[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80828-80980]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25292]

Vol. 81

Wednesday,

No. 221

November 16, 2016

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 79 and 80

Renewables Enhancement and Growth Support Rule; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2016 /
Proposed Rules

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 79 and 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0041; FRL-9953-79-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS66

Renewables Enhancement and Growth Support Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
proposing to update both its renewable fuels and other fuels
regulations to reflect changes in the marketplace and to promote the
growing use of both ethanol fuels (conventional and advanced) and non-
ethanol advanced and cellulosic biofuels. The EPA is proposing to make
several changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program
regulations that would align them with recent developments in the
marketplace to increase production of cellulosic and other advanced
biofuels. There are several companies that have developed renewable
fuel production technologies that produce a ``biointermediate'' at one
facility that is then processed into renewable fuel at another
facility, and we are proposing regulatory changes to allow fuels
produced through such methods to qualify under existing approved
renewable fuel production pathways. This action also proposes to update
our fuel regulations by defining fuel blends containing 16 to 83 volume
percent ethanol as ethanol flex fuel (EFF) and to no longer treat fuel
blends containing 16 to 50 volume percent ethanol as gasoline. The EPA
is proposing environmentally protective fuel quality specifications for
EFF that are consistent with those already in place for gasoline. In
this action we are also proposing new pathways for cellulosic biofuel
produced from short-rotation trees and for renewable diesel and
biodiesel produced from non-cellulosic portions of separated food
waste. We are also proposing to add new registration, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements for facilities using carbon capture and
storage if we were to approve the use of this technology in future
assessments of proposed pathways for producing qualifying renewable
fuel. We are also seeking comment on how best to implement and/or
revise the RFS regulations pertaining to the generation of RINs for
renewable electricity used as transportation fuel. Finally, we are
proposing a number of other regulatory changes, clarifications, and
technical corrections to the RFS program and other fuels regulations.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before January 17,
2017. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the
information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your
comments on or before December 16, 2016. Hearings. The EPA will hold a
public hearing on this proposal. Details will be provided in a separate
announcement.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0041, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or withdrawn from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia MacAllister, Assessment and
Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

BOB blendstock for oxygenate blending
CAA Clean Air Act
CBOB conventional blendstock for oxygenate blending
CCS carbon capture and storage
CDX Central Data Exchange
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CG conventional gasoline
CHONS carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur
CNG compressed natural gas
DFE denatured fuel ethanol
EFF ethanol flex fuel
EMTS EPA Moderated Transaction System
EXX gasoline-ethanol blends containing XX percent ethanol
F&FA Fuel and Fuel Additive
FFV Flexible fuel vehicle
GHG greenhouse gas
LNG liquid natural gas
PTD product transfer document
QAP quality assurance plan
RBOB reformulated blendstock for oxygenate blending
RFG reformulated gasoline
RFS Renewable Fuel Standard
RIN Renewable Identification Number
RVO Renewable Volume Obligation
RVP Reid vapor pressure
SRT short-rotation tree
VCSB voluntary consensus standard body
WPC wholesale purchaser consumer

Outline of This Preamble

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
II. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What action is the agency taking?
    C. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?
    D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?
III. Biointermediates
    A. Background
    B. Definition of Biointermediate
    C. Implications of Using Biointermediates for Lifecycle GHG
Assessments
    D. Applicable Pathways Involving Biointermediates and RIN
Generation
    E. Number of Parties Allowed To Make a Given Biointermediate,
and Their Potential Liability for Violations
    F. Additional Registration, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements That Apply When a Biointermediate Is Used To Produce
Renewable Fuel
    G. Product Transfer Documents
    H. Prohibited Activities and Liability in Cases Where a
Biointermediate Is Not a Valid Feedstock
    I. Attest Engagements for Biointermediate Producers
    J. Quality Assurance Plans for Biointermediates
    K. Foreign Biointermediate Producer Requirements
    L. Interim Implementation Program
IV. Standards for Ethanol Flex Fuel
    A. Current EFF Regulatory Landscape
    B. Key Requirements Proposed for EFF and Producers of Gasoline
at Blender Pumps
    C. Standards for Ethanol Flex Fuel
    D. Certification of Ethanol Flex Fuel
    E. Requirements for E15 Gasoline Blender Pump-Refiners
    F. Compliance Provisions
    G. Simplified EFF Alternatives

    H. Statutory Authority for Proposed EFF Requirements
V. CCS Implementation Under the RFS Program
    A. Background
    B. Existing Regulatory Frameworks Related to CCS
    C. Proposed Requirements for Use of CCS in Renewable Fuel
Production
    D. Lifecycle GHG Emissions Analysis of Renewable Fuel Produced
in Conjunction With CCS
VI. Renewable Fuels Produced From Short-Rotation Trees
    A. Background and Scope of Analysis
    B. Overview of Short-Rotation Tree Systems
    C. Analysis of Lifecycle GHG Emissions
    D. Proposed Regulations
VII. Generating RINs for Renewable Electricity
    A. Background
    B. Data Requirements for Generating RINs for Renewable
Electricity
    C. Potential Program Structures
    D. Equivalence Value and Other Issues Related to Generating RINs
for Renewable Electricity
VIII. Other Revisions to the RFS Program
    A. RVO Reporting
    B. Oil From Corn Oil Extraction
    C. Allowing Production of Biomass-Based Diesel From Separated
Food Waste
    D. Registration of New and Expanded Grandfathered Volumes
    E. Flexibilities for Renewable Fuel Blending for Military Use
    F. Heating Oil Used for Cooling
    G. Separated Food Waste Plans
    H. RFS Facility Ownership Changes
    I. Changes to the Requirements for Independent Third-Party
Professional Engineers and Electronic Submission of Engineering
Reviews
    J. Additional Registration Deactivation Justifications
    K. Registration of Biogas Producers
    L. New RIN Retirement Section
    M. New Pathway for Co-Processing Biomass With Petroleum To
Produce Cellulosic Diesel, Jet Fuel, and Heating Oil
    N. Vegetable Oil as Feedstock and Renewable Fuel
    O. Public Access to Information
    P. Grandfathered Facilities
    Q. Changes to Bond Requirement for Foreign Producers
    R. Redesignation of Renewable Fuel on a PTD for Non-Qualifying
Uses
IX. Other Revisions to the Fuels Program
    A. Testing Revisions
    B. Oxygenate Added Downstream in Tier 3
    C. Technical Corrections and Clarifications
X. Economic Impacts
    A. What are the benefits?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations, and Low-Income
Populations

    A red-line version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0041).

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is committed to taking
steps to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). This commitment
is based on several charges given to the EPA, such as the Climate
Action Plan announced by President Obama in June 2013,\1\ the Paris
Agreement reached at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference
in December 2015,\2\ and the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program
required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Since more than 70 percent of
the fossil oil used in the U.S.\3\ and 28 percent of GHG emissions \4\
come from the transportation sector, the EPA has developed a number of
regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles and
engines. These programs have targeted both the efficiency of vehicles
and engines as well as their use of renewable fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The White House, ``The President's Climate Action Plan,''
June 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan.
    \2\ The White House, ``U.S. Leadership and the Historic Paris
Agreement to Combat Climate Change,'' December 2015, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/12/us-leadership-and-historic-paris-agreement-combat-climate-change.
    \3\ The White House, ``Improving the Fuel Efficiency of American
Trucks--Bolstering Energy Security, Cutting Carbon Pollution, Saving
Money and Supporting Manufacturing Innovation,'' p. 2, February
2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/finaltrucksreport.pdf.
    \4\ U.S. EPA, ``Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2012,'' EPA 430-R-14-003, April 2014, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2014-Main-Text.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fundamental objective of the RFS program under the CAA is to
increase the use of renewable fuels in the U.S. transportation system
every year through at least 2022. These fuels include corn starch
ethanol, the predominant biofuel in use to date, but Congress
envisioned the growth beyond 2015 to come from cellulosic and other
advanced biofuels that are required to have lower GHG emissions on a
lifecycle basis than conventional (non-advanced) biofuels.\5\ Since the
initial promulgation of the RFS regulations in 2007, domestic
production and use of renewable fuel volumes in the U.S. has increased
substantially. According to the Energy Information Administration
(EIA), fuel ethanol production in the U.S. more than doubled in volume
from approximately 6.5 billion gallons in 2007 to about 14.8 billion
gallons in 2015.\6\ Growth in biodiesel and renewable diesel production
in the U.S. has increased more than two and a half times, from
approximately 0.5 billion gallons in 2007 \7\ to 1.43 billion gallons
in 2015.\8\ Currently, nearly all of the approximately 138 billion
gallons of gasoline used for transportation purposes contains 10
percent ethanol (E10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Conventional biofuels are those that achieve less than a 50
percent reduction in GHG emissions.
    \6\ EIA, ``Monthly Energy Review,'' Table 10.3, April 2016,
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec10_7.pdf.
    \7\ 2007 volume represents biodiesel only. EIA, ``Monthly Energy
Review,'' Table 10.4, April 2016, http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec10_8.pdf.
    \8\ 2014 volume represents biodiesel and renewable diesel
production from EMTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, real-world limitations, such as the slower than
predicted development of the cellulosic biofuel industry, less growth
in gasoline use than was expected when Congress enacted the RFS
provisions in 2007, and the ``E10 blendwall,'' \9\ have made the
timeline for growth in renewable fuel use laid out by Congress
difficult to achieve. These challenges remain, even as we recognize the
success of the program over the past decade in boosting renewable fuel
use and the recent significant signs of progress towards development of
increasing volumes of advanced, low-emitting GHG fuels, including
cellulosic biofuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The ``E10 blendwall'' represents the volume of ethanol that
can be consumed domestically if all gasoline contains 10 percent
ethanol and there are no higher-level ethanol blends consumed such
as E15 or E85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to continue the progress made in promoting the use of
renewable fuels in the transportation sector, we believe it is
important to take steps to remove potential barriers to their
production, distribution, and consumption where such actions make
sense. To this end, we have identified a number of areas where
adjustments to

the regulatory provisions may be warranted. Some of the proposed
regulatory changes would support the increased use of higher-level
ethanol blends such as E85, while others would promote increased
production of cellulosic and other advanced biofuels.
    We are also proposing a number of other changes to the RFS
regulations and other fuel regulations to streamline them, provide
clarifications, and make technical corrections.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

1. Biointermediates
    Since the RFS2 program was finalized in 2010, we have been made
increasingly aware of renewable fuel producers that would like to
process fuel at more than one facility. In some cases, it may be
preferable for economic or practical reasons for renewable biomass to
be subjected to substantial pre-processing at one facility before being
sent to a different facility where it is converted into renewable fuel.
For example, renewable biomass may be converted into a proto-renewable
fuel (such as a bio-oil) at one facility that requires some additional
processing at a different facility before it can be used as
transportation fuel. These production methodologies have the potential
to lower the cost of using cellulosic and other feedstocks for the
production of renewable fuels by reducing the storage and
transportation costs associated with feedstock handling--especially for
cellulosic biomass. Thus, we believe that such technologies hold
considerable promise for the future growth in production of the
cellulosic biofuels required under the RFS program. However, we did not
envision significant fuel production operations occurring over multiple
facilities in drafting the existing regulations, and regulatory changes
are necessary to both generally allow such practices, and to provide
the necessary registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements
that will facilitate appropriate oversight by the EPA.
    We believe that increasing use of these ``biointermediates'' will
likely provide an important component of the growth in renewable fuel
production in the future, particularly for advanced and cellulosic
biofuels. We are proposing changes in the RFS regulations to clearly
specify requirements that apply when renewable fuel is produced through
sequential operations at more than one facility. These changes center
around the production, transfer, and use of biointermediates and the
creation of new regulatory requirements related to registration,
recordkeeping, and reporting for facilities producing or using a
biointermediate for renewable fuel production. The new requirements on
the biointermediate producer would be similar to those already required
for renewable fuel producers.
2. Ethanol Flex Fuel
    In the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (``Tier
3'') final rule, the EPA finalized new standards for passenger
vehicles, including flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs), and more stringent
gasoline sulfur standards to enable those standards to be achieved.\10\
In addition, the EPA finalized requirements for test fuels used in
certifying FFVs. At the same time, the EPA deferred finalizing in-use
fuel quality standards for higher-level ethanol blends used in
FFVs.\11\ As discussed in the Tier 3 proposal, the current regulations
and requirements for E51-83 \12\ (historically referred to as E85 \13\)
are inadequate, unclear, and out of date given recent changes to market
practices.\14\ While there are no standards specified in our current
regulations for E51-83, the historically approved practice of blending
E51-83 from just denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) and certified gasoline
and gasoline blendstocks for oxygenate blending (BOBs) virtually
ensured the resulting blend met the gasoline fuel specifications.
However, other less-expensive blendstocks such as natural gasoline are
currently available in the marketplace for which this is not
necessarily true. Allowing the use of natural gasoline blendstock to
produce E85 could lower the cost and increase the use of E85. Also,
E16-50 blends are considered gasoline under the EPA's current
regulations and are subject to all of the EPA regulatory requirements
that apply to gasoline, even though such blends currently may only be
used in FFVs. The gasoline refiner requirements also extend to service
stations when E16-50 is produced at blender pumps. Gasoline refiners
produce gasoline by refining crude oil or by mixing blendstocks of
undefined quality in large volumes.\15\ Hence, they are required to
demonstrate compliance with EPA gasoline quality standards by testing
each batch. However, these sampling, testing, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements are not suited to fuel retail. The purpose of
this proposal is to ensure the quality of E16-83 blends used in FFVs
and FFV emissions control performance while clearing the path for the
greater use of E16-83 blends by aligning the EPA's fuel regulations
with the current dynamics in the marketplace and making it clear which
marketplace practices are and are not consistent with those
regulations. We are proposing to refer to all higher level ethanol
blends (E16-83) that may only be used in FFVs as ethanol flex fuel
(EFF) and to regulate these blends in the same fashion.\16\ We request
comment on the proposed naming convention for E16-83 blends. This
proposal allows several streamlined processes for certain parties that
produce EFF to demonstrate compliance with the proposed standards.
Parties that use these streamlined approaches would still be liable for
standards violations, unless they could demonstrate that they met the
affirmative defenses set forth in the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 79 FR 23529 (April 28, 2014). FFVs are designed to
operate on any gasoline-ethanol blend from 0 volume percent ethanol
(E0) to 83 volume percent ethanol (E83).
    \11\ See 79 FR 23414, 23558 (April 28, 2014).
    \12\ E51-83 refers to gasoline-ethanol blends that contain from
51 volume percent to 83 volume percent ethanol.
    \13\ ``E85'' refers is to the maximum potential concentration of
DFE in an E51-83 blend, assuming a 2 percent denaturant
concentration in the DFE used to make E51-83. Industry consensus
standards for E51-83 are found in ASTM D5798-14, ``Standard
Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive
Spark-Ignition Engines.''
    \14\ See 78 FR 29818 (May 21, 2013) and ``Possible Approach to
Fuel Quality Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible-Fuel Automotive
Spark-Ignition Vehicles (FFVs)'' (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0135-0529).
    \15\ The terms ``refinery'' and ``refiner'' are defined in 40
CFR 80.2(h) and (i), respectively.
    \16\ We understand that some parties currently refer to E51-83
as EFF. We believe that it will resolve confusion to refer to all
higher level ethanol blends that may only be used in FFVs as EFF. In
2011, the EPA issued a partial waiver to allow 15 volume percent
ethanol to be used in 2001 and later light duty motor vehicles
(i.e., conventional gasoline vehicles). See 76 FR 4662 (January 26,
2011). Should a similar waiver be issued in the future to allow the
use of an ethanol blend greater than E15 (e.g., E20) in conventional
gasoline vehicles, such a blend would no longer be regulated as EFF
and would be subject to the requirements for gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FFVs are vehicles that are designed to operate on any gasoline-
ethanol mixture between pure gasoline (E0) and 85 percent denatured
ethanol (E85). FFVs have been manufactured and introduced into commerce
since 1996, and represent more than 6 percent of the current vehicle
fleet and approximately 25 percent of new light-duty vehicles produced
in 2014. Given that FFVs tend to be newer vehicles that are driven more
than older vehicles, FFVs account for nearly 8 percent of all light-
duty vehicle miles traveled.\17\ However, the vast majority of fuel
used in FFVs is currently gasoline.\18\ Although the

volume of EFF blends currently used in FFVs is relatively small, it
could increase substantially in the future in response to the EPA's RFS
program. FFVs are equipped with the same type of emission control
systems as are conventional gasoline vehicles.\19\ Hence, whether FFVs
are operating on E0, E85, or any level of ethanol in between, to
maintain emission performance the vehicles still need the fuel to meet
quality specifications consistent with those for gasoline, such as the
10 ppm average sulfur standard in the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur
program,\20\ the 0.62 volume percent average benzene standard in the
gasoline benzene program,\21\ and a Reid vapor pressure (RVP)
consistent with that for which the vehicle was designed. Although FFVs
are equipped with the same type of evaporative emissions control
systems as conventional gasoline vehicles, such systems on FFVs are
designed for higher volatility fuel. Thus, FFVs can tolerate somewhat
higher volatility fuel than gasoline while delivering the same level of
evaporative emissions control compared to conventional gasoline
vehicles.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EIA, ``2015 Annual Energy Outlook,'' http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf.
    \18\ In the RFS annual rulemaking for the 2014-2016 standards,
we estimated that 150 million gallons of EFF was used in FFVs in
2014 compared to the use of approximately 139 billion gallons of
gasoline for transportation purposes. See 80 FR 77420 (December 14,
2015).
    \19\ We use the term ``conventional gasoline vehicles'' in this
preamble to refer to conventional vehicles that are designed to
operate on gasoline.
    \20\ See 40 CFR part 80, subpart O.
    \21\ See 40 CFR part 80, subpart L.
    \22\ See 40 CFR part 80, subpart B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By broadening the range of blendstocks that can be used to produce
EFF, and thereby providing the opportunity for the production of lower
cost EFF, this proposal encourages increased use of EFF. We anticipate
that the volume of higher-level ethanol blends used in FFVs will
increase substantially as the volume requirements of the RFS increase,
and this proposal is intended to support this growth. Public and
private initiatives are also currently underway to expand the use of
blender pumps that dispense a variety of gasoline-ethanol blends for
use in FFVs.\23\ Therefore, it is becoming increasingly important that
all fuels used in FFVs, not just gasoline, meet fuel quality standards.
Regulations specifically crafted to regulate fuels used in FFVs should
help to facilitate further expansion of ethanol blended fuels, which is
important in satisfying the requirements of the RFS program. For these
reasons, we believe it is important that clear quality standards apply
to any fuel used in an FFV, including sulfur, benzene, RVP, and
composing only of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur, or
``CHONS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Blender pumps make mid-level ethanol blends by mixing two
parent blends stored in different storage tanks. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership, with
public and private funding of $210 million, is targeting the
installation of nearly 4,900 EFF retail dispensers during 2016, the
majority of which are anticipated to be blender pumps. Growth Energy
has a ``Blend Your Own Ethanol'' program to encourage the
installation of ethanol blender pumps that dispense a range of
ethanol blend levels for use in FFVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that the focus and application of this
proposal is on the requirements for fuels used in FFVs. However, we are
also separately proposing streamlined compliance provisions regarding
the production of E15 at blender pumps. Apart from these proposed
streamlined provisions for the production of gasoline at blender pumps,
the EPA's existing fuel regulations, including waiver provisions, would
continue to apply for fuels used in gasoline- and diesel-powered
vehicles. For example, the EPA would need to approve a new waiver
request for E16 or other higher-level ethanol blends to be used in
gasoline vehicles.
3. Other Proposed Amendments to the RFS and Fuels Programs
    In this action we are also proposing a number of amendments to the
RFS regulations. First, the EPA is proposing registration,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that we would use if we were
to allow carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a lifecycle GHG emissions
reduction technology in the context of the RFS program.\24\ The capture
and geologic sequestration of the carbon dioxide (CO2)
produced from ethanol fermentation, for example, could substantially
reduce the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the production of
the renewable fuel. As discussed in section V of this preamble, this
proposal relies substantially on other relevant EPA regulatory programs
already in place concerning sequestration of CO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ While we are not proposing to add a generally applicable
CCS technology to an approved pathway in the RFS regulations, we do
believe it is appropriate to propose the necessary registration,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that would generally
govern the use of CCS if and when such a pathway is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we are proposing to approve new pathways for the production
of cellulosic fuels using short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow trees
as a feedstock. These new pathways would allow for ethanol and naphtha
produced from these feedstocks to qualify for cellulosic biofuel (D-
code 3) RINs, and for diesel, jet fuel, and heating oil produced from
these feedstocks to qualify for cellulosic biomass-based diesel (D-code
7) RINs. As discussed in section VI of this preamble, our analysis
shows that fuel produced from short-rotation hybrid poplar and willow
trees using a variety of processing technologies meets the 60 percent
GHG emissions reduction threshold needed to qualify for cellulosic
biofuel (D-code 3) RINs and cellulosic biomass-based diesel (D-code 7)
RINs.
    Third, we are seeking comment on several potential approaches for
the generation of RINs for electricity that is produced from biogas and
used as a transportation fuel. The EPA has received a number of
registration requests for approval under the existing RFS regulations
and these requests envision generation of RINs by different types of
entities in the renewable electricity production, distribution or use
sectors, using different types of information to verify the use of
renewable electricity as transportation fuel. Given the diversity of
the registration requests submitted to date, and the necessity of
avoiding the generation of multiple RINs for the same quantity of
electricity, the approval of any one of these proposed systems may
preclude in whole or in part the approval of others. As discussed in
section VII of this preamble, the EPA seeks input on the approach to
RIN generation for renewable electricity that would best further the
goals of the RFS program, but does not propose a preferred approach.
    We are also proposing to make several additional revisions to the
RFS regulations, which include:
New and Revised Provisions Related to Renewable Fuel Production
Pathways
     Clarifying what corn oil may be used as a feedstock for
existing renewable fuel production pathways and revising the definition
of ``corn oil extraction.''
     Approving new pathways for the production of renewable
diesel and biodiesel from non-cellulosic portions of separated food
waste.
     Expanding the current definition of heating oil to include
fuels that are used to cool interior spaces of homes or buildings.
     Revising the requirements for separated food waste plans.
     Approving a new pathway for the production of cellulosic
diesel, jet fuel, and heating oil from cellulosic biomass that is co-
processed with petroleum.
     Revising the requirements for the generation of RINs for
fuel made from vegetable oils.

Miscellaneous Regulatory Revisions
     Requiring obligated parties to report the breakdown of
gasoline, diesel, and heating oil production as part of their annual
compliance reports.
     Establishing a cut-off date for the submission of
registration requests related to new or expanded baseline volumes that
are exempt from the GHG reduction thresholds.
     Allowing parties that blend renewable fuel to produce
transportation fuel under a national security exemption (NSE) to
delegate to an upstream party the Renewable Identification Number
(RIN)-related responsibilities.
     Revising and clarifying the requirements for renewable
fuel producers incident to the transfer of ownership of a registered
renewable fuel production facility.
     Modifying the requirements for third-party engineers that
perform engineering reviews for renewable fuel producers.
     Adding additional circumstances that may justify action by
EPA to deactivate a company's RFS registration.
     Requiring biogas producers whose biogas is used to produce
renewable electricity, compressed natural gas (CNG), or liquid natural
gas (LNG) to register with the EPA.
     Consolidating the requirements for RIN retirement into a
new section in the RFS regulations.
     Specifying what RIN transactional information and RFS
compliance information that is submitted through EMTS is entitled to
treatment as CBI, and that certain RIN-related information cannot be
claimed as CBI when it is central to describing specified actions by
the EPA (including decisions by the EPA on small refinery and small
refiner hardship petitions), and EPA enforcement-related actions such
as notices of violations and criminal indictments.
     Specifying the types of feedstocks that can be used at
grandfathered facilities to produce qualifying renewable fuel that is
exempt from the 20 percent lifecycle GHG reduction requirement.
     Removing the option for RIN-generating foreign producers
to pay the required bond amount to the U.S. Treasury instead of
obtaining a bond in the proper amount from a third-party surety agent.
     Addressing situations where a party is aware that
renewable fuel it intends to transfer will be used for purposes other
than as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel.
     Making numerous technical corrections that update
addresses, references, and other minor edits.
    Finally, we note that we may choose to finalize some or all of the
amendments contained in this proposed rulemaking.

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule are those
involved with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation
fuels, including gasoline and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such as
ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and biogas. Potentially regulated
categories include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Category                       NAICS \1\ code          Examples of potentially affected entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.............................  211112......................  Natural gas liquids extraction and
                                                                      fractionation.
Industry.............................  211112, 324110..............  Ethanol denaturant manufacturers.
Industry.............................  221117......................  Biomass electric power generation.
Industry.............................  221210......................  Manufactured gas production and
                                                                      distribution.
Industry.............................  324110......................  Petroleum refineries (including importers).
Industry.............................  325110......................  Butane and pentane manufacturers.
Industry.............................  325193......................  Ethyl alcohol manufacturing.
Industry.............................  325199......................  Other basic organic chemical manufacturing.
Industry.............................  325199......................  Manufacturers of gasoline and E85
                                                                      additives.
Industry.............................  336111, 336112..............  Light-duty vehicle and light-duty truck
                                                                      manufacturers.
Industry.............................  424690......................  Chemical and allied products merchant
                                                                      wholesalers.
Industry.............................  424710, 424720..............  Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals;
                                                                      Petroleum and Petroleum Products
                                                                      Wholesalers.
Industry.............................  447110, 447190..............  Fuel Retailers.
Industry.............................  454310......................  Other fuel dealers.
Industry.............................  486910......................  Natural gas liquids pipelines, refined
                                                                      petroleum products pipelines.
Industry.............................  493190......................  Other warehousing and storage--bulk
                                                                      petroleum storage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2012 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in the referenced regulations. If
you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What action is the agency taking?

    In this action, the EPA is taking steps to bring our RFS and
gasoline regulations more in line with marketplace changes in an effort
to further advance the goals of the RFS program by facilitating the
production and use of renewable fuels in the transportation sector. As
discussed in section III of the preamble, we are proposing changes to
the RFS regulations to generally allow the use of biointermediates in
renewable fuel production, thereby facilitating the increased
production of renewable fuels, including cellulosic and other advanced
biofuels. As discussed in section IV of this preamble, we are proposing
standards that will address the public health and welfare effects of
EFF and its impact on emissions control devices on FFVs and FFV engines
under CAA section 211(c). Our proposed provisions would support the
increased production and use of higher-level ethanol blends by treating
all E16-83 as EFF (instead of continuing to treat E16-50 as gasoline),
implement new environmentally protective fuel quality specifications
for EFF, and allow for the use of lower cost blendstocks in EFF,
thereby advancing the goals of the RFS program by facilitating the
increased use of ethanol in transportation fuel and, in particular, at
levels beyond those associated with the use of E10 alone. Finally, as
discussed in sections V, VI,

VII, VIII, and IX of this preamble, we are also proposing a number of
other regulatory changes to the RFS program and fuel regulations that
would add new pathways, reduce opportunities for parties to commit RIN
fraud, provide clarification to existing regulations, and make a number
of technical corrections.

C. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Statutory authority for this action comes from Clean Air Act
sections 203-205, 208, 211, and 301.

D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?

    Through the proposed provisions for EFF, biointermediates, and new
renewable fuel production pathways, this action would provide
significant regulatory flexibility, streamlined compliance provisions,
and the opportunity for increased biofuel production at reduced cost.
As we are primarily providing parties with new flexibilities to produce
EFF or renewable fuel, we expect that parties would only elect to take
advantage of these proposed flexibilities if the potential economic
benefits outweigh the added cost. We expect that, in general, the cost
savings associated with these new provisions would far outweigh any
minor costs for demonstrating compliance. This proposal also contains
minor additional requirements that would apply to some biofuel
producers and distributors; however, the costs associated with these
requirements are expected to be very small. A more detailed discussion
of the economic impacts of this action can be found in section X of
this preamble.

III. Biointermediates

A. Background

    One of the goals of the RFS program is to reduce the amount of GHGs
emitted as transportation fuel by increasing the amount of cellulosic
and advanced biofuels consumed by on-road and offroad vehicles and
engines. While the RFS program has had success in promoting the use of
conventional biofuel (primarily corn ethanol) and advanced biofuels
(primarily biodiesel), the production and use of cellulosic biofuels
has noticeably lagged behind. As noted in the preamble to the final
rule establishing RFS standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016,\25\ under the
statute, cellulosic biofuel was intended to fill 4.25 billion gallons
out of the 7.25 billion gallons advanced biofuel applicable volume
target for 2016. In reality, cellulosic biofuel is expected to be only
0.23 billion gallons for 2016. The supply of other advanced biofuels
has increased under the influence of the RFS program, but those
increases were insufficient to reach the statutory volume target. We
expect the gap in advanced biofuels created by the shortfall in
cellulosic biofuel to widen further in the future as the statutory
volume targets quickly increase but the actual supply potential
increases at a slower rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 80 FR 77420 (December 14, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RFS registration, reporting, recordkeeping, and PTD
requirements were designed with the general expectation that renewable
biomass would be converted into renewable fuel at a single facility
(e.g., a renewable fuel producer purchases corn directly from several
farmers in a region, crushes the corn in a mill, and then ferments the
corn into ethanol, all on the same site). The regulations therefore
impose requirements on renewable fuel producers to provide the EPA with
information necessary to verify that their fuel was made with
qualifying renewable biomass, through production processes
corresponding with approved pathways, and in volumes corresponding to
feedstocks used. Such information submissions render the EPA's
oversight and enforcement roles far more manageable, leading to
increased integrity and confidence in the program as a whole. Since the
RFS2 regulatory program was implemented in 2010, however, the EPA has
received a number of inquiries from companies regarding the possible
use of renewable biomass that has been substantially pre-processed at
one facility to produce feedstock (referred to as a biointermediate)
that is used at a different facility to produce renewable fuel for
which RINs would be generated. For example, Sweetwater Energy and Ensyn
both state they have developed technologies where cellulosic biomass is
pre-processed and concentrated at one facility prior to shipment to
another facility for conversion to renewable fuel. The pre-processed,
concentrated feedstock is a biointermediate.
    Sweetwater Energy's technology converts cellulosic biomass
feedstocks to cellulosic sugars using a modular approach. They plan to
build relatively small facilities near the bulk feedstock source and
transport the concentrated sugars they produce to a larger facility
where they will be converted into renewable fuels and chemicals. At
this time, Sweetwater is not able to register to produce cellulosic
biofuel due to their multiple-facility approach to renewable fuel
production.
    Ensyn's technology, known as Rapid Thermal Processing, involves the
non-catalytic thermal conversion of woody biomass feedstocks to produce
renewable chemicals, food additives, and heating oil at five commercial
facilities in Wisconsin and Ontario, Canada. Ensyn registered its
Ontario facility under the RFS program in 2014 and has generated
cellulosic biomass-based diesel (D-code 7) RINs related to sales in the
U.S. of its primary fuel product, known as renewable fuel oil (RFO), as
a replacement for heating oil. They also plan to sell the RFO to
petroleum refineries as a feedstock that can be further processed to
produce renewable gasoline and diesel if the use of biointermediates is
approved by the EPA.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ As discussed further in section III.B of this preamble, if
a biointermediate producer were to generate RINs on a given batch of
its product for use as heating oil, then the batch would not be
considered a biointermediate and further RINs could not be generated
downstream by a renewable fuel producer (such as a petroleum
refinery).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA believes that the use of biointermediates to produce
renewable fuels is a reasonable and positive development in this
developing industry and holds considerable promise for the future
growth in production of the cellulosic and advanced biofuels. While
near-term production may be modest, significant potential for further
growth in the long-term exists, as these technologies can lower the
cost of using cellulosic and other feedstocks for the production of
renewable fuels by reducing the storage and transportation costs
associated with bulky feedstocks and taking advantage of existing
ethanol and petroleum refinery assets to convert the biomass to
renewable fuel. This makes biointermediate production and use an
important component of the growth of the RFS program in the future,
especially the growth of the cellulosic biofuel volumes.
    However, scenarios involving the use of biointermediates to produce
renewable fuel pose significant concerns for the EPA in terms of
ensuring that the finished fuel was made with qualifying renewable
biomass, through production processes corresponding with approved RIN-
generating pathways, and in volumes corresponding to feedstocks used.
Companies requesting to be allowed to use a biointermediate have asked
the EPA to approve their production process and allow for RIN
generation by the eventual renewable fuel producer. To address the
EPA's concerns about the potential for RIN fraud, many companies also
offered to be subject to oversight requirements more stringent than
those in the current

RFS regulations, such as the voluntary RFS QAP.
    In response to these requests, the EPA has stated that the existing
RFS provisions are insufficient to generally allow RINs to be generated
in situations wherein multiple facilities are involved in the
conversion of renewable feedstocks into renewable fuel. We also stated
that we believed that the most straightforward approach to address this
issue was through the rulemaking process. This proposed rule begins
that rulemaking process. As described further below, this proposal
provides a set of requirements that will enable the production and use
of biointermediates to make renewable fuel for which RINs can be
generated. The EPA seeks comment on the proposed biointermediate
regulatory program described below. We also seek comment from potential
producers of biointermediates on the current status of operations,
potential production volumes, timelines for production, and any other
information that may help inform the EPA as to the expected use of
biointermediates to produce renewable fuel in the future.

B. Definition of Biointermediate

    We are proposing to define a biointermediate as any renewable fuel
feedstock material that meets all of the following criteria:
     It is derived from renewable biomass.
     It does not meet the definition of renewable fuel and RINs
were not generated for it.
     It is produced at a facility that is registered with the
EPA, but which is different than the facility at which it is used to
produce renewable fuel.
     It is made from the feedstock and will be used to produce
the renewable fuel in accordance with the process(es) listed in the
approved pathway.
     It is processed in such a way that it is substantially
altered from the feedstock listed in the approved pathway.
    In addition, we are proposing that any feedstock listed in Table 1
to 40 CFR 80.1426 or in an approved pathway pursuant to 80 CFR 80.1416
is not a biointermediate, and that a mere ``form change'' to renewable
biomass does not create a biointermediate. We note that in many
existing traditional operations, there is some degree of physical pre-
processing of renewable biomass to make feedstocks listed in Table 1 to
40 CFR 80.1426 and in pathways approved pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416.
Such pre-processing may occur under the existing regulations at a
different facility than the facility producing renewable fuel. For
example, the planted crop soy beans are crushed to make the soy bean
oil feedstock listed in pathways F and H in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426,
and such crushing often occurs at locations other than the renewable
fuel production facility. Since soy oil is a feedstock listed in Table
1, the proposed definition of biointermediate would not include soy
bean oil notwithstanding this crushing activity. For feedstocks listed
in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426, we do not believe that the additional
proposed regulatory requirements for processes using a biointermediate
are necessary to ensure that RINs are only generated for qualifying
fuel. In addition, certain processing of feedstocks would not result in
sufficient alteration to result in a biointermediate. Some examples of
processing involving form changes that would not result in the
production of a biointermediate include the following:
     Chopping biomass into small pieces, pressing it, or
grinding it into powder.
     Filtering out suspended solids from recycled cooking and
trap grease.
     Degumming vegetable oils.
     Drying wet biomass.
     Adding water to biomass to produce a slurry.
    We are proposing that renewable biomass subject to these types of
processing would be excluded from the definition of a biointermediate
and, therefore, that such activities can be conducted at a different
facility than the facility producing renewable fuel without triggering
the need for the additional recordkeeping, reporting, and registration
requirements being proposed for producers of biointermediates.
Similarly, the separation activities described in 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(5)
that are required for yard waste, food waste, or municipal solid waste
(MSW) to be considered renewable biomass would not be viewed as
creating a biointermediate. Finally, as is generally the case for all
feedstocks used in renewable fuel production, the presence of
incidental, de minimis contaminants in a biointermediate that are
impractical to remove and are related to customary feedstock production
and transport may be disregarded in determining whether biofuel is
produced from renewable biomass in accordance with an approved
pathway.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that based on our proposed definition of biointermediate,
undenatured ethanol that is subsequently denatured at a separate
facility would be considered a biointermediate. Under the current RFS
provisions, ethanol does not become a renewable fuel until a producer
adds denaturant in accordance with the requirements of the Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department at 27 CFR
parts 19-21. Only after a renewable fuel producer has denatured the
ethanol can they generate RINs for it; the domestic producer of the
undenatured ethanol is not currently subject to any RFS requirements.
Under the proposed biointermediate definition, the producer of the
undenatured ethanol would be required to register as a biointermediate
producer and the party that denatured the ethanol would be required to
register as a renewable fuel producer.
    Unlike domestic producers, foreign ethanol producers typically do
not denature their ethanol product, but instead rely on importers to
add denaturant and generate RINs for the finished renewable fuel.
Reflecting this practice, the current RFS regulations require that
foreign ethanol producers register with the EPA similar to renewable
fuel producers (i.e., undergo an engineering review and submit similar
registration information). If we finalize the proposed provisions for
producers of biointermediates, then the current special regulatory
requirements for foreign ethanol producers may no longer be necessary,
since such producers would be registered and regulated as
biointermediate producers. Therefore, we are seeking comment on whether
to remove the foreign ethanol producer requirements. If we were to
remove the foreign ethanol producer requirements, we would not,
however, remove other requirements for the importers of such foreign
ethanol (e.g., third-party volume verification under 40 CFR 80.1466).

C. Implications of Using Biointermediates for Lifecycle GHG Assessments

    The EPA has evaluated whether any revisions would need to be made
to Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 if biointermediates were generally allowed
to be used. Table 1 lists the generally-applicable pathways for the
production of non-grandfathered renewable fuel. The pathways include D
codes, which correspond to the RFS fuel category for which the finished
renewable fuel qualifies (e.g., cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based
diesel, etc.). These fuel categories have corresponding lifecycle GHG
emissions reduction requirements that the EPA determined were satisfied
when it established the pathways. As discussed below, the EPA is
proposing to maintain the existing pathways in

Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426, with the understanding that the pathways can
be followed through the production and use of a biointermediate.
    Under the RFS program, the EPA must assess lifecycle GHG emissions
to determine which fuel pathways meet the GHG reduction thresholds for
the four required renewable fuel categories. For the 2010 RFS2 final
rule, the EPA assessed the lifecycle GHG emissions of multiple
renewable fuel pathways and classified pathways based on these GHG
thresholds, as compared to the 2005 statutory baseline.\28\ In
addition, the EPA has added several pathways since the 2010 rule was
published. Expanding the RFS program to allow for the use of
biointermediates to produce renewable fuel does not affect these prior
analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pathways consist of fuel type, feedstock, and production
process requirements. GHG emissions are assessed at all points
throughout the lifecycle pathway. For instance, emissions associated
with sowing and harvesting of feedstocks and in the production,
distribution, and use of the renewable fuel are examples of what are
accounted for in the GHG assessment. A full accounting of emissions is
then compared with the petroleum baseline emissions for the
conventional fuel being replaced. The lifecycle GHG emissions
determination is one factor used to determine compliance with the RFS
regulations.
    There are currently over a dozen renewable fuel pathways with
various types of feedstocks and production processes used, qualifying
the pathways as either conventional (D-code 6), biomass-based diesel
(D-code 4), advanced (D-code 5), or cellulosic (D-code 3). The EPA also
created a cellulosic biomass-based diesel (D-code 7) category for fuels
that can qualify as both biomass-based diesel and cellulosic biofuel.
The lifecycle GHG emissions determinations for these different pathways
were based on the assumption that the feedstocks listed would be
converted to renewable fuel at a single facility.
    If the EPA were to generally allow the use of biointermediates, one
main difference in GHG emissions would potentially be the additional
emissions associated with transporting the biointermediate from the
biointermediate production facility to the renewable fuel production
facility. However, it is expected that overall transportation emissions
would decrease, since bulk biomass would typically be transported a
shorter distance to the biointermediate production facility. For
example, the lifecycle GHG assessment for existing pathways already
accounts for feedstock and fuel transportation, so if a biointermediate
facility is located close to feedstock production it would reduce
unprocessed feedstock transport emissions. Biointermediate transport
emissions would be added but typically biointermediates are more energy
dense than unprocessed feedstock and would have lower GHG emissions
associated with transport.
    Furthermore, lifecycle GHG emissions could also be reduced with a
biointermediate pathway vs. a single facility pathway by allowing
upstream and downstream processing to be better optimized for the
production of the biointermediate and the fuel respectively. Also, the
biointermediate pathway could offer the opportunity to leverage greater
economies of scale for improved efficiency when processing or refining
biointermediates into finished fuel products also reducing lifecycle
GHG emissions.
    Based on these considerations, the EPA believes the GHG emissions
associated with producing renewable fuel from a biointermediate will be
the same or less than the GHG emissions associated with producing
renewable fuel from feedstocks listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 at a
single facility. Therefore, the original lifecycle analyses for the
renewable fuel pathways listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 support
allowing a biointermediate to be used to produce renewable fuel for the
existing pathways. Once the regulatory change to allow the use of
biointermediates is final, all of the pathways currently applicable to
renewable fuel under Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 will allow for the use
of biointermediates. This assumes, of course, that the same conversion
processes that are specified for the pathway are used, even if they
occur at more than one facility. Of course, fuel cannot be made from a
biointermediate for a pathway that is not listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR
80.1426 or otherwise approved by the EPA; parties seeking to use a new
pathway (with or without the production and use of a biointermediate)
must petition the EPA for a new pathway approval pursuant to 40 CFR
80.1416.

D. Applicable Pathways Involving Biointermediates and RIN Generation

    We are proposing that the approved pathways in Table 1 to 40 CFR
80.1426 (as well as those approved in response to petitions submitted
pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416) would continue to identify the feedstocks
and processes that are acceptable to make renewable fuel for the
respective pathways; however, if this proposal were finalized, the
processes specified could be conducted in more than one facility. Since
biointermediates would be altered from the feedstocks listed in Table 1
to 40 CFR 80.1426, the renewable fuel producer would require sufficient
information from the biointermediate producer to verify that the
biointermediate is made from the feedstock listed in the approved
pathway being used by the renewable fuel producer.\29\ Similarly, the
biointermediate producer would need sufficient documentation from their
feedstock suppliers to demonstrate that the feedstock used to produce
the biointermediate was renewable biomass. The renewable fuel producer
would have to keep records and report to the EPA who supplied the
biointermediate used to produce the renewable fuel for which RINs were
generated. The biointermediate producer would also have to keep records
and report to the EPA who supplied the feedstocks used to produce the
biointermediate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The information that the biointermediate producer must
provide to the renewable fuel producer is described in section III.G
of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, we are proposing that from the perspective of a
renewable fuel producer, a qualifying biointermediate would be treated
as being equivalent to the renewable feedstock from which it was
derived for purposes of identifying the appropriate RIN-generating
pathway from Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426. However, there are several
cases in which we believe this would be inappropriate. These cases
would be those in which certain non-characteristic portions of a
renewable feedstock were separated or extracted into a concentrated
biointermediate that was inconsistent with the predominant constituents
of the feedstock in the approved pathway. For instance, if oils or
sugars were extracted (physically separated) from cellulosic feedstocks
to produce a concentrated oil or sugar biointermediate, those oils or
sugars would not be viewed as representing a cellulosic feedstock, as
they would not contain cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin and were not
derived from cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin.\30\ It would not be
appropriate for those oils or sugars to be used to produce a fuel

that qualifies as cellulosic biofuel under the RFS program.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ CAA section 211(o)(1)(E) states that cellulosic biofuel
(renewable fuel with a D-code of 3 or 7) must be derived from a
feedstock comprised of cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin.
    \31\ Consistent with the approach taken in the Pathways II
rulemaking, we are proposing that a biointermediate that is produced
from the chemical conversion of cellulosic feedstocks would continue
to be treated as an entirely cellulosic feedstock if 75 percent or
more of the resulting biointermediate is of cellulosic origin. See
79 FR 42128 (July 18, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not proposing to change the current system in which, with
very few exceptions, only the renewable fuel producer would be
permitted to generate RINs. This means that the party that produces
renewable fuel from a biointermediate would generate RINs, rather than
the producer of the biointermediate. We believe this approach would be
the easiest to both implement and enforce, and would involve no
disruption from current practices. If we were to allow for different
points of RIN generation, it would add unnecessary complexity and
difficulty to the program, and introduce an opportunity for fraudulent
double-generation of RINs for the same volume of renewable fuel. Our
proposal would not preclude renewable fuel producers from entering into
contracts with biointermediate producers that would provide for
transfer of some or all of the RIN value to the biointermediate
producer, but for the purposes of RIN generation and assignment within
the EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS), only the renewable fuel
producer would be able to generate and assign the RIN (except to the
extent that the regulations related to a particular pathway
specifically provide otherwise).
    We are not proposing to change the current flexibility for RIN
generation for renewable electricity and CNG/LNG made from biogas.
Although we proposed to limit the parties allowed to generate such RINs
in the final Pathways II rule, we deferred finalizing that aspect of
our proposal, pending further consideration.\32\ As a result, it is
currently possible for the EPA to approve, as part of the registration
process, parties in the biogas distribution system other than the
ultimate renewable fuel producer to generate RINs, so long as they
provide documentation (e.g., contracts, affidavits) showing that no
other party in the system relied upon the biogas for the creation of
RINs and that the finished fuel is used as transportation fuel.\33\ The
one party approved to generate RINs for a given volume of renewable
electricity or CNG/LNG from biogas is responsible for providing the EPA
with all the necessary information and supporting documentation in
their registration, reporting, and recordkeeping to track and verify
the production of raw biogas from its original source, and all the
processing steps and distribution in-between, to the last step where
the fuel is actually used for transportation purposes. Under this
proposal, we are not changing the current opportunities related to the
point of RIN generation for biogas used to make renewable electricity
or CNG/LNG for transportation purposes. The EPA continues to evaluate
this matter, and may issue a final rule based on these elements of the
Pathways II NPRM at a future date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See 79 FR 42128 (July 18, 2014).
    \33\ See 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2010 RFS2 final rule, the EPA promulgated requirements for
the generation of RINs for renewable fuel co-processed with petroleum-
based fuels, and provided two methods for determining the renewable
content of co-processed fuels: (1) Mass balance; or (2) Using Methods B
or C of ASTM D6866 C-14 testing.\34\ Some companies that have expressed
interest in producing biointermediates have suggested processes that
would use a biointermediate co-processed with petroleum at a crude oil
refinery to produce a partially renewable fuel for which RINs would be
generated (i.e., partially renewable gasoline and partially renewable
diesel). After reviewing information submitted by these companies, we
are concerned with the ability of the mass balance approach to
accurately and precisely determine the number of RINs that can be
generated for a co-processed partially renewable fuel made from a
biointermediate feedstock. The volume of biointermediate co-processed
with petroleum at a refinery would likely be a small fraction of the
refinery's throughput and would make it difficult to rely on a mass
balance approach for RIN generation and may lead to the generation of
RINs for the non-renewable portion of the co-processed fuel.
Additionally, Method B of ASTM D6866 has greater precision compared
with Method C. Given the challenge of calculating a precise and
accurate number of RINs from co-processed partially renewable fuel
produced from a biointermediate, we are proposing that only Method B of
ASTM D6866 could be used to determine the renewable content of co-
processed fuels when a biointermediate is used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize that co-processing configurations are highly complex
and varied and that proposing Method B of ASTM D6866 as the only method
to determine renewable content of co-processed fuels produced from
biointermediate feedstocks may place a high cost on parties that
generate RINs from co-processed fuels. One potential option would be to
require Method B of ASTM D6866 as the default method for determining
renewable content of co-processed partially renewable fuel produced
from a biointermediate and allow parties to petition the EPA to use
other methods for determining the renewable content based on the unique
process of the company producing the co-processed fuel. In some cases
an appropriately characterized mass balance approach may provide
reasonable assurance that RINs are not being attributed to non-
qualifying fuels (i.e., the co-processed petroleum-based portion of the
fuel), especially in cases where the biointermediate constitutes a
large portion of the blendstock used to produce the co-processed fuel.
That being said, with the expected small number of parties likely to
generate RINs from this situation, allowing parties to petition the EPA
for alternative methods would most likely result in the EPA being
petitioned by every party that wishes to generate RINs from co-
processed partially-renewable fuel produced from a biointermediate.
Based on experience processing these type of petitions, the review and
approval of such petitions can take a significant amount of time, which
could delay the registration of parties wishing to generate RINs from
co-processed partially-renewable fuel produced from a biointermediate.
    We seek comment on whether only allowing Method B of ASTM D6866 for
RIN generation for this situation is appropriate. We also seek comment
on whether other methods should be allowed and if so what methods could
produce similar accuracy and precision to Method B of ASTM D6866 for
purposes of measuring renewable content in co-processed fuels. For any
suggested methods, we request a thorough description of the method and
data that helps establish the relative accuracy and precision of the
method. Lastly, we seek comment on whether the EPA should allow parties
to petition for the use of a company-specific method to determine the
renewable content of co-processed partially-renewable fuel produced
from a biointermediate.
    Finally, due to the potential complexity involved in determining
the validity of RINs generated for renewable fuel produced from a
biointermediate, we are proposing that if the EPA determines that any
of the RINs in any batch of renewable fuel produced from

a biointermediate are invalid, then all such RINs generated for that
batch of renewable fuel would be considered invalid except to the
extent that the EPA, in its sole discretion, determines that some
portions of these RINs would be valid.

E. Number of Parties Allowed To Make a Given Biointermediate, and Their
Potential Liability for Violations

    We are proposing that the processing of a feedstock listed in an
approved pathway into a biointermediate may only occur at a single
facility before the biointermediate is transported to a renewable fuel
production facility. Hence, there will only be two parties involved in
the transformation of a feedstock listed in an approved pathway into
renewable fuel, which will make it much more straightforward for the
EPA to track and enforce. While it is possible that the production of
certain biointermediates may require processing at multiple facilities
in the future, most if not all of the inquiries that the EPA has
received so far regarding biointermediates have only involved two
facilities: One to produce the biointermediate and another to turn the
biointermediate into renewable fuel. There are also numerous
implementation and enforcement concerns associated with allowing more
than one facility to be involved in the production of a given
biointermediate, as each extra production step adds another layer of
complexity and potential for fraud to occur. Thus, we are not proposing
to allow for multiple facilities to be involved in the production of a
biointermediate at this time.\35\ However, we may revisit this issue in
the future if new production technologies develop that call for the
sequential processing of an approved feedstock listed in Table 1 to 40
CFR 80.1426 at more than one biointermediate facility prior to its use
at a renewable fuel production facility. We seek comment on whether it
is appropriate at this time to limit biointermediate production to
occur at a single facility, or whether we should allow for multiple
facilities to be involved sequentially in the production of a given
biointermediate and if so, how to limit opportunities for fraud. We
note, however, that under this proposal, a given renewable fuel
production facility could source their biointermediates from more than
one biointermediate production facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ This limitation would not apply to pre-processing that
occurs upstream of the biointermediate producer and involves only
``form changes'' of a feedstock listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426,
such as chopping, grinding, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing registration, reporting, recordkeeping, and PTD
requirements for parties involved in the production of
biointermediates, as well as modified requirements for renewable fuel
producers using biointermediates to make renewable fuel. We are also
proposing that biointermediate and renewable fuel producers would be
liable for violation of these requirements.

F. Additional Registration, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
That Apply When a Biointermediate Is Used To Produce Renewable Fuel

    In general, the renewable fuel producer is responsible for
verifying and demonstrating that the renewable fuel they produce is
derived from renewable biomass and was produced in accordance with an
approved biofuel production pathway.\36\ If the renewable fuel producer
is using a biointermediate, however, the direct link between the
renewable fuel producer and the renewable biomass/feedstock supplier
would be lost. In such cases we are proposing that the biointermediate
producer would verify and provide records (in the form of PTDs) to the
renewable fuel producer that the feedstocks used to make the
biointermediate meet the definition of renewable biomass and are part
of the approved biofuel production pathway that the renewable fuel
producer intends to rely on to generate RINs. Therefore, we are
proposing the following additional registration, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements associated with biointermediates that would help
provide the renewable fuel producer with the information necessary to
verify that the fuel they produce qualifies as renewable fuel for which
RINs may be generated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See 40 CFR 80.1454(c) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Registration
    We are proposing to require that biointermediate producers register
with the EPA by facility in a manner similar to renewable fuel
producers. We are also proposing slight modifications to the
registration requirements for renewable fuel producers that wish to use
a biointermediate to produce renewable fuel. The registration
information submitted by the biointermediate producer would include the
submission of basic company information (e.g., company name, address of
production facility, etc.) required for all EPA fuels program
registrants. In addition, they would need to provide basic operational
information, such as the capacity of their production facility, the
processes utilized, the feedstocks they will use, a description of
their biointermediate product, and the pathway(s) they believe the
biointermediate product could be used in. We are proposing that
biointermediate producers would need an independent third-party
engineering review for each facility, which would include a site visit
and review of the registration submission to independently evaluate the
facility's ability to utilize the specified feedstocks and production
processes that fall under an EPA-approved pathway. As discussed in
section VIII.I of this preamble, we are also proposing modifications to
the third-party engineering review requirements. Those modifications
would apply to renewable fuel producers and biointermediate producers
alike. Biointermediate producers would also need to identify renewable
fuel producers that intend to use their biointermediate product.
Existing renewable fuel producers would also need to update their
registration information with similar information if they wished to
begin using a biointermediate as a feedstock. Renewable fuel producers
would also be required to enter into contracts and keep affidavits with
their biointermediate suppliers. A biointermediate could not be used
for renewable fuel production until the EPA had accepted both the
biointermediate producer's and the renewable fuel producer's
registration materials reflecting the production and use of the
biointermediate. Similar to renewable fuel producer registrations,
biointermediate producers would need to submit updated registration
information every three years, including a new independent third-party
engineering review. In addition, biointermediate producers would need
to update their registration materials between three-year updates if
specified changes in their operations occur. A biointermediate producer
would be required to comply with any other applicable regulatory
requirements related to the renewable feedstock (e.g., submitting
separated food waste plans and requirements related to the use of crop
residue as a feedstock) that a renewable fuel producer that uses these
renewable feedstocks directly (without reliance on a biointermediate)
must submit to the EPA in the context of registration.
    The EPA notes that although we intend to conduct a threshold review
of registration materials prior to accepting

a registration submission, this threshold review is primarily to verify
that the registration materials are complete. Thus, acceptance by the
EPA of a registration submission does not represent a determination by
the EPA of substantive compliance with applicable regulatory
requirements. Biointermediate and renewable fuel producers are
responsible for ensuring on a continuing basis that all regulatory
requirements are satisfied, including the requirement to only use
renewable biomass feedstocks, and to produce renewable fuel in
compliance with approved pathways. Thus, as has been the case since the
inception of the RFS program, parties should not assume that the EPA
approves the use of feedstocks or production processes described in a
registration submission simply because the EPA has accepted a party's
registration application. The EPA intends to review materials submitted
by registered entities to determine substantive compliance with the
program on a priority basis based in part on the availability of time
and resources, and in part on indications of potential compliance
concerns.
    We seek comment on whether there are any additional registration
requirements needed for biointermediate producers or renewable fuel
producers to help ensure that the parties themselves and EPA
enforcement personnel have available to them the information necessary
to ensure the appropriate production and use of biointermediates.
2. Reporting Requirements
    We are proposing that biointermediate producers would submit
quarterly reports that include feedstock and process information by
batch, volume of the batch, and cellulosic and non-cellulosic content
of the batch, as well as the specific renewable fuel facility where the
batch of biointermediate was intended to be used for the production of
renewable fuel. The biointermediate producer would also be required to
designate each batch that is intended to be used as a renewable fuel
feedstock, so that the biointermediates batches are directly linked to
the renewable fuel batches produced from that biointermediate. The
biointermediate producer would also be required to report the renewable
content and adjusted cellulosic content of each biointermediate batch
and certify that the renewable content of each biointermediate batch
met the renewable biomass requirement. We are also proposing changes to
the periodic reporting requirements for renewable fuel producers that
use a biointermediate to help the EPA track that biointermediates are
being used appropriately. These proposed reporting requirements would
help the EPA monitor compliance concerning the production and use of
biointermediates by directly linking the volume of biointermediate
produced by a biointermediate producer with the volume of renewable
fuel produced by a renewable fuel producer.
    We are also proposing modifications to the EMTS reporting
requirements for producers of renewable fuel to help track and ensure
that biointermediates are used appropriately. Currently, feedstocks
used to produce a renewable fuel are tracked on a per-batch basis in
EMTS. Due to the similarity between the ways that biointermediates
would be used and existing feedstocks are already being used, we are
proposing that biointermediate use also be tracked through EMTS. In
addition, aligning batches of RINs generated for renewable fuel with
the biointermediate batches used to produce the fuel would help the EPA
monitor that volumes of biointermediates are appropriately used to
generate valid RINs. Therefore, we are proposing that renewable fuel
producers specify in EMTS both the amount of biointermediate feedstock
used to produce each batch of fuel, as well as the party from whom the
biointermediate was produced, received, purchased, or procured. This is
somewhat analogous to EMTS reporting requirements for RIN-generating
importers of foreign renewable fuel. For example, in order to generate
RINs for a volume of renewable fuel produced at a foreign renewable
fuel facility, renewable fuel importers must identify in EMTS the
foreign renewable fuel facility for each batch of imported renewable
fuel for which they generate RINs, among other batch requirements.
    These proposed changes to EMTS, while simple in concept,
nevertheless will constitute a significant modification to the coding
of the existing EMTS system, which will take time to develop and test
to ensure adequate functionality. Therefore, we anticipate that if we
finalize the proposed biointermediate provisions, we will delay the
full tracking of biointermediates in EMTS, but not the periodic
reporting requirements, until January 1, 2018, so that the changes to
EMTS could reasonably be developed and tested. As discussed in more
detail in section III.L of this preamble, biointermediate producers and
renewable fuel producers using biointermediates would be permitted to
meet interim implementation requirements pending EMTS modification.
Parties would still be required to submit periodic reports outside of
EMTS to help the EPA monitor compliance with biointermediate
requirements.
    We believe that these reporting requirements and tracking in EMTS
would help the EPA monitor the generation of RINs for renewable fuel
produced from a biointermediate, thereby reducing the potential for
fraud and enhancing the integrity of the program. We seek comment on
whether we should require any additional reporting requirements from
biointermediate producers or renewable fuel producers.
3. Recordkeeping Requirements
    We are proposing that biointermediate producers would have
essentially the same feedstock and process-related recordkeeping
requirements as those already in place for renewable fuel producers.
Since the biointermediate producer would be a party between suppliers
of feedstocks listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 and the renewable
fuel producer, the biointermediate producer would need to maintain
records related to the purchase of feedstocks used to produce the
biointermediate. Biointermediate producers would also need to maintain
appropriate records that demonstrate that feedstocks meet the
definition of renewable biomass. Finally, biointermediate producers
would need to keep records of any calculations the biointermediate
producer used to determine the renewable or cellulosic content of the
biointermediate, as applicable. This information would need to be
conveyed to any renewable fuel producer that uses the biointermediate
as part of the required PTDs. Renewable fuel producers would need to
maintain these PTDs in addition to their current recordkeeping
requirements. We seek comment on whether there are any additional
records that should be kept by biointermediate producers or renewable
fuel producers to accommodate the proposed use of biointermediates.

G. Product Transfer Documents

    In order to help provide renewable fuel producers using
biointermediates the information they need to ensure the validity of
RINs they generate, we are proposing PTD requirements associated with
the transfer of biointermediates between the biointermediate producer
and the renewable fuel producer. The biointermediate producer would be
required to transfer to the renewable fuel producer a PTD along with
each

shipment of biointermediate containing information related to the
feedstock, volume, cellulosic and non-cellulosic content of the batch,
and processes used in the production of the biointermediate. The
biointermediate producer would also be required to include a
certification statement regarding these details on the PTD. We are also
proposing that biointermediate producers would designate clearly in the
PTD what renewable fuel(s) should be produced from specific batches of
biointermediate. This information would need to be conveyed on PTDs to
the renewable fuel producer and should match reports submitted to the
EPA by the biointermediate producer.
    Additionally, to the extent that any portion of the biointermediate
is not derived from renewable biomass, biointermediate producers would
be required to identify the feedstock energies of the renewable and
non-renewable biomass used to produce the biointermediate and the
proportions of the biointermediate that could and could not be used to
make renewable fuel for which RINs could be generated. If applicable,
biointermediate producers would also need to convey information
regarding the proportion of the biointermediate that is cellulosic
material and non-cellulosic material. This breakdown would need to be
transferred to the renewable fuel producer so they could properly
calculate the RINs to be produced from fuel made with the
biointermediate. Biointermediate producers would also need to certify
to the renewable fuel producer the process used to produce the
biointermediate feedstock. We seek comment on whether any additional
information should be conveyed from the biointermediate producer to the
renewable fuel producer through PTDs.
    It should be noted that it would still be the responsibility of the
renewable fuel producer to ensure that any feedstocks used to make
renewable fuel, including biointermediates, meet the definition of
renewable biomass, and that all processes used by the biointermediate
producer in conjunction with the processes used by the renewable fuel
producer fall under an EPA-approved pathway to produce renewable fuel.
Thus, as discussed further in the next section, both the renewable fuel
producer and the biointermediate producer may be held liable when RINs
are generated for fuel that was not derived from renewable biomass, or
where the biointermediate producer used processes that were
inconsistent with the pathway utilized by the renewable fuel producer
as the basis for RIN generation.

H. Prohibited Activities and Liability in Cases Where a Biointermediate
Is Not a Valid Feedstock

    We are proposing to amend the regulations to add a new prohibited
activity for the production of a biointermediate from a feedstock or
through a process that is not described in the producer's registration
information. We are also proposing to modify the prohibited acts
regulations to prohibit the use of a biointermediate by a renewable
fuel producer that is not described in the producer's registration
information. Renewable fuel producers are ultimately responsible for
ensuring that any biointermediate is used in compliance with the
regulations, similar to how they are currently responsible for using
appropriate feedstocks and processes to produce renewable fuels and
generate RINs. As noted above, the description of feedstocks and
processes in registration materials accepted by the EPA does not
represent a determination by the EPA that such feedstocks and processes
are consistent with the RFS regulations; the responsibility of ensuring
that they do rests on a continuing basis with the renewable fuel
producer as well as any biointermediate producer.
    In order to fulfill the statutory mandate that renewable fuel is
produced from renewable biomass, the renewable fuel producer must be
able to demonstrate that the feedstocks they are using are, or are
derived from, renewable biomass and are consistent with the feedstocks
permitted under the renewable fuel production pathway utilized. When a
biointermediate is being used to produce renewable fuel, the renewable
fuel producer may not have direct access to the information needed to
make these demonstrations. Therefore we are proposing that the
biointermediate producer would be required to make these demonstrations
both to the EPA and to the renewable fuel producer. To ensure
appropriate levels of oversight by renewable fuel producers, we do not
believe that the renewable fuel producer should be held harmless in the
event that the biointermediate is determined to not be derived from
renewable biomass or is determined to be unauthorized under the pathway
utilized by the renewable fuel producer. Therefore we are proposing
that either or both the biointermediate producer and the renewable fuel
producer would potentially be liable for violations involving the
improper production or characterization of a biointermediate used to
produce renewable fuel for which RINs were generated. This would be
true both where any errors could be characterized as having been made
in good faith, and in situations involving deliberate fraud.
    This approach has been used extensively in other EPA fuels programs
(e.g., gasoline and diesel programs) where it is presumed that
violations that occur at downstream locations (e.g., a retail station
selling gasoline) were caused by all parties that produced,
distributed, or carried the fuel. In this case, if, for example, a
biointermediate producer were to use feedstocks that do not meet the
definition of a renewable biomass, then both the biointermediate
producer and the renewable fuel producer could be liable for the
violation.
    We seek comment on whether the proposed approach to liability in
instances where biointermediates are used is appropriate and whether
the final regulations should include any additional prohibited
activities or liability-related provisions.

I. Attest Engagements for Biointermediate Producers

    We are proposing that biointermediate producers undergo annual
attest engagements similar to current annual attest engagement
requirements for renewable fuel producers. The attest engagement for
biointermediate producers would consist of an outside certified public
accountant or certified independent auditor following agreed upon
procedures to determine whether the underlying records for the
biointermediate, the reported items to the EPA, and copies of PTDs to
the renewable fuel producer agree. The auditor would issue a report to
the EPA as to their findings. We are also proposing a slight
modification to the attest engagement for renewable fuel producers to
ensure that attest auditors verify records related to the use of a
biointermediate.

J. Quality Assurance Plans for Biointermediates

    In 2014, the EPA finalized requirements for optional QAPs to help
ensure that RINs are valid.\37\ The QAP rule provides for auditing of
renewable fuel production facilities by independent third-party
auditors who review feedstock elements, process elements, and RIN
generation elements to determine if renewable fuel production is
consistent with EPA requirements. Several companies that have contacted
the EPA regarding the potential use of biointermediate feedstocks have
suggested that the EPA

allow the use of QAPs for biointermediates to help ensure the validity
of RINs produced from renewable fuels that used biointermediates as a
feedstock. We believe that allowing independent third-party auditors to
implement QAPs for biointermediate producers would help provide
assurance to the renewable fuel producer and RIN purchasers that
biointermediate producers are using appropriate feedstocks and
processes consistent with EPA requirements. Therefore, we are proposing
that biointermediate producers may participate in the RFS QAP with
third-party auditors reviewing applicable feedstock and process related
QAP elements. We are also proposing small changes to the QAP
requirements for renewable fuel producers to accommodate their use of
biointermediate feedstocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 79 FR 42128 (July 18, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More significantly, we are proposing that in order for a renewable
fuel producer to generate a Q-RIN, both the biointermediate producer
and the renewable fuel producer must have in place an EPA-approved
pathway-specific QAP. We believe that this is necessary to provide the
level of assurance that is expected from the RFS QAP. If we allowed the
producer to generate Q-RINs without the biointermediate producer's
information being verified, it could undermine the level of compliance
assurance provided by Q-RINs. Additionally, since the focus of the QAP
system is the validity of RINs and both the biointermediate producer
and the renewable fuel producer must follow approved pathway processes
for RINs to be valid, it would not be appropriate to allow the
generation of Q-RINs without a QAP for the biointermediate producer. We
seek comment on whether this approach is appropriate and whether there
are any additional QAP requirements that we should impose upon
biointermediate producers or renewable fuel producers using
biointermediates to maintain the high level of confidence associated
with Q-RIN generation.
    As discussed more thoroughly below, in the interest of accelerating
the implementation of the proposed expanded program allowing use of
biointermediates, we are proposing that in the interim between the
effective date of the final rule and January 1, 2018, biointermediate
producers and renewable fuel producers that wish to produce renewable
fuel using biointermediate feedstock must have a pathway-specific QAP
in place. We believe this is necessary because the tracking of
biointermediates in EMTS and the association \38\ of biointermediate
companies with renewable producers tracked in the EPA Central Data
Exchange (CDX) registration system would not be in place until January
1, 2018. After January 1, 2018, we are proposing that biointermediate
and renewable fuel producers may voluntarily participate in the RFS
QAP; however, both parties would still need to participate in the QAP
program to generate Q-RINs. The EPA is also seeking comment on whether
we should maintain the requirement that biointermediate and renewable
fuel producers have a pathway-specific QAP after the interim period
ends, or whether there are any specific situations in which the use of
a QAP should continue to be mandatory, especially where the potential
for fraud to occur may be more likely (e.g., biointermediate production
facilities that produce both a renewable fuel and a biointermediate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ For purposes of this preamble, ``association'' means an
administrative linking of two companies in CDX and does not mean any
contractual or more formal relationship. Under the QAP program,
third-party auditors are required to associate with RIN generators
in CDX so that RIN generators can generate verified RINs in EMTS.
Under the proposed biointermediates program, biointermediate
producers would need to associate in CDX with a renewable fuel
producer in order for that renewable fuel producer to generate RINs.
Additionally, if the biointermediate and renewable fuel producers
participate in the QAP program, each party would need to associate
with each other in CDX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Foreign Biointermediate Producer Requirements

    We are proposing that foreign biointermediate producers have
similar requirements as foreign renewable fuel producers as described
in 40 CFR 80.1466. In general, foreign biointermediate producers would
be required to comply with requirements related to inspection and
audit, bonding, agent appointment for service of process, and the
application of U.S. substantive and procedural laws to any civil or
criminal enforcement action. These requirements would allow the EPA to
monitor the producers and carry out enforcement actions should a
violation occur outside the U.S.
    We are also proposing that foreign biointermediate producers
transfer their biointermediate only to domestic and foreign RIN-
generating renewable fuel producers. This means that foreign
biointermediate producers would not be allowed to transfer their
biointermediate to non-RIN-generating foreign producers. This proposed
limitation serves two purposes. First, RIN-generating renewable fuel
producers are required to provide in EMTS the type and volume of the
biointermediate used and the registration number of the biointermediate
production facility. The existence of foreign biointermediate
producer's information in EMTS allows the EPA to oversee all parties in
the chain of RIN generation. Secondly, RIN-generating renewable fuel
producers have the option to utilize the voluntary RFS QAP. The program
helps ensure that RINs are properly generated through audits of
renewable fuel production conducted by independent third-party
auditors, and makes the RFS program more efficient for buyers of RINs.
Foreign biointermediate producers would be subject to the same
recordkeeping, reporting, registration, and PTD requirements as
domestic biointermediate producers. We seek comment on the proposed
foreign biointermediate producer requirements.

L. Interim Implementation Program

    As mentioned above, some of the proposed requirements for
biointermediates involve significant development of EMTS for the
tracking of biointermediates and RINs generated for renewable fuel made
from biointermediates. In addition, significant changes to the CDX
registration system are needed to track the complex network of
associations among biointermediate producers, renewable fuel producers,
and, where relevant, independent third-party auditors. These changes
are necessary to aid in implementing and enforcing the proposed
biointermediate requirements. Additionally, by bringing
biointermediates and biointermediate producers into EMTS and CDX, RFS
regulated parties will be able to take full advantage of the tracking
and transactional functions of the systems instead of having to track
everything outside of the system.
    On the other hand, the EPA does not want to delay the introduction
of new renewable fuels that may help further the goals of the RFS
program to significantly increase the production and use of renewable
fuel as a substitute for fossil-based transportation fuel. We
considered proposing a more manual tracking system, but given the
significant investments already made to develop EMTS and the
registration system, plus the benefits to the RFS regulated community
of allowing biointermediates to be tracked with the full capabilities
of EMTS and CDX, we believe it makes sense to require the tracking of
biointermediate producers and biointermediates within the registration
system and EMTS. Given the time needed to modify EMTS and CDX, we are
proposing an interim

implementation program that would allow the use of biointermediates for
renewable fuel production beginning on the effective date of final
rule, with additional restrictions on the production and use of
biointermediates until full tracking is available through EMTS and the
CDX registration system. As discussed in section III.F.2 of this
preamble, we anticipate that the necessary changes to EMTS will be
completed by January 1, 2018. However, since these modifications to
EMTS and CDX are significant and may take longer than the EPA
anticipates, it is possible that the EPA will be forced to delay
implementation of full biointermediate tracking in EMTS beyond January
1, 2018. Should this occur, the EPA would notify all parties
potentially affected by this decision (both biointermediate producers
and renewable fuel producers) and would continue implementing the
interim requirements until the changes to EMTS are complete.
    It should be noted that most of the proposed biointermediate
requirements would go into effect at the start of the program and
remain in place after the interim implementation period, including:
Registration of biointermediate facilities, engineering review as part
of registration, periodic reporting requirements outside of EMTS,\39\
recordkeeping requirements, PTD requirements, and annual attest
requirements. These requirements do not require significant development
of new functionality in EMTS and CDX and can easily be implemented by
the EPA and regulated parties since they are in general consistent with
requirements already in place for renewable fuel producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ In other EPA fuels programs, parties submit periodic
reports through CDX into a separate reporting database (primarily
DCFUEL). During the interim period, biointermediate producers would
be required to submit their periodic reports in this way. After EMTS
or an EMTS-like system has been developed to track biointermediate
production and transfers, it may no longer be necessary to submit
periodic reports through DCFUEL since that information would be
collected in EMTS or an EMTS-like system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The main difference between the interim implementation program and
the fully implemented program is that for the interim program
biointermediate producers and renewable fuel producers using
biointermediates must have EPA-approved pathway-specific QAPs. After
the interim implementation period, we propose that parties could
continue to voluntarily participate in the RFS QAP. Although the RFS
QAP is otherwise a strictly voluntary program, we believe it is
appropriate to require the participation of biointermediate producers
and renewable fuel producers during the interim implementation period
for two reasons. First, we want to reduce the opportunity for parties
to generate invalid RINs. By allowing additional intermediate parties
to collect and process feedstocks, the complexity of the relationship
between feedstock providers and renewable fuel producers can be
difficult to untangle and may provide opportunity for some parties to
generate invalid RINs. Since RINs generated for renewable fuel produced
from biointermediates would not be fully tracked in EMTS during the
interim implementation period, requiring third-party verification of
the production of biointermediates would provide both the EPA and the
RFS regulated parties an additional increment of assurance that
biointermediates are properly produced.
    Second, requiring QAPs for biointermediate producers and renewable
fuel producers during the interim implementation period is appropriate
since this situation differs from the normal renewable fuel production
situation. The use of a biointermediate as a feedstock by a renewable
fuel producer is voluntary (i.e., the renewable fuel producer could use
traditional feedstocks to produce renewable fuels as they have since
the creation of the RFS program), and in this case we are providing new
flexibility for parties to utilize biointermediates that would
otherwise not be allowed under the existing regulations. We believe it
is appropriate to seek the additional assurance regarding RIN validity
that would be provided during the interim period by requiring QAPs for
biointermediate producers and renewable fuel producers using
biointermediates in exchange for the additional flexibility provided by
the expanded program.
    We recognize that this required QAP provision may temporarily place
an additional burden on biointermediate producers and renewable fuel
producers using biointermediates. However, we note that several
companies that expressed interest to the EPA in producing or using
biointermediates have mentioned the participation in the RFS QAP as a
way to provide assurance that RINs are properly generated. We
specifically seek comment on whether this interim implementation
approach is appropriate, and whether any of the interim requirements
(such as the mandatory use of a QAP) should be continued after the
expiration of the interim period. We also seek comment on whether
during the interim period there are any other measures that could be
employed to provide the same type of assurance of RIN validity as the
RFS QAP provides. In addition, should the EPA decide to not require the
use of a QAP for all biointermediate producers and renewable fuel
producers using biointermediates after the expiration of the interim
period, we also seek comment on whether there are any specific
situations in which the use of a QAP should continue to be mandatory,
especially where the potential for fraud to occur may be more likely
(e.g., biointermediate production facilities that produce both a
renewable fuel and a biointermediate).

IV. Standards for Ethanol Flex Fuel

    This section of the preamble discusses the EPA's proposed approach
for EFF. An overview of the current regulatory provisions that apply to
EFF is provided in section IV.A and an overview of the key proposed
requirements that would apply to producers of EFF is provided in
section IV.B. The proposed standards that would apply to EFF, EFF
blendstocks, and EFF additives are discussed in section IV.C. The three
different certification options for producers of EFF are discussed in
section IV.D and the requirements for producers of E15 at blender pumps
is discussed in section IV.E. The proposed compliance provisions that
would apply to producers of EFF, including the registration,
recordkeeping, reporting, PTD, sampling and testing, attest
engagements, compliance dates, and EFF quality survey program, are
discussed in section IV.F. An alternative approach that would formalize
the current approved practices for producing EFF is discussed in
section IV.G. A discussion of the EPA's statutory authority for these
proposed requirements is provided in section IV.H.

A. Current EFF Regulatory Landscape

    FFVs are designed to operate on E0, E85, or any level of ethanol in
between, and, in order to maintain emission performance, these vehicles
need the fuel to meet certain quality specifications. Our various
standards for gasoline apply to any fuel sold for use in motor
vehicles, which is commonly or commercially known or sold as
``gasoline.'' \40\ The Fuel and Fuel Additive (F&FA) program requires
that fuels the EPA has ``designated'' as motor vehicle fuels must be
registered with the EPA prior to being introduced into commerce.\41\ To
date, the EPA has designated gasoline and highway diesel fuel as motor
vehicle fuels for the purposes of the F&FA program.

Producers of gasoline and highway diesel fuel must comply with the F&FA
program's requirements before introducing gasoline or highway diesel
fuel into commerce.\42\ Currently, the EPA has registered gasoline that
contains up to 15 volume percent ethanol (E15).\43\ Additionally, the
introduction into commerce of fuels and fuel additives that are not
substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive used in vehicle or
engine emissions certification is prohibited, unless granted a waiver
pursuant to CAA section 211(f)(4). Thus, registered gasoline is well
controlled under our current regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See 40 CFR 79.32(a).
    \41\ See 40 CFR 79.4(a)(1).
    \42\ The requirements under the F&FA program are contained in 40
CFR part 79.
    \43\ ``Conventional gasoline vehicle'' refers to a conventional
vehicle designed to operate using gasoline. Conventional vehicles
had historically been designed to operate on ethanol-gasoline blends
up to 10 volume percent ethanol. In 2011, the EPA issued a partial
waiver to allow 15 volume percent ethanol to be used in 2001 and
later light duty motor vehicles. See 76 FR 4662 (January 26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Gasoline-ethanol blends greater than 15 volume percent ethanol and
less than 51 volume percent ethanol are relatively new to the
marketplace. Fuels composed of at least 50 volume percent clear
gasoline are included in the gasoline family under the F&FA
program.\44\ Hence, E16-50 blends are currently subject to all of the
requirements that apply to gasoline, despite the fact that such blends
may not be used in conventional gasoline vehicles. Ethanol blends that
contain from 51 to 83 volume percent ethanol for use in FFVs have been
sold for a number of years under the trade name ``E85.'' \45\ Such E51-
83 blends belong to the ethanol family in the F&FA program, and are not
subject to our gasoline regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See 40 CFR 79.56(e)(1)(i).
    \45\ Retailers may be moving away from the E85 trade name for
E51-83 blends in part because of the wide variability in ethanol
content encompassed. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently
finalized labeling requirements for higher level ethanol blends
including E51-83. See section IV.F.8.a of this preamble for a
discussion of the labeling provisions for higher-level ethanol
blends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has two sets of gasoline quality requirements: One set
applies to conventional gasoline (CG) areas and the other to
reformulated gasoline (RFG) areas. The RFG requirements apply in areas
with the greatest air quality need and are based on compliance with an
emissions model that uses a number of gasoline properties to evaluate
emissions control performance.\46\ Since the RFG program was finalized,
changes to the EPA gasoline sulfur and benzene control requirements
have largely supplanted the provisions in the complex model (a fuel
component model used to determine compliance with emission performance
standards) so that the RFG program is essentially a volatility control
program where gasoline RVP is typically limited to about 7.0 pounds per
square inch (psi).\47\ The Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program requires that
all gasoline (RFG and conventional) produced and imported must meet a
10 ppm annual average sulfur standard beginning January 1, 2017.\48\
The gasoline benzene program requires that all gasoline meet a 0.62
volume percent annual average benzene standard.\49\ Conventional
gasoline is subject to either a federal 7.8 psi RVP maximum or a 9.0
psi RVP maximum depending on the climate conditions and air quality
need of a given region in addition to the gasoline sulfur and benzene
requirements. Some states have also adopted more stringent RVP
requirements for gasoline in a federally-approved state implementation
plan (SIP) where additional volatility control is needed to address
local air quality problems. A statutory 1 psi RVP waiver applies to E10
in many CG areas.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The requirements under the RFG complex emissions model are
contained in 40 CFR 80.45.
    \47\ See the memorandum titled, ``Volatility of Reformulated
Gasoline,'' available in the docket for this action.
    \48\ A 30 ppm average sulfur standard currently applies to all
gasoline under the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program (40 CFR 80.195).
Under the final Tier 3 program, approved small refiners and small
volume refineries may continue to produce gasoline meeting the Tier
2 30 ppm sulfur standard through December 31, 2019 (40 CFR
80.1603(a)). An 80 ppm refinery-gate per-gallon sulfur cap applies
under both the Tier 2 and Tier 3 gasoline programs. A 95 ppm per-
gallon sulfur cap applies at all facilities downstream of the
refinery.
    \49\ See 40 CFR 80.1230.
    \50\ States can request that the EPA not apply the 1 psi RVP
waiver to E10. The 1 psi RVP waiver for E10 does not apply in RFG
areas. See CAA sections 211(h)(4) and (h)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under existing EPA regulations, a gasoline refiner must certify
that the gasoline it produces meets the required emission performance
standards by testing each batch.\51\ For CG, the refiner must test each
batch to demonstrate compliance with sulfur, benzene, and RVP
requirements. For RFG, refiners must also sample and test for a broad
range of fuel properties, but the RFG emission performance standards
have largely been supplanted by other EPA fuel programs such as the
gasoline sulfur and benzene programs, and the RVP largely determine
compliance.\52\ All gasoline is also required to be composed solely of
CHONS to prevent potential fuel contaminants from disabling vehicle
emissions control catalysts. The EPA has not required CHONS testing to
certify compliance with EPA gasoline quality requirements because we
concluded that the processes used to produce gasoline remove non-CHONS
elements. Refiners produce gasoline by processing crude oil and to a
more limited extent by blending in blendstocks such as butane into
previously-certified gasoline at refined product terminals. Refiners
that produce gasoline are required to register with the EPA, submit
annual reports, designate where the gasoline they produce may be used
(e.g., RFG, CG 7.8 RVP areas, or CG 9.0 RVP areas) on product transfer
documents (PTDs), and in the case of RFG, participate in a downstream
fuel quality survey at fuel retail facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The definition of a refinery and a refiner is found in 40
CFR 80.2(h) and (i), respectively.
    \52\ RFG refiners can still take advantage of other complex
model fuel parameters to demonstrate compliance with the RFG
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    E16-50 gasoline blends are currently produced for use in FFVs using
blender pumps at fuel retailer facilities. The typical current practice
is that a blender pump mixes gasoline (E0 or E10) and E85 parent blends
at different ratios to produce various E16-50 blends. Such E16-50
blender pumps are a recent development.\53\ Because the EPA currently
considers E16-50 to be gasoline and blender pump operators mix E85 (a
non-gasoline) with gasoline to produce E16-50, blender pump operators
are gasoline refiners under our existing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Blender pumps that produce intermediate octane grades by
mixing premium and regular gasolines have existed for decades. The
EPA considers this to be the commingling of two compliant gasolines
since the EPA currently has no in-use gasoline octane standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, E15 is also primarily produced at blender pumps. Fuel
retailers that make E15 at blender pumps using E85 as a parent blend
are currently subject to all of the requirements that apply to refiners
producing gasoline from crude oil, including registration, reporting,
and per-batch testing. This is due to the fact that such blender pump
operators are mixing non-gasoline (E85) with gasoline (E0 or E10) to
produce a new finished gasoline.
    The only current fuel quality requirement that applies to E85 is
that it must be substantially similar (sub-sim) to the fuel used for
FFV certification testing. To assure compliance with the sub-sim
requirement, the EPA has required that E85 blenders can use only
certified gasoline, BOBs, and DFE as E85 blendstocks, consistent with
practices used in producing such blends for vehicle certification.
Historically, this has not been an issue, as these were the

only blendstocks used when E85 was produced at refined product
terminals. However, we understand that ethanol producers may also be
producing E85 by blending DFE with hydrocarbon used as an ethanol
denaturant. The Alcohol Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) specifies a
range of hydrocarbons that can be used as an ethanol denaturant,
including gasoline and natural gasoline.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The TTB requirements for ethanol denaturants are contained
in 27 CFR part 21. Natural gasoline is a byproduct of natural gas
production, as well as a gasoline blendstock produced at crude oil
refineries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Key Requirements Proposed for EFF and Producers of Gasoline at
Blender Pumps

    The proposed standards for EFF in this proposal will address the
public health and welfare effects of EFF and its impact on emissions
control devices on FFVs and FFV engines while providing new
flexibility. The proposed standards are patterned on the EPA's Federal
gasoline quality regulations and are designed to provide an equivalent
level of emissions control performance when EFF is used in FFVs
compared to the use of gasoline in conventional gasoline vehicles. As
discussed above, the current regulations, as they relate to the
production of E10, E15, and E16-50 at retail blender pumps include
blender pump operators as subject to the requirements applicable to a
gasoline refiner. These requirements include: Compliance with the
health effects testing for the blends produced under the F&FA program;
per-batch testing to demonstrate compliance with the sulfur, benzene,
and RVP standards for gasoline; and registration, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements associated with demonstrating compliance.
    In the Tier 3 proposal, we requested comment on several approaches
for specifying standards that apply to E16-50 blends.\55\ Under one
approach, we sought comment on the need to have E16-50 (and any other
fuel blend that is at least 50 volume percent gasoline) comply with the
applicable gasoline requirements under our regulations and the need for
regulatory amendments to clarify that these requirements apply. This
approach would likely make the production of such blends at blender
pumps impractical since blender pump-refiners would be subject to all
of the requirements applicable to gasoline refiners, including
registration under the F&FA program and per-batch testing. Under
another approach, we sought comment on setting new standards that would
apply to all EFF blends, including E16-50.\56\ This approach would be
consistent with the current limitation that E16-83 may only be used in
FFVs and would facilitate the production of E16-50 at blender pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See 78 FR 29937-29938 (May 21, 2013).
    \56\ Under this proposed approach, EFF would be defined as a
gasoline-ethanol blend that has an ethanol content greater than that
covered under a waiver obtained from the Administrator pursuant to
the requirements of CAA section 211(f)(4) to allow its use in
conventional gasoline vehicles, contains no more than 83 volume
percent ethanol, and is suitable for use in FFVs or flex-fuel
engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of comments on the Tier 3 proposal were in support of the
EPA setting new standards for all EFF used in FFVs that would provide
an equivalent level of protection to gasoline used in conventional
gasoline vehicles and allow E16-50 to be made at blender pumps.
However, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Fuel
and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) stated that the EPA should
continue to treat E16-50 as gasoline to ensure an appropriate level of
protection regarding the environmental quality of these blends.
    In this action, we are proposing to adopt provisions to control the
quality of all EFF blends, including E16-50. This proposal would make
minor amendments to the regulations so that gasoline-ethanol blends of
E50 and below that may not be used in conventional gasoline vehicles
(currently E16-50) \57\ are treated in a similar way to other EFF
blends that may only be used in FFVs (e.g., E51-83). Doing so would
align our regulations with E16-50 use restrictions by no longer
treating E16-50 as gasoline when it cannot legally be used in a
conventional gasoline vehicle. We believe that the quality of EFF can
be best assured by regulating in the same manner all gasoline-ethanol
blends that can only be used in FFVs. If in the future, if a fuel
manufacturer were to demonstrate that an ethanol blend greater than E15
is sub-sim to gasoline, or obtain a waiver under CAA section 211(f) to
allow its use in conventional gasoline vehicles and engines, such a
gasoline-ethanol blend would become subject to all of the requirements
that apply to gasoline, including registration under the F&FA program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Should an ethanol blend above E15 be granted a waiver in
the future to allow its use in conventional gasoline vehicles, such
a blend (e.g., E20) would be grouped with other blends that can be
used in conventional gasoline vehicles (e.g., E10 and E15), and
would subject to the gasoline quality requirements rather than those
for EFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also proposing fuel quality requirements for all EFF that
would provide an equivalent level of emissions control when used in
FFVs compared to the use of gasoline in conventional gasoline vehicles.
As discussed in section IV.C of this preamble, the proposed sulfur and
benzene standards and elemental composition requirements for EFF
directly parallel those for gasoline since levels of these fuel
parameters have the same impact on the emissions performance for FFV
and conventional gasoline vehicles. The proposed RVP requirements for
EFF recognize the greater capability of the evaporative emissions
control equipment on FFVs compared to conventional gasoline vehicles.
As a result of more stringent vehicle certification testing
requirements, FFVs can deliver the same level of evaporative emissions
control as conventional gasoline vehicles when operated on a fuel that
is 1 psi higher than gasoline. We are proposing RVP standards for EFF
produced upstream of blender pumps that parallel those for gasoline
without the 1 psi waiver for E10 that applies in certain areas. When
blended at retail, however, the RVP of the EFF would be expected to
rise. The proposed RVP standards for EFF produced upstream of retail
and existing RVP standards for gasoline would ensure that EFF produced
at blender pumps using EFF and gasoline is expected to be less than 1
psi higher. We believe that the proposed standards for the EFF and
gasoline parent blends used at blender pumps would ensure an equivalent
level of evaporative emissions control for FFVs operated on EFF to that
for conventional gasoline vehicles operated on gasoline (without the 1
psi waiver for E10) without necessitating the implementation of
specific RVP standards for EFF produced at blender pumps.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ For example: In conventional gasoline (CG) areas where a
9.0 psi RVP standard applies to gasoline, EFF produced upstream of
the blender pump would also be subject to a 9.0 psi RVP standard.
This proposed RVP standard for EFF and other proposed requirements
for blender pump operators would ensure that the RVP of EFF made at
blender pumps would expected to be less than 10 psi in 9.0 psi CG
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed compliance provisions contain two primary elements:
(1) Recordkeeping and reporting; and (2) In-use verification through a
third-party survey.\59\ We believe that in-use verification is critical
feature in the proposed EFF compliance provisions as a check against
potential fraud and abuse. This proposal includes streamlined
compliance provisions for producers of E16-50 EFF blends and E15
gasoline at blender pumps based on the use of specified parent blends
and

participation in a fuel quality survey.\60\ The proposed compliance
provisions would represent a substantial reduction in the burden of
compliance compared to the current requirements that apply to these
fuels while continuing to ensure an equivalent level of emissions
control performance to that under the current requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ The proposed EFF quality survey requirements are discussed
in section IV.F.9 of this preamble.
    \60\ E15 blender pump-refiners are currently already required to