment on the appropriateness of redefining the 

regulatory definition of ”substantially similar“ to include mid-level ethanol blends, specifically 

E12, thereby temporarily avoiding the need to obtain a waiver under CAA Section 211(f)(4). 

The commenter believes that this proposal would not appreciably affect the impending blend 

wall, as even E15 would only delay the blend wall for a few years. The commenter also believes 

that this would be contrary to Congress’ clear intent in passing EISA. (2241.1, p.16) (See Docket 

Number 2241.1, pp.16-19 for more discussion on this issue) 

The commenter does not believe it would be appropriate for EPA to institute a measurement 

tolerance for ethanol that would allow ethanol levels beyond 10%. The 10% ethanol limit has 

been in place for over thirty years without a measurement tolerance, which stands as clear 

evidence that such a tolerance is not needed to ensure that obligated parties can meet ethanol 

content limitations. (2241.1, p.20) (See Docket Number 2241.1, p.20 for more discussion on this 

issue) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2312 

Organization: LyondellBasell Industries 

Comment:

The commenter (2312.1) believes that if EPA were to raise the oxygen level in the “Substantially 

Similar” interpretive rule for commercial gasoline so as to accommodate 12 volume percent 

ethanol or 15 volume percent ethanol, then the increased oxygen level should also apply to all 

aliphatic oxygenates compounds (alcohols and ethers) because these compounds have physical 

and chemical properties that make them more inert than ethanol blended in gasoline. The 

commenter also believes that if EPA should choose to relax any of the ASTM volatility 

specifications for the ethanol blended under the “sub-sim” rule, then it is appropriate to extend 

this same flexibility to blending the other oxygenates under the rule as well so as to not cause 

distorted incentives that make the fuel marketplace less efficient. (2312.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2328 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2328.1) opposes any solution on overcoming an anticipated renewable fuel 

blend wall that includes introduction of a new mid-level ethanol blend without first fully 

addressing legacy equipment compatibility and liability issues. The commenter noted that EPA 

predicts that based on RVO mandates, a “blend wall” will be hit in 2013 without the approval of 

a new mid-level ethanol/gasoline blend in addition to the E-10 and E-85 blends currently 

available. Moreover, the EPA suggests the blend wall can be delayed until 2016 with an E-15 

blend. The commenter also noted that there are many issues that must be resolved before a midlevel ethanol blend is an acceptable option to overcome a renewable fuel blend wall. The 

13-22
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

proponents of a mid-level ethanol blend to meet renewable fuel volume mandates fail to properly 

consider the interaction of alcohol blends over 10 percent with the large and extensive network 

of existing petroleum storage and distribution equipment that is not designed to accommodate 

higher ethanol blends. (2328.1, p.4) [[See Docket Number 2328.1, pp.5-8 for a detailed 

discussion of the issues]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2358 

Organization: Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the 

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) 

Comment:

The commenter (2358) states that the proposal to increase production of fuels containing more 

than 10% ethanol by providing waivers does not address the practical and legal problems with 

selling such fuels. One issue concerns the equipment used to store and deliver fuel to customers. 

A second set of issue concerns potential liability resulting from misfueling by customers. The 

commenter suggests that the only way to deal with these obstacles is for Congress to pass 

legislation insulating retails from liability, but if Congress doesn’t act and EPA proceeds with the 

waiver, it should accompany the waiver with a notice and comment rulemaking on misfueling. 

[[Docket number 2358.1, pp. 12-13]] 

Regarding redefining “substantially similar” to allow mid-level ethanol blends, the commenter 

states that they do not have sufficient information concerning the chemical and physical 

properties of mid-level ethanol blends and the effect such fuels have on emissions to comment 

on this issue. [[Docket number 2358.1, p. 15]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2383 

Organization: Growth Energy 

Comment:

The commenter (2383) is concerned that EPA’s preliminary analysis and strategy, as described 

in the NPRM, appears flawed in that it fails to fully recognize the extent to which the petroleum 

“blend wall” hinders increased production and use of renewable fuels in the United States. 

EPA’s strategy also relies too heavily on E-85 and flex fuel vehicles, and fails to recognize that 

approval and use of mid-level ethanol blends is essential to meeting EISA’s mandates. The 

commenter believes that EPA should recognize and address the blend wall and also recognize 

and address that its reliance on E-85/FFVs is insufficient to meet near-term RFS2 volume 

mandates. The commenter urges EPA to support mid-level ethanol blends as the most efficient 

and effective way to satisfy EISA’s volume mandates. [[Docket number 2382.1, pp. 63-64 and 

2380.1, p. 3]] [[See docket number 2382.1, pp. 63-65 for further details of the blend-wall issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

The commenter (2384) states that in order to comply with the renewable fuel volume 

requirements, the industry will need to sell E10+ fuels throughout the country; however, it is not 

currently legal given the many federal and state laws governing fuel dispensing facility 

infrastructure nor has its safety for the public, workers, or the environment been demonstrated. 

[[Docket number 2384.1, p. 10]] 

13-23
Chapter 13: Other 

The commenter notes the current legal requirements for existing fuel dispensing facility 

infrastructure and suggests that the existing retail fuel outlet infrastructure cannot be legally used 

to dispense renewable fuels until further action is taken either by a nationally recognized testing 

laboratory to test those fuels with existing infrastructure or State Fire Marshals grant a waiver. 

[[Docket number 2384.1, p. 8]] 

The commenter points out the significant risks to the motoring public, fuel dispensing facility 

workers, and the environment of renewable fuels incompatible with fuel dispensing facility 

infrastructure. Given the lack of testing of dispenser system components for use with E15+, the 

commenter believes that it is not yet possible to sell these fuels and comply with various legal 

requirements. [[Docket number 2384.1, p. 9]] 

The commenter encourages EPA to consult with various Federal, State, and local agencies, 

associations, as well as other organizations to understand the issues related to the commenter’s 

infrastructure concerns. [[Docket number 2384.1, pp. 10-11]] 

The commenter is concerned with vehicle compatibility with E10+ blends and states that failing 

to properly test vehicles with new biofuel blends puts consumers and the environment at risk. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) concludes that there are no easy answers to the E10 blend wall problem 

and encourages the Agency to provide clear and early general waiver notices to all stakeholders 

as the blend wall approaches. In addition, under the RFS1 obligated party requirements, some 

parties will reach the blend wall well in advance of others. Should this architecture be retained, 

the commenter believes that EPA must consider these aspects in its wavier analyses and response 

to blend wall issues. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 19]] 

The commenter does not support a “testing tolerance” approach to avoid the full testing and 

analysis requirements of a substantially similar (sub sim) waiver. The commenter believes that 

such a suggestion is merely an effort to avoid the substantive requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

The volume percentage of ethanol in gasoline is readily determined using very accurate 

volumetric ratio blending facilities now in place at most blending terminals. [[Docket number 

2393.1, p. 28]] 

The commenter has reviewed the Application for a Waiver Pursuant to Section 211(f)(4) of the 

Clean Air Act for E-1519 that was submitted to the EPA by Growth Energy on March 6, 2009. In 

the commenter’s judgment, EPA should reject the current Growth Energy E15 waiver 

application because the technical justification is inadequate. [[See docket number 2393.2, 

Attachment 1 for comments on the E15 waiver request.]] The commenter believes that 

introduction of E15 blends is a significant fuel change that will result in oxygen content well 

outside the range for which U.S. vehicles and engines have been designed. Therefore, thorough 

vehicle and engine studies that develop robust, supportive data are needed to ensure that adverse 

13-24
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

impacts are avoided. [[Docket number 2393.1, pp. 28-29]] [[See docket number 2393.1, pp. 28-

32 and 2393.3, Attachment 2 for further discussion of this issue.]] 

The commenter believes that the reasoning behind the Renewable Fuels Association’s (RFA) 

request for a revised definition of “substantially similar” to allow for E12 blends and for those 

vehicle and engine types is flawed. RFA supports its request by claiming that E12 blends are 

substantially similar to fuels used in certified vehicles, but this is an incorrect comparison - by 

terms of the statute, the baseline for any comparison is the certification fuel. [[Docket number 

2393.1, pp. 32-33]] 

The commenter also requests that EPA require new vehicles be certified on E10 as it is clearly 

the prevailing fuel in the marketplace. [[Docket number 2393.1, pp. 33-34]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2394 

Organization: National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) 

Comment:

The commenter’s (2394.1) primary issue of concern is EPA’s theoretical contemplation of the 

various mechanisms and desirability of introducing intermediate, or mid-level, ethanol blends 

into the fuels marketplace as a general purpose fuel. The commenter does not believe it is 

desirable to move to midlevel ethanol blends. (2394.1, p.2) 

The commenter does not oppose the use of ethanol at 10 percent (“E10”) or less in gasoline. 

There are cases where E10 has negatively and significantly impacted recreational marine engines 

and fuel systems, but through education regarding the proper storage of his type of fuel, boaters 

are slowly adjusting to managing this fuel in their marine applications. The commenter strongly 

encourages EPA to avoid utilizing mid-level ethanol fuel blends as a pathway to achieve RFS 

targets. (2394.1, p.2) 

The commenter strongly urges the EPA to deny the Growth Energy waiver until a 

comprehensive evaluation of marine engines and fuel systems is conducted and the waiver 

requirements in the statute have been satisfied. (2394.1, p.3) [[See Docket Number 2394.1, pp.2-

3 for a detailed discussion on the waiver of mid-level ethanol blends.]] 

The commenter opposes any redefinition of “substantially similar,” as is contemplated in the 

proposal. EPA solicits comment on whether it would be appropriate to redefine the regulatory 

definition in order to capture mid-level blends such as E12. The commenter does not believe 

such an action is appropriate, and would suggest that any internal agency action not subject to 

full public rulemaking with respect to mid-level ethanol blends would circumvent provisions in 

the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), in which Congress clearly expressed 

its intention that mid-level fuels be fully studied. (2394.1, p.3) 

The commenter noted that EPA solicited comment on the question of whether it is appropriate to 

institute a “measurement tolerance” and allow for the sale of E11. The commenter believes that 

this approach is neither appropriate nor helpful in meeting RFS targets, and therefore EPA 

should not pursue this. Allowing for E11, which is not tested, constitutes the first step toward 

and incremental creep of intermediate ethanol blends in the absence of a full and meaningful 

13-25
Chapter 13: Other 

dataset for the fuel on marine equipment and other on-road and non-road engines and vehicles. 

(2394.1, p.4) 

The commenter also strongly opposes the granting of a so-called “partial” or “conditional” 

waiver that would allow the entry of mid-level ethanol blends in the market for general sale. 

(2394.1, p.4) [[See Docket Number 2394.1, pp.4-6 for a detailed discussion on this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2408 

Organization: Advanced Biofuels Association 

Comment:

One of the commenter’s (2346) concerns about raising the blend wall is the degradation of 

ground level ozone associated with the higher vapor pressure associated with the higher blend. 

This is clearly a concern that EPA should weigh heavily in its protection of the public health and 

safety. Given that these advanced technologies may be available in the very near future, the 

commenter believes that EPA should seriously consider whether they might present a better 

environmental and market opportunity in lieu of waiving the current 10 percent blend 

requirements. (2346, p.5) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2465 

Organization: Ford Motor Company 

Comment:

The commenter (2465.1) supports a renewable fuel standard as an enabler for the biofuel 

industry to expand production and distribution to meet our common energy security, climate 

change and economic goals. The goals of the RFS2 program will require a coordinated effort 

that: 

- adequately informs consumers regarding pending changes to fuels; and 

- protects manufacturers in cases of misfueling. (2465.1, p.2) 

The commenter also endorses efforts to increase the ethanol content of base level blends beyond 

E10 provided collaboration with key stakeholders succeeds in addressing concerns with its use in 

the legacy fleet (i.e. vehicles that are on the road today, and that will continue to be on the road 

for the next several years, were not designed to operate on ethanol blends greater than 10% by 

volume). Expanding non-FFV capabilities beyond 10% by volume ethanol (E15 or E20) starting 

on some date certain in the future will help in achieving the RFS2 goals. (2465.1, p.2) 

The commenter also noted that to successfully implement the RFS2 program, there is a need to 

expand vehicle and infrastructure compatibility in the form of expanding the capability of new 

non-FFV vehicles to accommodate ethanol blends beyond 10% by volume, while simultaneously 

implementing necessary improvements in refueling infrastructure. (2465.1, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2505 

Organization: Shell Oil Products US 

Comment:

The commenter (2505.2) does not believe that there is sufficient basis at this time to grant, in 

whole or in part, a substantially similar waiver for elevated levels of ethanol in gasoline. There is 

considerable ongoing effort to evaluate the potential effects of increased ethanol levels on 

13-26
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

automobile emission control devices through the Coordinating Research Council. The 

commenter believes that EPA will not have sufficient data to consider the petition until such time 

that work is completed. EPA should also recognize that the blendwall is fast approaching and 

approving higher levels of ethanol in gasoline by issuing a substantially similar waiver is not a 

“silver bullet” solution. (2505.2, p.16) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2309 

Organization: Grocery Manufacturers Association, National Council of Chain 

Restaurants, and Snack Food Association 

Comment: 

Commenter [[2309]] urges EPA to oppose proposals by some corn ethanol companies to increase 

by 50 percent the amount of corn ethanol that can be blended into gasoline. [[#2309.1.p.2]] Bob 

Our Response:

 Comments related to the potential introduction of a mid-level ethanol blend for use in 

conventional vehicles (or a subset of conventional vehicles) will be addressed in EPA’s response 

to the petition that EPA grant a waiver to allow the use of a mid-level ethanol blend in 

conventional vehicles. 

13.4.4 General Waiver Authority 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2233) stated that EPA needs to be proactive in initiating waivers in order to 

fairly treat obligated parties and maintain market stability. Failure to issue timely of proactive 

waivers will risk the inability of the entire industry to comply and a complete collapse of the 

RFS2 program. 

The commenter believes that EPA must immediately begin preparations for changing the 

regulations and granting appropriate waivers to keep the RFS2 program from becoming 

uncomplyable. EPA can not wait until a large number of obligated parties end a year in a RIN 

deficit position. The one year RIN deficit carryover provision should be designed to help 

individual company compliance not as a temporary patch for an infeasible biofuels program. It 

is illegal for EPA to establish a program where compliance is impossible. [[Docket number 

2233.2, pp. 19-20]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2129 

Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environment America, Environmental Working 

Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society and World Resources 

Institute 

13-27
Chapter 13: Other 

Comment: 

The commenters (2129.1) noted that EPA has the authority under Section 211(o) of the Clean 

Air Act to issue a waiver that decreases the volume of renewable fuels required under the RFS in 

order to avoid severe environmental harm. The production of renewable fuel can be harmful to 

water quality, water quantity, biodiversity, soil health, and the climate, but it can also be done in 

a way that is beneficial to these natural resources. If it can be demonstrated that the RFS 

mandate is driving increased production of biofuels in a way that damages these resources, this 

would provide a basis for granting a waiver from the RFS. The EPA Administrator could target 

of the use of the waiver authority by decreasing the quantity of environmentally damaging 

conventional biofuels, such as corn ethanol, that is required under the RFS2, without reducing 

the volumes those types of biofuels that are not found to cause the same level of environmental 

damage. (2129.1, p.12) 

The commenters are particularly concerned with environmental harm because a significant 

amount of ethanol will be grandfathered in this rule and will not have to comply with the GHG 

reduction requirement. Even if EPA adopts an appropriately narrow interpretation of the EISA’s 

grandfathering provisions, approximately 13 billion gallons of corn ethanol will still be 

grandfathered under the RFS2, which could result in the adverse climate and water quality 

effects. Both of the major environmental problems associated with corn ethanol- nitrogen 

pollution and GHG emissions - would provide bases for granting a waiver from the RFS. 

(2129.1, p.12) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2138 

Organization: American Meat Institute, National Chicken Council, National Turkey 

Federation, Farm Econ LLC 

Comment: 

Commenter [[2138]] states our energy supply is currently based largely on petroleum and other 

fossil fuels. Annual variation in production of these fuels is very small compared to U.S. corn 

and soybeans. As the chart below shows year-on-year variation for both feedstock crops dwarfs 

the variability of both U.S. and global crude oil production. The potential consequences of this 

risk of production variation for the U.S. food and fuel economy are becoming more significant as 

the RFS grows and we become more dependent on agriculture for our fuel supply. More 

importantly, the RFS also creates inflexibility in the use of key crops for food versus fuel uses. 

In the event of a major crop production failure an unchanging RFS would force a 

disproportionate share of the adjustment on the food production sector. In the interest of 

transparency and market certainty we would strongly suggest that USDA and EPA establish 

published guidelines for adjustments to the RFS in the event of a shortage of biofuel feedstocks, 

most importantly corn and soybeans. This would offer all commodity users, including ethanol 

producers, a degree of certainty missing in the current RFS adjustment mechanism. We believe 

that such a system would fall within the language of EISA and the intent of Congress. [[2138 

p.3]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2248 

Organization: Iogen Corporation 

Comment: 

13-28
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

The commenter (2248.1) believes that EPA should give consideration to the significant potential 

for the market forces to play out in such a way as to resolve the blendwall without regulatory 

relief. If EPA wants to encourage market forces that can assist with its not insignificant efforts to 

address the challenges posed by the blendwall, it should make clear in the final RFS rule that 

high RIN prices alone would not constitute sufficient grounds for the government to waive the 

RFS. (2248.1, pp.9-10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2107 

Organization: Goldsboro Milling Company 

Comment:

The commenter (2107.1) would like to remind EPA that there remains no provisions in the RFS 

program that provide a safety net in the event of a corn supply shortfall or emergency. Without a 

safety net or the ability to predict Mother Nature, these policies continue to be inflexible 

mandates that have and will again cause devastating effects on consumers, producers, rural 

businesses, and even government feeding programs that rely livestock, poultry, and dairy 

products. (2107.1, p.2) 

Our Response:

The issues raised by the commenters are outside the scope of the RFS2 rulemaking itself, 

but rather relate to potential future waivers of the RFS2 standards. EISA provides general 

waiver authority for the RFS2 standards similar to that provided for the RFS1 standards under 

EPAct 2005, as well as waiver authority specific to the biomass-based diesel standard and the 

cellulosic biofuel standard. This waiver authority will be exercised in the future as necessary and 

appropriate, and the nature of any waiver action taken will be determined based on the specific 

situation at the time. In the past EPA received a waiver petition for the RFS1 standards from the 

State of Texas. While we denied that petition, our response to it (73 FR 47168, August 13, 2008) 

provides guidance for future waiver petitions. Approval of a general waiver petition would 

impact the national RFS program even though a petition may be based on severe economic harm 

or severe environmental harm to a State, a region, or the U.S. as a whole, or inadequate domestic 

supply. Any petition for a waiver will be evaluated based on the sufficiency of information 

provided and merit of the petition. The guidance indicates that EPA will look for an applicant's 

petition to include information and robust analyses that address the impacts of implementing the 

RFS and the nature and degree of harm associated with the impacts of the RFS. The Agency 

may grant a waiver under its general waiver authority for no more than one year unless renewed 

by the Administrator, and suggests that an applicant's petition be received at least six months 

prior to the requested start date of the requested waiver or three months prior to termination of a 

waiver if renewal is desired. 

13.4.5 EPA Requirements for E85 Blenders and Compositional Gasoline Blendstocks Used 

to Manufacture E85 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

13-29
Chapter 13: Other 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter (2393) strongly urges EPA to include, as EPA suggests, a separate section in the 

RFS2 discussing the rules for production of E85. The commenter believes that there are a 

sufficient number of issues raised by the overlap of regulations governing the manufacture and 

distribution of gasoline (some are raised by EPA in this rulemaking) to justify such an 

undertaking. In addressing E85, the commenter urges EPA to focus on: 

1. The RFS2 NPRM statement: “The RFG and anti-dumping regulations currently require 

certified gasoline to be blended with denatured ethanol to produce E85.” The commenter 

can find no explicit mention of this in the RFG or anti-dumping regulations nor any 

support for it. 

2. The need for an E85 producer to register as a refiner. 

3. Assurance that if E85 is made from a blendstock that is not finished gasoline, that the 

blending of the blendstock, vapor pressure enhancing material and ethanol does not 

produce an obligation for registration as a refiner under either RFG or the RFS or any 

other gasoline regulatory program. 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2124.1) objects to an E85 producer registering as a refiner. (2124.1, p.21) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

EPA states that the RFG and anti-dumping regulations currently require certified gasoline to be 

blended with denatured ethanol to produce E85. The commenter believes that EPA is incorrect 

in this interpretation. The hydrocarbon blend components for producing E85 do not have to meet 

gasoline regulations. This hydrocarbon blending component does not have any RFG and antidumping standards. The commenter also believes that EPA incorrectly states that if terminal 

operators add blendstocks to finished gasoline for use in manufacturing E85, the terminal 

operator would need to register as a refiner with EPA and meet all applicable standards for 

refiners. The commenter points out that ethanol producers are currently blending finished 

gasoline to produce E85 and EPA does not require them to register as refiners. EPA needs to 

treat terminal operators and ethanol producers in an equivalent manner when they blend E85. 

[[Docket number 2233.2, pp. 22-23]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter recommended giving E85 manufacturers who use blendstocks the maximum 

possible flexibility to blend ASTM compliant E85 using the lowest cost blendstocks, to help 

ensure a plentiful supply of competitively priced E85. [2132] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161 

Organization: Magellan Midstream Partners 

13-30
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Comment:

The commenter states that as a matter of fairness, E85 manufacturers who use blendstocks like 

butane to produce E85 should be required to fully comply with EPA’s refiner requirements. 

Our Response:

EPA’s policy regarding the registration of E85 blenders and the compositional 

requirements for the gasoline blendstocks used in the manufacture of E85 is outside the context 

of this rule. 

13.4.6 Other Comments Outside Scope of the Rule 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2143 

Organization: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Comment: 

The commenter suggests that the new vehicle and engine certification needs to be modified to 

reflect the use of ethanol and E85. (2143.2, p.11) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2393 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Comment:

The commenter requests that EPA clarify the legality of the use of retail blender pumps for 

dispensing blends between E10 and E70. [[Docket number 2393.1, p. 70]] [[See docket number 

2393.1, pp. 69-70 for discussion of this issue.]] 

Our Response:

 The potential need to modify EPA’s vehicle and engine certification requirements 

associated with the use of ethanol and E85 is outside the context of this rule. 

 Regarding the comment on the legality of the use of retail blender pumps, EPA issued 

two letters regarding the status of blender pumps dispensing such ethanol blends. These letters 

state that the fuel dispensed from such pumps may only be used in flexible fuel vehicles.3

 EPA 

intends to evaluate whether additional EPA labeling requirements are needed for such blender 

pumps outside that context of this rule. We deferred the consideration of such potential labeling 

requirements until after EPA completes its evaluation of the petition to allow E15 blends to be 

used in conventional fuel vehicles since the decision on this petition may impact the text on the 

labels. 

 

13.5 Other 

 

3

 Letter from Adam Kushner, EPA to Bob Greco, API, dated July 31, 2008. Letter from Margo Oge, EPA, to 

Dawna Leitzke, South Dakota Petroleum and Propane Marketers Association, dated Nov 28, 2006. 

13-31
Chapter 13: Other 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2020 

Organization: European Commission 

Comment: 

The commenter (2020) believes that the U.S. and EU should use procedures and definitions that 

as similar as possible in terms of sustainability and GHG requirements for biofuels, this will 

facilitate the trade between the two jurisdictions. (2020.1, p.3) 

Our Response:

Many aspects of the RFS program were mandated by statute, including the definitions 

and GHG thresholds for renewable fuels. However, we agree that it would be beneficial to 

coordinate on other aspects of biofuels, such as lifecycle modeling, data and assumptions and 

tracking of sustainability measures for renewable biomass used to produce renewable fuels. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2124 

Organization: National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) 

Comment:

The commenter (2124.1) understands that EPA’s current interpretation of 40 CFR 80.78(a)(5) 

and (7) is that this regulatory section prohibits the addition of ethanol to a commingled mixture 

of RBOB and conventional gasoline (or “CBOB” blendstock material). The commenter proposes 

that the prohibitions in §80.78(a)(5) and (7) be appropriately changed to allow RBOB to be 

added to a tank of CG (or a tank of CBOB blendstock material) before the addition of ethanol at 

the terminal rack for sale in a conventional gasoline market. The additional flexibility being 

requested here would be most helpful in two areas: (1) achievement of the mandated renewable 

fuel mandates in RFS1, and the soon to be promulgated RFS2, and (2) help in relieving 

distribution and supply issues that occur unexpectedly, as well as during natural disasters such as 

during hurricane season. (2124.1, p. 40-41) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2384 

Organization: BP America (BP) 

Comment:

Regarding the need for EPA to allow commingling of RBOB and conventional gasoline, the 

commenter (2384) points to issues with the sequence of commingling at §80.78(a)(5) and (7) and 

provides suggestions to allow for flexibility. [[Docket number 2384.1, pp. 12-13]] 

Our Response:

 The regulations cited in the comment do prohibit blending RBOB with, among other 

things, conventional gasoline or conventional gasoline blendstock. This is necessary, among 

other reasons, to assure that RBOB is blended with the proper amount and type of oxygenate, as 

directed by the refiner. After that blending takes place, the reformulated gasoline may be 

13-32
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

distributed for use in RFG areas but may also be distributed into conventional gasoline areas. If 

blending with conventional gasoline or blendstock were allowed, the resultant product could not 

be sold as RFG and the refiner(s) who produced the RBOB would be giving themselves 

inappropriate credit for having produced RFG containing a certain amount of ethanol. The 

regulations do not currently have provisions for CBOB. There are only the provisions in 

§80.101(d)(4) (and related provisions in the Gasoline Sulfur rule and the Mobile Source Air 

Toxics (MSAT) rule) relating to when a refiner is allowed to count downstream added oxygenate 

in its anti-dumping compliance calculations. There are not regulations for CBOB that could be 

used to account for CBOB in fungible, complex distribution systems. To the extent that the 

commenters seek changes to existing regulations other than those implementing section 211(o), 

those comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2521 

Organization: Conservis Corporation 

Comment:

The commenter (2521.1) noted that they are aware of certain industry challenges to the proposed 

rules on the grounds that the mandate would create an untenable information management 

burden to industry, and that implementation of the rules would be technologically infeasible. We 

respectfully submit that neither concern is well-founded. The commenter’s compliance platform 

is currently being configured to work with the EPA’s EMTS system for managing all aspects of 

the Renewable Identification Number (RIN) program. The commenter understands the many 

challenges that exist in implementing the Renewable Land Source Tracking Program. The 

commenter’s compliance software is readily adaptable to meet the mandates of the Renewable 

Land Source Tracking Program, including registering land source uses with supporting 

documentation and, if desired, satellite imagery verification. If EPA would like to see this, the 

commenter would be pleased to demo the software any time. (2521.1, pp.1-2) 

Our Response:

 EPA has attempted, as the commenter notes, to adopt feasible information management 

requirements. The final rule has adopted requirements that producers or importers of renewable 

fuel provide mapping data for plots of land where certain types of feedstocks are harvested, 

except to the extent that their feedstock is verified as renewable biomass through the aggregate 

approach. 

What Commenters Said:

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-1036 

Organization: Vision FL I, LLC 

Comment:

13-33
Chapter 13: Other 

The commenter (1036.1) advises that EPA considers changing Tables III.A-1, and III.A.2-1 to 

reflect a stronger focus on GHG reductions, and not fuel category definitions as it currently 

stands. (1036.1, p.2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2233 

Organization: Marathon Petroleum Company (Marathon) 

Comment:

Referring to the review of EPA’s RFS2 DRIA performed by the American Petroleum Institute 

(API), the commenter (2233) points to concerns with the DRIA’s assumed renewable fuel types, 

fuel volumes, vehicle technology changes, and emission levels. [[Docket number 2233.2, p. 61]] 

[[See docket number 2233.2, pp. 60-63 for an extensive discussion of this issue.]] 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2147 

Organization: Engine Manufacturers Association 

Comment: 

The commenter (2147.1) suggests that the final rule clarify that production requirements for 

renewable fuel volumes imposed by the regulation do not circumvent EPA’s regulatory controls 

in place for gasoline or diesel fuel finished fuels. (Page 11) 

Our Response:

 We appreciate the commenters’ concerns and comments, and we note that these items are 

responded to throughout the RIA and preamble to the final rule. Regarding the comment that 

EPA should change Tables III.A-1 and 2, please see Section II of the preamble (as well as 

§80.1426 of the regulations) for a discussion on changes to D codes and D code definitions. 

With regard to concerns with assumptions made in the Draft RIA, please see the Final RIA for a 

discussion on our analysis regarding these items. 

What Commenters Said: 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2308 

Organization: Environmental Defense Fund 

Comment:

The commenter (2308.1) would like to state that ultimately the most effective tool to address 

emissions from tropical deforestation is the enactment of federal legislation and an international 

framework that compensate developing countries for reducing all emissions from deforestation 

and degradation. (Page 2) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2048 

Organization: BioPure Fuels 

Comment:

The commenter (2048.1) recommends that EPA work to develop a guidance document for the 

sugar cane ethanol industry that suggests best practices for conversion of sugar cane to biofuel 

from an analysis of best available technology. This guide would immediately be used by the 

13-34
RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments 

13-35

U.S. and global sugar cane industry to achieve maximum biofuel production from all cane 

biomass that leads to the best possible carbon benefits. (2048.1, p.10) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2155 

Organization: Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa (PMCI) 

Comment: 

The commenter (2155.1) believes that legislative solutions must be formulated in order to limit 

the liabilities put upon the retailer for those situations where an end-user places the fuel in a nonFFV which is not warranted for such a fuel. Furthermore, additional protections will be 

necessary for the equipment dispensing blends greater than E10. (2155.1, p.3) 

Document No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2132 

Organization: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment:

The commenter (2132.1) thinks that EPA’s analysis of the current and future renewable fuel 

markets and the associated impacts of various scenarios to be commendable, especially 

considering the number of very complex and novel issues and the short amount of time available 

to conduct the analyses. The annual rulemaking process will allow EPA to adjust its volume 

targets as needed for the renewable fuel industry’s production capabilities. (2132.1, p.7) [[See 

Docket Number 2132.1, pp.24-25 for a detailed discussion of this issue]] 

Our Response:

We appreciate the commenters’ concerns and comments, however these comments are 

not germane to finalizing the RFS2 final rule. Other government programs are designed to help 

assess and develop fuel and feedstock technology, and legislative measures are outside the scope 

of EPA’s authority for this rule.