EPA Responses to Comments from Interagency Working Comments on 

Draft Language under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review

1. Executive Summary, Section I.A.2, Pg. 10: we agree with and supports EPA’s assessment “that 

neither the required 2012 volumes for advanced biofuel nor total renewable fuel be lowered 

below the statutory volumes”. Adequate volumes of alternative advanced biofuels and biomassbased diesel should be available in 2012 based on existing domestic production capacity and 

import potential, such that there is no need to adjust the mandated levels of advanced biofuels 

and total renewable fuels downward even though the 2012 volume requirement for cellulosic 

biofuels is being revised downward. 

Response: 

 No changes were made to the rulemaking in response to this comment. However, see response to 

comment #8. 

2. Executive Summary, Section I.D, Pg. 12: We agree with and supports EPA’s decision to deny 

the petition of API/NPRA to reconsider the revised RFS2 standards for 2011. 

Response: 

 No changes were made to the rulemaking in response to this comment.

3. Section II.B.2, Pg. 20 – discussion of potential new facilities in 2012, and Section IV.B.1, Pg. 42 

– discussion of potential sources of advanced biofuels: In both these sections, and potentially in 

other sections of the report that discuss advanced biofuels as well, EPA should take note of the 

progress of GEVO. GEVO purchased its first dry mill ethanol facility in 2010 and is actively 

converting the 22 mmgy plant in Luverne, MN to produce up to 18 mmgy of butanol. GEVO 

anticipates startup in Q2 2012, and could potentially produce as much as 10 mmgy of bio-based 

butanol by the end of 2012, and up to 18 mmgy in 2013. Since purchasing the plant in Luverne, 

MN, GEVO has announced a letter of intent to purchase and retrofit a second, 50 mmgy dry mill, 

and has several other dry mills interested in converting to butanol production. 

 Similarly, Solazyme produced over 150,000 of algae oil in 2010-11 that has been converted to 

renewable jet fuel by UOP; this volume is projected to increase in both 2012 and 2013. 

 Similarly, LS9 has purchased a state-of-the-art fermentation facility in Okeechobee, FL that will 

enable the production of 50,000 to 100,000 gallons per year of its “UltraClean Diesel”. The plant 

was originally scheduled for startup in 2010 and is now scheduled to begin shakedown runs in 

2011, enabling the production of advanced biofuel in 2012. 

Response: 

 A discussion of these three companies was added to the end of Sections II.D and IV.B.1. 
4. Section IV.B.1, Pg. 43 and Section IV.D, Pg. 63: EERE agrees with and supports EPA’s decision 

to establish 1.28 bgy as the volumetric requirement standard for biomass-based diesel in 2013. 

 Response: 

 No changes were made to the rulemaking in response to this comment.

5. Typo, page 51: “slash blending” is supposed to be “splash blending”. We noted other typos in the 

report, particularly missed “spaces” between words. 

Response: 

 We searched through the document and corrected these and other typos. 

6. Section IV.B.5, Pg. 52: In this section, EPA discusses the 75 mmgy Dynamic Fuels renewable 

diesel facility being constructed by Tyson/Syntroleum in Geismar, LA. EPA should take note of 

another similar project and potentially add it to this discussion: the 137 mmgy Diamond Green 

renewable diesel facility being constructed by Valero/Darling International in Norco, LA. The 

Diamond Green project received a $241MM loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy 

in January, 2011, and will use an innovative hydrotreating/isomerization process from Desmet 

Ballestra Group and UOP, LLC known as EcofiningTM. Construction will commence in 2011 

with production estimated to commence in Q1 2013. 

Response: 

 A discussion was added to Section IV.B.5 to acknowledge the existence of this Diamond Green 

project. 

7. One commenter recommend considering the following language requesting public comment on 

alternative implementation options and welcome discussion with EPA regarding possible 

refinements to this language: 

 EPA is also requesting comment on alternative options, in accordance with EISA 2007, that 

would reduce the 2012 statutory requirement for the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel by 

substantially less than the proposed range of values indicated above. To support the 

Administration’s aim in boosting the cellulosic biofuel sector, we are seeking comment on the 

degree to which a standard that reduces less of the statutory volume requirement may spur 

additional near- and longer-term cellulosic biofuel production capacity. EPA recognizes that any 

method must take into account the uncertainty in estimating future production capacity, and that 

the intent of setting a mandate is to stimulate more rapid increases in the rate of production than 

the cellulosic biofuel industry is likely to experience in the absence of the program. 

Response: 
 We added a paragraph at the end of Section II.B to request comment on setting the 2012 

cellulosic biofuel standard at a level above the 3.55 - 15.7 million gallons volume that we are 

proposing. 

8. In the context of EPA’s consideration of whether and to what degree to propose lowering the 

advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel applicable volumes for 2012, there appears to be 

considerable uncertainty regarding the availability of sufficient volumes to meet an objective of 

2.0 billion gallons. One commenter suggested that given this uncertainty and EPA’s discretion 

to set applicable volume requirements on an annual basis, that the agency consider proposing a 

lowering of the applicable requirements for advanced biofuel and/or total renewable fuel and 

seek comment from the public regarding to what degree these requirements could be lowered. 

Response: 

 We disagree that there is "considerable uncertainty" regarding the sufficiency of advanced 

biofuel volumes in 2012. We have modified the text in Section II.D in an attempt to make this 

clearer. However, we agree that there is some uncertainty as is inherent in any projection, and 

we added text to acknowledge this. Finally, we added text to request comment on whether the 

advanced and total renewable fuels standards should be lowered. 

9. Comments provided with respect to the following text in Section II.E, page 29: 

 "According to the Energy Information Administration, biodiesel production in 2010 averaged 

about 28 mill gallons per month for the 10-month period covered by the report, and information 

from the EPA-Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) indicates that this trend continued 

through the end of the year. Thus, total production volumes for 2010 are likely to be around 335 

mill gallons." 

 Comments: 

 In April, EIA reported a total production of 311 million gallons, but a significant amount of that 

production was exported. Do biodiesel exports qualify for the RFS2? Also, using census data, 

we estimate 296 Mgals in 2010 and after adjusting for trade, the actual use figure is 214 Mgals. 

Response: 

 The data that EIA and the Census Bureau collects is based on feedstock volumes and biodiesel 

only, which provides an incomplete picture of the total volumes available for compliance under 

RFS. In particular, tracking the volumes of waste greases, fats, and oils used in the production 

of biodiesel and renewable diesel carries significant uncertainty. The RFS implementation team 

in the Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division of OTAQ have been investigating these 

issues for some time. We believe that the most accurate measure of BBD volumes available for 

2010 compliance are those reported to EPA under RFS. We will change the text in Section II.E 

to reflect this. 

10. Comments provided with respect to the following text in Section II.E, page 30: 
 "Projections of production for 2012 strongly suggest that 1.0 bill gallons of biomass-based diesel 

is achievable. For instance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that over 400 mill 

gallons of biodiesel will be produced from soybean oil in 2012, and adds that "Although some 

other first-use vegetable oils are also used to produce biodiesel, most of the remaining biodiesel 

production needed to reach the 1-billion-gallon mandate of the 2007 Energy Act uses animal fats 

or recycled vegetable oil as the feedstock." " 

 Comments: 

 Be sure to update this number for the final. As of now, USDA is reporting more like 500 million 

gallons for 2012. 

Response: 

 No changes were made to the rulemaking in response to this comment, but we intend to update it 

for the final rule. However, if OMB can provide a specific citation for the value of 500 mill 

gallons, we will update it for this proposal.

11. Comments on Section V.C.1, Definition of Annual Cover Crop: 

 The proposed changes in definitions for cover crops, as USDA interprets the clarification for 

cover crops, its aim is to restrict the types of cover crops that can qualify as approved biofuel 

feedstocks rather than expand them. It should not it increase the use of cover crops over what 

would have occurred under the preexisting rule. That said nether, the clarification is not very 

helpful. In fact it may be too restrictive since it’s difficult to think of too many crops for which 

there isn’t a possible alternative use. It would help if EPA provided some examples of the kinds 

of cover crops they are talking about in each category. 

 The proposed canola/rapeseed clarification also should have little effect on land management 

practices. There might be some reduction in cropland USDA agrees with EPA’s conclusion that 

any effect will be minor. 

 Response: 

 The clarification is intended to restrict use of the cover crop pathway to those cases where we 

anticipated no land use impact. This is consistent with how we assessed the cover crop pathway 

for the final rule, which was based on the expectation that cover crop use would have no land 

use impacts or impacts on markets that would lead to indirect impacts. However, this does not 

preclude such other crops from being added via the RFS2 petition process and in fact we are 

actively working on several petitions to add new feedstocks.