transportation purposes. EPA has determined that electricity used to
compress natural gas does not qualify for RIN generation, since the
electricity will not reduce the amount of fossil fuel present in the
natural gas, which is the transportation fuel in this situation.

C. Regulatory Amendments Related to Biogas

    Prior to this rulemaking, an approved fuel pathway in Table 1 to
Sec.  80.1426 allowed biogas from landfills, manure digesters or sewage
waste treatment plants to qualify as an advanced biofuel. We have
received questions related to some of the details of this pathway that
are also relevant to the biogas-related pathways approved today. The
questions include the following: (1) What company along the production
chain of biogas from generation to end user is considered the producer
that qualifies to register under this pathway and generate RINs, and
(2) what are the contract requirements to track the biogas from
generation to end use.
    We proposed revising and adding new documentation, registration,
reporting and recordkeeping requirements at locations along the
production chain from biogas generation to finished transportation fuel
use. We also proposed to specify which company along the production
chain is considered the ``producer'' and eligible to generate RINs
under the RFS program. In the following sections, we will detail the
changes being finalized.
1. Changes Applicable to Renewable Electricity From Biogas Sources
    In the NPRM, EPA requested comment on a number of potential changes
intended to clarify the process for generating RINs for renewable
electricity. We received a number of comments on these proposed
changes, but have decided that in general the existing regulations are
sufficient for present purposes and only minor clarifications are
warranted at this time. To the extent that these modifications do not
resolve all questions, EPA's intent is to address them through a
combination of guidance documents and future rulemaking.
a. Registration and RIN Generation Requirements
    Section 80.1426 paragraphs (f)(10) and (11) describe the
requirements for generating RINs for renewable electricity and biogas
which are either introduced into a dedicated renewable distribution
system (Sec.  80.1426(f)(10)) or introduced into a commercial
distribution system (Sec.  80.1426(f)(11)). EPA requested comment on
the provisions and suggestions for alternative requirements. Several
commenters provided background information related to actual renewable
electricity generation and transportation use to aid in the development
of more detailed provisions. This information

included specific detail on how individual companies are currently
using biogas to generate electricity for transportation purposes, and
what these companies are doing to comply with state regulatory
programs. These comments illustrated a number of significant challenges
faced by parties wishing to generate biogas electricity RINs under the
RFS program.
    Most commenters agreed that the electricity distribution system is
complex, and that detailed and clear regulatory requirements specific
to renewable electricity are needed. EPA agrees that the electricity
generation system is complex, and EPA intends to take more time to
evaluate the options and their implications. We believe that the
regulatory changes made in this final rulemaking to Sec.  80.1426
paragraphs (f)(10) and (f)(11) should help address some of those
challenges. EPA and stakeholders will benefit from additional
experience in implementing the current provisions before adopting
significant modifications.
b. Distribution and Tracking Requirements
    Tracking and verifying the production and use of the renewable
electricity are of particular concern. Each state regulates electricity
individually and so there is a wide variety of systems and requirements
that must be accounted for in establishing a robust system for
electricity accounting. In addition, several states have renewable
portfolio standards and ``renewable electricity \59\ credit'' (REC)
programs. Further, most states do not allow private electricity
generators to sell electricity directly to consumers. Therefore we
cannot rely solely on written contracts for tracking of renewable
electricity to transportation use. An alternative tracking and
verification system must be established. The alternative adopted in
this final rule is described in the next section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ When referring to various state ``renewable electricity''
programs in this preamble, we are using that term as defined in the
state programs, and do not intend to suggest that the electricity in
question necessarily satisfies the RFS regulatory definition of
``renewable electricity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It was suggested by commenters that EPA leverage existing state
renewable electricity portfolio programs to track and validate RINs
generated for RFS-qualified renewable electricity. These programs rely
on defined environmental attributes which can be owned and transferred
independently of the actual electricity. Ownership of these
environmental attributes allows regulated parties to demonstrate
compliance with the renewable electricity portfolio programs. Given the
variety of renewable electricity programs managed by a multitude of
states, this does not seem workable for the RFS program. In addition,
EPA does not intend for the RFS to interfere with existing state
programs. Therefore we have made the decision to match generation to
use, and not require the purchase or definition of related
environmental attributes. This does not preclude RIN generators from
participating in state renewable electricity programs or from using
that information to support their RFS registration and reporting
documentation.
2. Regulatory Changes Applicable to All Biogas Related Pathways
    As discussed above, we have had many inquiries related to the
``biogas'' pathway, specifically regarding contract requirements for
tracking the biogas through the distribution system to end use, and
regarding what company along the production chain is considered the
``producer'' and eligible to generate RINs under the RFS program. In
this rulemaking, we have revised the documentation requirements
slightly, to better track the biogas as it moves into and out of the
distribution system and to document the final use as a transportation
fuel. Provisions related to registration, reporting and recordkeeping
were revised as well. These provisions allow for the use of signed
affidavits, when written contracts are not available, to prove the use
or sale of renewable electricity and renewable CNG/LNG for
transportation purposes. It is assumed that these affidavits would be
signed by fleet managers or vehicle operators, verifying the use of the
renewable transportation fuel. These affidavits would then be matched,
by the registered fuel producer, to the delivery or sale of an
equivalent amount of qualifying renewable electricity or renewable CNG/
LNG. While it is impossible to track the specific molecules or
electrons, it must be theoretically feasible that the fuel produced can
reach the vehicle using it. Examples of connected grid systems include,
but are not limited to, commercial natural gas distribution systems,
dedicated private fuel distribution systems, or transmission grids as
defined by the North American Electrical Reliability Corporation (NERC)
regions. These amended requirements are applicable to all pathways
related to biogas.
    We proposed that the ``producer'' of renewable CNG/LNG be the
company that compresses or liquefies the gas and distributes the CNG/
LNG for transportation fuel, and for renewable electricity, we proposed
that the ``producer'' would be the company that distributes the
electricity for use as transportation fuel. Numerous commenters
indicated that limiting RIN generation to the CNG/LNG or electricity
distributor would revoke current RIN generation ability from those who
have invested significant resources in developing biogas projects. Some
commenters also stated that the company first injecting the pipeline
quality biogas into the grid would be intimately familiar with the
responsibilities in tracking distribution, and should be eligible to
act as the RIN generator. Given the complexities of the situation
involving the production, transportation and use of biogas-derived
fuels, we are not finalizing the definition of ``producer'' for
renewable CNG/LNG and renewable electricity. EPA believes a more
appropriate approach at this time is to examine registrations on a case
by case basis in the short term, and to learn from this experience
prior to issuing any final rule addressing the subject.
    The processing and distribution train from raw biogas to final
transportation fuel use can be complex, and may include many companies
and processing steps from the point when the raw biogas is withdrawn
from its source (such as landfills, waste digesters, wastewater
treatment plants), to where it is processed, converted into biofuel and
distributed to consumers. In some cases the fuel may be cleaned at a
biogas scrubbing facility to pipeline quality specifications for
distribution, and then withdrawn from the commercial pipeline to be
processed further at another production facility into renewable CNG/LNG
or renewable electricity. The company registering to generate RINs is
responsible for providing all the required information and supporting
documentation in their registration, and for satisfying reporting and
recordkeeping requirements to track and verify the movement of gas from
point of extraction of the raw biogas from its original source, through
all the processing steps and distribution steps in between, to the last
step where the actual fuel is used for transportation purposes. In the
engineering review report required for registration, the producer must
include documentation that the professional engineer performed site
visits at each biogas production facility covered by the producer's
registration that is located prior to the point of injection into a
common carrier pipeline, or in the case of on-site distribution, prior
to the point of

distribution for transportation usage. The third-party engineer must
also review and verify all related supporting documents such as design
documents, calculations, regulatory permits, contracts and affidavits
between facilities that track the raw biogas from the point of
withdrawal from its source, the various injection/withdraw points into
the distribution pipeline, the various production facilities, and the
final step for use as transportation fuel. For purposes of biogas-
related pathways, EPA does not interpret its regulations as specifying
where the producer must lie on the value chain. EPA will evaluate the
situation on a case by case basis through the registration process; any
company that is registered to generate RINs must be in a position to
oversee the entire process and provide all necessary documentation.
These requirements will help ensure that the company registering to
generate RINs will only generate RINs for fuel that is fully compliant
with all regulatory requirements.
    The registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements are in
Sec. Sec.  80.1426(f), 80.1450, and 80.1454 in this rulemaking. The
structure of Sec.  80.1426(f) paragraphs (10) and (11) was changed to
more clearly address RIN generation requirements for electricity and
CNG/LNG derived from biogas. Paragraph (10) lists requirements for
fuels that are not introduced into a commercial distribution system;
subparagraph (i) addresses electricity requirements and subparagraph
(ii) addresses CNG/LNG requirements. Subparagraph (iii) is an
additional requirement for producers co-firing a combination of fuels
to generate electricity. Similarly, paragraph (11) lists requirements
for fuels that are introduced into a commercial distribution system,
with the same organization as paragraph (10).
    Comments to the NPRM raised the concern that contracts are not
always feasible between the parties producing and using the fuel. In
some cases, smart metering is available to provide very detailed
documentation of fuel distribution and use. Therefore EPA has added
signed affidavits and an option for other EPA-approved documentation to
demonstrate the transfer of qualifying fuel used for transportation.
EPA will provide guidance on other documentation that may be considered
acceptable. The changes regarding the documentation requirements for
distribution and use of the biogas, electricity, and CNG/LNG is located
in Sec.  80.1426 and Sec.  80.1454.

D. Clarification of the Definition of ``Crop Residue'' and
Clarification of Feedstocks That EPA Considers Crop Residues

1. Clarification of the Definition of ``Crop Residue''
    In today's FRM, EPA is amending ``crop residue'' in the RFS
regulations to more clearly describe the characteristics of products
that should fall within the definition.\60\ The final amendments are
identical to those proposed. EPA proposed in the NPRM to include this
amendment to provide more detailed guidance regarding the types of
feedstocks that EPA considers crop residues. In our preexisting
regulations, ``crop residue'' ``is the biomass left over from the
harvesting or processing of planted crops from existing agricultural
land and any biomass removed from existing agricultural land that
facilitates crop management (including biomass removed from such lands
in relation to invasive species control or fire management), whether or
not the biomass includes any portion of a crop or crop plant.'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Sec.  80.1401.
    \61\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, we proposed to amend the definition to specify that
biomass is considered crop residue only if the use of that biomass for
the production of renewable fuel has no significant impact on demand
for the feedstock crop, products produced from that feedstock crop, and
all substitutes for the crop and its products including the residue,
nor any other impact that would result in a significant increase in
direct or indirect GHG emissions. We also noted that crop residue must
come from crop production or processing for some other primary purpose
(e.g., refined sugar, corn starch ethanol) or be removed to facilitate
crop management, such that the crop residue is not the reason the crop
was planted. The residue must also come from existing agricultural
land, the exact definition of which is laid out in our current
regulations that define ``renewable biomass.'' \62\ We stated further
that the residue should generally not have a significant market in its
own right, to the extent that removing it from that market to produce
biofuels instead will result in increased GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We sought comment on this revision to the crop residue definition,
specifically inviting comments regarding what ought to constitute a
``significant'' increase or decrease in GHG emissions in the context of
this definition.
    We received significant comment supporting and opposing this
change. At least one commenter who supported the change also stated
that EPA should amend the definition of crop residues to more
explicitly exclude non-cellulosic components of crop residues.\63\ We
address the question of the cellulosic content of feedstocks in section
IV.A. of this rulemaking. Information available to EPA indicates that
crop residue as a class more than satisfies the 75% cellulosic content
threshold we have adopted today to identify feedstocks which are
eligible to generate cellulosic biofuel RINs for the entire produced
volume.\64\ For this reason, we are not modifying the definition as
suggested by the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Comments submitted by AFPM/API (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0128).
    \64\ See Memorandum to the Docket, ``Cellulosic Content of
Various Feedstocks--2014 Update.'' Available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those opposed to the proposed change were uniformly clear that they
supported the crop residue pathway in general.\65\ Opposition stemmed
from concerns that our proposed clarification would be overly limiting
and would exclude feedstocks that rightfully ought to be considered
crop residues under the RFS. Several commenters stated that very few
products have no market value and that most will find some sort of
beneficial use. These commenters expressed concern over our statement
in the preamble of the NPRM that, in order to meet the definition of
crop residue, a crop product must generally not have a significant
market in its own right. In their estimation, the fact that most crop
products have a non-zero market value might cause them to be
disqualified from the crop residue pathway.\66\ EPA acknowledges that
many crop residues have some non-zero market value. We also acknowledge
that most could find some sort of beneficial use, albeit a low value
use in many cases. This in turn may have some non-zero impact on the
total revenue a farmer receives for a crop. However, we do not believe
that a crop product must necessarily be completely useless in order to
qualify under the crop residue pathway. Rather, as indicated in our
amendment to the definition of crop residue and our statements in the
NPRM preamble, the use of the crop product to produce renewable fuel
should not significantly

impact demand for the feedstock crop and associated products and should
not lead to a significant increase in GHG emissions. It is our judgment
that a crop product need not be completely devoid of value to meet
these criteria, though there should be a notable difference in the
value of the primary product and the value of the residue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See, for example, comments submitted by the Renewable Fuels
Association, (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0123), the National Corn Growers
Association (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0065), and Growth Energy (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0401-0173).
    \66\ Here as well, several commenters expressed similar
opinions. See, for example, comments submitted by the Renewable
Fuels Association, (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0123).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters stated that the use of a crop residue as biofuel
feedstock gives it value and that this use itself may increase the
total value of the primary crop.\67\ Several commenters expressed
concern that this approach may create a chilling effect on investment
in crop residue-based fuels.\68\ EPA acknowledges the possibility that,
if used as biofuel feedstock in large enough quantities, demand for a
crop product may begin to affect the value of the primary crop. EPA
noted in the NPRM that, if significant facts change over time, it is
possible that EPA would modify its assessment regarding whether
particular crop products meet the definition of crop residue. However,
if EPA were to revise our assumptions or analysis concerning the
qualification of certain crop products as crop residue, this change
would be done after public notice and an opportunity for comment.
Therefore, industry would have adequate opportunity to provide data to
EPA prior to any potential changes to our interpretation regarding any
of the feedstocks listed in Table IV.D.3-1. It is important to note
that even if a particular feedstock evolved to the point where it had a
significant market as a commodity and EPA were required to revisit the
lifecycle GHG emissions analysis, this feedstock would most likely
still meet the definition of renewable biomass. EPA would therefore be
able to establish a new pathway for the feedstock upon completion of a
lifecycle GHG analysis, even if the feedstock no longer fit under the
crop residue pathway. In sum, we do not believe that the possibility of
EPA reconsidering past LCA determinations, including those for crop
residue pathways, should create any undue uncertainty for the private
sector, nor that the possibility of reconsideration will materially
affect production of cellulosic renewable fuels under pathways allowing
for the use of crop residue as a feedstock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See comments submitted by the National Corn Growers
Association (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0065) and the Iowa Corn Growers
Association (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0124), among others.
    \68\ See, for example, comments submitted by the American
Coalition for Ethanol (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0147).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most commenters who opposed the change also argued that the key
consideration ought to be whether the residue meets the 60 percent GHG
reduction threshold for establishing a pathway to generate RINs with a
D code of 3 and/or a D code of 7 and that, as long as a crop product
meets this threshold, it ought to be considered a crop residue.\69\ EPA
believes that the term crop residue should be defined in a manner that
ensures that materials within the definition satisfy the 60 percent GHG
reduction threshold. This is one of the reasons why EPA is finalizing
the proposed amended definition. Materials that do not meet the
definition of crop residue, and do not qualify as other feedstocks
listed in Table 1, may be independently evaluated to determine if they
satisfy the 60 percent GHG reduction threshold, or other thresholds
applicable to other types of biofuels. Parties questioning whether an
agricultural product meets the current definition of crop residue must
determine if the product is ``left over.'' Our proposed and final
definitional change is intended to clarify what this means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See, for example, comments submitted by Novozymes North
America, Inc. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0088) and Growth Energy (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0401-0173).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the current regulations do not provide stakeholders with
much guidance regarding what EPA considers to be the meaning of ``left
over.'' The current definition has created significant confusion and
uncertainty among stakeholders. Our goal in clarifying the definition
of crop residue is to more transparently define the criteria that must
be met for a feedstock to qualify under the existing crop residue
pathway. Stakeholders who are considering whether or not to use a given
feedstock will be able to consider these criteria, rather than relying
on the current regulatory text that does not specify the meaning of
``left over.''
    Those opposed to the amendment to the definition of crop residue
also generally argued that the word ``significant'' was used vaguely in
our proposed clarification, and that this might create undue hurdles
for producers seeking to use low-GHG crop products under the crop
residue pathway.\70\ As stated previously, EPA sought comment on the
proposed change and specifically regarding what ought to constitute a
``significant'' change in GHG emissions. Commenters who opposed the
proposed clarification declined to offer alternative interpretations of
the terms ``left over'' and ``significant.'' However, several of these
commenters did state that EPA's proposal did not sufficiently describe
what might constitute a ``significant increase,'' a ``significant
market,'' or a ``significant impact.'' \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See, for example, comments submitted by the National
Biodiesel Board (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0166) and Novozymes North
America Inc. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0088).
    \71\ See, for example, comments submitted by the National
Biodiesel Board (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0166) and Novozymes North
America Inc. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0088).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is true that EPA did not provide specific criteria for meeting
these significance thresholds. However, in our NPRM discussion
concerning corn kernel fiber, we discussed this question contextually.
In that discussion, we described why we believe that corn kernel fiber
would not cause a significant increase in demand for corn, why we
believe that corn kernel fiber does not have a significant market in
its own right, and why its removal from distillers' grains to produce
biofuel will not have a significant impact on direct or indirect GHG
emissions. Stakeholders who wish to better understand how to evaluate
whether other feedstocks meet the definition of crop residue should
consult that discussion and the comparable discussion in section IV.D.2
of this preamble.
    Few commenters offered opinions regarding what might constitute a
``significant market'' for a crop product. However, comments submitted
by the Iogen Corporation did provide one potential framework for
understanding when a crop product might be considered to have a
significant market. In their comments, Iogen stated that ``EPA should
not consider potential for significant crop shifting unless the farmer
revenue per acre for raw unprocessed crop residue (i.e., before fees
for collection, baling, stacking, transport, etc.) is more than 15
percent of the grain crop revenue per acre. We believe the volatility
of the grain crop revenues is much larger than 15 percent of the grain
price, and that the incremental revenue will not affect crop planting
decisions.'' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Comments submitted by Iogen Corporation (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-
0401-0135).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has not utilized this methodology to identify which crop
products we consider crop residues for the purposes of this final
rulemaking. We acknowledge that this type of methodology could
potentially be useful for evaluating whether future feedstocks meet our
definition of crop residue, including non-grain crops. While we have
not performed sufficient analysis to determine whether it is
appropriate to adopt such an approach today, we may

reconsider it in the future. Regardless, we do believe that it provides
a useful consideration for stakeholders.
    In Table IV.D.3-1 of this preamble, EPA identifies several crop
products that we consider crop residues. In addition, we have provided
greater transparency to stakeholders regarding the criteria for
qualifying as a crop residue under the RFS in this preamble and in the
clarified definition of crop residue. As a general principle, if a
product meets the regulatory definition of crop residue as described
above and is similar to a feedstock that we identify as a crop residue
in Table IV.D.3-1, then it is likely that EPA would consider it as
qualifying as a crop residue. Conversely, if it is not clear that a
product meets the regulatory definition of crop residue as described
above, or if the feedstock is not similar to any of the feedstocks
identified in Table IV.D.3-1, then there is greater uncertainty that it
will qualify.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ It is important to keep in mind that not qualifying under
the crop residue pathway does not in any way exclude fuel produced
from a given feedstock from qualifying to generate RINs with a D
code of 3 or a D code of 7 more generally. It only means that a new
pathway would need to be established, were EPA to find that the fuel
produced from that feedstock meets the 60 percent threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA acknowledges that it may not always be straightforward for a
stakeholder to determine for themselves whether a crop product is
likely to qualify under the crop residue pathway, even with the
guidance provided in this preamble and in the revised definition. In
light of this, and to promote accurate identification of feedstocks
that do and do not qualify as crop residues, EPA is implementing
additional registration, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for
producers intending to use crop residue as a feedstock. These
additional requirements will help to ensure that producers of renewable
fuel do not inadvertently attempt to generate RINs under a crop residue
pathway utilizing a feedstock that EPA does not consider to be a crop
residue. See section IV.D.4 of this final rulemaking for more details
on these requirements.
2. Consideration of Corn Kernel Fiber as a Crop Residue
    We also proposed in the NPRM that corn kernel fiber be considered a
crop residue. Corn kernel fiber has not been specifically mentioned as
a type of crop residue in any previous RFS rulemaking. However, EPA has
received several requests to consider corn kernel fiber to be a crop
residue. Because it had not been considered a crop residue previously,
EPA conducted an evaluation that assessed whether corn kernel fiber
should be considered a crop residue. This analysis focuses on whether
corn kernel fiber can be considered ``left over from the harvesting or
processing of planted crops'', whether it has ``no significant impacts
on demand for the feedstock crop, products produced from that crop, or
any substitutes for the crop and its products'' nor ``any other impact
that would result in a significant increase in direct or indirect GHG
emissions.''
    We requested comment on our proposed analysis. We received
significant comment supporting our analysis and our proposal that corn
kernel fiber should be considered a crop residue.\74\ We did not
receive any comments opposing our analysis or our conclusions.
Accordingly, we have decided based on the assumptions, facts and
analysis described below that corn kernel fiber should be considered
crop residue as proposed. Should relevant facts described in our
analysis change, a re-evaluation of the issue may be warranted. Our
analysis of corn kernel fiber can serve as one of many possible
illustrative examples of how crop products can be evaluated for
qualification as crop residues, in addition to our previous
considerations of other feedstocks that we consider to be crop residue,
such as corn stover.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Several commenters expressed extremely similar opinions on
this point. But see, for example, comments submitted by the
Renewable Fuels Association, (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0123), the
National Corn Growers Association (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0065), and
Growth Energy (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0173).
    \75\ For our analysis of corn stover in the context of the crop
residue pathway, see 75 FR 14670, March 26, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Analysis of Corn Kernel Fiber as a Crop Residue
    The amended definition of crop residue requires us to consider any
potential ``significant impact on demand for the feedstock crop,
products produced from that feedstock crop, and all substitutes for the
crop and its products, and any other impact that would result in a
significant increase in direct or indirect GHG emissions.'' To
determine whether the use of corn kernel fiber to produce renewable
fuel would lead to increased direct or indirect GHG emissions stemming
from any of these sources, EPA conducted a detailed assessment of the
two major potential sources of emissions from this feedstock, namely
effects on feed markets and effects on demand for corn. In our
analytical judgment, any impacts on corn, corn products, or substitutes
for corn or corn products would come from impacts on the feed market
for dried distillers grains (DDG) or from some other impact on overall
demand for corn. We did not identify any other potential sources of
significant increased GHG emissions in our proposed analysis, and no
commenter suggested that any such source might exist. Therefore, we are
confident that the analysis we have conducted below adequately
addresses all aspects of the definition of crop residue, excepting
questions regarding the source of the biomass, which will be evaluated
in the context of each individual producer registration pursuant to 40
CFR 80.1450.
    Producers acquire corn kernel fiber for ethanol feedstock as a part
of the whole corn feedstock stream entering into a corn starch ethanol
plant. This fiber stream may then be accessed for ethanol production in
one of two general ways. One option is for producers to extract it from
matter that would otherwise be converted to DDG during the dry mill
corn ethanol production process. This step can be performed either
before or after that matter has been separated from the corn starch
ethanol. In either case, the corn fiber is processed into ethanol via a
separate stream from corn starch ethanol production. A second option is
for producers to access and convert the fiber in situ along with the
corn starch that is converted to ethanol. In order to meet the
definition of a crop residue, the source of corn kernel fiber must be
incidental to some other primary purpose. An ethanol producer utilizing
corn kernel fiber as a feedstock cannot purchase whole corn for the
primary purpose of generating corn fiber ethanol and still qualify
their feedstock as crop residue.
    Consequently, this analysis relied significantly on the assessment
of corn starch ethanol-derived DDG that was conducted for the March
2010 RFS final rule, adjusting the analysis to account for the
extraction of fiber from this product.\76\ The analysis also drew
substantially on the available scientific literature on low fiber DDG
(LF-DDG), as well as the expertise of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Potential producers also submitted important data that
helped EPA evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions of corn kernel fiber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See 75 FR 14670, March 26, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that all animal feed products must be
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can
be sold in the United States. EPA's analysis makes observations and
draws conclusions about the characteristics and likely uses of LF-DDG
based on the available literature regarding LF-DDG that has

been fed to livestock in research settings. However, at this time the
FDA has not approved LF-DDG for use in commercial animal feed. Nothing
in EPA's analysis should be construed as an official federal government
position regarding the approval or disapproval of LF-DDG as an animal
feed. Only FDA is authorized to make that determination. Our analysis
proceeds from the assumption that producers of LF-DDG will be able to
gain FDA approval for these feed products and that they will do so
before commencing production and sale of this feed product. If however
FDA does not approve LF-DDG as an animal feed, there will be
implications for the LCA of corn kernel fiber, and EPA will revisit its
determination.
    EPA found that extracting the fiber from corn matter used to
produce standard DDG would not have a significant effect on feed
markets. Processors who extract the fiber from corn produce a feed
product known as LF-DDG, as opposed to standard DDG, which retains the
fiber. The scientific literature on LF-DDG animal nutrition has found
that this product has at least equal, and perhaps even slightly
superior, nutritional value for swine and poultry compared to standard
DDG.\77\ This means that, even though the physical volume of the LF-DDG
produced by ethanol plants using corn kernel fiber extraction
technology will be somewhat smaller than the volume of DDG produced by
plants not extracting corn kernel fiber, the nutritional content of LF-
DDG for swine and poultry will be equivalent to or greater than DDG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See, e.g., Kim, E.J., C.M. Parsons, R. Srinivasan, and V.
Singh. 2010. Nutritional composition, nitrogen-corrected true
metabolizable energy, and amino acid digestibilities of new corn
distillers dried grains with solubles produced by new fractionation
processes. Poultry Science 89, p. 44, available on the docket for
this rulemaking as EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0002. See also additional
studies cited within Kim et al 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conversely, LF-DDG is an inferior feed for cattle compared to
standard DDG, since ruminants benefit from ingesting corn fiber in
DDG.\78\ Therefore, EPA expects swine and poultry producers to absorb
the supply of LF-DDG, while the cattle and dairy industry will continue
to consume standard DDG. With this dynamic in place, fiber extraction
from DDG should not significantly affect feed markets, since there will
be no reduction in the overall supply of DDG in terms of nutritional
content nor will there be any impact on aggregate demand for other
animal feed sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See Shurson, G.C. 2006. The Value of High-Protein
Distillers Coproducts in Swine Feeds. Distillers Grains Quarterly,
First Quarter, p. 22, available on the docket for this rulemaking as
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If enough corn ethanol producers adopt fiber extraction technology,
LF-DDG could saturate swine and poultry demand and spill over into
dairy and cattle feed markets. If a situation arises where LF-DDG begin
to replace standard DDG in dairy and/or cattle markets, this could lead
to an increase in aggregate feed demand, most likely in the form of
increased demand for fiber supplements in dairy and cattle feed. This
theoretically could cause an increase in GHG emissions. However, we do
not expect this to occur. If swine and poultry demand for LF-DDG
becomes saturated, demand for standard DDG in the cattle and dairy
industries should create sufficient market incentives for the remaining
corn starch ethanol producers to decide against adopting corn fiber
ethanol production. EPA believes this will prevent a situation where
there is insufficient supply of standard DDG in the cattle and dairy
industries. However, as noted above, if significant facts change, it
may be appropriate for EPA to reexamine corn kernel fiber as a crop
residue in the future.
    EPA's analysis indicates that producing ethanol from corn kernel
fiber is unlikely to increase overall demand for corn, in addition to
having no significant impact on feed markets. It is our judgment, based
on the analysis above, that the primary purpose of procuring whole corn
for processing in a corn starch ethanol plant is to produce corn starch
ethanol, since more than 90 percent of the ethanol produced will be
from the starch. The plant would most likely procure that same quantity
of whole corn regardless of whether they were converting the fiber into
ethanol or sending it to some other end use. The diversion of corn
kernel fiber from the DDG stream to an ethanol production stream will
not materially affect the value of the feed products produced by a corn
starch ethanol plant per bushel of corn processed. Because of this,
there will be no significant incentive for the plant that is producing
ethanol from corn kernel fiber to procure more or less corn than they
would if they were selling the fiber as part of their DDG product. We
can find no evidence to support a claim that production of ethanol from
corn kernel fiber has any significant impact on demand for corn,
products produced from corn, or the substitutes for corn and its
products. Further, we find that if corn kernel fiber is not used to
produce ethanol, it will be left over from the corn starch ethanol
production process, because its presence or absence in DDG products
does not materially impact the value of those DDGs or the overall
market for DDGs and feed products. Finally, we were unable to identify
any other potentially significant impacts associated with utilizing
corn kernel fiber to produce renewable fuel that might lead to
significant GHG emissions, nor were any such impacts identified during
public notice and comment. Based on these factors, we find that
utilizing corn kernel fiber to produce renewable fuel would have no
significant impacts on GHG emissions. These findings support a
determination that corn kernel fiber meets the definition of a crop
residue. Therefore, corn kernel fiber may be used as a feedstock in
those pathways in Table 1 to Sec.  80.1426 that specify crop residue as
a feedstock.
b. Treatment of Corn Starch That Adheres to Corn Kernel Fiber After
Separation From DDG
    EPA sought comment on whether the definition of crop residue should
be amended to explicitly exclude the corn starch component, since some
corn starch may still adhere to the corn kernel after separation.
Additionally, EPA invited comment on how RINs should be allocated for
fuel derived from corn fiber, including comment on the sufficiency of
current RFS regulations with regards to the assignment of RINs to
batches of corn starch ethanol and corn kernel fiber ethanol produced
via consolidated bioprocessing and whether producers have the
technological capability to adequately demonstrate the volume of fuel
produced under each pathway.
    Commenters confirmed that some starch may adhere to the unconverted
fiber, even after most of the starch has been processed into
ethanol.\79\ However, many of those same commenters also supported
considering this starch as ``de minimis'' under our current
regulations.\80\ Those current regulations state that ``producers and
importers may disregard any incidental, de minimis feedstock
contaminants that are impractical to remove and are related to
customary feedstock production and transport.'' \81\ We received
several comments noting that corn kernels undergo a rigorous mechanical
process designed to separate the starch from the

rest of the corn kernel before processing that starch into ethanol.
Despite this process, some starch adheres to the fibrous portions of
the kernel and, in a standard corn starch ethanol plant, ends up in the
DDG.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See, for example, comments submitted by Edeniq, Inc. (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0159).
    \80\ Numerous commenters supported this position. See, for
example, comments submitted by Edeniq, Inc. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-
0159), the American Coalition for Ethanol (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-
0147), and Growth Energy (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0173).
    \81\ See specifically Sec.  80.1426(f)(1).
    \82\ See comments submitted by Quad County Corn Processors (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0063), by Edeniq, Inc. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0159),
and the American Coalition for Ethanol (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0147).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters argued that this adhering starch is indeed impractical
to remove and is present only in small quantities.\83\ In the preamble
of the NPRM for this rulemaking, EPA stated that starch might compose
up to 20 percent of the separated mass used to produce corn kernel
fiber ethanol via a separate stream, based on data from 1998. Through
the public comment process, we received more recent and fine-grained
data that better represents current methods of starch-fiber separation.
Based on this newer data, we believe the actual amount of starch that
adheres to the fiber after separation from the rest of the corn kernel
is typically less than 5 percent of the total mass of the separated
corn kernel fiber feedstock.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See, for example, comments submitted by Edeniq, Inc. (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0159).
    \84\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the small quantity of starch involved, typically less
than 5 percent of the mass, and the impracticability of separating the
starch which adheres to the fiber, we believe that this starch
component can appropriately be considered a de minimis contaminant.
Like all plant fibers, the fibrous portion of corn kernel fiber is
composed of nearly 100 percent cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin.
Taken together with the small quantity of adhering corn starch, corn
kernel fiber is clearly above the 75 percent threshold we have
established in today's rulemaking for determining when a feedstock is
predominantly cellulosic, and this is also consistent with our finding,
discussed in section IV.A. of the preamble, that crop residue as a
class has at least 75 percent cellulosic content. To be clear, this de
minimis determination only applies to starch adhering to corn kernel
fiber that is being processed into ethanol separately from corn starch
ethanol. Processes that convert corn starch and corn kernel fiber to
ethanol in situ (as is described in detail in the next section) may not
consider any portion of the corn starch to be de minimis. Furthermore,
if any producer processing corn kernel fiber separately from corn
starch fails to use best practices \85\ to separate adhering corn
starch, in an attempt to boost production of cellulosic biofuel from
processing corn kernel fiber or for any other reason, the adhering
starch will not be considered a de minimis contaminant, and the entire
batch of resulting fuel will not be considered derived from crop
residue and will not qualify as cellulosic biofuel. Since processing of
the corn kernel would be incomplete, the feedstock would not be
considered left over from processing and would not meet the definition
of crop residue in Sec.  80.1401. While the batch of resulting fuel
might be eligible to generate renewable biofuel RINs (D code of 6) for
the starch-derived component of the fuel, RINs could only be generated
for the fuel derived from non-starch components of such feedstock to
the extent that such volumes were grandfathered under Sec.  80.1403(c)
or (d).Based on the existing reporting requirements listed in Sec.
80.1451(b)(1)(ii),\86\ EPA is already requiring the data necessary to
identify whether the cellulosic RINs that a fuel producer is generating
is disproportionate to the amount of corn kernel fiber processed at a
facility. EPA collects feedstock volumes, fuel volumes, and other data
reported to determine that RINs and volumes are generated in accordance
with the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Data submitted by commenters indicate that the rigorous
mechanical process employed to separate corn kernel fiber and corn
starch will typically allow less than 5% of residual starch to
adhere to the fiber after separation. See comments submitted by Quad
County Corn Processors (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0063), by Edeniq, Inc.
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0159), and the American Coalition for Ethanol
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0147).
    \86\ Required information includes: Quantity of RINs generated,
volume of fuel produced, feedstock type, and exact feedstock
quantity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Processing Corn Kernel Fiber
    Corn kernel fiber may be used for biofuel production in multiple
ways. As detailed above in section IV.A.4, renewable fuel can be
produced pursuant to biochemical conversion processes that
simultaneously hydrolyze and/or ferment cellulosic and non-cellulosic
material into fermentable sugars and/or fuel. Corn kernel fiber as a
crop residue may be converted into qualifying renewable fuel via
biochemical methods in one of two ways.\87\ First, it may be converted
via a consolidated bioprocessing method that converts cellulosic and
non-cellulosic corn material into sugars and/or fuel products
simultaneously. Second, corn kernel fiber may be converted to sugar
and/or fuel via a separate stream from the corn starch sugar and fuel
conversion streams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Corn kernel fiber may also be converted to fuel via
thermochemical methods. See section IV.A.4 for details on the
requirements for renewable fuel production via thermochemical
pathways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first method may include simultaneous hydrolysis of the starch
and cellulosic components of the corn kernel into sugars, followed by
simultaneous conversion of those sugars into fuel products. In other
cases, the cellulosic and non-cellulosic portions of the corn kernel
may be hydrolyzed separately but fermented together in a single vessel.
In either case, EPA considers this process technology to be a method of
simultaneous conversion. We discuss the requirements for using a
simultaneous conversion process in section IV.A.4 of this preamble.
    Alternatively, producers may hydrolyze and ferment the cellulosic
and non-cellulosic portions of the corn kernel via separate streams.
This may be accomplished in at least one of two ways. A producer might
separate the starch from the corn kernel fiber before the hydrolysis
step, sending each set of material through separate hydrolysis,
fermentation, and distillation streams. A producer might also perform a
conventional corn starch ethanol fermentation process, yielding corn
starch ethanol, and then hydrolyze and ferment the residual solids
(which typically become DDG at the end of the process) a second time,
using enzymes designed to convert cellulosic material to sugars. If a
producer uses a process that hydrolyzes and ferments the corn kernel
fiber separately from the corn starch, either in a parallel but
separate process or in a sequential process that extracts the fiber
from the residual solids after corn starch ethanol fermentation, then
the producer is not considered to be performing simultaneous
conversion, and all of the resulting corn kernel fiber-derived fuel may
appropriately be considered derived from predominantly cellulosic
biomass. As discussed above, some starch may adhere to the fiber after
the separation step or may remain in the residual solids output of a
conventional corn starch ethanol fermentation process. However, we
believe this small amount of corn starch contaminant fits under EPA's
de minimis feedstock contaminant provision in the existing regulations,
and should be disregarded.\88\ This is the case even if a producer were
to add enzymes which might convert starch adhering to the corn kernel
fiber to ethanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See specifically Sec.  80.1426 (f) (1).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Identification of Feedstocks EPA Considers Crop Residues
    To provide additional guidance on the definition of crop residue,
EPA is identifying several feedstocks that we consider to be crop
residues. In the NPRM, we provided a table that included feedstocks
which we have previously identified as crop residues in public
documents and which we believed fit the definition of crop residue.\89\
That table included corn stover, corn kernel fiber (see section IV.D.2
above for further discussion), citrus residue, rice straw, sugarcane
bagasse, and wheat straw. All of these feedstocks were identified as
crop residues in the preamble of the March 2010 RFS final rulemaking,
with the exception of corn kernel fiber. For example, EPA analyzed the
agricultural sector GHG emissions of using corn stover for biofuels in
the final March 2010 RFS final rulemaking and found that fuel produced
from this feedstock met the 60% GHG reduction threshold for cellulosic
biofuels.\90\ Since the direct and indirect impacts of several other
crop products, including citrus residue, rice straw, and wheat straw,
were expected to be similar to those of corn stover, EPA also applied
the land use change impacts associated with corn stover to those
products as well. Based on that analysis, EPA found that fuels produced
from these products also met the 60% reduction threshold. EPA further
determined that fuels produced from materials left over after the
processing of a crop into a useable resource had land use impacts
sufficiently similar to agricultural residues to also meet the 60%
threshold. EPA specifically cited bagasse left over from sugarcane
processing as an example of this type of crop residue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See Table IV.D.3-1--Feedstocks That May Qualify as Crop
Residue, 78 FR, 36056-36057, June 14, 2013.
    \90\ See EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-3173.2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-
3173.3, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-3173.4, under the Lifecycle Results
Docket for the March 2010 RFS Final Rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA sought comment on whether these feedstocks should be considered
crop residues, whether these feedstocks would have direct and indirect
GHG impacts similar to corn stover, and whether additional feedstocks
should also be considered crop residues. We received numerous comments
that supported considering all of these feedstocks as crop
residues.\91\ We did not receive any comments that opposed considering
any of the feedstocks identified in the NPRM as crop residues, nor did
we receive any comments that disputed our reasons for considering them
crop residues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Several commenters expressed extremely similar opinions on
this point. But see, for example, comments submitted by the
Renewable Fuels Association, (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0123), the
National Corn Growers Association (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0065), and
Growth Energy (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0173).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, several commenters identified other crop products
which are extremely similar to those that we proposed to consider crop
residues. Commenters noted that we have identified sugarcane bagasse as
a crop residue in multiple rulemakings, including the March 2010 RFS
final rule and the NPRM of this rule, but have not previously
considered sweet sorghum bagasse.\92\ The processes for separating
bagasse from simple sugars is very similar between sugarcane and sweet
sorghum and the market and other potential GHG impacts of utilizing
that bagasse to produce renewable fuel are also considered to be
similar. Therefore we are today identifying both as feedstocks which we
consider crop residues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See comments submitted by NexSteppe Inc. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-
0401-0153). See also 75 FR 14692, March 26, 2010 and 78 FR 36042,
June 14, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters noted that we identified corn stover as a crop residue
in the NPRM, but have not previously considered grain sorghum
stover.\93\ Since the composition, methods of production, methods of
collection, market potential, and implications for other relevant
markets for these two types of stover are nearly identical, these two
stovers would reasonably seem to have similar GHG impact profiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See comments submitted by the National Sorghum Producers
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0065), Iogen Corporation (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-
0401-0135), NexSteppe Inc. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0153).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also noted that, in the NPRM, we did not list grain
fibers other than corn kernel fiber. To the extent that other grain
kernel fibers are extracted and used for biofuel feedstock in the same
manner as we lay out for corn kernel fiber in section IV.D.2 above
(i.e., during the processing of grain feedstock into ethanol), these
products would reasonably seem to have similar GHG impact profiles to
corn kernel fiber.\94\ To the extent that these grain fibers are
obtained in the same manner that we have laid out for corn kernel
fiber, their alternative fate would also be distillers grains. The
impacts of fiber on the digestion of ruminants, swine, and poultry are
extremely similar, regardless of what grain that fiber came from,
because all grain fiber is virtually 100 percent cellulosic. Therefore,
we are confident that diverting that fiber to a fuel production stream
would have similarly insignificant market and other GHG impacts to
those of corn kernel fiber, and we similarly consider them to be crop
residues under those circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See comments submitted by Novozymes North America Inc.
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0088), ICM (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0114),
NexSteppe Inc. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0153), Growth Energy (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0401-0173),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also pointed out that we identified wheat straw and rice
straw as crop residues in the NPRM but did not identify other grain
straws (e.g., oat straw, barley straw) as residues, even though these
products would reasonably seem to have similar GHG impact profiles to
wheat straw and rice straw.\95\ EPA has determined that these straws do
indeed have similar GHG impacts to those of wheat straw and rice straw.
All of them have similarly insignificant markets, insignificant effects
on demand for the crop from which they are derived, and insignificant
impacts on other crop products and substitutes. Further they are
processed into renewable fuel in nearly identical ways. Therefore, we
consider all of the grain straws listed in Table IV.D.3-1 below to be
crop residues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See comments submitted by Iogen Corporation (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0401-0135),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, while we proposed to identify ``citrus residue'' as a crop
residue in the NPRM, several stakeholders have suggested that this
label is rather vague. There are several different types of byproducts
or residues from citrus processing (e.g., peels, pulp, seeds), each
with a unique chemical composition and degree of alternative
usefulness. EPA does not currently have sufficient information to
determine that all byproducts of citrus processing meet the
requirements of the crop residue pathway. Producers wishing to utilize
citrus processing byproducts as a feedstock under the crop residue
pathway will need to provide EPA with further information about the
materials they are utilizing, per the registration requirements
detailed in section IV.D.4.a of this FRM.
    In Table IV.D.3-1 we are identifying several crop products that EPA
considers to be crop residues.\96\ This table is meant to be
illustrative, not exhaustive, of the types of crop products that EPA
considers to be crop residues. It is included here to provide guidance
and greater clarity to stakeholders; it should not be considered a
definitive list. It will not appear in our regulations, though EPA may
publish a table similar

to Table IV.D.3-1 on our Web site for the convenience and education of
stakeholders. We acknowledge that there may be other crop products
which were not brought to our attention during this rulemaking process
and which are not included in Table IV.D.3-1, but which may meet the
definition of crop residue as we are clarifying it in today's final
rulemaking. Further details regarding how EPA may evaluate these crop
products can be found in section IV.D.1 and section IV.D.2 of this
final rulemaking. Additionally, stakeholders may also want to consult
section IV.D.4 of this final rulemaking, which describes new RRR
requirements for producers who wish to use crop residue as a feedstock
for renewable fuel production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Our analysis of corn kernel fiber as a crop residue is
discussed in section IV.D.2 of this preamble.

       Table IV.D.3-1--Feedstocks That EPA Considers Crop Residues
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sugarcane and Sweet Sorghum Bagasse.
Kernel Fiber from Barley, Corn, Oats, Rice, Rye, Grain Sorghum, and
 Wheat.
Stover from Corn and Grain Sorghum.
Straw from Barley, Oats, Rice, Rye, Soybeans, and Wheat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Registration, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements Associated
With Using Crop Residue as a Feedstock
    Under current regulations, producers registering to generate RINs
using the crop residue pathway are not required to specify exactly
which crop products they intend to use. This could potentially lead to
a situation where a producer inadvertently generates invalid RINs by
producing a batch of fuel from a crop product that does not meet the
crop residue definition. In order to ensure that producers only utilize
crop products which EPA considers to be crop residues and thereby
generate valid RINs when using a crop residue pathway, we are
implementing additional RRR requirements for producers using crop
residue as feedstock under any approved pathway.
a. Registration Requirements for Producers Utilizing Crop Residue as a
Feedstock
    EPA acknowledges that the regulatory definition adopted today may
be difficult to interpret in some respects. On the other hand, EPA
believes that the proposed revised definition appropriately describes
crop products that should qualify as crop residues. In order to reduce
uncertainty and confusion in the application of the revised definition,
we are implementing a new registration requirement for those seeking to
use crop residues as a feedstock. Any entity registering to use crop
residue as a feedstock must, as a part of their registration package
submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1450, include a list of all crop
materials they intend to use that they consider to be crop residue, and
a justification for their belief that the listed crop materials meet
the regulatory definition of crop residue. These regulatory amendments
appear in 40 CFR 80.1450.
    If the crop product is one that EPA has previously identified as
meeting the regulatory definition of crop residue, then referencing the
relevant EPA document will likely be sufficient justification. However,
if a crop product is not one that EPA has previously identified as a
crop residue, then EPA intends to evaluate whether that feedstock meets
the regulatory definition prior to accepting the facility's
registration. If the feedstock is very similar to one that EPA has
already evaluated, this may be a relatively brief process. See the
discussion in section IV.D.3 above for some examples of how this
comparison could be performed by EPA. However, if the feedstock
markedly differs from those we have evaluated previously, as corn
kernel fiber did before this final rulemaking, then a more extensive
analysis, even including lifecycle GHG analysis, may be required. Each
feedstock presents its own sets of questions. Stakeholders may wish to
consult our analysis of corn kernel fiber in section IV.D.2 of this
rulemaking for an example of such an analysis.
    If EPA decides that further analysis of a particular feedstock is
needed, the registrant will have the option of removing the crop
product from its registration package, in order to allow the remainder
of the package to be processed more quickly and to allow the producer
to be registered and begin production using other feedstocks pending
EPA's analysis. If EPA later determines that the crop product in
question meets the regulatory definition of crop residue, then the
registrant could update their registration to include that feedstock.
However, in order to avoid delay, stakeholders may wish to consult
EPA's Web site and rulemakings regarding the definition of crop residue
before submitting their registration. Should a stakeholder discover
that a feedstock they are planning to utilize has not been previously
identified by EPA as a crop residue, it may be beneficial and expedient
for them to consult EPA before submitting their registration. We are
not finalizing any requirement that stakeholders take this affirmative
step before submitting their registration. However, we believe that
taking this step may lead to a more streamlined process for entities
who wish to utilize a new crop product as feedstock in pathways
providing for use of crop residue.
    Entities who are already registered to generate renewable fuel
using crop residue as a feedstock will not be required to immediately
update their registration to conform to these new requirements.
However, when these entities perform periodic updates to their
registration pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1450(d)(3), they will be required to
include the information described in these new requirements at that
time.
b. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Producers Utilizing
Crop Residue as a Feedstock
    In addition to the registration requirements outlined above, EPA is
also requiring that any entity registered to generate RINs using crop
residue as a feedstock keep records of the quantities of each specific
crop product they utilize, and that they report the quantities used to
generate qualifying renewable fuel over the past three months in each
quarterly report to EPA.\97\ This requirement is somewhat different
from the feedstock reporting requirement associated with reporting RIN
generation in EMTS. In EMTS, the RIN generator is only required to
report the total quantity of crop residue used to produce the batch of
fuel for which RINs are generated. These new recordkeeping and
quarterly reporting requirements go a step further by requiring
specific accounting of the exact quantities of individual crop products
used by the producer over a three-month period. The exact regulatory
requirements of this new provision are detailed in the amendments to 40
CFR 80.1451 and 80.1454 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ At the time of this rulemaking, RIN generators would report
this information via quarterly report number RFS0801. See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/reporting/rfs.htm for further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Amendments to Various RFS Compliance Related Provisions

    We are finalizing a number of changes to the RFS regulations
related to compliance, except for the definition of ``Responsible
Corporate Officer'' (RCO), which was proposed but is not being
finalized.
1. Changes to Definitions
    ``Responsible Corporate Officer'':
    EPA is not finalizing the definition of ``responsible corporate
officer'' at this time. The existing RFS regulations at Sec. Sec.
80.1416, 80.1451 and 80.1454, and

EPA guidance and instructions regarding registration and reporting,
frequently refer to the responsibilities of the ``owner or a
responsible corporate officer.'' However, the term ``responsible
corporate officer'' had not been defined in the RFS regulations.
    Several commenters requested that EPA review its existing policy on
acceptable position titles and what registration updates have to be
approved by an RCO. These comments were directed at EPA's
administrative procedures and registration system, rather than the
regulatory responsibilities of the RCO with regard to compliance with
RFS standards. EPA needs to evaluate the registration process, which
may include potential modifications to the registration system, for
opportunities to minimize burden on RCOs and to better differentiate an
RCO's roles with respect to program compliance versus administrative
roles in our registration system. Based on these comments and the
potential for registration system modifications, EPA is not finalizing
the RCO definition at this time. Regulated parties should continue to
follow existing regulations and registration procedures.
    ``Small Refinery'':
    Section 211(o)(9)(A) of the Clean Air Act provides an exemption
from RFS requirements through 2010 for ``small refineries,'' defined as
refineries having an average aggregate daily crude oil throughput ``for
a calendar year'' that does not exceed 75,000 barrels. It also provides
for possible extensions of this exemption, through individual petitions
to EPA under CAA section 211(o)(9)(B). In EPA's March 26, 2010
regulations implementing the EISA amendments to the RFS program we
specified in the regulatory definition of ``small refinery'' that the
75,000 bpd threshold determination should be calculated based on
information from calendar year 2006. At the beginning of the program,
having a single year in which to make this determination simplified the
calculations and helped to ensure that all refineries were treated
similarly. However, we no longer believe that it is appropriate that
refineries satisfying the 75,000 bpd threshold in 2006 should be
eligible for extensions to their small refinery RFS exemption if they
no longer meet the 75,000 bpd threshold. Allowing such facilities to
qualify for an exemption extension, while not allowing similarly sized
facilities that have not grown since 2006 to qualify for an exemption,
does not appear fair, nor does it further the objectives of the statute
to target relief to only truly small facilities. Therefore, we proposed
modifying the definition of small refinery so that the crude throughput
threshold of 75,000 bpd must apply in 2006 and in all subsequent years.
We also proposed specifying in Sec.  80.1441(e)(2)(iii) that in order
to qualify for an extension of its small refinery exemption, a refinery
must meet the definition of ``small refinery'' in Sec.  80.1401 for all
full calendar years between 2006 and the date of submission of the
petition for an extension of the exemption.
    We proposed that that these changes would not affect any existing
exemption extensions under CAA section 211(o)(9)(B); rather, they would
apply at such time as any approved exemption extension expires and the
refinery at issue seeks a further exemption extension. No further
extension would be permitted unless the revised crude oil throughput
specifications were satisfied.
    We received two comments on our proposed small refinery revisions,
both supporting EPA's proposed change. After further consideration of
this matter, we believe that the proposal could unfairly disqualify a
refinery from eligibility for small refinery relief based only on a
single year's production since 2006. We do not believe it would be
appropriate to treat two refineries whose recent operating conditions
were equivalent differently if one refinery exceeded 75,000 bpd in a
single year as much as 8 years ago. Considering this concern and the
intent in our proposal to treat similarly sized facilities the same, we
are modifying the final rule to require that throughput be no greater
than 75,000 barrels in the most recent full calendar year prior to an
application for hardship. We will also clarify that a qualifying small
refinery can't be projected to exceed the threshold in the year or
years for which it is seeking an exemption. Production that exceeds the
average aggregate 75,000 barrel per date limitation during an approved
exemption period would invalidate the exemption. With these
modifications, we believe we will better address our primary concern
from proposal of treating refineries with similar performance the same.
We believe that these changes reasonably implement the statutory
definition of ``small refinery,'' which indicates that the 75,000
barrel aggregate daily crude oil throughput is for ``a calendar year,''
but does not specify which calendar year should be the focus of
inquiry. The final rule places the focus on the time period immediately
prior to and during the desired exemption period, which we believe is
most appropriate given the objectives of the provision.
2. Provisions for Small Blenders of Renewable Fuels
    The RFS regulations at Sec.  80.1440 allow renewable fuel blenders
who handle and blend less than 125,000 gallons of renewable fuel per
year, and who are not obligated parties or exporters, to delegate their
RIN-related responsibilities to the party directly upstream from them
who supplied the renewable fuel for blending. EPA has received feedback
from several parties to the effect that the 125,000 threshold is too
low and is a lower threshold than what industry considers ``small.''
EPA requested input on what a more appropriate gallon threshold should
be.
    EPA received two comments supporting an increase in the threshold
and one comment suggesting it remain at the current amount of 125,000
gallons. Of the two commenters suggesting the amount should be
increased, one suggested an increased amount of 250,000 gallons, and
the other suggested an increased amount of 3 to 4 million gallons.
Based on comments received from stakeholders previously and based on
comments received on the proposed rule, EPA believes it is reasonable
to increase the threshold for small blenders of renewable fuels (those
that are not obligated parties or exporters) to help relieve burden
from managing RINs. However, EPA is cautious not to increase the
threshold beyond what is reasonable and beyond an amount that would be
considered ``small.'' EPA generally agrees with one of the commenter's
suggested amount of 250,000 gallons. Doubling the threshold from
125,000 gallons to 250,000 gallons will provide additional relief to
the smallest renewable fuel blenders. Therefore, EPA is adjusting the
gallon threshold for small blenders of renewable fuels (and who are not
obligated parties or exporters) that want to delegate their RIN-related
responsibilities to the party directly upstream from them who supplied
the renewable fuel for blending. The threshold is being changed from
125,000 gallons to 250,000 gallons in today's final rule.
3. Changes to Sec.  80.1450--Registration Requirements
    EPA is adding a new paragraph (h) to Sec.  80.1450 that describes
the circumstances under which EPA may deactivate a company registration
and an administrative process to initiate a deactivation that provides
any company the opportunity to respond to and/or timely submit the
required information.

    EPA originally proposed deactivating a company registration where
there had been no activity in EMTS for one calendar year (January 1
through December 31). Commenters noted that there may be valid reasons
for a break in use of EMTS within a calendar year. To avoid this
scenario, EPA is modifying this provision to specify that if a company
has reported no activity in EMTS under Sec.  80.1452 for twenty-four
calendar months, then EPA will initiate this administrative process. In
addition, for this particular circumstance, if a party responds within
14 days of EPA notification of an intent to deactivate registration
with a letter stating that they wish to remain as a current registered
party, EPA will not deactivate their registration. If there is no
response received, or the response does not indicate a desire to for
the entity to remain actively registered, then EPA may deactivate the
registration.
    EPA may also deactivate a company registration if a party fails to
comply with any registration requirement of Sec.  80.1450, if the party
fails to submit any required compliance report under Sec.  80.1451, if
the party fails to meet the requirements related to EMTS under Sec.
80.1452, or if the party fails to meet the requirements related to
attest engagements under Sec.  80.1454. EPA will provide written notice
to the owner or responsible corporate officer (RCO) that it intends to
deactivate the company's registration and would allow the company
fourteen (14) days from the date of the letter's issuance to correct
the deficiencies noted or explain why there is no need for corrective
action. If there is no satisfactory response received, then EPA may
deactivate the registration. Reactivation will be possible following
the submission or updating of all required information and reports.
4. Changes to Sec.  80.1452--EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS)
Requirements--Alternative Reporting Method for Sell and Buy
Transactions for Assigned RINs
    EPA proposed an alternative method for recording in EMTS the date
of title transfer between the buyer and seller. Specifically, the
parties involved in a trade of renewable fuel with assigned RINs would
agree beforehand on using either the current methodology for
determining the date of transfer or the parties would utilize a unique
identifier and only the buyer would enter into EMTS the title transfer
date.
    EPA is not finalizing this proposal at this time due to impacts on
other systems functionality and processes. EPA may choose to pursue
this proposal in a later rulemaking when we have sufficient resources
to modify impacted systems.
5. Changes to Facility's Baseline Volume To Allow ``Nameplate
Capacity'' for Facilities Not Claiming Exemption From the 20% GHG
Reduction Threshold
    As a requirement of registration under the RFS program, each
renewable fuel producer and foreign ethanol producer must establish and
provide documents to support its facility's baseline volume as defined
in Sec.  80.1401. This is either the permitted capacity or, if
permitted capacity cannot be determined, the actual peak capacity of a
specific renewable fuel production facility on a calendar year basis.
After the promulgation of the March 26, 2010 RFS rule, we have received
many requests from companies asking EPA to allow them to use their
nameplate or ``design'' capacity to establish their facility's baseline
volume due to either the facility being exempt from obtaining a permit,
and thus not able to determine their permitted capacity, or the
facility not starting operations, or not being operational for a full
calendar year to produce actual production records to establish actual
peak capacities. Because the regulations currently only allow a
facility's baseline volume to be established by a limit stated in a
permit or actual production records for at least one calendar year,
facilities that had neither a permit or sufficient production records
had difficultly registering under the RFS program. EPA proposed
allowing use of nameplate capacity for registration, where permitted
capacity or actual peak capacity could not be determined. There were no
adverse comments regarding this proposal. Therefore, in this rulemaking
we are finalizing our proposal to allow a facility to use its
``nameplate capacity'' to establish its facility's baseline volume for
the purposes of registration. The ``nameplate capacity'' may be used
only if the facility (1) does not have a permit or there is no limit
stated in the permit to establish their permitted capacity; (2) has not
started operations or does not have at least one calendar year of
production records; and (3) does not claim exemption from the 20
percent GHG threshold under Sec.  80.1403. Due to the complexity of the
exemption provision provided under Sec.  80.1403 and the added
flexibility that facilities claiming this exemption are allotted under
the program, we are finalizing our decision that the extension of this
option not be available to facilities claiming an exemption under Sec.
80.1403. Additionally, by this stage in the RFS program, the facilities
that would qualify for registration under Sec.  80.1403 would be very
few, if any. We are also finalizing the revision of the definition of
baseline volume to include ``nameplate capacity,'' add a new definition
for ``nameplate capacity'' to Sec.  80.1401, and include conforming
amendments to the registration requirements of Sec.  80.1450. The
amendments today will allow the initial registration of certain
facilities using nameplate capacity, but EPA interprets the
requirements for registration updates under 80.1450(d)(3)(i) and (ii)
to require the calculation and submission of actual peak capacity as
part of the registration updates required in those sections where the
facility has operated for a sufficient time period to allow that
calculation.
6. Changes to Sec.  80.1463--What penalties apply under the RFS
program?
    Preventing the generation and use of invalid RINs and encouraging
rapid retirement and replacement of invalid RINs is crucial to the
integrity of the RFS program. The RFS regulations include various
provisions related to prohibited acts, liability for violations, and
penalties for those violations.
    Section 80.1460 sets forth the prohibited acts for the renewable
fuels program. Section 80.1461(a) states that any person who violates a
prohibition in Sec.  80.1460(a) through (d) is liable for the violation
of that prohibition, and Sec.  80.1461(b) provides the liability
provisions for failure to meet other provisions of the regulations. The
penalty provisions of the regulations at Sec.  80.1463(a) state that
any person who is liable for a violation under Sec.  80.1461 is subject
to a civil penalty as specified in sections 205 and 211(d) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), for every day of each such violation and the amount of
economic benefit or savings resulting from each violation. Section
80.1463(c) provides that ``any person . . . is liable for a separate
day of violation for each day such a requirement remains unfulfilled.''
    As described in the proposal, EPA interprets these statutory and
regulatory penalty provisions to give the Agency the authority to seek
penalties against parties generating, transferring or causing another
person to generate or transfer invalid RINs for the day of the party's
action and each day subsequent to the party's action that an invalid
RIN is available for sale or use by a party subject to an obligation
under the RFS program to acquire and retire RINs. For example, for a
RIN generator, this time period typically runs from the date of invalid
RIN generation until either effective corrective action is taken by

the RIN generator to remove the invalid RIN from the marketplace or a
party uses the RIN to satisfy an RVO or other requirement to retire
RINs. This is consistent with the CAA approach of assessing penalties
for every day of a violation, consistent with EPA's historic approach
under the fuels regulations (see Sec.  80.615), and will encourage
renewable fuel producers that generate invalid RINs to promptly take
corrective action.
    EPA received comments from two parties in opposition of the
proposed regulation in Sec.  80.1463. Both commenters stated that RIN
may be kept in another party's inventory outside of the generator's or
transferor's control. Therefore, if that RIN is later identified as
invalid the generator and transferor could be held to substantial
penalties based on actions by other parties beyond their control. One
of the commenters stated they believe that finalizing this regulation
will ``cause confusion and may create disincentives for producers to
self-report and take corrective actions, rather than promote
compliance.'' While EPA acknowledges that the RIN generator or
subsequent transferor cannot force another party to retire invalid
RINs, the regulations at Sec.  80.1431(b)(1) state that ``Upon
determination by any party that RINs owned are invalid, the party must
. . . retire the invalid RINs in the applicable RIN transaction reports
. . . for the quarter in which the RINs were determined to be
invalid.'' Therefore, EPA believes that finalizing EPA's existing
interpretation of per day violations for the generation or transfer of
invalid RINs will minimize potential penalties and incentivize parties
who committed a prohibited act at Sec.  80.1460 (b)(1)-(4) and (b)(6)
to identify invalid RINs to those owning parties so they can retire
RINs as required in Sec.  80.1431(b)(1) prior to an obligated party or
renewable fuel exporter using those RINs for compliance purposes.
    One commenter stated that EPA should continue to use its
enforcement discretion to assign appropriate penalties instead of
finalizing this regulation. In the proposal, EPA explained that this
regulation would simply codify our existing practice and interpretation
and that we would continue to evaluate the appropriate penalties for
each violation on a case by case basis. Although EPA is finalizing this
regulation to make it clear to the regulated industry that EPA has the
authority to seek the maximum statutory penalty for each day of
violation, the Agency will continue to evaluate appropriate penalties
on a case by case basis.
    As described above, EPA is finalizing the addition of the new
paragraph (d) to Sec.  80.1463 which more explicitly incorporates EPA's
interpretation of these penalty provisions into the regulations. The
language has been modified from the proposal to follow the existing
format and language in Sec.  80.1463. The amendments state that any
person liable under Sec.  80.1461(a) for a violation of Sec.
80.1460(b)(1)-(4) and (b)(6) for RIN generation or transfer violations
is subject to a separate day of violation for each day that the invalid
RIN remains available for use for compliance purposes, and EPA has the
authority to seek the maximum statutory penalty for each day of
violation.

F. Minor Corrections to RFS Provisions

    We are finalizing a number of corrections to address minor
definitional issues that have been identified in implementing the RFS
program.
    Renewable Biomass:
    We did not receive any significant comment on our proposed
clarification to the definition ``renewable biomass'' in Sec.  80.1401
and thus are finalizing proposed changes to make clear that biomass
obtained in the vicinity of buildings means biomass obtained within 200
feet of the buildings. The preamble for the March 26, 2010 RFS final
rule cites the distance of 200 feet (see 75 FR 14696), but EPA did not
include a reference to this value in the regulations. We believe doing
so provides additional clarity to the regulations.
    ``Naphtha'':
    We did not receive any significant comment on our proposed
clarification to the definition ``naphtha'' in Sec.  80.1401 and thus
are finalizing the proposed changes to make clear that we consider
naphtha a blending component of gasoline.
    English Language Translations:
    We received no significant comments on our proposed changes related
to English language translations. Therefore, we are finalizing the
addition of a new paragraph (i) to Sec.  80.1450 stating that any
registration materials submitted to EPA must be in English or
accompanied by an English language translation. Similarly, we are
finalizing the addition of a new paragraph (h) to Sec.  80.1451, which
states that any reports submitted to EPA must be in English or
accompanied by an English language translation. We are also finalizing
the addition of a new paragraph (q) to Sec.  80.1454, which states that
any records submitted to EPA must be in English or accompanied by an
English language translation. The translation and all other associated
documents must be maintained by the submitting company for a period of
five (5) years, which is already the established time period for
keeping records under the existing RFS program.
    Correction of Typographical Errors:
    No comments were received on our proposed corrections to
typographical errors, thus we are finalizing typographical and
grammatical corrections in Sec.  80.1466 as proposed. Specifically, we
are amending paragraph (o) to correct a typographical error in the last
sentence of the affirmation statement, by changing the citation from
Sec.  80.1465 to Sec.  80.1466. We are also amending paragraph
(d)(3)(ii) to correct a typographical error. The current regulation
cites Sec.  80.65(e)(2)(iii), which does not exist. The correct
citation is Sec.  80.65(f)(2)(iii).

V. Amendments to the E15 Misfueling Mitigation Rule

    In the NPRM, we proposed several minor corrections and other
changes to the E15 misfueling mitigation rule (E15 MMR) found at 40 CFR
part 80, subpart N.

A. Changes to Sec.  80.1501--Label

    We proposed to correct several minor errors in the description of
the E15 label required by the E15 MMR at Sec.  80.1501, including
corrections in the dimensions of the label and ensuring that the word
``ATTENTION'' is capitalized. The Agency intended the label required by
the regulations to look identical to that pictured in the Federal
Register notice for the final E15 MMR (see 76 FR 44406, 44418, July 25,
2011), but there were some minor typographical errors in the
regulations.
    We received a number of comments on the E15 label changes, and most
were supportive of the corrections to the regulations to make the label
consistent with the picture of the E15 label in the E15 MMR. However,
some comments expressed concerns about the potential costs to retail
stations already lawfully selling E15 with labels produced under the
current regulations. We recognize this concern; however, we do not
believe that this is an issue since EPA has worked closely with the
limited number of retail stations that have lawfully offered E15 to
date to ensure that their labels met the intent of the E15 MMR (i.e.,
were consistent with the label pictured in the E15 MMR).
    We also received several comments requesting that EPA make
substantive changes to the E15 label (e.g., change the word
``ATTENTION'' to ``WARNING''). The Agency thoroughly explained its
rationale for its label

design in the E15 MMR and was not intending to make substantive changes
to the E15 label in this rulemaking. We also received comments
suggesting additional labeling requirements for blender pumps. We
believe that these comments are outside of the scope of this
rulemaking.
    Therefore, we are finalizing the changes to the E15 labeling
regulations at Sec.  80.1501 as proposed.

B. Changes to Sec.  80.1502--E15 Survey

    We proposed two changes to the survey requirements found at Sec.
80.1502. First, we proposed to clarify that E15 surveys need to sample
for Reid vapor pressure (RVP) only during the high ozone season as
defined in Sec.  80.27(a)(2)(ii) or during any time RVP standards apply
in any state implementation plan approved or promulgated under the
Clean Air Act. EPA did not intend to require RVP sampling and testing
during the rest of the year, when RVP standards do not apply.
    Second, we proposed to change when the results of surveys that
detect potential noncompliance must be reported to the Agency. As
originally drafted, the regulations require the independent survey
association conducting a survey to notify EPA of potentially
noncompliant samples within 24 hours of the laboratory receiving this
sample (see 76 FR at 44423, July 25, 2011). EPA has since learned that
more time may be needed for reporting of noncompliant samples since it
may take several days for analysis of the sample to be completed. We
are therefore requiring that noncompliant samples be reported to EPA
within 24 hours of being analyzed.
    Comments received on these two changes to the E15 survey
requirements were overwhelmingly supportive. Therefore, EPA is
finalizing the changes to the E15 survey requirements in Sec.  80.1502
as proposed.

C. Changes to Sec.  80.1503--Product Transfer Documents

    In the NPRM, we proposed certain minor changes to the product
transfer document (PTD) requirements found in Sec.  80.1503.
Specifically, we proposed to allow the use of product codes for
conventional blendstock/gasoline upstream of an ethanol blending
facility, since historically, the codes have been allowed to be used
for conventional blendstock/gasoline upstream of an ethanol blending
facility in other fuels programs. We noted that this was an
unintentional omission from the original regulation.
    Commenters unanimously supported including language that allowed
the use of product codes for conventional blendstock/gasoline upstream
of an ethanol blending facility. Some commenters pointed out that
maintaining the current language allowing the use of product codes
downstream of an ethanol blending facility did not make sense since
product codes have not typically been used in that part of the gasoline
distribution chain. Therefore, we are finalizing the flexibility for
parties upstream of an ethanol blending facility to use product codes
and removing the extraneous language for product code use downstream of
an ethanol blending facility.
    We also received comment on whether this proposed change was in
response to a petition for reconsideration from the American Fuel and
Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) (formerly the National Petroleum
Refiners Association, or NPRA), which raised a number of questions
regarding the E15 MMR PTD requirements.\98\ Today's regulatory change
only addresses one of the questions that AFPM raised regarding the E15
MMR PTD requirements in its petition. Today's action was not meant to
address all of the questions raised by AFPM regarding the E15 MMR PTD
requirements. It should be noted that most of the questions raised in
AFPM's petition did not require changes to the regulations and were
simply questions on the implementation and applicability of the E15 MMR
requirements. For example, AFPM was unclear on what the wintertime PTD
requirements for gasoline/blendstocks upstream of an ethanol blending
facility are under the E15 MMR. These types of questions are typically
addressed through guidance provided to affected parties (either
directly or via guidance letters or the Fuels Program Frequent
Questions Web page) and do not necessitate a change to our regulations.
However, we may consider further changes to the E15 MMR PTD
requirements in a future rulemaking that address some or all of the
remaining questions raised in AFPM's petition for reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See September 15, 2011 letter from AFPM entitled, ``Request
for Partial Reconsideration of EPA's ``Misfueling Rule'' 76 FR 44406
(July 25, 2011),'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401-0041.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also sought comment on potential ways of streamlining the PTD
language required at Sec.  80.1503. We received one comment that
suggested substantial changes to the PTD language requirements. For
example, the commenter suggested removing most of the downstream RVP
language requirements that were intended to inform retail stations of
their summertime RVP requirements. The commenter pointed out that such
a streamlining of the PTD requirements in the E15 MMR would
significantly reduce compliance costs for industry. We feel that these
suggested changes would significantly alter the PTD language in such a
way that may no longer carry out our intent, which is to inform parties
throughout the gasoline distribution chain all the way down to the
retail station of their applicable regulatory requirements. Such
changes are outside the scope of today's rulemaking, which includes
only a minor technical change to the E15 MMR PTD requirements.
Therefore, we are not finalizing such changes at this time. Although we
are not engaging in a substantial streamlining of the PTD language
required at Sec.  80.1503 in today's action, we may revisit the
streamlining of E15 MMR PTD language in a future rulemaking.

D. Changes to Sec.  80.1504--Prohibited Acts

    In the NPRM, we proposed a slight rewording of Sec.  80.1504(g) to
state that blending E10 that has taken advantage of the statutory 1.0
psi RVP waiver during the summertime RVP control period with a
gasoline-ethanol fuel that cannot take advantage of the 1.0 psi RVP
waiver (i.e., a fuel that contains more than 10.0 volume percent
ethanol (e.g., E15) or less than 9 volume percent ethanol) would be a
violation of the E15 MMR. As originally written, the language does not
clearly describe the prohibited activity (see 76 FR 44435, 44436, July
25, 2011).
    We received no direct comments on this specific proposed change. We
did, however, receive comments suggesting that we expand the prohibited
activities language in Sec.  80.1504 to allow for the better
enforcement of ethanol content requirements at blender pumps. The
addition of new prohibited activities to Sec.  80.1504 is outside the
intended scope of today's action. Therefore we are finalizing the
slight rewording of the prohibited activities language of Sec.
80.1504(g) as proposed.

E. Changes to Sec.  80.1500--Definitions

    In response to the August 17, 2011 petition for reconsideration
submitted by NPRA, now AFPM, which requested the Agency, under CAA
section 307(d)(7)(B), reconsider certain portions of the E15 MMR, we
granted AFPM's petition for reconsideration on the issue of the
definitions of E10 and E15 in the E15 MMR. AFPM expressed concern

that the Agency had defined E10 and E15 in the E15 MMR in a way that
would change how ethanol concentrations are determined for regulatory
purposes. While EPA did not intend the definitions of E10 and E15 in
the E15 MMR to have this effect, we proposed changes to the regulations
to avoid this perceived impact. Specifically, we proposed to add a new
section, Sec.  80.1509, containing language that clearly states that
when ethanol concentrations are measured for compliance testing
purposes for 40 CFR part 80, subpart N, the applicable ethanol
concentration value will be rounded using the rounding procedures at
Sec.  80.9. We also proposed modifications to language throughout 40
CFR part 80, subpart N, to better reflect our intentions in defining
E10 and E15 in the E15 MMR, including a small revision to Sec.
80.1508.
    Comments received on this issue generally supported EPA's approach
to continue to allow the rounding of test results to determine whether
fuel samples had adhered to applicable ethanol content samples under
Sec.  80.9. One commenter suggested that EPA remove the remaining
decimal points to make the point more clearly that rounding applied to
the testing of fuels samples for ethanol content. Another commenter
argued that making such a change would allow parties to manufacture
gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing more than 10 volume percent
ethanol without taking appropriate measures to ensure that vehicles and
engines not covered by the E15 partial waiver decisions were not
misfueled by gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing more than 10
volume percent ethanol.
    We continue to believe that it is necessary to make our intent
clear that parties that blend gasoline-ethanol blended fuels with more
than 10 volume percent ethanol and up to 15 volume percent ethanol must
adhere to the requirements for such fuels under the E15 MMR. Our
approach will continue to enforce ethanol content standards as we have
in the past, through the appropriate use of rounding procedures
specified in the regulations under Sec.  80.9. We do not believe we
need to remove the decimal points from the proposed regulatory text
since we were careful to ensure that such language only appeared in
places where the blending of gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing
greater than 10 volume percent ethanol would necessitate further action
by the party manufacturing such fuel. Therefore, we are finalizing the
changes to the definitions of the E15 MMR and the new language under
Sec.  80.1509 as proposed. Additionally, in order to remain consistent
with requirements for evidence used to determine compliance with
requirements in other fuels programs, we are not finalizing the
proposed changes to Sec.  80.1508, which covers the evidence
responsible parties and the Agency can use to demonstrate compliance
with E15 MMR requirements.

VI. Amendments to the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) Survey

    In the NPRM, EPA proposed a reduction in the minimum sample size
for the ULSD survey program from 5,250 annual samples to 1,800
samples.\99\ We argued that compliance with the ULSD sulfur content
standard has been extremely high; less than 1% of the samples have been
in violation in recent years, and the use of the statistical formula in
the regulations would result in a sampling rate of several hundred
samples per quarter for each of the past several years, instead of
5,250 samples required annually. The cost difference between taking
several hundred samples a quarter versus taking over 5,000 samples
annually is significant. For these reasons we believed that the high
compliance rate and the substantial discrepancy between the sampling
rate calculated by the formula in the regulations and the minimum
sampling size justified our proposal of a minimum annual sampling rate
of 1,800 samples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ The ULSD rule includes a provision that deems branded
refiners liable for violations of the ULSD sulfur standard that are
found at retail outlets displaying the refiner's brand (40 CFR
80.612). The regulations include defense provisions. One element of
a branded refiner's defense to such violations is that it must have
a periodic sampling and testing program at the retail level (40 CFR
80.613(b) and (d)). The regulations also set forth an alternative
sampling and testing defense element provision for branded refiners.
This alternative defense element provision (40 CFR 80.613(e)) allows
a branded refiner to meet the company-specific downstream periodic
sampling and testing element of its defense by participating in a
survey consortium that pays an independent surveyor to sample diesel
fuel at retail outlets nationwide. The number of samples that are
taken each year is determined by a statistical formula that is based
in part on the previous year's compliance rate. In addition, the
regulations set a floor of 5,250 samples that must be taken in an
annual survey cycle regardless of the sample number that would be
calculated using the regulatory formula.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public comments received on the proposed reduction in sampling rate
were overwhelming supportive. Most comments suggested that EPA reduce
the minimum sampling rate for the ULSD program to the proposed rate of
1,800. However, some commenters suggested that we reduce the sample
size even further. Consistent with most comments, we are finalizing the
proposed rate of 1,800 samples per year. Since the program is based on
conducting four quarterly surveys, only about 450 samples are collected
to represent all retail stations offering diesel fuel, over 60,000
stations, nationwide each quarter. A further reduction in the sample
size may compromise the robustness of the survey program's ability to
detect non-compliance, even taking into account today's high compliance
rates. Although we acknowledge that a further reduction in the sample
size could reduce costs even further, there is a point where the number
of samples per year would be so few that the survey would be
meaningless relative to robust sampling and testing programs conducted
by each refiner individually. We feel that a rate of 1,800 samples
strikes the correct balance of ensuring compliance with ULSD standards
downstream while controlling costs for branded refiners that choose to
utilize the ULSD survey program as an alternative affirmative defense.
    Additionally, one commenter, citing high costs, suggested that we
remove the alternative affirmative defense altogether. It is important
to note that participation in the consortium that conducts the ULSD
survey is completely voluntary and the program provides each branded
refiner an alternative to conducting individual downstream sampling and
testing programs. We believe that as long as there is continued
interested by some branded refiners to take advantage of the ULSD
survey program alternative affirmative defense, we should maintain the
flexibility to allow those parties the ability to conduct such a survey
in lieu of individual downstream sampling and testing programs to
establish an affirmative defense to potential downstream violations.
    Therefore, today we are reducing the minimum annual sampling size
for the ULSD survey program from 5,250 samples to 1,800 samples.
However, we will continue to closely monitor national ULSD compliance
rates and branded refiner interest in maintaining the ULSD survey
program to determine whether further reduction in sample sizes is
necessary.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a

``significant regulatory action'' because it raises novel legal or
policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response
to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this
action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2469.01. A supporting statement for the ICR has
been placed in the docket. The information collection is described in
the following paragraphs. The following existing ICRs are being
amended: OMB numbers 2060-0639, 2060-0637, 2060-0640, and 2060-0675).
    This action contains recordkeeping and reporting that may affect
the following parties under the RFS regulation: RIN generators
(producers, importers), obligated parties (refiners), exporters, and
parties who own or transact RINs. We estimate that 670 parties may be
subject to the information collection. We estimate an annual
recordkeeping and reporting burden of 3.1 hours per respondent. This
action contains recordkeeping and reporting that may affect the
following parties under the E15 regulation: Gasoline refiners, gasoline
and ethanol importers, gasoline and ethanol blenders (including
terminals and carriers). We estimate that 2,000 respondents may be
subject to the information collection. We estimate an annual
recordkeeping and reporting burden of 1.3 hours per respondent. Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review the instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transit or otherwise disclose the information. Burden is as defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
amendments to the RFS provisions in this final rule allow for
additional opportunities for parties to participate in the RFS program
by producing qualifying fuel if they choose to, clarify existing
provisions, remove the possibility of exemptions for entities that are
no longer small entities due to growth in their business, or make
relatively minor corrections and modifications to these regulations.
The various changes to the E15 misfueling mitigation regulations are
relatively minor corrections and should not place any additional burden
on small entities. The reduction in the required sample size for the
voluntary ULSD survey program should reduce the burden of any small
entity that elects to participate in the ULSD survey program.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
We have determined that this action will not result in expenditures of
$100 million or more for the above parties and thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. It only applies to
gasoline, diesel fuel, and renewable fuel producers, importers,
distributors and marketers and makes relatively minor corrections and
modifications to the RFS and diesel regulations.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action only applies to
gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors
and marketers. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed action
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It applies to
gasoline, diesel fuel, and renewable fuel producers, importers,
distributors and marketers. This action does not impose any enforceable
duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Tribal governments
would be affected only to the extent they purchase and use regulated
fuels. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action,
EPA specifically solicited comment from tribal officials in developing
this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This action amends existing regulations
related to renewable fuel, E15, and ultra-low sulfur diesel. We have
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy
effects. In fact, we expect this rule may result in positive effects,
because many of the changes we are finalizing will facilitate the
introduction of new renewable fuels under the RFS program and have come
at the suggestion of industry stakeholders.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The regulations permit the use of an analytical method certified by
a voluntary consensus standard body in order for certain producers to
comply with applicable registration requirements. Producers of
renewable fuel made from energy cane and producers of renewable fuel
made using two or more feedstocks converted simultaneously, when at
least one of the feedstocks does not have a minimum 75% average
adjusted cellulosic content, and at least one of which is a pathway
producing RINs with a D code of 3 or a D code of 7 using a process
described in Sec.  80.1426(f)(15)(i)(A) or Sec.  80.1426(f)(15)(i)(B),
must obtain data used to calculate the cellulosic converted fraction
using an analytical method certified by a voluntary consensus standards
body or using a method that would produce reasonably accurate results
as demonstrated through peer reviewed references provided to the third
party engineer performing the engineering review at registration. The
Agency therefore believes this rulemaking is consistent with the
requirements of the NTTAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994)
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. These technical
amendments do not relax the control measures on sources regulated by
the RFS regulations and therefore will not cause emissions increases
from these sources.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective August 18, 2014.

L. Clean Air Act Section 307(d)

    This rule is subject to section 307(d) of the CAA. Section
307(d)(7)(B) provides that ``[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure
which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for
public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during
judicial review.'' This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA
to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to
raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the
grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment
(but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any
person seeking to make such a demonstration to the EPA should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, William Jefferson Clinton Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s)
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and
the Director of the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.

VIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for this action comes from section 211 of the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545. Additional support for the procedural
and compliance related aspects of this rule, including the
recordkeeping requirements, comes from sections 114, 208, and 301(a) of
the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7542, and 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agriculture, Air pollution control, Confidential business information,
Energy, Forest and forest products, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports,
Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 2, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545 and 7601(a).

Subpart I--[Amended]

0
2. Section 80.613 is amended by revising the ``Where'' statement
defining the value of ``n'' in paragraph (e)(4)(v)(A) to read as
follows:

Sec.  80.613  What defenses apply to persons deemed liable for a
violation of a prohibited act under this subpart?

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (A) * * *

Where:

n = minimum number of samples in a year-long survey series. However,
in no case shall n be larger than 9,600 or smaller than 1,800.

* * * * *

Subpart M--[Amended]

0
3. Section 80.1401 is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding the definitions of ``Adjusted cellulosic content'',
``Agricultural digester,'' ``Nameplate capacity'', ``Renewable
compressed natural gas'', and``Renewable liquefied natural gas'' in
alphabetical order.
0
b. By revising the definitions of ``Biogas'', ``Crop residue'',
``Energy cane'', ``Naphtha'', ``Renewable biomass'', and ``Small
refinery''.

Sec.  80.1401  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Adjusted cellulosic content means the percent of organic material
that is cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin.
* * * * *
    Agricultural digester means an anaerobic digester that processes
predominantly cellulosic materials, including animal manure, crop
residues, and/or separated yard waste.
* * * * *
    Biogas means a mixture of hydrocarbons that is a gas at 60 degrees
Fahrenheit and 1 atmosphere of pressure that is produced through the
anaerobic digestion of organic matter.
* * * * *
    Crop residue means biomass left over from the harvesting or
processing of planted crops from existing agricultural land and any
biomass removed from existing agricultural land that facilitates crop
management (including biomass removed from such lands in relation to
invasive species control or fire management), whether or not the
biomass includes any portion of a crop or crop plant. Biomass is
considered crop residue only if the use of that biomass for the
production of renewable fuel has no significant impact on demand for
the feedstock crop, products produced from that feedstock crop, and all
substitutes for the crop and its products, nor any other impact that
would result in a significant increase in direct or indirect GHG
emissions.
* * * * *
    Energy cane means a complex hybrid in the Saccharum genus that has
been bred to maximize cellulosic rather than sugar content. For the
purposes of this subpart:
    (1) Energy cane excludes the species Saccharum spontaneum, but may
include hybrids derived from S. spontaneum that have been developed and
publicly released by USDA; and
    (2) Energy cane only includes cultivars that have, on average, at
least 75% adjusted cellulosic content on a dry mass basis.
* * * * *
    Nameplate capacity means the peak design capacity of a facility for
the purposes of registration of a facility under Sec.
80.1450(b)(1)(v)(C).
    Naphtha means a blendstock or fuel blending component falling
within the boiling range of gasoline which is composed of only
hydrocarbons, is commonly or commercially known as naphtha and is used
to produce gasoline through blending.
* * * * *
    Renewable biomass means each of the following (including any
incidental, de minimis contaminants that are impractical to remove and
are related to customary feedstock production and transport):
    (1) Planted crops and crop residue harvested from existing
agricultural land cleared or cultivated prior to December 19, 2007 and
that was nonforested and either actively managed or fallow on December
19, 2007.
    (2) Planted trees and tree residue from a tree plantation located
on non-federal land (including land belonging to an Indian tribe or an
Indian individual that is held in trust by the U.S. or subject to a
restriction against alienation imposed by the U.S.) that was cleared at
any time prior to December 19, 2007 and actively managed on December
19, 2007.
    (3) Animal waste material and animal byproducts.
    (4) Slash and pre-commercial thinnings from non-federal forestland
(including forestland belonging to an Indian tribe or an Indian
individual, that are held in trust by the United States or subject to a
restriction against alienation imposed by the United States) that is
not ecologically sensitive forestland.
    (5) Biomass (organic matter that is available on a renewable or
recurring basis) obtained from within 200 feet of buildings and other
areas regularly occupied by people, or of public infrastructure, in an
area at risk of wildfire.
    (6) Algae.
    (7) Separated yard waste or food waste, including recycled cooking
and trap grease, and materials described in Sec.  80.1426(f)(5)(i).
    Renewable compressed natural gas (CNG) means biogas or biogas-
derived pipeline quality gas that is compressed for use as
transportation fuel and meets the definition of renewable fuel.
* * * * *
    Renewable liquefied natural gas (LNG) means biogas or biogas-
derived pipeline quality gas that goes through the process of
liquefaction in which it is cooled below its boiling point, and which
meets the definition of renewable fuel.
* * * * *
    Small refinery means a refinery for which the average aggregate
daily crude oil throughput (as determined by dividing the aggregate
throughput for the calendar year by the number of days in the calendar
year) does not exceed 75,000 barrels.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 80.1415 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (c)(1)
to read as follows:

Sec.  80.1415  How are equivalence values assigned to renewable fuel?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) 77,000 Btu (lower heating value) of compressed natural gas
(CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) shall represent one gallon of
renewable fuel with an equivalence value of 1.0.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The equivalence value for renewable fuels described in
paragraph (b)(7) of this section shall be calculated using the
following formula:

EV = (R/0.972) * (EC/77,000)

Where:

EV = Equivalence Value for the renewable fuel, rounded to the