Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 

12866 and EO 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Interagency Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft proposed rule 

titled, “Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and 

Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2017” RIN 2060-AS22

1. Source of export data: With regards to historical ethanol export data, EPA explains that it 

estimated likely RIN retirements for renewable exports using renewable fuel export 

information from EIA. Will EPA confirm that EIA is using official U.S. Census data? Specifically, 

is EPA accounting for the fuel ethanol exports and imports that are classified under two codes: 

2207106010 (undenatured) and 2207200010 (denatured)?

Response: EPA uses EIA data for exports. It is our understanding that EIA uses data from the 

ITC, which includes both denatured and undenatured ethanol. However, this question should 

be directed to EIA to verify.

2. On page 46, the following link was provided in footnote 47: 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm However, on that 

page, no export data for fuel ethanol can be found. Possibly this link is more suitable: 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M_EPOOXE_EEX_NUSZ00_MBBL&f=M

Response: Footnote has been changed.

3. The commenter is concerned that EPA is projecting future production of cellulosic biofuel 

production based on a range of two inputs – historic production and industry’s own projections 

-- that may not be reliable predictors of future production. The commenter would like to work 

with EPA to develop an approach estimating cellulosic ethanol volumes that represents our best 

joint attempts to calculate such projections and improve the accuracy in future rule-makings. 

We recommend that this not change the current numbers in the rule but strongly urge that a 

process to develop an alternative methodology begin as soon as possible (and that our intention 

to do so be made public at the time of the release of the draft rule). 

Response: EPA is open to a discussion with the commenter on approaches to projecting 

cellulosic biofuel production in the future. No changes made to the current draft.

a. The commenter also recommends EPA seek comment on the process the agency used to 

determine the levels of “neutral aim and accuracy” and using the 25th percentile of the 

projected production for companies that have demonstrated commercial-scale 

production and using the 50th percentile of the projected production for companies that 

have achieved consistent commercial-scale production. It would be helpful if EPA 

could explain the reasoning for chosing these percentiles. . 

Response: We currently request comment on the methodology used to project volumes for 

2015 and 2016, as well as the general methodology used to project future cellulosic production 
(including the choice of the 25th and 50th percentiles) in the last sentences of Sections IV.D and 

IV.E. The reasoning for choosing these percentiles is explained in the text following Table IV.D3.

4. Several commenters note that if the volumes proposed in the NPRM become final, it will trigger 

the mandatory reevaluation of the Advanced Biofuels volumes in 2016. The commenters

request that EPA clarify, in the proposed rule, the schedule and process for re-assessing and 

determining the future volumes if the proposed Advanced Biofuels volumes become final, in 

order to increase business certainty and to assure readers that it is on the EPA radar. It appears 

that the trigger requirement would be to issue a rulemaking within one year under the 

“Modification Applicable Volumes” section of the statute. 

Response: We believe that it would be premature to indicate in this proposal what EPA might 

do in a future rulemaking if the standards that we finalize in November meet the applicable 

statutory triggers. We will consider discussing the reset rule in the final rule if the triggers are 

indeed met. In the meantime we will be prepared to answer questions about it as part of the 

rollout of the proposal.

a. Recognizing significant uncertainties in GHG emissions reductions calculations, the 

commenter also encourages EPA to take comment on whether modifying the 

equivalence value methodology used to determine RINs to consider GHG emission 

reductions would be likely to strengthen the potential GHG emissions benefits of the 

RFS. The commenter recognizes that prior rulemakings noted that the current 

equivalence value methodology was sufficient as there were distinct GHG thresholds for 

each renewable fuel category and thus a GHG reduction equivalence was not necessary. 

The commenter recommends that EPA take comment to determine if significant 

changes to the administration of the RFS and the biofuels marketplace in recent years 

effect EPA’s previous conclusion. 

Response: This program design issue is something that we have already evaluated in prior 

rulemakings and made a final decision on in the 2010 RFS2 rule. This proposal is to waive the 

statutory volumes and set the annual standards for 2014-16. Significant changes to the 

administration of the RFS are not feasible in the timeframe required to finalize this rulemaking 

and so we are not reopening them in this proposal. 

5. Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to modify the existing algal oil pathway to clarify 

that only biofuels produced from oil from algae grown photosynthetically qualify for the RFS 

program under this pathway. EPA is in the process of drafting a rule to propose a separate 

pathway for biofuels produced from non-photosynthetic algae. This issue appears to solely 

pertain to one company that is experimenting with the possibility of using sugarcane as the 

primary fuel source (an attempt to push their process into the cellulosic category). Even if the 

agency does not consider this pathway modification to be controversial, the agency should 

consider whether including this item in the annual rule will be a distraction and only lead to 

additional scrutiny. 
Response: This modification is not intended to allow one company using sugarcane as the 

primary fuel source into the cellulosic category. The purpose of this regulatory change is to 

clarify that EPA’s lifecycle analysis of algal oil assumed that the algae was grown 

photosynthetically and that other types of algal fuels must be further evaluated for their 

greenhouse gas emissions. EPA considers the algae oil modification to be a necessary but 

minor clarification of an existing pathway. We do not believe this clarification to be 

controversial and therefore plan to keep it in the rule.

6. The commenter believes that the maximum achievable volume of advanced biofuel is likely to 

go up as the volumes required of conventional renewable fuel go down (in part due to their 

dependence on the same production infrastructure), the commenter encourages EPA to 

consider whether it might be possible to shift a portion of gallons into the advanced biofuel 

requirement to reflect Congress’ intent that the RFS would require great growth of advanced 

biofuels, not conventional renewable fuel, after 2015.

Table 1 below shows the statutory volumetric biofuels requirements (units in billion gallons).

2014 2015 2016

Cellulosic biofuel 1.75 3.0 4.25

Biomass-based diesel ≥1.0 ≥1.0 ≥1.0

Advanced biofuel 3.75 5.5 7.25

Renewable fuel 18.15 20.5 22.25

a All values are ethanol-equivalent on an energy content basis, except for Biomass-based diesel 

(BBD) which is expressed in physical gallons.

Table 2 below shows the proposed RFS volumetric blending requirements. EPA is proposing 

to rescind the cellulosic biofuel standard for 2011, and, based on historical and near-term 

capacity estimates; propose cellulosic biofuel volumes for all three years that are below the 

applicable volume specified in the Act. Relying on the Clean Air Act (CAA) statutory waiver 

authorities, the EPA is also proposing to reduce the applicable volumes of advanced biofuel 

and total renewable fuel for all three years (2014-2016) from the volumes prescribed in the 

Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). In the proposed rule EPA is 

also proposing growth in the applicable volume of biomass-based diesel for 2014, 2015, 

2016, and 2017. 
Table 2. Proposed Volume Requirements (units in billion gallons)a

2014 2015 2016 2017

Cellulosic biofuel (million gallons) 33 106 203 ---

Biomass-based diesel (billion gallons) 1.63 1.70 1.80 1.90

Advanced biofuel (billion gallons) 2.68 2.90 3.40 ---

Renewable fuel (billion gallons) 15.93 16.30 17.40 ---

a All values are ethanol-equivalent on an energy content basis, except for Biomassbased diesel (BBD) which is expressed in physical gallons.

Response: The volume requirements that we are proposing for 2016 represent our 

determination of the maximum achievable volumes for advanced biofuel and total renewable 

fuel. The maximum achievable volumes take into account both various constraints on supply 

and the power of the market to respond to the standards that we set. While this determination 

included some judgment, it represents the Agency's current best estimate of maximum of 

achievable volume. Once we receive comments from stakeholders in response to the proposal, 

we will re-evaluate the volume requirements for 2016.

7. Page 20. In the final paragraph on this page, EPA should substitute to the Federal Reporter 

citation for the Monroe Energy v. EPA case: Monroe Energy v. EPA, 750 3.d 909 (D.C. Cir. 2014), 

reh’g denied, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13625 (D.C. Cir. July 16, 2014).

Response: We have made this change.

8. Page 30. The final sentence in the last full paragraph reads: “It does not change the fact that the 

text adopted by Congress, whether viewed by itself for in the context of other fuel waiver 

provisions, is clearly ambiguous.” Because this looks like an oxymoron, EPA might strike the 

word “clearly.”

Response: We have made this change.

9. Page 31. In the last paragraph on page 31, the last sentence begins: “Although we are not 

generally responding to comments on the proposal . . . .” To avoid confusion, this should read, 

“Although we are not generally responding to comments on the November 2013 proposal . . . .”

Response: We have updated sentence to read, “Although we are not generally responding to 

comments on the withdrawn 2014 RFS proposal...”

10. Pages 51-52. The presentation in EPA’s bar graphs in Figure II.D-1, D-2, and D-3 appears to 

make the recent “actual” and future “proposed” growth in renewable fuel use appear larger. We 
simply wonder if the design of the graph is intentional and is thought to be helpful to EPA’s 

purposes.

Response: Graphs were intended only to make the year-to-year changes clear. We will 

consider suggestions for alternative designs that also make the year-to-year changes clear if 

they are provided.

11. Passim. The word “judgment” is spelled incorrectly on at least pages 16 and 52. EPA might 

search and replace the correct spelling throughout the document.

Response: According to Websters, both "judgment" and "judgement" are acceptable spellings, 

though "judgment" is more common. The text has been modified throughout to ensure 

consistency.

12. Costs: The analysis of costs presented in the document is somewhat novel in that only costs 

incremental to the prior year’s program costs are considered. One implication of this 

methodology is that a regulatory program that imposed costly annual requirements that 

remained unchanged over time would be scored as having zero costs beyond the first year. 

With respect to the particulars of this draft proposed RFS rule, a non-incremental costing would 

yield significantly higher numbers that are presented in the document. For example, biomassbased diesel (BBD) is about $1.20 per gallon higher in the spot market than petroleum diesel 

(ULSD) ($3.16/gal vs. $1.95/gal) along the Gulf Coast. The rule requires 1.70 billion gallons of 

BBD in 2015 and 1.80 billion gallons of BBD in 2016, and probably much more to meet the 

advanced standard. The costs are clearly well in excess of the numbers presented in the 

document. 

a. Please send over the cost memo mentioned in the preamble.

Response: The memo to the docket describing illustrative cost calculations has been sent to 

OMB. This memo includes a discussion of choosing an appropriate baseline for assessing costs. 

b. Consider incorporating costs and benefits more broadly (e.g. including GHG benefits and 

costs of distribution). EPA could also look at the relative costs of importing sugarcane 

ethanol versus lowering the standard for advanced biofuel (taking into account the 

potential for domestic production of advanced biofuel).

Response: The memo to the docket includes a discussion of costs and benefits more broadly. 

While we did not attempt to calculate the GHG benefits, we address the issue qualitatively. 

Further, our illustrative cost estimates simply attempt to assess the production cost differences 

and do not estimate any downstream or infrastructure costs. 

We have not attempted to look at the relative cost of importing sugarcane ethanol versus 

lowering the advanced standard. The purpose of the sugarcane ethanol cost scenario is to 

provide information on the potential costs of using sugarcane ethanol to meet the advanced 

standard. 
c. The advanced mandate is expected to grow almost 20 percent in 2016 from 2015. For 

cellulosic, small but increasing volumes of cellulosic liquid renewable fuels from first 

generation cellulosic biofuel plants are expected to be blended into gasoline and diesel 

fuel in 2015 and 2016. The 2016 renewable fuel standards grow approximately 6 

percent from 2015 expected volumes. The growth in the 2016 renewable fuel 

standards are expected to be accommodated by increased volumes of ethanol blended 

as E10 (as the gasoline pool grows), E85, and bio and renewable diesel blended into 

diesel fuel, and renewable natural gas consumed in the transport sector. It is assumed 

that the renewable fuel volumes were set at the value of renewable identification 

numbers (RINs) that will provide an incentive to enable E85 to be competitively 

marketed against E10 gasoline in additional to increased levels of blending of biodiesel 

into diesel fuel and heating oil. We believe this growth rate is aggressive but achievable 

from a biofuel production standpoint although it would be helpful to learn more from 

the agency concerning any potential changes in costs and benefits when compared to 

the agency’s 2010 regulatory impact analysis. 

Response: See above

13. The discussion in the cost section suggests that sugarcane ethanol displaces gasoline. In fact, 

sugarcane ethanol is more likely to substitute for other forms of ethanol in the U.S. motor fuel 

pool.

Response: The cost section is not intended to project which types of biofuels will be used to 

meet the volume standards. These examples simply illustrate the difference in production costs 

associated with using sugarcane or corn ethanol to displace gasoline and using soy BBD to 

displace diesel. 

14. p. 6para 1. Commenter suggests revising the following two highlighted numbers: According to 

the Energy Information Administration (EIA), fuel ethanol production in the U.S. doubled in 

volume from approximately 6.6 billion gallons in 2007 to about 14.0 billion gallons in 2014. 

Growth in biodiesel production in the U.S. has increased more than two and a half times, from 

approximately 0.5 billion gallons in 2007 to 1.46 billion gallons in 2014. Today, nearly all of the 

approximately 138 billion gallons of gasoline used for transportation purposes contains 10 

percent ethanol (E10).

a. Biodiesel production in 2014 is 1.2 billion gallons (PSA), 1.24 billion gallons (STEO), or 

1.27 billion gallons (EIA-22M), NOT 1.46 billion gallons. This does not include 

renewable diesel because on p. 35 table II.A.5-1 has a note that says “1.63 billion gallons 

of biodiesel and renewable diesel supplied in 2014.”

Response: The biodiesel production of importance to the RFS program is that which generates 

RINs. According to EMTS which tracks RIN generation, in 2014 there was 1.46 bill gal of 

biodiesel + renewable diesel produced domestically that qualified as D4 (advanced). It does not 

represent biodiesel only, nor does it represent supply (domestic production + imports minus 

exports). We will modify the text to clarify that this number represents advanced biodiesel + 

renewable diesel domestic production. 
b. Gasoline for transportation use in 2014 was 3,257 million barrels or 136.8 billion 

gallons not 138 billion gallons.

Response: By "today" the text was referring to 2015. According to the May STEO, 2015 

gasoline consumption is projected to be 138.7 bill gal. However, under the RFS program we 

subtract out Alaska consumption since Alaska is exempt, and we typically convert the resulting 

volumes to represent 100% E10 (no E0, E15, or E85). Based on these calculations, 2015 

gasoline consumption would be 137.8 bill gal.

15. p. 14 Table I.A-3 has inconsistent numbers with Table V.B.3-1 on p. 99. Is it 1.63 or 1.67 bill gal 

biomass-based diesel in 2014?

Table I.A-3

Proposed Volume Requirementsa

2014 2015 2016

Cellulosic biofuel (million gallons) 33 106 203

Biomass-based diesel (billion gallons) 1.63 1.70 1.80

Advanced biofuel (billion gallons) 2.68 2.90 3.40

Renewable fuel (billion gallons) 15.93 16.30 17.40

a All values are ethanol-equivalent on an energy content basis, except for BBD which 

is actual.

Response: The discrepancy is explained in the paragraph immediately following Table III.C1and in the footnote to Table V.B.3-1.

16. p. 15 para 1. In the interagency overview briefing, EPA indicated that the domestic production 

and imports would come from EMTS and that exports would come from EIA. Suggest 

introducing this concept in this section when it is introduced.

Therefore, in today's action we are proposing to base the applicable volume requirements for 

2014 on actual renewable fuel use, as determined by data on the number of Renewable 

Identification Numbers (RINs) generated, minus the number of RINs retired to account for 

renewable fuel export or for other purposes unrelated to demonstrating compliance with the 

annual standards.

Response: Text was modified as requested.

Finally referenced on p. 46 para 2 but the source identified in footnote 47 was weekly 

imports & exports. We do not have biofuel exports available weekly. EPA should use 

instead http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbbl_a.htm. 

Since the compliance deadline for all 2014 RIN exports has not yet passed, we are proposing to 

estimate likely RIN retirements for renewable exports using renewable fuel export information 
from EIA.47 If RINs retired for exports are recorded in EMTS prior to issuance of the final rule, 

we will use EMTS data instead of EIA data in determining supply for 2014 in the final rule. 

47 http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm

Response: Footnote was changed.

17. p. 17 para 1. EPA explains biomass-based diesel (BBD) production in terms of what was 

“required” and what the market actually “supplied.” Is the agency really discussing domestic 

consumption vs. exports? Please clarify.

For 2013, EPA established an applicable volume of 1.28 billion gallons. The BBD standards in 

practice only establish the minimum volume required; substantially higher volumes have been 

used in past years to help satisfy the advanced biofuel standard. If BBD outcompetes other 

advanced biofuels in the marketplace as occurred in 2013, then the BBD standard serves as a 

floor and not a ceiling. Indeed, only 1.28 billion gallons of BBD were required in 2013, yet 1.55 

billion gallons were supplied by the market. Furthermore, the total renewable standard can 

provide an incentive for even more BBD and other advanced biofuels to be supplied than is 

actually required, as also occurred in 2013: while the applicable advanced biofuel volume 

requirement was 2.75 billion ethanol-equivalent gallons, the market actually supplied 3.02 

billion ethanol-equivalent gallons, and most of this was BBD.

Response: We added footnote to explain numbers:

In 2013 1.55 billion gallons of BBD were supplied to the U.S. market. This reflects the sum of domestically 

produced BBD plus imported BBD minus domestically produced BBD that was exported. This number was 

developed using the EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) data available at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/rfsdata/2013emts.htm (last accessed May 20, 2015)

18. p. 19. Table I.B.5-1 Commenter was able to replicate the 2014, 2015, and 2016 percentages for 

all except the renewable fuel total in 2016. The calculations are compared side-by-side below.

Table I.B.5-1

Proposed Percentage Standards

EPA’s calculations Commenter’s calculations

2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016

Cellulosic biofuel 0.019% 0.059% 0.113% 0.019% 0.059% 0.113%

Biomass-based 

diesel

1.42% 1.42% 1.50% 1.42%

1.42% 1.50%

Advanced biofuel 1.52% 1.61% 1.89% 1.52% 1.62% 1.89%

Renewable fuel 9.02% 9.08% 9.67% 9.02% 9.08% 9.65%

Response: All % standards have been recalculated since OMB reviewed this draft to 

incorporate the most recent gasoline and diesel projections from EIA (STEO May 2015). We 

will provide the details of the calculations to OMB.
19. p. 23-24 last sentence wrap. Not sure which “recent years” but the reduction in gasoline 

consumption did not result in a corresponding decrease in the amount of ethanol in E10 

because the percent of ethanol in gasoline increased over time.

The decrease in total gasoline consumption in recent years which resulted in a corresponding 

decrease in the amount of ethanol that can be consumed as E10, the limited number and 

geographic distribution of retail stations that offer higher ethanol blends such as E15 and E85, 

the number of FFVs that have access to E85, as well as other market factors, combine to place 

significant restrictions on the volume of ethanol that can be supplied to vehicles at the present 

time.

Response: The highlighted text is referring to the maximum volume of ethanol that could, in 

theory, be consumed if all gasoline was E10. The text was modified to try and make this clearer.

20. p. 35 Table II.A.5-1. EPA states “Based on EIA’s STEO March 2015”; however the commenter is 

not able to figure out how it was calculated partially because maximum ethanol consumption is 

not defined by EPA. According to STEO March 2015, ethanol blended into gasoline is 0.88 

MMBD or 13.29 billion gallons in 2015 and 0.87 MMBD or 13.35 billion gallons in 2016. Higherethanol blends are required for ethanol volumes to exceed these levels.

Table II.A.5-1

Additional Volumes Needed to Meet Statutory Targets for Total Renewable Fuel

(million ethanol-equivalent gallons)

2015 2016

Statutory target for total renewable fuel 20,500 22,250

Maximum ethanol consumption as E10a - 13,780 - 13,690

Historical maximum biomass-based diesel supplyb -2,500 - 2,500

Additional volumes needed 4,220 6,060

a Based on EIA's Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) from March 2015

b Represents the 1.63 billion gallons of biodiesel and renewable diesel supplied in 

2014

Response: Maximum ethanol consumption as E10 means the volume of ethanol that could be 

consumed if all gasoline was E10, and there was no E0, E15, or E85. The two values in the table 

(13,780 and 13,690) were not taken directly from STEO, but instead were based on the total 

gasoline energy demand (gasoline + ethanol) projected by STEO. In short, we used factors 

provided by EIA to convert projected volumes into projected Btu, and then determine the 

volumes that would result if the projected Btu represented 100% E10. The table footnote was 

modified to make this clearer.

21. p. 36 last sentences. No source is named but it’s assumed to be EIA as EIA’s imports data is the 

most complete. But the numbers quoted by EPA exceed EIA volumes. 

a. In 2006 imports of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol were 10.78 million barrels or 453 

million gallons not 560 million gallons.
b. In 2014 imports of Brazilian ethanol were 1.27 million barrels or 53.4 million gallons 

not 64 million gallons.

The highest volume of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol that has ever been imported was 560 

million gallons in 2006, and in recent years ethanol imports have been considerably lower. In 

2014, imports were only 64 million gallons

p. 51 footnote 50. Imports of ethanol from Brazil in 2013 were 7.67 million barrels or 323 

million gallons NOT 435 million gallons

Response: When calculating total imports from Brazil, we include ethanol volumes that are 

imported through the Caribbean Basin Initiative which are presumed to have originated in 

Brazil. Thus we include volumes imported from Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Virgin 

Islands when using import data from EIA, as we did when providing the 2006 ethanol import 

volume. For 2013 and 2014 we used import information from EMTS, not EIA. Footnotes were

added to clarify.

22. p. 36, footnote 28. STEO does not present diesel consumption, only distillate. EPA needs to 

explain how calculated and what constitutes the 5 billion gallon difference between our 

numbers.

2015 2016

4.09 4.14 MMBD per STEO

62.7 63.6 bill gal calculated

57.6 58.7 bill gal according to EPA

Based on EIA's March 2015 Short-Term Energy Outlook, nationwide diesel consumption is 

projected to be 57.6 bill gal in 2015 and 58.7 bill gal in 2016

Response: The STEO report itself does not project diesel volumes, but the online interactive 

table associated with STEO does. The footnote was modified to clarify.

23. p. 39 para 3 and footnote 35. AEO2007 projected 0.82 MMBD or 12.57 billion gallons of 

ethanol in 2022 NOT 17.3 billion gallons. AEO2007 included E85 in its projections – 0.0072 

MMBD or 110.4 million gallons in 2022. Ethanol’s share of the gasoline pool was 3% in 2005, 

projected to grow to 8% by 2030. Did EPA assume that the share would reach 5% in 2022 or 

half of E10?

Moreover, it is highly unlikely that Congress expected the very high volumes that it specified in 

the statute to be reached only through the consumption of E10. At the time EISA was passed in 

2007, EIA's Annual Energy Outlook for 2007 projected that 17.3 billion gallons of ethanol

could be consumed as E10 in 2022.

35 However, 17.3 billion gallons is far less than the 35 billion 

gallons of renewable fuel other than BBD that Congress targeted for use in 2022. Thus, if the 

statutory targets were to be achieved, 17.7 billion gallons of renewable fuel would need to be 
consumed in 2022 either as higher level ethanol blends (E11 - E85), or as non-ethanol fuels. 

Such levels were far beyond the 2007 industry's abilities at that time, strongly suggesting that 

Congress expected the RFS program to compel the industry to make dramatic changes in a 

relatively short period of time.

35Assumes that AEO2007's 2022 demand for gasoline energy was fulfilled entirely by E10. 

AEO2007 however, projected that only about half of the gasoline used in 2022 would be E10.

Response: The text is referring to the maximum volume of ethanol that could theoretically be 

consumed if all gasoline was E10, and there was no E0, E15, or E85. This theoretical maximum 

is derived in the same way as described in the response to comment #20 above, with the only 

difference being that the projections from AEO were used instead of the projections from STEO. 

We have modified the footnote to clarify.

24. p. 53, Figure II.D-4 is difficult to verify without seeing the data behind the chart, but 2008 (7%) 

and 2009 (8%) appear too high in the graph. Please provide the supporting information. 

STEO 3/15 data 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Ethanol Share of Finished 

Gasoline Consumption 0.025 0.029 0.039 0.048 0.070 0.080 0.093 0.096 0.097 0.097 0.098 

Figure II.D-4

Ethanol Concentration of Gasoline

Source: EIA's Short Term Energy Outlook
Response: Sources of data is as follows:

Source Ethanol % Gasoline Ethanol

2005 STEO Dec 2009 3.01% Table 4a Table 8

2006 STEO Dec 2009 4.03% Table 4a Table 8

2007 STEO Dec 2009 5.04% Table 4a Table 8

2008 STEO Jan 2012 7.35% Table 4a Table 8

2009 STEO Jan 2012 8.39% Table 4a Table 8

2010 STEO July 2014 9.33% Table 4a Table 4a

2011 STEO March 2015 9.61% Table 4a Table 4a

2012 STEO March 2015 9.65% Table 4a Table 4a

2013 STEO March 2015 9.75% Table 4a Table 4a

2014 STEO March 2015 9.85% Table 4a Table 4a

25. p. 58, footnote 57, using AEO2014 Table 60, calculating the fraction of FFVs to total gasoline 

vehicles yields 9.3%, not 8.3%.

With regard to E85, according to EIA there will be about 17 million FFVs in the in-use fleet in 

2016 with a total consumption capacity of about 17 billion gallons of E85.57 

57According to AEO2014, Table 60, total vehicle miles travelled by FFVs in 2016 will be about 

8.3% of all gasoline-powered vehicles, equivalent to about 11.4 bill gal of E10 or 16.8 bill gal of 

E85.

Response: We have revised the numbers based on AEO2015, Table 42, and have updated the 

footnote to clarify that the calculation represents light-duty gasoline vehicles.

26. p. 68, para 1. Two problems with this sentence and footnote 71.

a. The product category says “Biomass-Based Diesel” but this is biodiesel only (NO 

renewable diesel). EIA reports imports of renewable diesel under Other Renewable 

Diesel. BBD imports should be the sum of EIA’s reported imports of Biomass-Based 

Diesel (biodiesel) and of Other Renewable Diesel and Aruba, Finland, and Singapore 

should be added.

Response: The text has been clarified so that the imported volume referenced is all biomassbased diesel (not biodiesel only) and the data source is identified as EMTS, not EIA import data.

b. The citation in footnote 71 appears to be wrong; edits suggested below. 
Total domestic production of BBD was 1.45 billion gallons (2.19 billion RINs), while imports 

resulted in an additional 0.34 billion gallons (0.55 billion RINs).71

71Countries contributing to BBD imports (million gallons) were Argentina=132, Australia= 1, 

Belgium=5, Canada= 45, Germany = 61, Indonesia=52, Netherlands = 8, Norway = 9, South 

Korea = 20, Panama=3, Spain = 4, Taiwan=1. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

Petroleum & Other Liquids Database; Annual import data for Biodiesel BBD (2013). See 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_EPOORDB_im0_mbbl_a.htm (last 

accessed April 6, 2015).

Response: We have updated this footnote to correct the citation and include renewable diesel 

import volumes (“Other renewable diesel”). We have also added text discussing the difference 

between EIA’s import numbers for biodiesel and renewable diesel and EPA’s BBD import 

volumes (through EMTS).

27. p. 68, 1st full paragraph: The texts of footnotes 72 and 73 are reversed and footnote 73 edits.

73U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Petroleum & Other Liquids Database. Annual 

export data for Biodiesel BBD (2013). See 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_expc_a_EPOORDB_EEX_mbbl_a.htm (last accessed 

April 6, 2015).

Response: We have corrected the footnotes.

28. p. 68, para 2. EIA does not forecast gross exports of renewable fuels in STEO; done in terms of 

net exports.

However, complete information on RINs that are retired to cover exports of renewable fuel is 

not available through EMTS until after the compliance demonstration deadline for a given 

calendar year has passed. Since compliance cannot occur until the standards are set, we 

propose to estimate such RIN retirement based on renewable fuel export information from the 

EIA.

Response: We have changed the text to clarify that we are not relying on the STEO, but reported 

EIA data for biodiesel exports for 2014 only.

29. p. 69, para 2. The blending tax credit for biodiesel and renewable diesel was also a significant 

factor in 2011 and 2013.

Based on the fact that the industry made more BBD available in 2011 and 2013 than volume 

requirements for those years, we conclude that the BBD standard is not the sole driver for the 

amount of BBD produced or imported into the United States. We believe that the advanced 
biofuel and total renewable fuel standards are significant factors in the amount of biodiesel 

produced and imported into the United States.

Response: We have added a footnote to acknowledge the potential influence of the tax credit.

30. p. 80 para 2 Would like to discuss with EPA as EPA was previously planning to issue standards 

for just 2014 in the annual rule, but now plans to issue standards for both 2015 and 2016. 

EPA is proposing to use a slightly different methodology for projecting the available volume of 

cellulosic biofuel for each of the three years. Our approach to each of these years can broadly 

be described as one that seeks to use actual production volumes where they are available 

(such as for all of 2014 and several months of 2015) and to project production volumes from 

likely production facilities for future months in which actual production volumes are not 

available. In previous projections of cellulosic biofuel production EPA, as directed by the CAA, 

has considered information provided by EIA in making our projections. EPA received a letter 

from EIA on February 19, 2014 containing cellulosic biofuel projections for 2014,

83 but to date 

have not received any projections of cellulosic biofuel production for 2015. As discussed in 

more detail below EPA now has data, through EMTS, on the actual number of cellulosic RINs 

generated in 2014 and we are proposing to establish the 2014 cellulosic biofuel standard using 

this data rather than EIA’s projection. We anticipate that for the final rule EIA will provide 

EPA with projected production volumes of cellulosic biofuel in 2015 and 2016 and we intend to 

consider these projections in our final rule.

83Letter from Adam Sieminski, EIA Administrator to Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator 

February 19, 2014. 

Response: EPA would be open to discussing this with EIA.

31. p. 98, footnote 101, Specify which year of SEDS rather than "most recent," so numbers can be 

verified. For example, 2013 SEDS has been released in stages over 6 months.

101 To determine the 49-state values for gasoline and diesel, the amounts of these fuels used in 

Alaska is subtracted from the totals provided by DOE. The Alaska fractions are determined 

from the most recent EIA State Energy Data System (SEDS), Energy Consumption Estimates.

Response: Calculations of % standards will be provided to OMB, showing actual numbers used 

to represent exempt Alaska gasoline and diesel. Footnote has been updated to clarify that the 

SEDS report used was released on June 27, 2014.

32. p. 99, Table V.B.3-1. EIA’s calculations of the terms – gasoline (G), diesel (D), ethanol (RG), and 

biomass-based diesel (RD) are shown below beside the EPA calculations. The yellow highlights 

indicate the EPA numbers that are different.
Table V.B.3-1

Values for Terms in Calculation of the Proposed Standards (billion gallons)

EPA’s calculations EIA’s calculations

Term 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016

G 136.42 137.63 136.82 136.47 137.7 137.15

D 55.07 56.88 57.97 55.19 56.85 58.1

RG 13.39 13.40 13.31 13.47 13.47 13.35

RD 1.52 1.55 1.53 1.54 1.55 1.54

Response: All % standards have been recalculated since OMB reviewed this draft to 

incorporate the most recent gasoline and diesel projections from EIA (STEO May 2015). We 

will provide the details of the calculations to OMB. 

33. The Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Advocacy commented that EPA has not 

satisfied the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. SBA has reviewed the RFA 

compliance with the RFS2 proposal and final rule (the SBREFA panel report, the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis) and disagree that 

these documents satisfy the requirement that “whenever an agency is required by section 553 

of this title [5], or any other law, to published general notice of proposed rulemaking for any 

proposed rule . . . the agency shall prepare and make available for public comment an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis.” (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Advocacy disagrees that the impacts of the 

RFS2 program “were already addressed in the RFS2 proposed rule.” The impacts of that rule 

were vastly different from the current market and regulatory environment. EPA has learned 

significantly more about how the market has responded to a scarcity of RINs in the marketplace 

and inequities in the distribution of RINs for compliance, including the completion (and 

subsequent revision) of the DOE study on disproportionate effects on small entities. Small 

entities have complained to this office, OMB through EO 12866 meetings, and EPA about 

changes EPA has made to the small entity flexibilities envisioned in the RFS2 SBREFA panel, 

proposed rule and final rule. Based on these complaints, Advocacy believes there remains a 

disproportionate impact on small entities and that EPA should be conducting the required RFA 

analyses to understand that impact and consider alternatives. 

EPA has a statutory duty to consider the impacts on small entities. Although EPA is exercising 

significant discretion in this rule to deviate from the statutory levels, it does not consider the 

impacts on small entities and has not considered alternatives to minimize the impact on small 

entities. In the absence of a small entity analysis, or even a consideration of the cost and 

benefits of the program, in which EPA considers alternative renewable fuel levels or alternative 

standards for small entity waivers, Advocacy staff does not believe EPA has provided the 

information upon which to base either a section 605(b) certification or an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, short of a total waiver for small entities from the requirements of this rule. 

Therefore, Advocacy staff believe that EPA is required to conduct a SBREFA panel and prepare 

of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prior to promulgation of this proposed rule.

Response: The March 26, 2010 RFS2 rulemaking was a rule implementing the entire program 

required by EISA 2007, not just the 2010 volumes. As such, the SBREFA panel process that took 
place prior to the 2010 rule was also for the entire program. The 2010 rule provided delayed 

compliance and the ability to petition for hardship relief, as well as flexibilities through RIN 

trading and deficit carryforward. As such, we believe that the program already provided

compliance flexibility to small entities; and, as stated in the preamble to this NPRM, we do not 

believe that the impacts of this proposal are fundamentally different from those of the RFS2 

rule implementing the entire program. Also, possible small entity flexibilities such as those 

suggested by the commenter (e.g., “alternative standards”) were considered and rejected in the 

March 26, 2010 final rule as contrary to EPA’s authority under the CAA; our statutory authority 

to issue relief to small entities has not changed since that time.

Furthermore, conducting the SBREFA process for the entire program in the context of the 2010 

rule was logical and appropriate, since it was implementing the program mandated by 

Congress, whereas the rulemakings to set the annual standards are just taking the mandated 

volumes and expressing them as annual percentage standards based on gasoline and diesel 

production volume. In this regard, this proposal is consistent with our past annual standard 

setting rules which were not subject to the SBREFA panel process. However, unlike past annual 

rules, we are exercising our waiver authority to reduce the statutory volumes. This exercise 

only reduces any burdens on small entities, as compared to the burdens that would be imposed 

under the volumes established in the Act.

Finally, attempting to go through a SBREFA panel process in the context of annual RFS 

standards rulemakings would not be possible given the time constraints, and would further 

delay issuance of the annual standards. 

As a point of clarification, this comment refers to “the DOE study on disproportionate effects on 

small entities.” However, the DOE study addressed impact on “small refineries.” The term 

“small refinery” is defined in EISA to mean a small-capacity refinery (those refineries with a 

crude throughput of no more than 75,000 barrels of crude per day). A “small refiner”, on the 

other hand, is defined by SBA’s size standards at 13 CFR 121.201 to be refiners with no more 

than 1,500 employees company-wide. There may be some circumstances where these 

definitions overlap but it is not uncommon for a large refiner to own a small refinery.