Summary – Response to Comments on RFS2 Preamble

SECTION I

Section I: Deleted “or better” from discussion of other feedstocks qualifying. 

SECTION V

Section V: Changed text on yield discussion from we think base yields are conservative 

to comments received indicated base yields are conservative 

Section V: Added more discussion of the fuels we will consider during our planned 6 

month update (grain sorghum ethanol, wood pulp ethanol, palm oil biodiesel). 

Section V: Clarified write-up that international production of fuels with feedstocks we 

modeled also qualify 

Section V: In response to USDA written comments (these are also documented 

separately in response to their written comments) 

• Added footnote on what 95% confidence represents 

• Added text on why N2O updates increase emissions from corn ethanol 

Section V: (and under definitions) Added discussion and definition of cover crops and 

wastes Not sure if this was interagency discussion. 

USTR Comments on the Preamble 

General: Petition process should be open to importers as well. Confirmed, process is 

open to importers. We have revised and incorporated new clarifying text. 

General: Use of the word "preference" on pg 26-7 causes some concern. We have 

revised the language to clarify petition process in consideration of this sensitivity. 

General: Need to increase the prominence of our invitation to allow for foreign countries 

to also develop and international aggregate baseline similar to our domestic aggregate 

baseline. Language revised to address comment. 
Summary – Response to Comments on RFS2 RIA

INTRO – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RIA Overview: Need to add an executive summary into the overview explaining that the 

impacts assessed may not be entirely a result of the standards. In response, developed an 

Executive Summary. Current revised version (post OPEI and OMB comments) has been 

incorporated into the revised RIA 

. 

CHAPTER 1

Chapter 1 Pg 44: and elsewhere -- correct US Forestry Service to”Forest” Service. Done 

Chapter 1 pg 44: Make clear that if there isn’t logging the residuals/slash/thinnings won’t 

occur. Done 

Table 1.1-4: Clarify the meaning of the table. Done 

Chapter 1: 1.1.2.3: Acknowledge that it’s a common practice today. Done 

Chapter 1: 1.1.2.3: Under sustainable removal heading, include additional references 

from the USFS unless they conflict. Done 

Chapter 1: 1.1.2.3 pg 35-40: Clarify the discussion wrt the Billion ton study, the US 

cellulosic biomass study, and the USFS data on whether they reflect the renewable 

biomass restrictions in EISA or not. Done 

Chapter 1: 1.1.2.3: Include reference to a new Western Governor’s study. Done 

Chapter 1: 1.6-4 pg 208-9: Clarify the language. Done 

CHAPTER 2

Chapter 2: Updated FASOM crop budget tables for diesel fuel, gasoline, and electricity 

use. Tables in the previous version sent to Interagency were not the correct values used 

in the final rule. 

Chapter 2: Prior to table 2.4-39 added sentence that discussion of uncertainty ranges 

follow and where, “Our estimates of satellite data uncertainty are presented in below in 

Table 2.4-49”. 

Chapter 2: Section 2.4.4.2.6.5 – Added discussion at the end of the section: and 

footnoted. 
“As discussed in preamble Section V, modeling the fate of international harvested wood 

products is an area for future work and consideration of more data. For example, 

Pingoud et al. (2001)i and Micales and Skog (1997)ii estimate longer average lifetimes for 

wood products than the assumptions used in our analysis. However, based on our 

research discussed above, we believe it is very likely that carbon sequestration from 

harvested wood products is captured in our estimated uncertainty ranges.” 

i

 PINGOUD, K, A.-L. PERÄLÄ and A. PUSSINEN. 2001. CARBON DYNAMICS IN 

WOOD PRODUCTS. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 6: 91–

111, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. 

ii Micales, J.A. and Skog, K.E.: 1997, ‘The decomposition of forest products in landfills’, 

Int. Biodet.Biodeg. 39(2), 145–158. 

Chapter 2: Section 2.4.4.2.8.2.1.1 – Clarified the 81% accuracy vs. 19% range: 

“Forest carbon stocks for countries in Latin America and Africa were estimated using the 

new pantropical carbon stock map of Saatchi et al. (in prep.). However, an accuracy 

assessment for this new map was not completed in time for our updated analysis. 

Therefore, although we used the new map to derive mean values, uncertainty around 

these mean values was estimated to be 19% using accuracy information reported for a 

prior forest biomass product for Latin America derived using a similar methodological 

approach (Saatchi et al. 2007). This represents a very conservative estimate (i.e., a high 

estimate) of uncertainty in our analysis because the new Saatchi et al. model is very 

robust at the multi-state/regional level. Because we used the same pantropical carbon 

stock map to derive estimates for Latin America and Africa, the 19% uncertainty is a 

conservative estimate for Africa.” 

Chapter 2: Fixed typo in title of Figure 2.4-44 also added explanation on why there are no 

confidence intervals for Brazil and ROW. 

Chapter 2: Response: “Error bars are only presented for the global estimates because 

Brazil and Rest of World are aggregate regions and the uncertainty ranges are not the 

sum of the sub-regions.” 

Chapter 2: Table 2.4-52 Added explanation of what tables represent: “Taken together, the 

values in these tables form the 95% confidence intervals for land use change GHG 

impacts in each region.” 

Chapter 2: Deleted “and Petroleum” from the title of Table 2.4-71. 

Chapter 2: Section 2.4.11.2 – Added comment at beginning of section: “As discussed in 

preamble Section V and above, EPA only uses satellite imagery to evaluate recent land 

use change patterns, which are the results of many factors. Satellite imagery is not used 

to determine the amount of land conversion caused specifically by biofuel production.” 
Chapter 2: Added table on land use change values per fuel compared to total combined 

impacts in Section 2.7. 

Chapter 2 pg 90: Add cross reference in the Paragraph just prior to Table 2.4-39 pointing 

to the related info to put this in context. 

Chapter 2: Add additional citation from USFS and add it to the docket, unless it conflicts. 

Chapter 2: Figure 2.4-44 – Typo 

Chapter 2: Figure 2.4-44 - Explain why no confidence intervals for the regions 

Chapter 2: Clarification wrt causality of acreage changes 

CHAPTER 3

Chapter 3: More clearly define what the fuel volume assumptions are when we say 

"RFS2 control scenario." This occurs in both Chapters 3 and 5. 

Chapter 3: There is already a table in the emissions inventory section (page 52, Table 

3.3-1) that shows the volumes for each scenario. We added text to the air quality section 

of this chapter (specifically pages 72 and 73) that summarizes the volume assumptions 

for each scenario, including the "RFS2 control scenario," and refers back to Table 3.3-1. 

Chapter 3: Delete 2nd Paragraph on Formaldehyde in pg 146-7. In 3rd paragraph keep 

IARC, but end my saying we’re looking at everything... OMB's comments on the 

acrolein health effects discussion in the RFS2 RIA (section 3.5.5.6). Sent follow-up note. 

Paragraph commented on is the same language used in rules dating back to (at least) the 

locomotive/marine final rule in June 2008 (73 FR 37713). Still under discussion. 

Chapter 3: Replace footnote 353 with an English translation or don’t use it. Delete 

footnote 354, since the study is so old. Replace “expected to be” with “may be”. 

Requested English version. Sent.English version. Note: same language has been in 

many previous rules. 

CHAPTER 4

Chapter 4: Shoot Amanda an email explaining how imported ethanol costs were done 

Table 4.4-18: Developed an approximation of our annual capital costs for inclusion per 

OMB’s request. David is deciding whether he now wants it in or not 

 

Chapter: 4.1.1.2.3: Subsection Missing – Chapter sent to OMB. 

CHAPTER 5
Chapter 5: Added alternate approach to calculating SCC values and results, based on 

calculating impacts over time and using a NPV instead of taking annualized 2022 values. 

 

Chapter 5: Air Quality - Changed table labels to clarify it’s the RFS2 Case 

Chapter 5: Benefits - Don’t call health costs “disbenefits” Replaced the term 

"disbenefits." in RIA Chapter 5.4 and Preamble Section VIII.D with language such as 

"adverse health impacts" and "monetized adverse health impacts." 

Chapter 5: Potentially strike GDP analysis from the economy wide analysis. Still under 

discussion / consideration. 

Chapter 5 (2?): Add language to caveat the GHG benefits because the rebound effect of 

crude oil is not included. 

Chapter 5: Correction to the way GHG benefits were calculated with 5% SCC. See 

language in revised document. 

Chapter 5 pg 42: Clarify the paragraph that begins with “However” 

Summary – Response to Comments on RFS2 Regs

DOJ comments on the Regs

Does "producer" need to be defined? Answer - we looked into it and concluded it didn't 

need to be. 

Importer definition has a conflict between 80.2 and 80.1401. This has been corrected 

80.1454(p) refers to a (b)(7) that doesn't exist. This has been corrected. 

Do importers have to be US entities? The way the regs are written, it appears to presume 

this, but the definition doesn't require it. The definition has been modified to clarify that 

this is the case. 

ITA (Commerce) comments on regs

80.1406: Why can importers only comply in the aggregate? Eexplained the rationale in 

our phone discussions. This is consistent with all other fuel rules. 

80.1450(b): "Any renewable fuel" --- Revised to be specific to RIN generating 

renewable fuel 

80.1466(j): Why can't RFS and non-RFS fuel be commingled? Response provided in our 

discussions. Comingling can occur using the importer pathway, but not the foreign 
producer pathway, since we need to be able to know how much came to the US. 

Summary Response to USDA Comments on Preamble:

1. The Preamble for the Final Rule addresses many of the concerns raised by USDA in 

the proposed rule. There is a significant change in the results that would best be 

addressed by clearly stating in the very beginning of the text that new data has been 

brought into the analysis, analytical frameworks expanded (i.e., Brazilian model, 

recognition of alternative land types), historical information/data updated (IPCC guidance 

on N2O and greenhouse gas emissions, crop yields, energy use in commodity 

production), assumptions updated (fertilizer use) and made consistent, and uncertainty 

analyses included. This addition would help to clarify potential questions and issues 

raised. 

General Response: The main changes to the modeling are discussed in the up-front 

Section 1, we do not feel it is needed to repeat these discussion of changes in Section 

V, therefore, no changes were made to the Preamble. 

Similarly, clarification of the terminology "95 percent confidence" , which is used 

throughout the report , to describe EPA's confidence in specific model results should be 

elaborated. An explanation of what is precisely meant by a 95 percent confidence should 

be provided. EPA seems to be indicating that their estimates for 2022, e.g., GHG 

emission reductions, have a 95 percent probability of occurring. This is unlikely because 

confidence intervals rapidly diverge over time and it is impossible to predict with any 

accuracy that far ahead. 

General Response: We have added a footnote clarifying this the first time it is 

mentioned. 

 

2. The Final Rule Preamble now reports an increase in the net domestic life-cycle 

emissions for corn as a result of updated N2O emission data. A clarification or 

explanation of why there is an increase in corn emissions relative to the NPRM Preamble 

is needed. Similarly, an explanation of why the emissions go down for soybeans would 

complement the discussion. 

General Response: We have added text as to why this increases emissions from corn 

production (less benefit from replacing soybeans) in the domestic agriculture N2O 

emission discussion. The section already had a discussion of why emissions go down 

for soybeans so no further change was made. 

 

3. USDA understands the interpretation of the Energy Independence and Security Act 

(EISA) provisions by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding land types that can 

produce eligible biomass to meet the RFS standard, and that, at the three year review, 
USDA recommends that the use of rangeland and certain forest lands be re-evaluated for 

eligible renewable biomass production. 

EPA and USDA have had extensive discussions on this issue over the past 8 months 

and the final interpretation is the most legally defensible. 

 

4. EPA uses a 30 year, zero discount rate to estimation GHG emissions. The perpetual 

production of agriculture suggests the 100 year time frame would be better suited to 

determine or estimate emissions. 

Response: It is not agricultural sector production that is driving benefits but 

conversion to biofuel fuel and that biofuel replacing petroleum fuel. Therefore the 

life of the biofuel plant is more appropriate when considering benefits. There is text 

in the Preamble discussing this decision: 

"The full life of a typical biofuel plant seems reasonable as a basis for the timeframe 

for assessing the GHG emissions impacts of a biofuel, because it provides a guideline 

for how long we can expect biofuels to be produced from a particular entity using a 

specific processing technology." 

Therefore, no change was made to the Preamble. The RIA has sensitivity analysis of 

different timeframes and discount rates. 

 

5. The Farm Bill definition of "Advanced Biofuel" is broader than the definition found in 

RFS2 rule. The RFS2 rule appears to limit the definition to only "transportation" fuels 

while the Farm Bill recognizes other forms of biofuels such as wood pellets and biogas 

that are used for other than transportation purposes such as electric power production or a 

heating source. 

Response: EISA provides specific direction as to which fuels are covered under this 

program – which is specific to transportation fuels. 

 

6. There continues to be an inconsistency between the Farm Bill and EISA definitions of 

eligible "renewable biomass". The Farm Bill recognizes biomass derived from federal 

lands as eligible while EISA and RFS2 do not recognize biomass from federal lands as 

being an eligible source. Therefore, projects that USDA might fund that derives the 

biomass from federal lands will not qualify as an eligible biofuel under RFS2. 

Response: We recognize this and have commented on this in the past. However, 

EISA has explicit language, which is not the same as the Farm Bill language, which 

prohibits such feedstocks for use in the production of fuel under the RFS2 program. 

 7. There appears to be a discrepancy between the language in the opening paragraph of 

Section II.B.3." Renewable Fuel Exempt from 20 Percent GHG Threshold" and 

subparagraph a. "General Background of the Exemption Requirement" concerning 

whether construction for new ethanol facilities has to be complete or just started by 
December 31, 2009 to qualify for the exemption. USDA’s reading of the rule, any corn 

kernel starch ethanol facility in which the construction is started after December 31, 

2009, cannot be considered as a renewable fuel unless the facility meets the 20% GHG 

threshold. Could this be clarified? 

Response: This discrepancy was also recognized by the author (post submission of 

the package into interagency review) and appropriate changes have been made. 

 

8. In the Final Rule Preamble, the EPA has reduced the estimated cost of unit train 

receiving facilities based on industry input (page 326). Currently, there are fewer than 

15 unit train receiving facilities and ethanol shipments from the Midwest concentrate 

along the key rail corridors to those facilities. Although the volumes of ethanol represent 

a very small percentage of the Nation’s rail freight volumes, the fact that those shipments 

are concentrated along a few key corridors may create bottleneck issues as production 

volumes rise. 

 

The timing of developing and citing the additional unit train receiving facilities is very 

important in order to avoid transportation bottlenecks as ethanol production increases and 

the volumes shipped along existing corridors rises. There is a typical, albeit simplistic, 

assumption that is made out there about transportation: "if it has to, it'll just get there." 

What may happen in the case of rapidly increasing ethanol production is that if the 

number of unit train receiving facilities (and the associated storage) is not sufficient, 

demurrage costs will increase and ethanol distribution costs will rise. 

 

It is USDA’s understanding that the permitting process for these facilities could take a 

long time. The EPA could take this opportunity to draft some language that could 

promote the ease of permitting those facilities as the need arises. This raises another area 

of uncertainty regarding the future type of fuel and biorefinery locations. The ORNL 

modeling estimating distribution costs was fairly exact, and it is equally important to note 

the timing and availability of those unit train receiving facilities. 

Response: We are taking your comments and suggestions under advisement.