Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

EO12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Interagency Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft Final Rulemaking “Regulation 

of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways under the Renewable 

Fuel Standard Program; Final Rule Approving Renewable Fuel Pathways for Giant Reed (Arundo 

Donax) and Napier Grass (Pennisetum Purpureum),” RIN 2060-AR85

 Pg.5 – EPA uses the term “minimize the potential spread”. Might “prevent” be a better term? 

- EPA does not agree with this revision. We can’t “prevent,” we can only minimize the 

potential.

 Comment A21 sentence edits are a bit confusing. Suggest clarifying the sentence with the 

phrase “even without the measures that would have otherwise be identified in a Risk 

Mitigation Plan.” 

- The clause cited was part of OMB’s suggested language. We suggest deleting, since we have a 

new sentence that elaborates on the idea that an RMP might not be needed where it is native. 

 Pg. 27 – Are the requirements for 80.1450(b)(2) in the redline text new recordkeeping 

requirements even for when no RMP is required? Is this also required in the context of 

international developers? Please clarify.

- This question is unclear. 1450 (b)(2) doesn’t refer to recordkeeping. If there question is 

whether producers that don’t need a risk mitigation plan still need to meet the reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements in 1451 and 1454, the answer is yes. If the question is 

whether the producers that don’t need a risk mitigation plan need to do the monitoring 

with third party auditing, the answer is no. 

 Pg. 32 - EPA says “may” require the financial mechanism for producer if an RMP is 

required. Would a financial mechanism ever be needed if no RMP is required? 

- No. EPA does not envision requiring a financial mechanism in places where no RMP is 

required.

 Pg. 34 – Is $25,000 the current amount for daily violations?

- Revisions made – the penalty has been increased to $37,500.

 P 54, 80.1450(2) - states that USDA’s letter goes to the feedstock grower. Is that accurate?

We thought the letter would go to EPA. The first sentence also states ‘bases’ when it should 

be ‘basis’?

- Yes, this is accurate. The renewable fuel producer is responsible for getting the letter 

from USDA, but they are also responsible for including a copy of the letter as part of 

their registration package, so EPA will have a copy. “Bases” is the plural of “basis”. It 

could be either. We used “bases” because we assume USDA might have more than one 

thing to say in support of its conclusions. 

 Regarding the cases where no risk mitigation plan would be needed, the EPA rule now 

provides that the information submitted to demonstrate that no risk mitigation plan is needed 

must result in the same on the ground effect that would occur if a risk mitigation plan were in 

place. Wouldn't the fuel producer have to come up with a mitigation plan to show that one is 

not needed or is it written this way for foreign growers where the plants may not be invasive? 

Why not just require one in all cases and vary what is required given the circumstances?

- EPA believes it is important to maintain flexibility to not require a risk mitigation plan, 

for example in areas where the plant is native. We have added language on page 27 to 

clarify.