Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives:


Renewable Fuel Standard Program


Summary and Analysis of Comments


Chapter 1


General


Assessment and Standards Division 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA420-R-07-006 

April 2007 
RFS Summary and Analysis of Comments 

1 GENERAL

1.1 Supports Rule................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.2 Opposes Rule ...................................................................................................1-3 

1.3 Goals of the RFS Program............................................................................... 1-4 

1.3.1 Environmental Assessment...................................................................... 1-4 

1.3.2 Bias Towards Existing Technologies....................................................... 1-4 

1.3.3 Other Program Issues............................................................................... 1-5 

RFS 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 71 FR 

55552, published on September 22, 2006 [link to: 

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pd

f/06-7887.pdf]. 

1.1 Supports Rule 

What Commenters Said:

We received many comments supporting the proposed rule. Commenters 

generally stated that they support further development of the U.S. biofuels market to 

ensure less dependence on foreign oil. Some commenters stated that they believe that 

EPA worked cooperatively and effectively with all stakeholders. Some commenters also 

commended EPA for the development of a workable proposed RFS program concept, 

stating that they believe that EPA has followed the intention of the legislative provisions 

set out by the Energy Policy Act and has proposed a reasonable framework for the 

Renewable Fuels Standard program. 

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

proposed rule, they believe that further work and/or additional study is needed before the 

rule is finalized. Each commenter offered various suggestions on how they believed that 

the rule could be improved, these comments are summarized in the following chapters of 

this Summary and Analysis document. These comments include suggested edits on the 

general structure of the RFS program, the Renewable Identification Number (RIN) 

program, compliance requirements, and impacts of the program. 

Letters:

American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) OAR-2005-0161-0218 

American Petroleum Institute (API) OAR-2005-0161-0185 

American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) OAR-2005-0161-0235 (hearing) 

Baker Commodities Inc. OAR-2005-0161-0003 through -0006, -0173 

Biodiesel Coalition of Texas (BCOT) OAR-2005-0161-0186 

1-1
Chapter 1: General 

Biodiesel Industries of Greater Dallas Fort Worth (BIGDFW) OAR-2005-0161-

0211 

Biotechnology Industry Organization (Industrial and Environmental Section) (BIO IES)

 OAR-2005-0161-0199 

BlueFire Ethanol OAR-2005-0161-0200, -0224 

BP Products North America OAR-2005-0161-0221, -0230 

Chevron OAR-2005-0161-0193 

ConocoPhillips OAR-2005-0161-0194, -0219 

DuPage County Board OAR-2005-0161-0166 

DuPont OAR-2005-0161-0168 

Environmental Defense OAR-2005-0161-0172, -0223 

ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Co. OAR-2005-0161-0197 

Flint Hills Resources (FHR) OAR-2005-0161-0222 

Griffin Industries, Inc.OAR-2005-0161-0189 

Harms Oil Company OAR-2005-0161-0220 

Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA) OAR-2005-0161-0213 

Imperium Renewables, Inc. (IRI) OAR-2005-0161-0178 

Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals (KMLT) OAR-2005-0161-0231 

Magellan Midstream Partners OAR-2005-0161-0208 

Marathon Petroleum Company (MPC) OAR-2005-0161-0175 

Methanol Institute (MI) OAR-2005-0161-0171 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) OAR-2005-0161-0217 

National Restaurant Association (NRA) OAR-2005-0161-0174 

National Wildlife Federation (NWF) OAR-2005-0161-0209 

Natural Gas Vehicles for America OAR-2005-0161-0201 

National Biodiesel Board (NBB) OAR-2005-0161-0212 

National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), American Farm Bureau Federation 

(AFBF), and National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) OAR-2005-

0161-0188 

National Petrochemical and Refiners’ Association (NPRA) OAR-2005-0161-0170, -0232 

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)OAR-2005-0161-0229 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) OAR-2005-0161-0179 

Neste Oil Holding Inc. OAR-2005-0161-0191 

Organic Fuels OAR-2005-0161-0190, -0233 (hearing) 

Private Citizens (various) 

Renewable Energy Action Project (REAP) OAR-2005-0161-0204 

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) OAR-2005-0161-0192, -0228 (hearing) 

Shell Oil Company/Motiva Enterprises OAR-2005-0161-0215 

SilvaGas, Inc. OAR-2005-0161-0161 

Sutherland Asbill Brennan OAR-2005-0161-0210 

Tyson Foods, Inc. OAR-2005-0161-0216 

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) OAR-2005-0161-0226 

Our Response:

1-2
RFS Summary and Analysis of Comments 

These comments are generally supportive of the RFS program design and its goal 

of increasing the volume of renewable fuels that are required to be used in vehicles in the 

U.S. as required in Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended by the Energy 

Policy Act. 

1.2 Opposes Rule 

What Commenters Said:

We also received some comments which stated that they did not support the 

proposed rule. One commenter stated that it believed that the NPRM spent too much 

time discussing the legislation and future prospects for biofuels, but lacked significant 

information on operational costs. 

CHS commented that its concerns are centered on the likelihood of an ethanol 

glut in the Mid-continent exacerbated by the proposed rule that may have negative 

consequences. The commenter stated that it believes that the simplified RFS program 

could have the unintended consequences of actually contributing to the creation of this 

glut; and that the proposed rule does not go far enough to promote the national program 

that Congress intended. 

The National Association of Convenience Stores and the Society of Independent 

Gasoline Marketers of America (NACS/SIGMA) commented that they did not support 

the adoption of the RFS in the Energy Policy Act. The commenters stated that, 

philosophically, motor fuel marketers are opposed to government mandates on fuel 

composition, whether the mandate is for renewable fuels or for oxygenates in gasoline; 

the commenters expressed their doubt that the government's judgment is superior to the 

markets'. 

Ethanol Products commented that it believes that the mechanics of the proposal 

posed some unintended complications for its company, and similar companies. The 

commenter also stated that it has concerns about the proposed RIN trading by refiners, as 

it believes that this could undermine the program if refiners do not meet the minimum 

requirements of the law each year. The commenter urged EPA to rethink the rule so that 

refiners can not use the rule to reduce ethanol demand. 

Letters:

CHS Inc. OAR-2005-0161-0203 

Ethanol Products OAR-2005-0161 

National Association of Convenience Stores and Society of Independent Gasoline 

Marketers of America (NACS/SIGMA) OAR-2005-0161-0234 

Our Response:

1-3
Chapter 1: General 

In general, EPA has little flexibility with respect to addressing comments 

expressing opposition to the program as mandated by Congress. Regarding the design of 

the RFS program, our final rule reflects an intensive collaborative effort with 

stakeholders to ensure that the provisions in the Energy Policy Act are implemented 

while also ensuring that the program is simple, flexible, and enforceable. Comments on 

specific elements of the RFS program, such as RINs, are addressed in subsequent 

chapters of this Summary and Analysis Document. 

1.3 Goals of the RFS Program 

1.3.1 Environmental Assessment 

What Commenters Said:

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources encouraged EPA to complete a 

full environmental assessment. 

Letters:

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) OAR-2005-0161-0217 

Our Response:

We did in fact conduct an analysis of the environmental impacts of the increased 

use of renewable fuels. Our preliminary results were presented in the NPRM, and our 

final analysis is provided in Chapters 3 through 6 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA). Additional and more comprehensive investigations will continue in the context of

several other studies that the Energy Act requires EPA to conduct over the next several 

years. 

1.3.2 Bias Towards Existing Technologies 

What Commenters Said:

Ethanol Feed and Fuel commented that it believes that the proposed rule contains 

a bias towards existing technology which could stifle or limit technological advances in 

the reduction of fossil fuel use and the RIN program will place a few obligated parties in 

control of a significant portion of the RINs produced. The commenter stated that it 

believes this indicates a bias in favor of existing technologies, large scale production 

facilities and obligated parties. The commenter further stated that it believes that changes 

need to be made to the rule such that it does not dampen small business initiatives by

favoring the larger entrenched operations (producers or obligated parties). 

Letters:

Ethanol Feed and Fuel OAR-2005-0161-0180 

1-4
RFS Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Our Response:

The RFS program has been designed collaboratively with the industry to ensure 

that it is flexible and allows all valid renewable fuels to be used for compliance purposes. 

Any producer or importer of renewable fuels can generate RINs, and the process for 

determining the number of gallon-RINs that can be generated for each gallon is 

consistent across all renewable fuels. New companies, regardless of their size, can 

participate in the RIN trading program. 

Moreover, there are about 140 refiners in addition to importers who will be 

obligated parties, and the largest is responsible for only a few percent of nationwide 

gasoline volumes. Thus no one obligated party can control the RIN market, and parties 

in need of RINs, in addition to parties that wish to participate in the RIN market, will 

have many avenues through which they can acquire RINs. 

1.3.3 Other Program Issues 

What Commenters Said:

The National Wildlife Federation commented that it strongly supports efforts to 

transition the nation towards a greater reliance on renewable fuels, and it welcomes the 

proposal and recognizes the value of insuring this reliance on renewable fuels. The 

commenter stated, however, that to achieve real public benefit the rule should be 

structured to: 1) effectively displace reliance on fossil fuels; 2) be complementary to 

efforts to monitor, track and trade, and reduce GHG emissions; 3) be sustainable and 

preserve air, soil, and water quality, public health, wildlife, and overall biodiversity; and 

4) encourage development of a domestic industry that can efficiently meet these criteria. 

The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), the American Farm Bureau 

Federation (AFBF), and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) 

commented that they believe that EPA must keep the intent of the program in mind 

(Congress’ primary intent was to promote the use of renewable fuels through mandatory, 

minimum volumes used annually). The commenters further stated that they believe that 

the RFS program should include provisions to ensure that EPA has sufficient information 

to track compliance with the standard. 

Letters:

National Wildlife Federation (NWF) OAR-2005-0161-0209 

National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), the American Farm Bureau Federation

(AFBF), and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC)OAR-2005-

0161-0188

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) OAR-2005-0161-0192, -0228 (hearing) 

Our Response:

1-5
Chapter 1: General 

According to the Energy Policy Act, the primary goal of the RFS program is to 

ensure that a minimum amount of renewable fuel is used in the U.S. These volumes are 

specified for the years 2006 through 2012; for 2013 and beyond, the nationwide fraction 

of renewable fuel in gasoline can be no smaller than it was in 2012. However, there are 

also provisions in the Energy Policy Act that allow the actual volumes of renewable fuel 

consumed in a given year to differ in some small ways from the volumes specified in the 

Act. As described more fully in our response to comments in Section 5.6, these 

provisions include credit trading, deficit carryover, the 2.5 credit value for cellulosic 

biomass and waste-derived ethanol, and the use of gasoline consumption estimates to set 

the annual standard. Within this context, we believe that our final RFS program ensures 

that the requirements of the Energy Policy Act will be met, and that it will help insure 

reliance on renewable fuels. 

Through our collaborative process with stakeholders, the final RFS program 

design provides the certainty that at least a minimum amount of renewable fuel will be

used in the U.S. The final program also ensures that the compliance and trading program

provides certainty to the marketplace and minimizes cost to the consumers; the program 

preserves existing business practices for the production, distribution, and use of both 

conventional and renewable fuels; the program is designed to accommodate all qualifying 

renewable fuels; all renewable volumes produced are made available to obligated parties 

for compliance; and finally, the Agency has the ability to easily verify compliance to 

ensure that the volume obligations are in fact met. A full description of the RFS 

program, including the reasons for specific elements, can be found in Sections III through 

V of the preamble to the final rule. 

We also conducted a variety of analyses to determine the impacts of increased use 

of renewable fuels on cost, emissions of regulated pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions, 

petroleum imports, and fossil fuel consumption. These analyses and evaluations are 

presented in the RIA. 

1-6