1 

Response to Interagency Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s draft 

Final Rulemaking, “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2012 Renewable Fuel 

Standards” 

• Page 8 - Table I.A.3-1 lists the four components of the Renewable Fuels Standard. Shouldn’t 

the actual volume of advanced biofuel should be lower than the ethanol-equivalent volume, 

due to the presence of biomass-based diesel and cellulosic biofuels other than ethanol in the 

pool? 

Response: Modified table to clarify that actual volumes of advanced biofuel are expected to be 

less than ethanol-equivalent volumes. 

• Page 12 – One commenter also suggested that EPA provide a discussion of the historical 

production volumes of the four categories of renewable fuels listed in Table I.A.3-1. 

Providing the historical production volumes will provide an indication of the current 

production capacity and the ability of the market to meet production goals established in the 

statute. 

Response: The requested data was added as a new Section I.A.4. 

• Page 16 – On page 15, EPA refers to the January 2011 USDA loan guarantee of $75 million 

for the INEOS Bio’s first commercial facility in Vero Beach, Florida. This project was also 

awarded up to $50 million in financial assistance from DOE in January 2010. Other projects 

mentioned that are receiving DOE financial assistance are ZeaChem (up to $25 million) and 

API (up to $18 million) announced January 2010. 

Response: References to the DOE awards to the INEOS Bio, ZeaChem, and API facilities were 

added to the text. 

• Page 23 – One commenter suggests that EPA provide additional discussion of the differences 

between EPA’s (Table I.A.1-1) and EIA’s (Table II.B.4) name plate capacities identified for 

each cellulosic biofuel plant. In addition, the commenter requests clarification on the start-up 

dates EPA assumed for each plant and the production as a percentage of nameplate capacity 

assumed by EPA to develop the estimates for cellulosic biofuel production in Table 1.A.1-1. 

Response: A paragraph was added discussing the differences between the nameplate capacities 

of the Fiberight and KiOR facilties. In information on the start up dates EPA assumed for our 

calculations can already be found in the discussions of each company. We intentionally do not 

list the expected production as a percentage of the nameplate capacity as we believe that this 

could be confusing and imply that we used these "utilization factors" in the same way EIA did to 

determine the production volumes. This was not the case - our volume projections are based on 
2 

data provided by the companies, including but not limited to the start up dates and capacities of 

their facilities. 

• Page 29, last paragraph – The commenter stated that Brazil would not likely increase exports 

to the U.S. just because increasing demand would re-establish the need for imports. It is 

requested that EPA provide further economic reasoning for why Brazil would want to export 

ethanol to the U.S., when they could export it to other countries, or use the sugarcane for 

sugar production. 

Response: Added description of the connection between the advanced biofuel mandate, RIN 

prices, and the resulting incentive to import sugarcane ethanol from Brazil. 

• Page 30, 1st full paragraph - Is the projection of Brazilian exports solely based on the FAPRI 

report? According to FAS GAIN reports, total Brazilian exports of ethanol decreased from 

2010 to 2011, but FAPRI projects them as increasing; thus the commenter draws into 

question the validity of the FAPRI projections. Sugarcane-based imports are an important 

part of the RFS2, especially when there is very little cellulosic-generated biofuels being 

produced. The commenter suggests that EPA further investigate this assumption. 

Response: Added a statement recognizing the existence of projections that differ from FAPRI. 

• Page 30 & 50 - The Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (AEO2011) projects ethanol imports of 

0.02 million barrels per day in 2012 and in 2013, equivalent to 307 million gallons per year. 

EPA appears to convert the same value to two different values in the text. Projected ethanol 

imports for 2012 are reported as 300 million gallons per year (Page 30), and projected 

ethanol imports for 2013 are reported as 306 million gallons per year. (Page 50) Please 

check to make sure that these numbers are consistent. 

Response: The projected volumes on the two referenced pages are for two different years, and 

are different in 2012 versus 2013. As a result, no changes to the text were made. 

• Page 30 - Electricity generation from wood was 36.05 million megawatt-hours in 2009 as 

opposed to 35.6 million megawatt-hours as written. Please check the number again and 

revise if appropriate. 

Response: The numbers were checked and the correct number (36.05) was added into the text 

• Page 31, last paragraph - There are many reports that note that the U.S. cannot completely 

consume 10 percent of ethanol as an additive due to differing state regulations (and other 

reasons); thus the statement that 14.3 billion gallons of ethanol could be consumed may not 

be accurate. Certainly, increasing the additive regulation to 15 percent ethanol would help 
3 

with the blend wall; however, if all ethanol produced can be consumed in the U.S., what the 

2nd sentence from the end is alluding to, then ethanol exports from the U.S. would be almost 

zero (versus the 106 million gallons exported in September 2011, according to RFA). 

Response: Added a footnote recognizing that other gasoline-ethanol blends are also possible. 

• Page 31 - EPA states that electricity used in transportation could count as advanced biofuels 

if the electricity was generated from biomass. EPA writes that 6.8 million megawatt-hours of 

electricity were used in transportation in 2009, citing AEO2011 Table 46 as the source of the 

data. The data on transportation use of electricity are actually found in Table 36, and the 

number is given as 0.23 trillion Btu. The commenter was able to confirm EPA’s conversion; 

however, it is recommended that EPA note in the footnote that 1 megawatt hour is equivalent 

to 3.412 million Btu. 

Response: The citation was corrected to reference Table 36 and the conversion factor listed was 

added to the foot note. 

• Page 31 - EPA calculates that 14.3 billion gallons of ethanol could be used in 2012 if every 

gallon of gasoline contained 10 percent ethanol. They cite AEO2011, Tables 10, 45, and 46 

as the source of projected gasoline energy demand. The commenter states that these tables 

do not contain projections of gasoline demand. It is suggested that EPA clarify the reference. 

In addition, it is requested that EPA provide the details of how this calculation was made in 

order to be transparent. 

Response: The referenced tables represent projected consumption of gasoline, which is an 

appropriate representation of demand. No change was made to the text. 

EPA cites AEO2011 projected highway and nonroad diesel consumption for 2013 in their 

discussion of the biomass-based diesel requirement. EPA attributes to Table 10 a projection 

of 46.65 billion gallons year; however EPA should reference Table 11 as it reports projected 

total diesel consumption. The 2013 diesel consumption projection in Table 11 is 3.64 million 

barrels per day, equivalent to 55.8 billion gallons per year. 

Response: Footnote was amended to clarify that the diesel fuel at issue is that consumed in the 

transportation sector. 

• Page 32 - EPA estimates biomass-based diesel production of 380 million gallons in 2010. 

One commenter was not able to replicate this number using data publicly available from the 

EPA-Moderated Transaction System. It is requested that EPA provide additional details 

concerning how the 380 million gallon production number was derived. 
4 

Response: Added language clarifying the source of the data from which the 380 mill gallons was 

derived. 

• Page 33, and following pages - The report seems to imply that because biodiesel production 

rose to meet demand “when it existed”, and that it will therefore be able to do so over the 

next couple of years. The commenter requests EPA to provide some economic justification. 

The discussion rests on the assumption that the capacity exists to produce near-sufficient 

biodiesel to meet the standard, but there is little discussion of economic drivers that will 

induce produces to actually produce biodiesel at near-capacity over the next few years. 

Response: Added clarifying language describing the connection between the biomass-based 

diesel mandate, demand, RIN prices, and incentives to expand biodiesel production. 

• Page 34 - EPA cites AEO2011 as their source for biodiesel production between 2006 and 

2010. (Figure II.D-2, page 34). The commenter recommends using the Monthly Energy 

Review, Table 10.4, found at http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec10_8.pdf. 

In particular, the reported biodiesel production for 2010 in AEO2011 is an estimated 

quantity, due to differing publication schedules. 

Response: Graph was updated with data from MER. 

• Page 36 – One commenter suggests EPA use more recent data on USDA short term 

projections on the use of soybean oil for methyl esters at: 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1288 

In Table 3, the current (November, 2011) projection for the 2011/12 soybean marketing year 

is 469 million gallons. 

The update draws on the most recently published projections made by USDA on the use of 

soybean oil for methyl esters for the 2011/12 marketing year. The data is published in 

USDA’s November World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE): 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1194 

This information was provided simply to provide the latest USDA projections for comparison 

purposes with the information provided in the EPA document. The USDA projection 

suggests that 490 million gallons of soybean oil based biodiesel will be produced in 2011/12 

(note correction from above estimate of 469 million gallons). This number is generally 

consistent with the information provided by EPA on p.36 of the document and, in fact, is 

above some of the estimates presented (e.g., Iowa State’s projection of 470 million gallons). 

Thus, the update will not make any dramatic difference for the EPA analysis. EPA could 

note that Iowa State’s projections are generally supported by the most recent USDA 

projections from November 2011. 
5 

Response: We used the most recent data available at the time the text was written, and the use of 

more recent data would not alter the conclusions drawn from it as the commenter states. No 

change was made to the text. 

• Page 36 - EPA cites the biodiesel forecast in the August 2011 Short-Term Energy Outlook. 

The Outlook recommended updating to the November 2011 STEO, which includes a 

biodiesel forecast that was revised to 940 million gallons based on production growth in the 

first half of 2011. Will the RINS for 60 million gallons of production in 2011 will be carried 

over to 2012? 

Response: We used the most recent data available at the time the text was written, and the use of 

more recent data would not alter the conclusions drawn from it. No change was made to the 

text. 

• Page 36 – One commenter disagrees with EPA’s statement about qualifying renewable diesel 

being able to be produced at existing refineries with little or no modification to processing 

equipment. Qualifying renewable diesel1

 production at refineries requires dedicated units, 

since coprocessing of petroleum and biomass-based streams does not generate RINs. Batch 

production is generally not feasible, due to the small volumes of biomass-based streams and 

the need to bring the hydrotreater down for a catalyst change when switching between 

petroleum and biomass-based streams. The commenter recommends striking the sentence 

and reducing the associated 150 million gallons of potential production to 100 million 

gallons. 

Response: Text was modified to acknowledge the fact that co-processing of fats/oils with 

petroleum would disallow the generation of biomass-based diesel RINs. The estimate of 150 mill 

gallons of renewable diesel was not changed since it is not quantitatively based on renewable 

diesel production at refineries. 

• Page 45 - EPA estimates the fraction of gasoline, diesel, and ethanol use in Alaska based on 

EIA’s State Energy Data System. It is recommended that EPA include a reference to the 

source tables, which appear to be Tables C2 and C8. EPA calculates that ethanol use in 

Alaska as 8.4 percent of gasoline consumption in 2009, while the commenter calculated an 

ethanol share of 9.0 percent by volume using Table C2. The commenter requests that EPA 

verify the calculation. 

 

1

Section 211(o)(1)(D) of the Clean Air Act states: Biomass-based diesel. The term "biomass-based diesel" means 

renewable fuel that is biodiesel as defined in section 312(f) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13220(f)) 

and that has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, after notice and opportunity 

for comment, that are at least 50 percent less than the baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. Notwithstanding 

the preceding sentence, renewable fuel derived from co-processing biomass with a petroleum feedstock shall be 

advanced biofuel if it meets the requirements of subparagraph (B), but is not biomass-based diesel. 
6 

Response: Addressed. Comments were made on an old version of the preamble. We had since 

moved the Alaska data discussion from a footnote to a paragraph which addressed the first part 

of this comment (table names /numbers in the EIA data changed so we did adjust those 

accordingly). The ethanol fraction they calculated, 9.0%, differed from the one we calculated, 

8.4%, because of the data sets used (significant figures, etc). 

• Page 48 – The commenter requests EPA to provide economic analysis in the discussion of 

soybean acreage available for biofuel use. It is suggested that the economic analysis take 

into account competition of corn for soybean acreage. In addition, the lack of analysis of the 

price of soybeans and its impact on profitability of biodiesel producers leads draws into 

question the economic feasibility of the 2013 mandate. 

While EPA has established that the capacity to produce 1.28 billion gallons of biodiesel 

exists and that there is precedent for large annual increases in biodiesel production, it should 

be recognized that uncertainties remain regarding economic and policy incentives to produce 

the quantity established by EPA. Specifically, it is likely that the very low projected ending 

stocks for corn will create greater competition between corn and soybean acres in 2012/13, 

which could increase soybean prices. In addition, the quantity of soybean oil that EPA 

suggests would be available in 2013 for biodiesel production (600 million gallons [Table 

IV.B.2-1]) would likely represent a larger share of soybean oil use than is currently projected 

for 2011/12. Current estimated use for 2011/12 is 19 percent of total soybean oil use which 

would produce approximately 490 million gallons of biodiesel. Supplies are expected to 

continue to be tight through 2012/13 with continued competition for land between corn and 

soybeans. These factors could also place upward pressure on soybean oil prices and reduce 

economic incentives to produce biodiesel based on market conditions. As the spread 

between the soybean oil price and the biodiesel price narrows, the profitability of marginal 

biodiesel producers could shrink and some may consider discontinuing production. Finally, 

the biodiesel tax credit is slated to expire at the end of 2011, which creates further 

uncertainty about the economic climate for biodiesel producers. If biodiesel production is 

not profitable, decisions on the use of biodiesel may be contingent on tradeoffs between 

economic margins and enforcement mechanisms (e.g. RIN prices). 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 49 – One commenter suggested that EPA include the reference to historical production 

of biomass-based diesel in order to provide additional information concerning the suggested 

1.28 billion gallon standard for 2013. The commenter stated that it is uncertain that biodiesel 

demand will reach or exceed 1 billion gallons as demand has been quite small recently 

(Figure II.D-1). The commenter requests additional clarification from EPA concerning the 

premise underlying the assumptions for the 1.28 billion gallon standard. 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 
7 

In addition, another commenter requested EPA to provide the incremental impacts of 

increasing the Biomass diesel standard from 1.0 billion gallons set in the statute for 2012 to 

1.28 billion gallons that EPA is proposing for 2013. The statute requires an assessment of 

the impacts of the standards on the environment, energy security, infrastructure, cost to 

consumers, and other factors. The commenter suggests that EPA provide a comparison of 

these impacts for the 1.0 billion gallon scenario and the 1.28 billion gallon scenario. By 

providing the comparison, it will allow EPA to determine which option provides the most 

benefit for the estimated cost increase. 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 52 (and 68-70) – The commenter points out that much of the information and analysis 

supporting EPA’s decision on Biomass-Based Diesel volumes for 2012 and 2013 were very 

selective and that there were inconsistencies in EPA’s interpretations, particularly with 

regard to market impacts. For example, comments asserting that a higher biomass-based 

diesel volume requirement supports or enhances energy security and independence are 

tenuous (p.52, pp. 68-70). The U.S. is a large net importer (approximate deficit of $4 billion 

annually) of vegetable oils (the main feedstock for biomass-based diesel); so, to the extent 

that domestically produced vegetable oil is diverted to biodiesel production, the U.S. is likely 

to export less soybean oil and/or import more vegetable oil. Imports may come from 

countries that are not traditional petroleum exporters to the U.S., and therefore perhaps 

diversify our sources of fuel (petroleum or biodiesel feedstock). However, the commenter 

suggests that EPA not characterize an increase in domestic biodiesel production as reducing 

import dependence or risks from market disruptions. 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 53 – One commenter suggested that EPA provide a description of the analysis that EPA 

conducted to confirm the feedstock quantities listed in Table IV.B.2-1. 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 58 – Assuming 2.5 billion gallons of soybean oil production and 1.9 billion gallons of 

domestic consumption leads to the conclusion that 600 million gallons will be available for 

biodiesel. Just note that U.S. exports of soybean oil have traditionally far outweighed the use 

of soybean oil for biodiesel. The commenter points out that under EPA’s assumptions, U.S. 

soybean oil exports would fall to zero. 
8 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 66 – It appears that the text incorrectly portrays the differences in annual growth rates 

of biodiesel consumption between the RFS final rule (projecting 1.82 billion gallons in 2022) 

and the one year increase from 2012 to 2013 in the current document. The annualized 

growth rate of 0.14 billion gallons under the RFS final rule is not “about twice as high as the 

single-year growth from 2012 to 2013...” It is one-half the rate. EPA could acknowledge 

that the market impacts of a 28 percent one year increase would be greater than 

proportionally smaller annual percentage changes considered in the RFS final rule. 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 68 – Perhaps it’s true that diversifying the source of imported transportation fuel or 

feedstocks (e.g., sugar based ethanol or vegetable oils) improves energy security, but it does 

not necessarily reduce financial risks associated with a supply disruption or spike in the cost 

of particular energy sources (as witnessed by the increased prices of sugar, and dramatic fall 

in U.S. imports of ethanol from Brazil). As stated earlier, the U.S. is already a large net 

importer of vegetable oils, so increased production of biodiesel from domestically produced 

soybean oil is likely to reduce U.S. soybean oil exports, and increase vegetable oil imports 

(whether used for human consumption or as a feedstock for biodiesel). 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 69 – The commenter questions the conclusion “that soybean production will outpace 

non-biofuel demand in 2013. Therefore, EPA does not project that the price of soybean oil 

should increase as a result of this rule.” A mandated increase in biodiesel production is a 

demand shifter, meaning that all else equal, the equilibrium price for biodiesel feedstocks 

will be higher. This statement contradicts information given immediately above on FASOM 

results. 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 69 - Similarly, the FASOM model projects an increase in soybean oil price (1st 

paragraph), yet further down (3rd paragraph) EPA does not project the “price of soybean oil 

should increase as a result of this rule.” Even though soybean production may “outpace nonbiofuel demand,” productivity changes for substitutes and changes in complementary 

demands also factor into the price. 
9 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 71 – One commenter expressed concern with the way information is presented in the 

emissions impacts Table IV.C.4-1. Unlike GHGs, ambient air pollutants can create local air 

quality issues. For example, 1,346 tons of downstream NOx emissions could have an impact 

on local airsheds. The upstream PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NH3, and HAPS emission increases are 

also locality-pertinent. Likewise, emission reductions are also locality-specific. Due to the 

issue of local airshed affects, it is suggested that some caveats be provided to the table in 

light of the column that shows small percentage effects on the total U.S. emissions inventory. 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 72 – The commenter was not able to verify the biodiesel and diesel prices for 2013. For 

diesel, EPA cites AEO2011 and that the price will be $2.97 a gallon in 2009 dollars, but EPA 

did not provide a cite to the table or price series used to arrive at the price (retail, wholesale, 

etc). For the biodiesel price EPA cites the FAPRI Outlook

(http://www.fapri.org/outlook/2011/tables/5_biofuels.pdf), and the commenter assumes that 

EPA’s stated price of $3.72 in 2009 dollars corresponds to the nominal 2013 price of $3.95 in 

the FAPRI outlook, but that price represents the Biodiesel Plant price, as opposed to the retail 

price. In the absence of the current tax credit (which expires at the end of this year), it is 

reasonable to assume the retail price would be higher than the plant price. We also note that 

retail biodiesel plant prices have not been below $4.00 gallon for all of 2011, when biodiesel 

volumes have been at levels necessary to meet these increased RFS mandates, and for much 

of the year have been well above $5.00 a gallon. 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 72 - EPA attributes a total diesel projection of 46.85 billion gallons to AEO2012 Table 

2. This figure is actually transportation distillate only. 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 73 - Similarly, the commenter was not able to verify the prices used in Figure IV.C.5-1, 

that compares Biodiesel prices in 2008-2011 from the Alternative Fuel Price Report. This is 

a report that surveys retail sites, so it is not surprising that 2011 prices do not increase given 

the re-enactment of the biodiesel tax credit. 
10 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 78 – In reference to some NASS estimates in the document, it currently states: 

In 2006, USDA’s NASS estimated that nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers were applied to 18 

percent and 23 percent of soybean acreage, respectively, with an average of 16 pounds of 

nitrogen and 46 pounds of phosphate applied per acre fertilized (NASS, 2007). 

The commenter recommends modifying it slightly to say:

Nitrogen was applied to 18 percent of the 2006 soybean planted acres in the Program States 

at an average rate of 16 pounds per acre per year. Phosphate was applied to 23 percent of 

the planted acres, at an average rate of 46 pounds per acre. 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 81 – the statement “that there would be sufficient sources of feedstock to produce 1.28 

bill gallons of biomass-based diesel without using any fats” appears to be contradicted by the 

table (IV.B.2-1) that grease and rendered fats would be needed under either scenario 

presented (RFS2 or IHS Global Insight). 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 85 - “Therefore, we proposed to amend the current definition for “annual cover crop” 

to clarify that for purposes of the RFS program the term only includes crops that have no 

existing market to which they can be sold except for the use of the feedstock for renewable 

fuel. This will ensure that no unintended land use or significant indirect effects result from 

the use of annual cover crops as feedstocks for renewable fuel production.” 

If an annual cover crop is sold as a feedstock for biofuel production, then it represents a 

cover crop not plowed under for the purpose of increasing soil fertility. Thus, it seems that 

allowing cover crops for biofuels could have some sort of land use impact, such as requiring 

the farmer to use more commercial fertilizer in compensation, or in decreasing yield of food 

crops. In addition, soil erosion could increase due to harvesting of the cover crop. It is 

suggested that EPA discuss these potential impacts in this section of the preamble. 

Response: Text was modified to clarify these possible impacts, discussing this as the difference 

between direct and indirect impacts. 
11 

• P. 104 - The “XX” acreage values should be substituted with actual numbers. Concerning 

the 396 million acre number for the amount of agricultural land in 2012, the commenter did 

not see the USDA file in the EPA docket upon which this number is based. It is requested 

that EPA include this document in the docket. If one looks at the land use values posted on 

the ERS website (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/LandUse/majorlandusechapter.htm), it 

may not be evident how this estimate was made. For instance, “cropland” in 2002 was 441 

million acres and “cropland used for crops” was 340 billion that year” (from 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/MajorLandUses/ ). 

Response: Text has been updated. All supporting documents from USDA and Canada for the 

aggregate approach has been docketed here: # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133. 

Editorial Comments: 

• Page 3 – It is suggested that the title of Section II be inclusive of Advanced Biofuel and 

Biomass-Based Diesel. It currently refers to just “Cellulosic Volume Production.” 

Response: Section title was modified. 

• Page 12 - In contrast to statements made by several obligated parties, meeting the dual goals 

of predictability and reduced uncertainty does not require EPA to specify an applicable 

volume for cellulosic biofuel that is as low as possible, or based only on demonstrated 

production. 

Response: Edit was made to the text. 

• Page 13 – In the first full paragraph, the suggests the following revision: “While the 

cellulosic biofuel standard that we set should be within the range of what can be attained 

based on projected domestic production and import potential, the standard that we set in 

large part determines helps drive the production of volumes that will be made available”. 

The commenter agrees that the standard contributes; however, as the actual production has 

fallen short of the statutory goals it may be more appropriate to rephrase. 

Response: Edit was made to the text. 

• Page 21, Table II.B.4 – The INP Bioenergy project appears to be the same project as the 

INEOS Bio project described above, but the name used is different. It is suggested that the 

names be consistent to avoid confusion. 

Response: Added a footnote to this table making it clear that INP Bioenergy and INEOS Bio are 

the same company. Table from EIA was not modified since it is shown as received from EIA. 
12 

• Page 29 - Using EIA data, EPA reports monthly ethanol imports of 71 thousand barrels in 

June 2011 and 305 thousand barrels in July 2011. Annual ethanol imports, which EIA also 

reports in barrels, are converted to gallons. It is suggested EPA convert the monthly figures 

to gallons for easier comparison. 

Response: Edit was made to the text. 

• Page 50 – It may be that most or all of U.S. ethanol imports originate from Brazil, but at 

times a large share were routed through Carribean countries under the Carribean Basin 

Initiative (CBI). 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 51 - The only next ethanol exporters tracked in the FAPRI report are Brazil and China, 

with Brazil export volumes totally nearly 20 times those from China. 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 61 – For Table IV.B.4-1, one commenter suggested including a summary of all of the 

states with mandates or incentives, and a short description of the level/amount of the mandate 

or incentive. 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 63 - In June of this year, Sunoco Logistics and Sprague Energy opened a new terminal 

facility to supply of biodiesel blended transportation fuel and heating fuel to New Jersey.

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 66 - Given that the RFS2 final rule analyzed the impacts of an increase in biomassbased diesel that was about five times larger than the volume increment we proposed for 

2013, we continue to believe that the impacts of 1.28 bill gallons in 2013, compared to the 

statutory minimum of 1.0 bill gallons, will likely be similar to or smaller than those we 

estimated for 2022. 
13 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 69 – The commenter assumes that EPA is trying to make the point that the soybean oil 

prices wouldn’t increase as a result of this annual rulemaking but as part the RFS2 full 

implementation. It is suggested that EPA make this point more clear. If this is the point that 

EPA is trying to make, here are some suggested revisions: 

One commenter suggested that the biodiesel mandate for 2013 will result in an increase of 

soybean oil prices. However, as shown in Section IV.B.2.c, EPA estimates that soybean 

production will outpace non-biofuel demand in 2013. Therefore, EPA does not project that 

this annual rulemaking will increase the price of soybean oil should beyond the levels that 

would result from the final RFS2 rulemaking as a result of this rule, and could be lower for 

the reasons cited above. 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 69 – Please complete Footnote 60. 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 69 – Again, the biodiesel impacts would represent only a small portion of these overall 

impacts and would likely be even smaller in 2013 due to the smaller volume of feedstock 

required. 

Response: This comment will be addressed during the process of finalizing the applicable 

volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013. 

• Page 87 - Since the obligation for blenders to separate RINIns for renewable fuel that they 

blend to produce a transportation fuel,

Response: Edit was made to the text. 

• Page 104 - Please insert space between 396 and million, fill in XXs, and spell out the 

acronyms GRP and WRP. 

Specifically, we started with FSA crop history data for 2011, from which we derived a total 

estimated acreage of 396 million acres. We then subtracted the amount of land estimated to 

be participating in the GRP and WRP by the end of Fiscal Year 2011, XX million acres, to 
14 

yield an estimate of approximately XX million acres of U.S. agricultural land in 2011. The 

USDA data used to make this calculation can be found in the docket to this rule. 

Response: Text has been updated. All supporting documents from USDA and Canada for the 

aggregate approach has been docketed here: # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133. 

Other editorial comments 

• Comment [A6] Is this source one of the companies listed in Table I.A.1-1? If so, please 

make the names consistent. 

Response: The referenced source is not one of the companies from this table. 

• Comment [A7] Please provide the date here as well as in the Footnote 7, below. 

Response: Date has been provided in the text and footnote 

• Comment [A8] Please make the name consistent with EPA Table I.A.1-1 if INP Bioenergy 

is the same as INEOS Bio. 

Response: Added a footnote to this table making it clear that INP Bioenergy and INEOS Bio are 

the same company. Table from EIA was not modified since it is shown as received from EIA.