the test results are representative, consistent with existing gasoline
tank sampling requirements.\138\ We request comment on what additional
requirements might be needed to assure that samples are collected from
a homogenous batch, and to limit stratification in the storage tank
from which EFF is drawn for testing. We are also requesting comment on
whether the calculative RVP compliance tool discussed below for use by
EFF bulk blender-refiners could also be used by EFF full-refiners in
place of RVP testing to demonstrate compliance with the proposed EFF
RVP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ Previously certified EFF could be used as a blend
component to produce new certified batches of EFF provided that the
newly certified batch of EFF was sampled and tested per the proposed
requirements. We anticipate that this would be the typical practice
for complying with the tank heel of previously certified EFF that is
difficult to remove from the certification tank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For EFF full-refiners that are also alcohol fuel plants under the
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) regulations, the
addition of at least two volume percent uncertified natural gasoline
blendstock would result in distilled spirits that are unfit for
beverage use. As a result, unlike other EFF refiners, EFF full-refiners
have the option to blend in uncertified natural gasoline blendstock to
accomplish EFF blending and denaturing of ethanol in one step. As
prescribed in 26 U.S.C. 5181, when the distilled spirits are produced
under the statutory and regulatory provisions for fuel use and are
being withdrawn exclusively for fuel use the fuel alcohol is withdrawn
free of tax.\139\ For EFF full-refiners that are distilled spirit
plants, they also may withdraw ethanol tax free when it has been
completely denatured for any lawful purpose, including use as fuel
alcohol. Completely denatured alcohol is created by adding 2 gallons or
more of denaturant to each 100 gallons of undenatured ethanol (i.e.,
resulting in a minimum denaturant concentration of approximately 1.96
volume percent).\140\ In consulting with the TTB, we have confirmed
that the addition of more than 1.96 volume percent denaturant, such as
uncertified natural gasoline blendstock at the proposed maximum level
(i.e., 30 volume percent) would still allow the distilled spirit plant
to withdraw fuel alcohol tax free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ See 27 CFR part 19.
    \140\ See 27 CFR 19.746.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we anticipate that most current E85 blenders would use the
following EFF bulk blender-refiner option, ethanol producers have
expressed interest in this EFF full-refiner option. We understand that
the proposed EFF certification tank requirements are not well suited to
the existing EFF production methods at ethanol production plants where
the various component blendstocks are mixed at set ratios via in-line
blending to produce EFF as it is pumped into tank trucks or rail cars
for downstream delivery. Therefore, we are requesting comment on
alternatives to the proposed certification tank approach to streamline
compliance for ethanol producers that wish to take advantage of the EFF
full-refiner option, which would still be able to be used to ensure
compliance.
    Under one such alternative, a ``hand blend'' option, a
representative sample of EFF at a given blend ratio would be made up
from representative samples of the individual EFF blendstocks. To
create a representative sample of each

EFF blendstock, individual samples would be drawn from the top, middle,
and bottom of the blendstock tank to ensure that the test results are
representative. Testing would be conducted on the representative EFF
sample to demonstrate compliance. These test results would be valid for
all batches produced at the same blend ratio as long as no new product
was added to the tanks from which the EFF blendstocks are drawn. As an
additional compliance assurance measure we might require that periodic
samples of the blended EFF be retained and later tested for compliance.
One option that we request comment on would have a sample of blended
EFF taken once for every 250,000 gallons of EFF produced or once every
three months, whichever is more frequent. The proposed EFF retail fuel
survey requirements would provide additional assurance that EFF quality
was being maintained.\141\ However, we are not proposing the hand blend
option discussed above due to concerns that it might allow for an
unacceptable variability in EFF composition. Variability in the
composition of EFF production batches compared to such a hand blend
could arise if the blend ratios of the different blendstocks did not
remain constant. We request comment on what additional provisions might
be appropriate to ensure a consistent level of EFF quality while
providing a streamlined means of compliance demonstration under the EFF
full-refiner option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ The proposed EFF quality survey requirements are discussed
in section IV.F.9 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EFF Bulk Blender-Refiner Certification Option
    Much of the E51-83 is currently made at petroleum terminals and
ethanol production facilities by mixing blendstocks in prescribed
ratios via in-line blending as the fuel is delivered into tanker trucks
for delivery to retail stations. We anticipate the vast majority of
E51-83 will continue to be made by such bulk blenders at gasoline
terminals and ethanol plants. The small batch size and timing
constraints when E51-83 is made as the product is dispensed into a tank
truck for delivery to retail and WPCs facilities would likely make the
per-batch EFF sulfur and benzene testing requirements under the EFF
full-refiner option impractical for EFF bulk blender-refiners. There is
also no clear technical path to facilitate per-batch RVP testing under
such circumstances since such testing could introduce unacceptable
delay during tank trucks picking up EFF at product terminals.
Therefore, we are proposing the EFF bulk blender-refiner certification
option under which bulk blenders could avoid per-batch testing by using
only previously certified blendstocks, where much of the compliance
demonstration has been accomplished by the blendstock producer. The
only blend components that such bulk blenders can currently use while
being assured of compliance with the existing sub-sim requirement for
E51-83 are gasoline, BOBs, and DFE. We are proposing to expand this
list of blend components to allow for increased EFF production.
    We are proposing that to be treated as an EFF bulk blender-refiner,
bulk blenders would be limited to using the following blendstocks that
had been certified by their producers as meeting EPA quality
requirements to produce EFF: DFE, gasoline, BOBs, and certified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock.\142\ We are proposing that an EFF bulk
blender-refiner that is also an ethanol producer could also use
undenatured ethanol as an EFF blendstock similar to under the EFF full-
refiner option. In other words, they could not use uncertified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock without having to meet the EFF full-refiner
option requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ We are also proposing that EFF bulk blender-refiners would
be limited to using a maximum of 30 volume percent of certified
natural gasoline to produce EFF and that the addition of additives
to certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock would be prohibited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EFF bulk blender-refiners that continue to use only DFE and
certified gasoline/BOBs that do not take advantage of the 1 psi waiver
for E10 to make E51-83 would have only minimal additional regulatory
burdens under this proposal associated with registration, annual
reporting, recordkeeping, PTDs, and participation in the proposed EFF
quality survey. EFF bulk blender-refiners that choose to take advantage
of the proposed new blending flexibility to use natural gasoline and
those that use E10/BOBs that take advantage of the 1 psi waiver for E10
would be subject to additional compliance demonstration requirements,
potentially including per-batch RVP testing consistent with their
ability to affect EFF quality. However, bulk blenders would only choose
to accept the additional regulatory burden that accompanies the
increased blending flexibility if there was an economic advantage to do
so. We anticipate that the opportunity to use relatively low cost
natural gasoline as an EFF blendstock could result in a significant
cost savings in the production of EFF, while minimizing the regulatory
burden and ensuring that EFF quality supports the EPA's environmental
goals.
    EFF bulk blender-refiners could demonstrate compliance with the
proposed sulfur and benzene specifications and CHONS requirement by
maintaining PTDs showing that they used only the approved blendstocks.
Since the sulfur and benzene content of blended fuels is directly
proportional to the sulfur and benzene content in the blendstocks used
and bulk blenders would be limited to using certified blendstocks to
manufacture EFF that meet applicable average and cap sulfur and benzene
standards, we could be assured of compliance with the sulfur and
benzene specifications for EFF without requiring per-batch testing.
    However, the nonlinearity in the RVP of ethanol blended fuels means
that additional provisions would be needed for EFF bulk blender-
refiners to demonstrate compliance with the proposed maximum RVP
standards for EFF from May 1 through September 15 for parties upstream
of retail and WPC facilities. We are proposing several paths that EFF
bulk blender-refiners could use to demonstrate compliance with the
proposed maximum RVP requirements: \143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ In their annual reports to the EPA, EFF bulk blender-
refiners would be required to identify the method used to
demonstrate compliance for each batch with detailed supporting
materials including and provide information on the blendstocks used,
the inputs to the RVP compliance tool if used, and the results of
each RVP test if per-batch testing if conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     EFF bulk blender-refiners that use only gasoline and BOBs
that are compliant with the applicable regional RVP specifications
without benefit of the 1 psi waiver for E10 could demonstrate
compliance simply by maintaining the PTDs for the blendstocks used.
     EFF bulk blender-refiners that use certified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock (in addition to gasoline/BOBs) or those that
use gasoline/BOBs that take advantage of the 1 psi waiver for E10 as
EFF hydrocarbon blendstocks could demonstrate compliance by either:
    [cir] Conducting per-batch RVP testing, or
    [cir] Using an RVP compliance tool.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ The proposed RVP compliance tool is discussed in section
IV.F.3 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent per-batch RVP testing is used rather than the RVP
compliance tool, we request comment on the potential to allow for less
frequent testing provided that there was no change in the composition
of the blendstocks or the blending recipe. Some parties may wish to
perform per-

batch testing because early indications from the EPA's test program to
evaluate the performance of the RVP compliance tool may slightly
overestimate RVP.\145\ Hence, the use of per-batch testing could allow
the use of slightly more natural gasoline while remaining compliant
with the proposed RVP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ The EPA expects to have the results of the test program to
confirm the utility of the RVP compliance tool for EFF blends made
with natural gasoline in time to inform the final rule to follow
this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing that EFF bulk blender-refiners would be required
to register with the EPA and provide annual reports on the EFF they
produce. We expect that most EFF bulk blender-refiners would already be
registered with the EPA as gasoline oxygenate blenders or ethanol
producers. EFF bulk blender-refiners would also be required to provide
PTDs for each batch of EFF they produce. The issuance of PTDs by fuel
producers is common business practice.
3. EFF Blender Pump-Refiner Certification Option
    Blender pumps produce a fuel with a particular ethanol content by
drawing from two ``parent blends'' in different tanks at specified
volume ratios. The blender pump can produce a mixture with an ethanol
content anywhere between that exhibited by the parent blends in the two
tanks. In most current cases, this involves E10 gasoline and E85. This
proposal would replace the current gasoline refiner requirements for
producers of E16-50 at blender pumps with requirements for the parent
blends that may be used, including E51-83.
    The properties of the blends produced are determined by those of
the parent blends. Since sulfur, benzene, and non-CHONS elements blend
linearly, compliance of the parent blends with the proposed
specifications for these fuel parameters would ensure the compliance of
blends produced at blender pumps. In the context of the average
standards for benzene and sulfur that apply to gasoline, the benzene
and sulfur concentrations of the EFF produced will vary, but should not
increase on average. However, the nature of blending hydrocarbon fuels
with ethanol is such that the RVP of the blend exhibits a highly
nonlinear response. That is, the RVP of a blend of two fuels with two
different ethanol contents diverges significantly from what one would
predict based on a volume-weighted averaging of the RVPs of the two
fuels. We conducted RVP modeling to evaluate the RVP of blends made at
blender pumps using the parent blends that are commonly used. The
results of this modeling indicate the use of the parent blends commonly
used at blender pumps would result in mid-level ethanol blends that are
expected to be within the evaporative emissions control capacity of
FFVs.\146\ Therefore, we are proposing that EFF blender pump-refiners
could demonstrate compliance with the proposed EFF sulfur, benzene,
RVP, and CHONS requirements by maintaining PTDs to demonstrate that
only certified gasoline and EFF were used as parent blends and
participate in the proposed EFF quality survey. Records of the parent
blends used are already kept as part of common business practice and we
expect that in the vast majority of cases no changes would need to be
made to the type of parent blends used at blender pumps. These
requirements represent a substantial reduction in the burden of
compliance for blender pump operators compared to the current per-batch
testing and reporting requirements for E16-50 gasoline refiners while
continuing to safeguard the environmental performance of E16-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ A discussion of the proposed volatility requirements for
EFF blends and the underlying RVP modeling is discussed in section
IV.C.3 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We expect that E51-83 would be the EFF parent blend of choice at
blender pumps so that it could be made available for sale, although
other EFF blends could be used. We request comment on requiring that
E51-83 be the EFF parent blend used at blender pumps. We believe that
this limitation could provide additional quality control benefits for
blender pumps while not removing any meaningful flexibility since using
E16-50 as a parent blend is not currently a common practice at blender
pumps. The EPA intends to monitor the RVP of blends produced at blender
pumps and may propose additional controls in a later action if
warranted.\147\ EFF blender pump-refiners would also be required to
perform quality assurance practices typical of gasoline retailers to
limit contamination. For example, EFF retailers would also be required
to ensure that their retail tanks are turned over each year from
wintertime EFF (to which RVP requirements do not apply) to summertime
EFF that is compliant with the proposed RVP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ Such monitoring would be accomplished through the proposed
third-party independent survey of the RVP of EFF at blender pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some blender pump operators have expressed interest in using DFE as
a parent blend to produce EFF. Allowing the use of DFE as a parent
blend component at blender pumps would provide additional flexibility
to industry while meeting the EPA's environmental goals. The use of DFE
as a parent blend could facilitate the direct marketing of DFE from
ethanol plants to fuel retailers and allow retailers to separate RINs
from DFE as it is used to create motor vehicle fuel. These practices
could have the potential to reduce the retail cost of EFF. The use of
DFE as a parent blend could also simplify the adjustment of blender
pumps to produce various blend ratios of EFF compared to the use of EFF
that may vary in ethanol content seasonally. When EFF is used as a
parent blend, blender pumps must be readjusted each time a batch of EFF
parent blend is delivered with a different ethanol blend ratio to
ensure accuracy in the ethanol concentration of the blends produced at
the blender pump.\148\ This readjustment should not be necessary when
DFE is used as a parent blend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ We anticipate that blender pump operators may contract
with their supplier to receive a single EFF blend year-round (e.g.,
E70) to avoid the need to recalibrate their blender pumps or arrange
to receive a single summer time blend and a single wintertime blend
to limit the number of recalibrations needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, storing DFE at blender pump facilities could result in
increased fire safety concerns.\149\ Therefore, we are not proposing to
allow DFE to be used at as a parent blend at blender pumps. The
headspace in DFE storage tanks is flammable at nearly all ambient
temperatures, whereas there is substantially less likelihood of this
being the case for E83 and lower ethanol content blends. Industry is
developing recommendations on how to mitigate the increased fire safety
concerns associated with storing DFE at retail stations. Such
recommendations may lead to fire safety codes regarding storing DFE at
retail that would ultimately be enforced by local fire marshals. The
EPA may reconsider allowing DFE to be used as a parent blend at blender
pumps when appropriate safety codes regarding storing DFE at retail
have been developed and implemented. At the same time, we understand
that this practice may already be occurring in a limited number of
retail stations. Consequently, we request comment on allowing DFE to be
used as a parent blend at blender pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ Coordinating Research Council (CRC), Project No. CM-138-
12-1. ``A Risk Analysis/Hazard Assessment of High Ethanol Content
Fuels at Service Stations.'' June 2014.

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

4. Summary of the Blendstock Requirements Under the EFF Certification
Options and Other Proposed Provisions for EFF
    A summary of the blendstock requirements under the three proposed
EFF certification options is contained in Table IV.D.4-1 below.

 Table IV.D.4-1--Summary of Blendstock Requirements Under the Three EFF
                          Certification Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   EFF certification option           Blendstocks that may be used
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFF Full-Refiner.............  Gasoline, BOBs, Certified Natural
                                Gasoline EFF Blendstock, Uncertified
                                Natural Gasoline EFF Blendstock, DFE,
                                Undenatured Ethanol.*
EFF Bulk Blender-Refiner.....  Gasoline, BOBs, Certified Natural
                                Gasoline EFF Blendstock, DFE,
                                Undenatured Ethanol.*
EFF Blender Pump-Refiner.....  Gasoline, EFF.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Must be an ethanol producer to use undenatured ethanol as an EFF
  blendstock.

    We are proposing that once EFF has been certified as meeting the
proposed requirements, no additional blendstocks could be added
downstream.\150\ For example, natural gasoline could not be added to
previously certified EFF. Allowing the addition of blendstocks to
previously certified EFF would add substantial complexity to the
program and introduce additional opportunities for compliance issues to
arise. We believe that precluding the addition of additional
blendstocks to previously certified EFF would not interfere with the
legitimate production of EFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ EFF additives could still be added downstream as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing a prohibition on commingling batches of EFF
batches downstream of the production facility except at EFF blender
pump-refiner facilities and retail/WPC facilities that dispense EFF
from dedicated dispensers.\151\ We believe that this would help prevent
the introduction of potential errors in the ethanol content of EFF
reported on the PTD. Accurate information on the ethanol content of EFF
is important to blender pump-refiners in calibrating their dispensers
to produce EFF blends (and E15) of appropriate ethanol content. We
believe that this prohibition would not be a practical constraint on
EFF distributors, since EFF is primarily distributed by tank truck to
retail and WPC facilities without any intervening storage facility. We
request comment on the extent to which EFF may be distributed by rail
car or other means with intervening storage before delivery to retail/
WPC facilities. To the extent that EFF may be distributed in this
manner, the proposed prohibition on commingling of EFF batches
discussed above could complicate the storage of EFF at facilities
between the producer and retail/WPC facility. If this is a concern, we
request comment on alternative means to ensure that error in the
ethanol content of EFF is not introduced by commingling of EFF batches
downstream of the producer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ A dedicated EFF dispenser provides only a single EFF blend
(e.g., ``E85'' or E51-83).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Requirements for E15 Gasoline Blender Pump-Refiners

    Fuel retailers and WPCs 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). However, the application of these requirements to
fuel retailers and WPCs is impractical. For example, it is infeasible
for fuel retailers and WPCs to conduct laboratory tests on each batch
of E15 produced (i.e., each vehicle fill-up) to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable sulfur, benzene, and RVP requirements. Even if
blender pump operators could test every batch, requiring per-batch
testing is inconsistent with their limited ability to impact the
quality of the gasoline they produce, which is governed by the parent
blends used.
    Since the proposed requirements for EFF parallel those for
gasoline, the use of EFF that meets the proposed requirements as a
parent blend with compliant gasoline as the other parent blend would
ensure that E15 made at blender pumps is compliant with the gasoline
sulfur, benzene, and CHONS requirements. This is due to the linear
blending characteristics of fuel sulfur, benzene, and CHONS content.
The situation is analogous to commingling two previously certified
gasolines, which does not entail any additional compliance
demonstration requirements.
    However, the non-linear RVP blending characteristics for gasoline-
ethanol blends pose unique issues regarding RVP compliance for E15 made
at blender pumps from June 1 through September 15 when gasoline RVP
requirements apply at retail and WPCs. Blenders of E15 in conventional
gasoline areas (both at blender pumps and at terminals) have typically
not been able to make E15 that is compliant with summertime RVP
requirements due to the unavailability of sub-RVP blendstocks. The
gasoline blendstocks that are available in conventional gasoline areas
are typically formulated to produce E10 with the 1 psi RVP waiver since
it has not been economical for lower RVP gasoline blendstocks to also
be made available that would be suitable to make E15.
    We are proposing that from September 16 through May 31, all E15
gasoline blender pump-refiners, regardless of where they are located,
could demonstrate compliance with the gasoline refiner requirements
using the same approach that we are proposing for EFF blender pump-
refiners--by maintaining PTDs that show that the parent blends used to
make E15 (i.e., E0 or E10, and EFF) were certified for sale upstream of
the blender pump-refiner. Such gasoline blender pump-refiners would
also be required to maintain records of their quality control program,
including those from the periodic calibration of the blender pump.
These proposed requirements would be consistent with common business
practices at fuel retail, and would ensure that the E15 produced by a
gasoline blender pump-refiner for use from September 16 through May 31
complies with the sulfur, benzene, and CHONS requirements.
    We are proposing that EFF blender pump-refiners could demonstrate
compliance with the proposed RVP requirements for EFF from June 1
through September 15 by maintaining PTDs that show the parent blends
used were certified upstream of the blender pump-refiner as meeting
local RVP

requirements. We based this proposed approach to EFF production at
blender pumps on RVP modeling showing that the resulting EFF blends
produced at blender pumps would not exceed the evaporative emissions
control capability of FFVs (i.e., 10 psi RVP). Due to the more
stringent vehicle evaporative certification requirements for FFVs, they
can operate on a fuel with volatility 1 psi higher than the maximum
volatility required for conventional gasoline vehicles while
maintaining evaporative emissions control performance equivalent to
that of conventional gasoline vehicles.
    A similar approach for E15 can be used in many areas depending on
whether the 1 psi waiver for E10 applies.\152\ In conventional gasoline
areas where the 1 psi waiver for E10 does not apply, E15 made at
blender pumps using EFF that meets the proposed RVP requirements and
E10 as parent blends would be compliant with the applicable gasoline
RVP standard.\153\ In RFG areas, E15 made with EFF that meets the
proposed RVP standard and E10 that meets the RFG VOC performance
standard would also be compliant with the RFG VOC performance standard.
This is because the proposed 7.0 psi RVP standard for EFF in RFG areas
is consistent with the RFG VOC performance standard for gasoline.\154\
Therefore, we are proposing that in conventional gasoline areas where
the 1 psi waiver does not apply and in RFG areas, blender pump-refiners
of E15 could demonstrate compliance with the volatility requirements
for E15 from June 1 through September 15 by keeping PTDs for the E10
and EFF used as parent blends to show that they were certified upstream
of the blender pump-refiner as meeting the local requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ The 1 psi waiver is applicable in most conventional
gasoline areas, but does not apply in RFG areas where gasoline
volatility is governed by a VOC performance standard rather than a
per-gallon RVP cap.
    \153\ For a discussion of the volatility of E15 and E10 made at
blender pumps, see the memorandum, ``Volatility of Ethanol Blends
Made at Blender Pumps,'' available in the docket for this action.
    \154\ See the memorandum, ``Volatility of Reformulated
Gasoline,'' available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, in conventional gasoline areas where the 1 psi waiver does
apply, E15 made at blender pumps using E10 and EFF that meets the
proposed RVP requirements would not be compliant with the applicable
RVP requirements for gasoline. Therefore, in conventional gasoline
areas where the 1 psi waiver for E10 applies, we are not proposing to
allow blender pump-refiners of E15 that use E10 as a parent blend to
meet their gasoline refiner requirements using PTDs for the parent
blends used from June 1 through September 15.
    In all areas, E15 produced at blender pumps using E0 and EFF
meeting the applicable RVP requirements would not be in compliance with
the applicable RVP requirements for E15. Therefore, we are not
proposing to allow blender pump-refiners of E15 that use E0 as a parent
blend to meet their gasoline refiner requirements from June 1 through
September 15 by using PTDs for the parent blends used. Our proposal
regarding the demonstration of compliance of blender pump-refiners of
E15 with the RVP requirements for E15 is summarized in the Table IV.E-1
below.

              Table IV.E-1--Demonstration of Compliance With E15 RVP Requirements at Blender Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Demonstrate  compliance
                 Area                       Parent blends               E15 RVP          using  PTDs for  parent
                                                                                blends?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFG..................................  E10 1 & EFF (7 psi)....  Compliant with RFG VOC   Yes.
                                                                 requirements 1.
                                       E0 1 2 & EFF (7 psi)...  Not compliant with RFG   No.
                                                                 VOC requirements.
CG Areas without the 1 psi waiver for  E10 (9 psi/7.8 psi) 3 &  <9 psi/7.8 psi.........  Yes.
 E10.                                   EFF(9 psi/7.8 psi).
                                       E0 (9 psi/7.8 psi) &     >9 psi/7.8 psi.........  No.
                                        EFF (9 psi/7.8 psi).
CG Areas with the 1 psi waiver for     E10 (10 psi/8.8 psi) 4   >9 psi/7.8 psi.........  No.
 E10.                                   & EFF (9 psi/7.8 psi).
                                       E0 (9 psi/7.8 psi) &     >9 psi/7.8 psi.........  No.
                                        EFF (9 psi/7.8 psi).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RFG meets a VOC performance standard as opposed to a per-gallon RVP cap.
\2\ Refiners currently formulate all RFG for the downstream addition of 10 volume percent ethanol.
\3\ Some CG areas have a 9.0 psi standard for gasoline and proposed 9.0 psi standard for EFF produced upstream
  of retail/WPCs. Other CG areas have a 7.8 psi standard for gasoline and proposed 7.8 psi standard for EFF
  produced upstream of retail/WPCs.
\4\ Reflects 1 psi waiver for E10.

    As a result of the difficulty blenders face in locating sub-RVP
blendstocks for use in making E15 that is compliant with the gasoline
RVP requirements in areas where the 1 psi waiver for E10 applies, the
EPA received requests for clarification about whether relabeling E15 as
for use only in FFVs would exempt E15 from gasoline RVP requirements
from June 1 through September 15. All gasoline, including E15, is
subject to all of the requirements applicable to gasoline because of
its formulation, not because of its end use. These requirements cannot
be circumvented by relabeling. Allowing a fuel to be exempted from fuel
quality requirements simply based on a statement of its intended use
would undermine the EPA's ability to assure compliance with fuel
quality requirements. In situations where E15 blenders could not locate
sub-RVP blendstocks to facilitate compliance with the applicable
gasoline RVP requirements, they could adjust the ethanol blend ratio to
produce an EFF blend such as E20 from June 1 through September 15. Such
producers of E20 or other EFF blends would be compliant with the
proposed RVP requirements for EFF if they observed the proposed parent
blend requirements for EFF blender pump-refiners. Such E20 producers
would also be required to comply with the other proposed requirements
for EFF blender pump-refiners and to appropriately label the fuel.

    Some retailers may also be interested in producing E10 using E0 and
EFF as parent blends at blender pumps. We seek comment on the need for,
and means of, facilitating this practice without triggering the batch
sampling testing requirements that apply to a gasoline refiner. The
means of assuring compliance of E10 made at blender pumps using E0 and
EFF with the sulfur, benzene, and CHONS requirements for gasoline
should parallel those proposed above for blender pump-refiners of E15.
However, because of the limited blending accuracy for blender pumps, we
are not confident of the means to assure compliance with the gasoline
volatility requirements for E10, particularly in areas where the 1 psi
waiver for E10 does not apply, as well as in areas where the waiver
does apply.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ The ethanol content of E10 must be between 9 and 10 volume
percent for the 1 psi waiver to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Compliance Provisions

1. Registration, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
    Registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements are
necessary components to ensure that any fuels program is effectively
implemented. This proposal includes registration, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements for each class of party tailored to their
specific activities related to the production of EFF and E15 produced
at blender pumps.
a. Registration Requirements
    We are proposing that EFF full-refiners and importers, EFF bulk
blender-refiners, and certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock
refiners and importers register with the EPA prior to the production of
EFF or natural gasoline EFF blendstock. Since downstream parties (e.g.,
EFF bulk blender-refiners and blender pump-refiners) need upstream
parties (e.g., natural gasoline EFF blendstock refiners and EFF full-
refiners) to comply with the proposed EFF quality standards to
practicably comply with their individual requirements, we are proposing
staggered initial registration deadlines to facilitate the cascading
nature of EFF fuel quality standards implementation.
    For registration, we are proposing to use the same basic forms that
previous fuels programs have used. These forms are well-known in the
regulated community and are simple to fill out. With the exception of
certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock producers, we anticipate that
most parties will already be registered under our existing fuel
standards. Upon receipt of a completed registration form, the EPA would
issue a unique 4-digit company identification number and a unique 5-
digit facility identification number. As with existing fuels programs,
these numbers would be required for all reports submitted to the EPA
and for applicable PTDs.
    Registrations would not expire and would not have to be renewed;
however, we are proposing that registered parties would be responsible
for notifying us of any change to their company or facility
information.
    An entity's registration would include a corporate name and address
(including the name, telephone number, and email address of a corporate
contact); and, for each facility operated by the entity:
     Type of facility (e.g., EFF full-refinery, EFF bulk
blender-refiner facility, certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock
refinery facility)
    [cir] Registrations for certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock
refineries would be limited to natural gas processing plants and crude
oil refineries.
     Facility name.
     Physical location.
     Contact name, telephone number, and email address.
    These proposed registration requirements would be similar to those
currently required for gasoline refiners and importers. The EPA has had
success with these requirements and believes that they are appropriate
for parties involved in the manufacture of EFF. However, there may be
some additional registration requirements that would prove useful to
ensure that parties involved in the manufacture of EFF make compliant
fuels. Although we are not proposing any additional registration
requirements on EFF refiners and importers, EFF bulk blender-refiners,
and certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock refiners and importers
compared to what we have historically required of gasoline or diesel
refiners and importers, we seek comment on whether there are any other
registration requirements that we should impose on these parties.
b. Reporting Requirements
    We are proposing to require parties involved in the manufacture of
EFF to submit annual reports demonstrating their compliance with the
EFF standards. Based on our experience with existing gasoline programs,
we believe that requiring annual reports containing individual batch
data would provide an effective means of monitoring compliance with the
EFF standards.
    Consistent with other fuel program annual reporting requirements,
we are proposing that reports would be due annually on March 31. Since
the EFF requirements are different for the proposed three broad
categories of parties, there would be different reporting requirements
for EFF full-refiners and importers, EFF bulk blender-refiners, and
natural gasoline EFF blendstock refiners and importers.
    For EFF full-refiners and importers, we are proposing that they
submit annual batch level reports with sulfur, benzene, and ethanol
content, as well as RVP, consistent with forms and procedures already
used by gasoline refiners and importers. EFF full-refiners and
importers would also have to demonstrate annual compliance with average
sulfur and benzene content standards similar to gasoline refiners and
importers. Although we are not proposing to have other fuel parameters
reported by batch to the EPA that are currently required to be reported
for gasoline (e.g., distillation, aromatics), we seek comment on
whether we should require any additional information to be submitted to
the EPA by EFF full-refiners and importers.
    We are proposing that EFF bulk blender-refiners would be required
to submit an annual report that includes the volume, ethanol
concentration, and blendstocks used (e.g., certified natural gasoline,
E10, BOBs) of each EFF batch. One of the benefits for EFF bulk blender-
refiners to utilize certified blendstocks to make EFF versus creating
EFF as an EFF full-refiner is that EFF bulk blender-refiners would not
have to sample and test their batches of EFF for sulfur, benzene, or
RVP. Without this information, it would not make sense to require EFF
bulk blender-refiners to report these values. However, the EPA believes
that based on our experience with implementation and enforcement of
other programs it is still important to have the volumes that are
produced reported to us. We seek comment on whether we should require
additional reporting requirements on EFF bulk blender-refiners.
    Finally, for natural gasoline EFF blendstock refiners and
importers, we are proposing similar reporting requirements for those
outlined above for EFF full-refiners and importers. Since natural
gasoline EFF blendstock refiners and importers would be required to
meet per-gallon cap sulfur and benzene requirements, natural gasoline
EFF blendstock refiners and importers would also have to report
additional information to ensure that

each batch meets the applicable standards. Consistent with other EPA
fuels programs, natural gasoline EFF blendstock refiners would need to
submit annual batch reports and annual compliance reports. Reporting
elements for natural gasoline EFF blendstock refiners' batch reports
would be the sulfur content, benzene content, ethanol content, RVP,
batch volume, and batch identifying information (e.g., date of
production, batch number, etc.) for each batch produced in the
compliance year. Annual compliance reports would contain total volume
production and certification that all batches produced in the
compliance period were compliant with applicable requirements.
    Since most of this information is already required of some gasoline
refiners, existing reporting forms and procedures for gasoline refiners
should also be applicable to natural gasoline EFF blendstock refiners
and importers with minor modification. We seek comment on whether we
should require any additional reporting from natural gasoline EFF
blendstock refiners and importers.
    Consistent with existing CBI requirements, all refiners and
importers of EFF and natural gasoline EFF blendstock can claim
information submitted to the EPA as CBI. Parties making such a claim
would be required to follow all reporting guidance and clearly mark the
information being claimed as proprietary. The EPA would treat
information covered by such a claim in accordance with the regulations
at 40 CFR part 2, and other EPA procedures for handling proprietary
information.
c. Recordkeeping
    Consistent with current EPA fuels programs, we are proposing that
EFF full-refiners and importers, EFF bulk blender-refiners, blender
pump-refiners, and natural gasoline EFF blendstock refiners and
importers would be required to retain all records that demonstrate
compliance with applicable EFF and gasoline requirements. We are
proposing that all of these parties would also be required to keep
records of all bills of lading, PTDs, invoices or other commercial
documents relating to gasoline, ethanol, natural gasoline EFF
blendstock, or any other blendstock used to make EFF, and records of
any quality assurance plans (QAPs). Records would need to be retained
for five years consistent with other EPA fuels programs. We are
proposing that records would be made available to the EPA on request.
We are also proposing that if electronic records are kept, hard copies
should be made available upon request.
    Since several parties would be subject to different EFF
requirements, we are proposing some specific requirements on different
individual parties. For blender pump-refiners, we are proposing to
require that records related to the calibration of blender pumps be
kept. Most, if not all, retail stations are already subject to state
weights and measures programs that require the calibration of fuel
dispensers to be tested periodically. These calibrations are important
to determining whether blender pump-refiner requirements are in fact
being met by all gasoline-ethanol blends manufactured through a blender
pump. We are not proposing specific calibration requirements for
blender pumps because we believe that it is most appropriate for such
requirements to be established by state weight and measure programs.
    For EFF bulk blender-refiners, the demonstration that a particular
batch of EFF would meet appropriate EFF fuel quality standards is based
primarily on recordkeeping and QAPs. Therefore, it is paramount that
appropriate records be kept and that attest engagement requirements are
in place.\156\ We seek comment on whether there are any additional
recordkeeping requirements that would be appropriate and necessary for
the EPA to require of EFF bulk blender-refiners specifically, and other
parties more generally, to enhance compliance and enforceability of the
EFF requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ See section IV.F.5 of this preamble for discussion on
attest engagement requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Proposed Sampling, Test Method, and Sample Retention Requirements
for Refiners and Importers of EFF and Natural Gasoline EFF Blendstock
    We are proposing that refiners and importers utilize the following
sampling and test methods for measuring the fuel parameter properties
of sulfur, benzene, oxygenate, RVP, 90 percent distillation point, and
final boiling point for EFF and natural gasoline EFF blendstock. We are
also proposing sample retention requirements for EFF and natural
gasoline EFF blendstock. Table IV.F.2-1 below lists the ASTM standard
practices that we are proposing.
    We are proposing that refiners and importers of EFF and natural
gasoline EFF blendstock utilize the following ASTM standard practices
when sampling EFF and natural gasoline EFF blendstock. We are proposing
that when refiners and importers manually sample EFF and natural
gasoline EFF blendstock, they utilize ASTM D4057. We are proposing that
when refiners and importers sample EFF and natural gasoline EFF
blendstock by an automated sampling method, they utilize ASTM D4177. We
are proposing that when refiners and importers sample EFF and natural
gasoline EFF blendstock for volatility measurements, they utilize ASTM
D5842. Finally, we are proposing that when refiners and importers mix
and handle EFF and natural gasoline EFF blendstock for compliance
measurements, they utilize ASTM D5854.
    We are proposing that EFF full-refiners and importers and natural
gasoline EFF blendstock refiners and importers measure sulfur content.
Currently our regulations for the measurement of sulfur content in
gasoline at 40 CFR 80.46 designates ASTM D2622 as the primary test
method. For consistency's sake, we are proposing ASTM D2622 as the
designated primary test method for measuring the sulfur content of EFF
and natural gasoline EFF blendstock. We are also proposing six
alternative test methods for the measurement of sulfur content of EFF
and natural gasoline EFF blendstock: ASTM D1266, ASTM D3120, ASTM
D5453, ASTM D6920, ASTM D7220, and ASTM D7039, provided that their test
results are correlated to ASTM D2622. Of the test methods discussed
here for measuring the sulfur content of EFF and natural gasoline EFF
blendstock, we believe ASTM D2622 is the most precise test method.
    We are also proposing that EFF full-refiners and importers and
natural gasoline EFF blendstock refiners and importers measure benzene
content. Currently our regulations for the measurement of aromatic
content in gasoline at 40 CFR 80.46 designates ASTM D5769 as the
primary test method. ASTM D5769 also measures the benzene content of
gasoline. For consistency's sake and since ASTM D5769 also measures
benzene content, we are proposing ASTM D5769 as the designated primary
test method for measuring the benzene content of EFF and natural
gasoline EFF blendstock. We are also proposing the allowance of three
alternative test methods for the measurement of benzene content of EFF
and natural gasoline EFF blendstock: ASTM D3606, ASTM D5580, and ASTM
D6730, provided that their test results are correlated to ASTM D5769.
Since ASTM D3606 has the potential for interference between ethanol and
benzene when ethanol is present in the fuel sample, we do not believe
ASTM D3606 is the best candidate to be the designated primary test
method for EFF

and natural gasoline EFF blendstock compared to ASTM D5769, which lacks
the potential for interference issues between benzene and ethanol. The
EPA seeks comment on whether to designate only ASTM D5769 for measuring
benzene content in gasoline, or whether to add ASTM D5769 as a
designated primary test method for benzene in gasoline along with ASTM
D3606.
    We are also proposing that EFF bulk blender-refiners and blender
pump-refiners measure oxygenate content as part of the proposed EFF
survey program. Currently our regulations for the measurement of
oxygenate content in gasoline at 40 CFR 80.46 designates ASTM D5599 as
the primary test method. For consistency's sake, we are proposing to
designate ASTM D5599 as the designated primary test method for
measuring the oxygenate content of EFF. We are also proposing for the
allowance of one alternative test method for oxygenate content
measurement of EFF: ASTM D4815, provided that its test results are
correlated to ASTM D5599.
    We are also proposing that EFF full-refiners and importers, EFF
bulk blender-refiners, and natural gasoline EFF blendstock refiners and
importers measure RVP. Currently our regulations for the measurement of
RVP in gasoline at 40 CFR 80.46 designates ASTM D5191 as the primary
test method. For consistency's sake, we are proposing to designate ASTM
D5191 as the designated primary test method for measuring the RVP of
EFF and natural gasoline EFF blendstock. We are also proposing for the
allowance of two alternative test methods for the RVP measurement of
EFF and natural gasoline EFF blendstock: ASTM D5482 and ASTM D6378,
provided that their test results are correlated to ASTM D5191.
    Finally, we are also proposing that natural gasoline EFF blendstock
refiners and importers measure the 90 percent distillation point and
final boiling point of natural gasoline EFF blendstock. Currently our
regulations for the measurement of the distillation point of gasoline
at 40 CFR 80.46 designates ASTM D86-12 as the primary test method. For
consistency's sake, we are proposing to designate ASTM D86-12 as the
designated primary test method for measuring the 90 percent
distillation point and final boiling point of natural gasoline EFF
blendstock.
    All of the test methods discussed here do not have established
precision estimates for repeatability or reproducibility that would
enable the EPA to propose Performance-Based Measurement System (PBMS)
requirements for these analytical test methods. Once these estimates
have been established by ASTM, at that time the EPA may propose PBMS
requirements for the measurement of sulfur, benzene, oxygenate, RVP, 90
percent distillation point, and final boiling point of EFF and natural
gasoline EFF blendstock. We welcome comment on our proposed sampling
and test methods.

  Table IV.F.2-1--ASTM Sampling and Designated Primary and Alternative
   Analytical Test Methods for EFF and Natural Gasoline EFF Blendstock
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       ASTM Analytical standard practice
            Fuel parameter                       or test method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Practice for Manual Sampling  ASTM D4057-12, entitled,
                                        ``Standard Practice for Manual
                                        Sampling of Petroleum and
                                        Petroleum Products''.
Standard Practice for Automated        ASTM D4177-95 (Reapproved 2010),
 Sampling.                              entitled, ``Standard Practice
                                        for Automatic Sampling of
                                        Petroleum and Petroleum
                                        Products''.
Standard Practice for Handling of      ASTM D5842-14, entitled,
 Fuels for Volatility Measurement.      ``Standard Practice for Sampling
                                        and Handling of Fuels for
                                        Volatility Measurement''.
Standard Practice for Mixing and       ASTM D5854-96 (Reapproved 2010),
 Handling of Liquid Samples of          entitled, ``Standard Practice
 Petroleum and Petroleum Products.      for Mixing and Handling of
                                        Liquid Samples of Petroleum and
                                        Petroleum Products''.
Sulfur (designated primary test        ASTM D2622-10, entitled
 method).                               ``Standard Test Method for
                                        Sulfur in Petroleum Products by
                                        Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray
                                        Fluorescence Spectrometry''.
Sulfur (alternative test method).....  ASTM D1266-13, entitled, ``Sulfur
                                        Test Method for Sulfur in
                                        Petroleum Products (Lamp
                                        Method)''.
Sulfur (alternative test method).....  ASTM D3120-08 (Reapproved 2014),
                                        entitled, ``Standard Test Method
                                        for Trace Quantities of Sulfur
                                        in Light Liquid Petroleum
                                        Hydrocarbons by Oxidative
                                        Microcoulometry''.
Sulfur (alternative test method).....  ASTM D5453-12, entitled,
                                        ``Standard Test Method for
                                        Determination of Total Sulfur in
                                        Light Hydrocarbons, Spark
                                        Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel
                                        Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by
                                        Ultraviolet Fluorescence''.
Sulfur (alternative test method).....  ASTM D6920-13, entitled,
                                        ``Standard Test Method for Total
                                        Sulfur in Naphthas, Distillates,
                                        Reformulated Gasolines, Diesels,
                                        Biodiesels, and Motor Fuels by
                                        Oxidative Combustion and
                                        Electrochemical Detection''.
Sulfur (alternative test method).....  ASTM D7220-12, entitled,
                                        ``Standard Test Method for
                                        Sulfur in Automotive, Heating,
                                        and Jet Fuels by Monochromatic
                                        Energy Dispersive X-ray
                                        Fluorescence Spectrometry''.
Sulfur (alternative test method).....  ASTM D7039-13, entitled,
                                        ``Standard Test Method for
                                        Sulfur in Gasoline, Diesel Fuel,
                                        Jet Fuel, Kerosine, Biodiesel,
                                        Biodiesel Blends, and Gasoline-
                                        Ethanol Blends by Monochromatic
                                        Wavelength Dispersive X-ray
                                        Fluorescence Spectrometry''.
Benzene (designated primary test       ASTM D5769-10, entitled,
 method).                               ``Standard Test Method for
                                        Determination of Benzene,
                                        Toluene, and Total Aromatics in
                                        Finished Gasolines by Gas
                                        Chromatography/Mass
                                        Spectrometry''.
Benzene (alternative test method)....  ASTM D3606-10, entitled,
                                        ``Standard Test Method for
                                        Determination of Benzene and
                                        Toluene in Finished Motor and
                                        Aviation Gasoline by Gas
                                        Chromatography''.
Benzene (alternative test method)....  ASTM D5580-13, entitled,
                                        ``Standard Test Method for
                                        Determination of Benzene,
                                        Toluene, Ethylbenzene, p/m-
                                        Xylene, o-Xylene, C9 and Heavier
                                        Aromatics, and Total Aromatics
                                        in Finished Gasoline by Gas
                                        Chromatography''.
Benzene (alternative test method)....  ASTM D6730-01 (Reapproved 2011),
                                        entitled, ``Standard Test Method
                                        for Determination of Individual
                                        Components in Spark Ignition
                                        Engine Fuels by 100-Metre
                                        Capillary (with Precolumn) High-
                                        Resolution Gas Chromatography''.
Oxygenate Content (designated primary  ASTM D5599-00(2010), entitled,
 test method).                          ``Standard Test Method for
                                        Determination of Oxygenates in
                                        Gasoline by Gas Chromatography
                                        and Oxygen Selective Flame
                                        Ionization Detection''.
Oxygenate Content (alternative test    ASTM D4815-15a, entitled,
 method).                               ``Standard Test Method for
                                        Determination of MTBE, ETBE,
                                        TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl
                                        Alcohol and C1 to C4 Alcohols in
                                        Gasoline by Gas
                                        Chromatography''.

RVP (designated primary test method).  ASTM D5191-13, entitled,
                                        ``Standard Test Method for Vapor
                                        Pressure of Petroleum Products
                                        (Mini Method)''.
RVP (alternative test method)........  ASTM D5482-07 (Reapproved 2013),
                                        entitled, ``Standard Test Method
                                        for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum
                                        Products (Mini-Method--
                                        Atmospheric)''.
RVP (alternative test method)........  ASTM D6378-10, entitled,
                                        ``Standard Test Method for
                                        Determination of Vapor Pressure
                                        (VPx) of Petroleum Products,
                                        Hydrocarbons, and Hydrocarbon
                                        Oxygenate Mixtures (Triple
                                        Expansion Method)''.
Distillation Point (designated         ASTM D86-12, entitled, ``Standard
 primary test method).                  Test Method for Distillation of
                                        Petroleum Products at
                                        Atmospheric Pressure''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is also taking comment on whether we should establish
Performance-Based Analytical Test Method Approach (PBATMA) requirements
for the parameters of sulfur, benzene, distillation point, oxygenate
content, and RVP in EFF and natural gasoline EFF blendstock. The EPA
envisions that sulfur would fall under the absolute fuel parameter
category for PBATMA where the precision criteria \157\ and accuracy
criteria \158\ would be the same as for sulfur in gasoline.\159\ The
EPA envisions the fuel parameters of benzene, T90 distillation point,
oxygenate content, and RVP would fall under the method defined fuel
parameter category for PBATMA.\160\ Under the method defined fuel
parameter PBATMA requirements, the EPA envisions that the precision
criteria would be the same as for each of these respective fuel
parameters in gasoline.\161\ The EPA envisions that the accuracy
criteria would be addressed by ASTM D6708 assessments to determine the
need for a correction equation.\162\ The EPA envisions following the
same approval process for EFF as for gasoline; that is, voluntary
consensus standard body (VCSB) test methods self-qualify to regulatory
criteria and non-VCSB test methods submit required information to the
EPA for approval.\163\ Finally the EPA envisions that the EFF and
natural gasoline EFF blendstock statistical quality control (SQC)
PBATMA requirements for accuracy and precision would mirror what was
finalized for PBAMTA for motor vehicle gasoline and diesel fuel.\164\
The EPA is interested in comments on whether the test methods discussed
here sufficiently address EFF and natural gasoline EFF blendstock in
their precision statement in order to establish PBATMA accuracy and
precision criteria as discussed above for the fuel parameters of
sulfur, benzene, distillation point, oxygenate content, and RVP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ The maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the
results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (tests may be
arranged into no fewer than five batches of four or fewer tests
each, with only one such batch allowed per day over the minimum of
20 days) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a
single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than
or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability ``r'' divided by 2.77, where
``r'' equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D7039 (Example: A 10 ppm
sulfur gasoline sample: Maximum allowable standard deviation of 20
tests<=1.5*(1.73ppm/2.77)=0.94 ppm). The 20 results must be a series
of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no omissions.
    \158\ Two accuracy demonstrations would be completed based on
the test method repeatability statements of ASTM D7039. The
arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests
performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially
available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1-10 ppm shall
not differ from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the standard
by more than 0.70 ppm, where the accuracy criteria is 0.75*(1.5*r/
2.77), where ``r'' is the repeatability (Example: 0.75*(1.5*1.73ppm/
2.77)=0.70 ppm); and The arithmetic average of a continuous series
of at least 10 tests performed using good laboratory practices on a
commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of
10-20 ppm shall not differ from the ARV of the standard by more than
1.02 ppm sulfur, where the accuracy criteria is 0.75*(1.5*r/2.77),
where ``r'' is the repeatability (Example: 0.75*(1.5*2.52ppm/
2.77)=1.02 ppm).
    \159\ See 40 CFR 80.47(b).
    \160\ See 40 CFR 80.47.
    \161\ Proposed method defined precision criteria for EFF and
natural gasoline EFF blendstock. A precision demonstration would
show through self-qualification for these method defined fuel
parameters that the maximum allowable standard deviation computed
from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (tests
may be arranged into no fewer than five batches of four or fewer
tests each, with only one such batch allowed per day over the
minimum of 20 days) on samples using good laboratory practices taken
from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be
less than or equal to 0.3 times the reproducibility ``R'', where
``R'' equals the ASTM reproducibility for benzene see 40 CFR
80.47(i), for T90 Distillation see 40 CFR 80.47(h), for oxygenate
content see 40 CFR 80.47(f), and for RVP see 40 CFR 80.47(g).
    \162\ See 40 CFR 80.47(l).
    \163\ See 40 CFR 80.47(m).
    \164\ See 40 CFR 80.47(o), 80.47(p), and 80.47(q).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Alternate Provisions for EFF Bulk Blender-Refiners to Demonstrate
Compliance With Volatility Standards
    As an alternative to per-batch RVP testing, we are proposing that
EFF bulk blender-refiners that use natural gasoline to produce EFF
could use an RVP tool to demonstrate compliance with the proposed
maximum RVP specifications for EFF.\165\ Records of the use of such an
RVP compliance tool could be used as part of an affirmative defense
against potential liability by an EFF bulk blender-refiner in cases
where a batch of EFF was later found to exceed the proposed RVP
standards. This would parallel how records of an RVP test on such a
batch could be used as part of an affirmative defense. We are proposing
the use of RVP equations 6, 8, and 11 described in SAE technical paper
2007-01-4006, entitled ``A Model for Estimating Vapor Pressures of
Commingled Ethanol Fuels,'' by Sam R. Reddy, which are copied below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ EFF bulk blender-refiners that use only DFE (or in the
case of EFF bulk blender-refiners that are also ethanol producers,
potentially undenatured ethanol), and certified gasoline/BOBs that
do not take advantage of the 1 psi RVP waiver for E10 could
demonstrate compliance simply by maintaining PTDs to demonstrate
that only these blendstocks are used.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16NO16.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16NO16.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16NO16.002

    Equations 8 and 11 were modified from those in the referenced SAE
paper by replacing the term ``gasoline'' with ``hydrocarbon'' to
reflect that we are proposing that the RVP tool could be used when
natural gasoline (and BOBs) are used as EFF blendstocks as well as
gasoline. The proposed RVP compliance tool was developed based on data
from ethanol blends made with gasoline as the hydrocarbon blend
component.
    There is some concern regarding the representativeness of the
proposed RVP compliance tool when natural gasoline is used as a
blendstock because of the low aromatic content of natural gasoline
relative to gasoline/BOBs and the effect of aromatic content on the RVP
of ethanol blends. However, we believe that the proposed tool would be
suitable to cover the use of natural gasoline as an EFF blendstock.
Because of the characteristics of natural gasoline, including its
typical lower aromatic concentration, we anticipate that the proposed
RVP compliance tool would tend to slightly overestimate the actual RVP
of blends made using natural gasoline rendering its use somewhat
conservative. The EPA is currently conducting work to test the RVP of
ethanol blends made with natural gasoline. The results of this study
will be used to validate that the proposed RVP compliance tool provides
accurate results for blends that contain natural gasoline. If the
results of this study indicate that the proposed tool needs to be
amended to accurately reflect the RVP blending properties of natural
gasoline, the EPA would modify it in a later action.
    The RVP of unoxygenated gasoline, BOB, and/or natural gasoline EFF
blendstock used to produce the EFF would be volume weighted to arrive
at a value for the RVP of the mixture of the hydrocarbon blend
components for use in equations 8 and 11. If DFE is used as an EFF
blendstock rather that undenatured ethanol, the denaturant would also
be included in the volume weighted calculation to arrive at a value for
the RVP of the mixture of the hydrocarbon blend components used in
equations 8 and 11. We expect that in most cases EFF would be produced
at product terminals and that DFE would be used as a blendstock. EFF
bulk blender-refiners that are also ethanol producers would have the
option to use undenatured ethanol in blending EFF that they manufacture
at their production facilities. For the purpose of calculating the
inputs for the RVP compliance tool regarding the RVP and volume percent
of the hydrocarbons in the EFF blend, it could be assumed that the DFE
used as a blendstock contains 3 volume percent denaturant at 15 psi
RVP. The volume percent ethanol input to the RVP compliance tool
equations would also be assumed to be 97 percent of the volume percent
of the DFE used as a blendstock.
    We believe that this approach would provide a conservative estimate
of the effect of the ethanol denaturant on the volatility of the
finished EFF blend. Ethanol denaturant concentration is limited to a
maximum of 3.0 volume percent beginning January 1, 2017, pursuant to
the requirement of the Tier 3 final rule.\166\ Requirements in the RFS
program, which specify that only 2 volume percent ethanol may be
included for the purposes of compliance, have also prompted ethanol
producers to limit denaturant concentration to 2 volume percent
(effectively 2.5 volume percent given rounding) to streamline their RFS
compliance calculations.\167\ Therefore, assuming a 3 volume percent
denaturant concentration would be an upper-bound estimate, and the
limited information available to the EPA indicates that an RVP of 15
psi would be representative of higher volatility natural gasoline that
is used as the predominant ethanol denaturant. We also understand that
the volatility of natural gasoline is typically limited to below
atmospheric pressure to ease transport and storage logistical issues.
Standard atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi. Therefore 15 psi should
represent an upper bound.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ See 40 CFR 80.1610.
    \167\ See 40 CFR 80.1401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing that EFF bulk blender-refiners would be required
to participate in the proposed EFF quality survey. We expect that
participation in this survey would provide needed assurance that the
RVP compliance tool is being used appropriately, as well as providing
needed assurance that other EFF requirements are being satisfied.
    We request comment on the above RVP compliance tool, any
alternative RVP correlations that might be more accurate, and any data
that might be available to enhance its accuracy. We also request
comment on whether the proposed RVP blending compliance tool could be
extended to cover the use of butane and/or pentane as an EFF blendstock
if the use of these blendstocks was allowed.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ As discussed in section IV.C.7.c of this preamble, we are
requesting comment on including provisions to allow the use of
butane and pentane as EFF blendstocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. PTD Requirements
    The EPA is proposing several changes and additions to the existing
PTD requirements to provide the information needed for fuel providers
to properly manufacture or blend EFF. The EPA has previously
established similar requirements for PTDs for E10 and E15 to help
ensure downstream compliance

with sulfur, benzene, and RVP requirements. The introduction of EFF
into the marketplace makes it important to include additional
information on the PTDs that accompany the transfer of EFF and EFF
blendstocks.
a. PTD Requirements for EFF Transferred Downstream of an EFF Full-
Refinery or Bulk Blender-Refinery
    Under the current regulations, the transferor of gasoline-ethanol
blends with ethanol content above 15 percent is required to provide to
the transferee information on ethanol concentration of the blend by the
following statement: ``EXX--Contains no more than XX% ethanol.'' \169\
The purpose of the statement was to ensure proper labeling of gasoline-
ethanol blends above E15 and to prevent any downstream parties from
commingling fuels that could result in RVP exceedances or other
violations. As we are proposing EFF regulations that encompass EFF from
E16 to E83, we are proposing to replace ``EXX'' with ``Ethanol Flex
Fuel.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ See 40 CFR 80.1503(b)(1)(vi)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. PTD Requirements for EFF
    We are proposing to add new PTD requirement for transfers of EFF.
The general requirements would be similar to that of gasoline, where
any person that transfers EFF would be required to provide PTD
information including the name and address of the transferor and
transferee, the volume of EFF being transferred, the location of EFF at
the time of transfer, the date of transfer, and the approximate ethanol
concentration as discussed above. The transferor would also be required
to provide a statement on the PTD that indicates its suitability or
lack thereof for use as a blendstock to manufacture EFF in a blender
pump. As discussed earlier, there are a number of paths to manufacture
EFF and the challenges in demonstrating compliance with the RVP
standard are greatest for blender pumps, given the non-linear RVP
blending characteristics of potential blendstocks. To resolve this
concern, we are proposing to list the blendstocks that can be used in
blender pumps to make EFF and to require a statement on the PTD that
states whether the blendstock is suitable for use in a blender pump and
meets the RVP requirements.
    Under the proposed rule, blender pumps can manufacture EFF by
blending no more than two blend components: A high ethanol content
blend component and a high hydrocarbon content blend component. The
components will primarily vary based on two factors: Whether the
blendstock is being used in a CG or RFG area and whether it is between
June 1 and September 15.\170\ For instance, a blender pump that is
located in an RFG area cannot use a hydrocarbon blendstock composed of
conventional gasoline to manufacture EFF. The blender pump also cannot
blend a hydrocarbon blendstock that is not compliant with RVP
requirements from June 1 through September 15 with other blendstocks to
manufacture EFF. In accordance with this approach, we are proposing
that a statement be written on the PTD that indicates the suitability
of the EFF for use at a blender pump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ It is important to note that EFF may also be subject to
different RVP standards based on being in an RVP controlled area
within an RFG or CG area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. PTD Requirements for Certified Natural Gasoline EFF Blendstock
    We are proposing to add a new PTD requirement for the transfer of
certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock. The PTD would require
general information such as the name and address of the transferor and
transferee, volume of the blendstock being transferred, location of the
blendstock at the time of the transfer, and the date of the transfer.
We are also proposing to require reporting the RVP on the PTD to
facilitate downstream blending by alleviating the need for additional
downstream testing and to minimize any improper commingling. The
natural gasoline EFF blendstock refiner or importer may choose to
either conduct per-batch sampling to determine the RVP or use a default
RVP value of 15 psi.
    We are also proposing to require a statement on the PTD prohibiting
the use of natural gasoline EFF blendstock as a blendstock at blender
pumps and its sale as conventional blendstock for oxygenate blending
(CBOB) or reformulated blendstock for oxygenated blending (RBOB).
Natural gasoline is known to be the higher temperature boiling
components of natural gas liquids that is sometimes used as a
denaturant for ethanol. It is also utilized in producing EFF since it
is conveniently stored at the plant for its denaturant use and is
considerably less expensive than CBOB and RBOB. Yet natural gasoline is
known to have a higher RVP than CBOB or RBOB, so its use may hinder
downstream RVP compliance. As explained above, EFF blender pump-
refiners are similar to full-refiners in that they have the ability to
manufacture EFF, but do not have the same quality assurance
requirements. Accordingly, we are proposing that the natural gasoline
EFF blendstock be prohibited from use as a blendstock at blender pumps.
Furthermore, we are proposing to require a statement to distinguish
natural gasoline EFF blendstock from other blendstocks (such as CBOB or
RBOB) to prevent any confusion for downstream parties. We are proposing
to require a statement that it cannot be used as CBOB or RBOB or
blended into CBOB, RBOB, or gasoline without meeting all requirements
applicable to refiners. This statement would minimize any confusion for
downstream parties and help ensure that certified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock is not used as a gasoline blendstock.
5. Attest Engagements, Affirmative Defenses, Violations, and Penalties
    We are proposing attest engagement requirements for EFF full-
refiners and importers, EFF bulk blender-refiners, and certified
natural gasoline EFF blendstock refiners and importers using the
procedures used in other EPA fuels programs for attest engagements. We
believe that attest engagements are particularly important for EFF bulk
blender-refiners. Having an independent auditor review blending records
to ensure that EFF made by bulk blender-refiners meet applicable EFF
requirements would help ensure compliance, given the reduced sampling,
testing, and reporting requirements. Attest engagements would also help
ensure applicable EFF requirements are met, similar to how attest
engagements help assure compliance for fuel manufacturers in other EPA
fuels programs.
    We are also proposing affirmative defense requirements for parties
that manufacture, distribute, and sell EFF. These provisions would
allow parties that manufacture, distribute, or sell EFF to help
establish affirmative defenses against potential violations of the
proposed EFF requirements if all applicable conditions are met. These
proposed potential affirmative defenses are analogous to those provided
to other parties in other EPA fuels programs.
    The violation and penalty provisions applicable to this proposed
EFF program would be very similar to the provisions currently in effect
in other fuels programs. We are proposing that EFF and natural gasoline
EFF blendstock downstream violations follow the same presumptive
liability approach used in other fuel programs. We request comment on
the need for additional attest engagement, violation, penalty, or any
other compliance and enforcement related provisions to the proposed EFF
and natural gasoline EFF blendstock requirements.

6. Compliance Dates
    Based on our experience with our past fuel standards, we are
proposing a sequence of start dates for compliance depending on the
point in the fuel production and distribution system. We are proposing
that the proposed requirements for EFF would apply to EFF full-refiners
and bulk blender-refiners beginning January 1, 2018. EFF full-refiners
and EFF bulk blender-refiners would be required to submit their
registration applications to the EPA by November 1, 2017, or 2 months
prior to producing EFF. To allow sufficient time for certified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock to be made available to EFF full-refiners and
bulk blender-refiners, we are proposing that the requirements for
certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock would apply beginning
December 1, 2017. Producers of certified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock would be required to submit their registration applications
to the EPA by October 1, 2017, or 2 months prior to producing certified
natural gasoline EFF blendstock.
    We are proposing that the proposed requirements for EFF would apply
at retail and WPC facilities beginning February 1, 2018. We are
proposing that the provisions for E15 blender pump retail and WPC
facilities would likewise be effective beginning February 1, 2018. This
would provide one month between the date when upstream producers of EFF
are required to comply and the date for retail and WPC compliance to
allow time for EFF retail tank turnover. This time for retail/WPC tank
turnover would be needed for blender pumps that produce E10/E15 as well
as those that produce E16-50 using EFF as a parent blend. We anticipate
that retailers and WPC facilities would draw down their storage tank
volumes and manage deliveries to facilitate compliance on February 1,
2018. We request comment on whether these proposed compliance dates
would provide sufficient time for the various parties in the EFF
production and distribution system to prepare for compliance.
    We are planning on allowing at least 4 months after the publication
of the final rule that results from this action before the EFF
requirements and gasoline blender pump provisions would apply at retail
and WPC facilities. If publication of the final rule is delayed, we
would adjust the compliance dates for the various parties in the EFF
production and distribution system discussed above to maintain a
similar sequenced compliance schedule.
    Under the volatility control provisions for conventional gasoline,
retail outlets and WPC facilities are required to comply with gasoline
RVP requirements from June 1 through September 15 of each year.\171\
Upstream parties are required to comply from May 1 through September 15
of each year to facilitate retail and WPC compliance. Operators of
retail and WPC facilities manage the timing of their gasoline
deliveries so that storage tank volume is drawn down prior to the first
delivery of RVP controlled gasoline in the spring of each year. These
practices ensure retail and WPC level compliance by the June 1
compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ See 40 CFR 80.27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The same seasonal environmental concerns exist regarding the
control of evaporative emissions for FFVs as exist for gasoline
vehicles. Therefore, we are proposing that EFF retail and WPC
facilities would be required to comply with the proposed RVP standards
for EFF from June 1 through September 15 each year in parallel with the
requirements for gasoline. We are also proposing that all facilities
upstream of retail and WPC facilities would be required to comply with
the proposed RVP requirements for EFF from May 1 through September 15
each year in parallel with the gasoline RVP requirements. We believe
that this compliance schedule should provide sufficient time for EFF
retail and WPC tank turnover provided that EFF retailers and WPC
carefully manage their tank volume and delivery schedules. However, we
are requesting comment on whether an earlier compliance date would be
appropriate for parties upstream of retail and WPC facilities given the
historically longer turnover time for EFF retail tanks.
    The proposed compliance dates discussed above are summarized below
in the Table IV.F.6-1.

                                  Table IV.F.6-1--Proposed EFF Compliance Dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Certified natural      EFF full-refiners and
                                       gasoline EFF blendstock     EFF bulk blender-        EFF retail and WPC
                                              producers                 refiners                facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Registration.....................  10/1/2017 or 2 months    11/1/2017 or 2 months    Not applicable.
                                        prior to production.     prior to production.
Sulfur, Benzene, and CHONS             12/1/2017..............  1/1/2018...............  2/1/2018.
 Requirements.
Seasonal RVP Requirements............  Not applicable. Year-    5/1 through 9/15 of      6/1 through 9/15 of
                                        round RVP cap            each year beginning 5/   each year beginning 6/
                                        beginning 12/1/2017.     1/2018 *.                1/2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These seasonal RVP compliance dates apply to all parties in the EFF production and distribution system
  (including terminals) except retail and WPC facilities.
** The provisions for E10/E15 blender pump-refiners would be effective 2/1/2018.

7. Renewable Volume Obligation
    CAA section 211(o)(2)(A)(i) requires that the EPA establish a
regulatory program to ensure that transportation fuel contain specified
volumes of renewable fuel. In the regulatory program enacted as part of
the RFS2 final rule,\172\ we specified that obligated party RVOs would
be based on their production and import of gasoline and diesel fuel,
since other forms of transportation fuel (e.g., natural gas, propane,
and electricity) were used in much smaller quantities than gasoline and
diesel, and their use as transportation fuel would be difficult to
distinguish at the production level from their use for other
purposes.\173\ However, we also reserved expansion of the RVOs to other
forms of transportation fuel for future inclusion if warranted. As a
result, the RVOs applicable to refiners and importers are currently
based only on the non-renewable volumes of the gasoline and diesel that
they produce or import for use in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ See 75 FR 14670 (March 26, 2010).
    \173\ See 75 FR 14721 (March 26, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of the RFS2 final rule, E51-83 was not included with
gasoline and diesel as a fuel that incurs an RVO, despite the fact that
it can be used as a transportation fuel and it has some non-renewable
content. Gasoline is the only non-renewable material that currently can
be used to make E51-83 EFF while ensuring that it meets the gasoline
sub-

sim requirement. Since all gasoline incurs an RVO, therefore, the non-
renewable fraction of E51-83 incurs an RVO under our current RFS
regulations. Since E16-50 blends are being made at blender pumps using
gasoline and E85, the non-renewable fraction of E16-50 blends also
incurs an RVO under our current regulations. Moreover, since E16-50
blends are also treated as gasoline under our current regulations, we
saw no need in the RFS2 final rule to add the non-renewable portion of
E16-83 blends to the list of fuels that incur an RVO under the RFS
program.
    In the years since 2010, there has been increasing interest in the
use of natural gasoline as an E51-83 blendstock. Since E16-50 blends
are produced at blender pumps using E51-83 as one of the parent blends,
such natural gasoline would also be a component of E16-50 blends. As
stated before, gasoline is the only non-renewable material that
currently can be used to make E51-83 EFF, and natural gasoline, which
is typically extracted from the condensates produced from natural gas
wells, is not considered to be gasoline under our current regulations.
This proposal contains provisions to allow the use of natural gasoline
as an EFF blendstock.
    Since under our current regulations natural gasoline is not
considered to be finished or unfinished gasoline that will eventually
be used in the transportation sector, it does not currently incur an
RVO under the RFS program. However, by replacing the finished and
unfinished gasolines that had formerly been used to produce E16-83 with
natural gasoline, it is appropriate to consider whether the RFS
regulations should be modified to add natural gasoline used to produce
E16-83 to the list of fuels that incur an RVO. This proposal also
contains provisions to regulate all E16-83 blends as EFF rather than to
continue to treat E16-50 blends as gasoline, thereby providing
additional impetus to the consideration of whether natural gasoline
used in EFF blends should be added to the list of fuels that incur an
RVO.
    Under the RFS regulations, the party that first produces or imports
a transportation fuel is generally the party that incurs the RVO for
the non-renewable portion of that transportation fuel. If EPA were to
require all natural gasoline used to make EFF to incur an RVO, there
would be a different point of obligation for certified versus
uncertified natural gasoline used as an EFF blendstock. For certified
natural gasoline EFF blendstocks, the party incurring the RVO would be
the producers or importers, consistent with producers and importers of
all gasoline and diesel. For uncertified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock, however, the party incurring the RVO would be the party
that blends DFE with the uncertified natural gasoline EFF blendstock to
produce EFF, since the natural gasoline would not have been designated
or treated as an EFF blendstock upstream at the point of production or
importation. EFF is generally produced by blenders and ethanol
producers that would typically not produce any other fuels that would
incur an RVO. Thus, the imposition of an RVO on the producer of EFF
would make certain parties responsible for satisfying an RVO that have
not had such obligations to date. The EFF producer would need to
quantify and track volumes of natural gasoline separately from gasoline
and BOBs used to produce EFF. The EFF producer would also be required
to acquire and retire an appropriate number of RINs to meet their
obligation under the RFS program. There would be both practical and
economic impacts on EFF producers that might discourage its expansion
in the marketplace.
    While in general we continue to believe that all non-renewable
transportation fuel should incur an RVO, we also believe that expanding
opportunities for the use of EFF is an important goal of the RFS
program. Since imposing an RVO on EFF producers that use natural
gasoline could potentially conflict with that goal, it may not be
appropriate to do so at this time. Moreover, the volume of EFF is
currently significantly smaller than the volume of other non-renewable
transportation fuels, and is expected to remain so for some time. Based
on these considerations, we are not proposing that natural gasoline
used to make EFF would incur an RVO, but are instead proposing to defer
the imposition of an RVO on parties making EFF with natural gasoline
until such time as EFF produced using natural gasoline becomes a more
substantial fraction of the transportation fuel pool. We seek comment
on this issue and the option to defer the RVO obligation for this fuel.
8. Other Compliance Issues
a. Pump Labeling
    During the Tier 3 public comment period, we received comments
requesting that the EPA adopt labeling provisions for EFF fuels to help
prevent the misfueling of EFF into gasoline-powered conventional
vehicles.\174\ The EPA also sought comment on this issue in the E15
misfueling mitigation rulemaking.\175\ As was described in the E15
misfueling mitigation rulemaking, the EPA chose not to require labels
for EFF at that time because the FTC was planning to require labels
that were consistent in size, shape, and content with the EPA's E15
label.\176\ We also noted that two separate labeling requirements for
EFF by the FTC and the EPA would potentially be confusing and
counterproductive to the mitigation of misfueling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-5212.
    \175\ See 75 FR 68044 (November 4, 2010).
    \176\ See 76 FR 44406 (July25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the publication of the E15 misfueling mitigation rulemaking
and the end of the Tier 3 public comment period, the FTC has finalized
labeling requirements for EFF.\177\ We believe the FTC EFF labeling
requirements are consistent in size, shape, and content with our E15
label and will help mitigate the misfueling of gasoline-fueled
vehicles, engines, and equipment with EFF. Therefore, to avoid
confusion we are not proposing to require additional EFF labeling
requirements at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ See 79 FR 18850 (April 4, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. E15 Misfueling Mitigation Harmonization
    While this proposal focuses on establishing requirements for EFF
quality, minor modifications to the E15 misfueling mitigation
requirements at 40 CFR part 80, subpart N, are needed to accommodate
the proposed EFF requirements. We are not reopening any other portions
of subpart N, and are therefore not seeking comments on aspects of
subpart N other than those described in this proposal.
    We are proposing a restructuring of 40 CFR part 80, subpart N, to
incorporate the proposed EFF requirements. In general, the E15
misfueling mitigation requirements are unchanged; however, some slight
modifications to the E15 misfueling mitigation requirements would be
necessary to incorporate EFF requirements. For example, we are
proposing to change the PTD requirements for E15 misfueling mitigation
in 40 CFR 80.1563 to be consistent with PTD requirements for the Tier 3
gasoline sulfur program and incorporate new language to help EFF
blender pump-refiners comply with applicable EFF requirements.
Additionally, consistent with PTD requirements in other EPA fuels
programs, we are proposing to allow parties to submit alternative EFF
PTD language for EPA approval, including E15 misfueling mitigation PTD
requirements. This would allow all affected parties an opportunity to
use

more concise PTD language, with EPA approval, to help address the
manifold complex situations that may occur in the fuel distribution
system while meeting the intent of the EPA's PTD requirements.
    We are also proposing to add a definition for flexible-fuel engines
and language that exempts flexible-fuel nonroad engines from the
prohibition on the use of gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing
more than 10 volume percent ethanol since these engines have been
certified on the use of EFF similar to FFVs. Although we have pointed
out that the current regulatory requirements allow flexible-fuel
engines to use EFF,\178\ we are proposing to remove any ambiguity from
the regulations to better accommodate appropriate EFF use at retail
stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ Letter to Bob Greco, American Petroleum Institute, from
Adam Kushner, U.S. EPA, July 31, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. EFF Quality Survey Program
    The EPA has a successful history of allowing regulated parties to
participate in survey programs managed by an independent survey
association as a way to decrease compliance costs for both regulated
parties and the EPA. We recognize that many, if not all, EFF bulk
blender-refiners and blender pump-refiners would have difficulty
complying with the EFF full-refiner requirements, including sampling
and testing, compliance reporting, recordkeeping requirements, and
attest engagements. As a result, we have developed compliance systems
for EFF bulk blender-refiners and blender pump-refiners that rely
primarily on monitoring records as discussed above. Such systems,
however, are subject to fraud and abuse without some means to verify
their authenticity. As a result, we need some means of doing so for
EFF. Based on past experience with our other fuel programs, we believe
the least costly and most effective way of doing so is through in-use
fuel quality surveys. As such, we believe that allowing EFF bulk
blender-refiners and blender pump-refiners to verify compliance with
the proposed EFF requirements through participation in a survey program
and the use of appropriate blendstocks and parent fuels is appropriate.
EFF bulk blender-refiners and blender pump-refiners would comply with
the applicable EFF standards through the use of appropriate parent
fuels and blendstocks and by contracting an independent survey
association to conduct a survey of EFF manufactured through blender
pumps and blended in bulk at terminals or at an ethanol production
facility. The scope of the EFF blender pump survey program and specific
design requirements for the survey program are discussed below.
a. Scope of the EFF Quality Survey Program
    The survey would be limited to collecting and analyzing samples of
EFF for ethanol content, sulfur content, benzene content, and RVP (from
June 1 to September 15) at EFF and blender pump retail stations. The
proposed EFF requirements would impose a 10 ppm annual average sulfur
standard, 95 ppm per-gallon sulfur cap, and 0.62 volume percent annual
average benzene standard on all EFF. In lieu of requiring the sampling
and testing of each batch to ensure compliance with the sulfur and
benzene standards, the EPA is proposing to allow EFF bulk blender-
refiners and blender pump-refiners the flexibility to comply with these
standards by contracting with an independent survey association to
randomly sample and test the EFF they manufacture. The EPA believes
that most terminals, ethanol production facilities, and retail stations
that make EFF would prefer to contract an independent survey
association to conduct such a survey since it would be significantly
cheaper than sampling and testing each batch of fuel for sulfur and
benzene content.
    As discussed earlier, determining the RVP resulting from
commingling gasoline, ethanol, and natural gasoline is complicated for
parties that are simply creating small batches of EFF.\179\ This
situation is even more complex at blender pumps where many different
gasolines could be commingled through the dispenser and in the
underground storage tanks, with many different EFF in varying
proportions. Although we are proposing to control the RVP for EFF
manufactured through a blender pump by regulation of the parent fuels,
the EPA believes that RVP information from the samples would help
ensure that EFF dispensed through blender pumps does not result in
summertime fuels greater than 10 psi that would impose problems for FFV
evaporative emissions controls. The EPA would monitor the information
from the EFF survey to inform whether an EFF blender pump-refiner RVP
requirement would be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ See section IV.D.3.b of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benzene and sulfur test results from these fuels would help
ensure that EFF manufactured by an EFF bulk blender-refiner and the
parent blends at an EFF blender pump-refinery (i.e., the gasoline and
EFF used to make gasoline-ethanol blended fuels at blender pumps) are
meeting applicable benzene and sulfur standards at a regional and
national level. This information would be useful to identify if further
requirements to control sulfur and benzene levels in EFF are needed.
Additional parties (e.g., EFF full-refiners and natural gasoline EFF
blendstock refiners) could participate in the survey to help establish
affirmative defenses similar to what we are proposing for RVP, in-use
sulfur, and benzene content. We also seek comment on whether there are
any other fuel parameters that should be measured as part of the
proposed EFF survey program to help ensure EFF compliance with proposed
requirements.
    The EPA is also proposing to require that EFF bulk blender-refiners
participate in the survey as part of satisfying the alternative
compliance provisions as EFF bulk blender-refiners. In order to ensure
that the EFF produced by an EFF bulk blender-refiner met applicable EFF
standards, all EFF retail outlets would need to be surveyed. Testing
these fuels for regulated parameters would help ensure that EFF
produced by bulk blender-refiners met standards.
    We are not proposing to require that EFF full-refiners participate
in the EFF survey program in addition to the other proposed
requirements for EFF full-refiners. We believe that EFF full-refiners
can demonstrate that their fuels would meet applicable EFF fuel quality
standards through the sampling and testing of each batch of EFF at the
point of production consistent with how gasoline refiners have done so
in other EPA fuels programs. Historically, the EPA has never required
that parties contract with an independent surveyor as the only means of
demonstrating requirements. Compliance surveys have always been a
compliance option for parties in lieu of conducting their own
compliance assurance programs. Requiring all EFF refiners to
participate in the survey would also blur the lines between the
compliance options of being an EFF full-refiner or an EFF bulk blender-
refiner and make the full-refiner option less attractive to parties
that manufacture EFF. However, requiring EFF full-refiners to
participate in the survey program would help spread out the compliance
costs across all parties that manufacture EFF since the EFF survey
would sample and test EFF from retail stations regardless of which
party produced it. Therefore, although we are not proposing to require
EFF full-refiners to participate in the EFF survey program, we seek
comment on whether EFF full-refiners should be required to participate
in the EFF survey program.

    We recognize that the proposed EFF survey program overlaps
significantly with the E15 survey program. The E15 survey program
already regularly samples blender pump stations for the ethanol content
of gasoline samples, with a focus on E15. Currently, most blender pump
stations are selected for sampling and testing since these stations
make up a bulk of the stations already offering E15 and are the most
likely to offer E15 without satisfying E15 misfueling mitigation
requirements. Additionally, some retail stations that market E85, but
do not have blender pumps, are randomly selected as part of the E15
survey program. Since these stations are already being surveyed as part
of the E15 survey program, we believe that responsible parties could
integrate the proposed EFF survey program with the E15 survey to reduce
the cost to industry. However, the proposed EFF survey program
requirements are separate from the E15 survey requirements in the
regulations and EFF bulk blender-refiners and blender pump-refiners may
choose to have two different independent survey associations to conduct
the E15 and EFF surveys.
b. Specific EFF Quality Survey Design Requirements
    We are proposing similar survey design elements for the EFF survey
program as those used in other EPA fuels survey programs. The survey
would be conducted by an independent survey association with the same
independence requirements used in other fuels survey programs. The
independent survey association would submit an annual plan to the EPA
for approval that outlines how the EFF blender pump survey requirements
would be met. These requirements would include how blender pump and EFF
stations would be selected for sampling and testing, how samples would
be procured, how samples would be tested for sulfur, benzene, RVP, and
ethanol content, and how potential issues would be reported to the EPA.
The survey association would have to also submit periodic and annual
reports on aggregate survey results to the EPA. The survey association
would be responsible for identifying blender pump and EFF station
locations and providing those locations to the EPA on a regular basis.
The survey association would also let the EPA know if any EFF bulk
blender-refiner or blender pump-refiner fails to participate in the EFF
survey consortium. Similar to other survey programs, the survey
association would also have to provide proof of monies for the approved
survey plan prior to the implementation of the annual EFF survey plan.
Consistent with other EPA fuels survey programs, the EFF survey program
would require four quarterly surveys.
    We also are proposing a slightly different sample size
determination methodology from those used in other EPA fuels survey
programs for the EFF survey program. Since the EFF survey program needs
to sample EFF produced by a bulk blender-refiner and distributed to all
EFF stations (i.e., stations offering only ``E85'' and stations that
operate blender pumps), the EFF survey would need to take samples from
a subset of all stations that offer EFF. However, EFF produced at a
blender pump and EFF produced at a terminal or ethanol production
facility necessitates different sampling and sample size methodologies
to ensure that the EFF sampled and tested is representative of the
fuels produced by EFF bulk blender-refiners and blender pump-refiners,
respectively. Therefore, we are proposing to have separate sample size
determinations for all EFF stations and for the subset of stations with
EFF that make EFF through a blender pump.
    For all EFF stations, the sample size determination methodology
would be similar to those already required in other EPA fuels survey
programs with one difference. Since the number of total EFF stations is
still relatively small (around 3,000 stations), a finite population
correction would be needed to account for the small population of EFF
retail stations. Additionally, we are proposing a minimum number of
samples for the survey of all EFF retail stations of 500 stations to
account for the relatively low population of EFF retail stations. The
EPA would reconsider the minimum sample size if the number of EFF
retail stations increases substantially relative to the total number of
fuel retail stations nationwide.
    For the subset of EFF stations that make EFF via a blender pump, we
believe a different sample size determination methodology is necessary
due to the even smaller relative size of the population of blender pump
stations. To date there have been a limited number of retail stations
that own or operate blender pumps (we estimate 400 to 500), spread out
over many states but focused primarily in the Midwest. Given the
limited number of retail stations that currently own or operate blender
pumps, we propose that the survey would be conducted at all blender
pump stations each year until the number of retail stations with
blender pumps exceeds 500 stations. This would mean that each retail
station with a blender pump could expect to be sampled at least once
per year. Once the number of stations with a blender pump exceeds 500
stations, the survey association would determine the number of retail
stations to be sampled in accordance with appropriate sample size
determination methodology.\180\ For these sample size determinations,
we are proposing similar sample size determination methodology as those
used in other EPA fuels survey programs.\181\ However, under no
circumstances would the minimum number of retail stations selected to
be sampled be less than 500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ It should be noted that this 500 station minimum is in
addition to the 500 station minimum for the entire EFF station
population. This means that the EFF survey program would have a
minimum number of 1,000 stations that are sampled in a given year.
These 500 stations cannot be double-counted within the EFF program;
however, stations selected for the E15 program could be counted for
the EFF survey program minimum number.
    \181\ For the first year of the survey to determine the number
of retail stations for the survey, the estimated non-compliance rate
would be 2.3 percent. This number is based on historical compliance
rates from other fuel programs. Since it is most likely that the
first several years of the survey would be a virtual census of
blender pumps, actual compliance rates from these years would
substitute the historical figure of 2.3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we are not proposing a maximum number of samples, a
maximum sample size could be used to limit the cost of the survey
program since the number of retail stations that are needed to be
sampled would depend on compliance rates determined by the previous
survey period and the number of total retail stations with blender
pumps. For example, in the ULSD Survey Program, we established a
maximum number of samples at 9,600 to limit industry's potential
cost.\182\ We seek comment on these proposed sample size requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ See 40 CFR 80.6113(e)(4)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing that the survey association use a method for
collecting samples of EFF produced through a blender pump consistent
with those specified in NIST Handbook 158. Since most E15 is currently
produced by blending E10 with EFF via a blender pump, the EPA has
encountered some challenges with collecting a valid sample due to the
unique way that blended fuels are produced at blender pumps. The issue
was that inconsistent ethanol content results occurred due to variation
between the independent survey association and states' weights and
measure offices. In order to address this issue, the EPA has worked
with industry, the RFG Survey Association, and other affected
stakeholders to

develop an agreed upon sampling protocol to ensure that representative
samples are collected from blender pumps. This agreed-upon method was
included in NIST Handbook 158, and we believe that the methods
specified there for collecting blended fuels produced through a blender
pump yield representative samples. Therefore, we are proposing that the
survey association use one of those methods, incorporated by reference,
for both the E15 and EFF survey programs. We seek comment on whether
this is appropriate.
    Unlike in our other fuel survey programs, we are proposing not to
require that the samples at retail stations be stratified. The
practical implication of not stratifying the sample is that the annual
sample size of retail stations surveyed would be decreased.\183\ This
is related to the small number of retail stations with blender pumps
and the fact that many of these stations are located in rural areas.
Historically, the EPA has stratified the national retail station pool
to ensure that fuels from major metropolitan areas, transportation
corridors (i.e., the areas around interstates and major highways), and
rural areas were appropriately represented in the survey sample. This
helped give the EPA a sense of compliance rates in each stratum to help
target future compliance and enforcement efforts. Since blender pumps
are not concentrated in major metropolitan areas or along
transportation corridors, it does not make sense to have a survey that
stratifies a sample like other national fuels survey programs.
Additionally, at least for the first few years of the program, the EFF
quality survey program would take samples from all retail stations with
blender pumps, making stratification unnecessary. However, if EFF
stations become more prevalent nationwide, stratification of the
national EFF station pool could be incorporated into the annual EFF
survey plan in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ On the other hand, by not stratifying the sample, this
ensures the probability of an individual station being randomly
selected for sampling is relatively the same. This could help reduce
concerns associated with selection bias in the survey program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing that the independent surveyor submit the survey
plans to the EPA for approval no later than November 15 of the
preceding year and that proof of monies be submitted to the EPA no
later than December 15 of the preceding year. These dates are
consistent with other EPA fuels survey programs and should provide
enough time for an independent surveyor to submit plans and begin
conducting the survey. It should be noted that responsible parties may
only take advantage of the alternative compliance provisions for EFF
bulk blender-refiners and blender pump-refiners if they participate in
a survey program with an EPA-approved survey plan.
    Although the EFF quality survey program would be required for EFF
bulk blender-refiners and blender pump-refiners, we are proposing that
other parties (e.g., EFF full-refiners) could participate in the EFF
quality survey consortium to help establish an affirmative defense for
potential EFF violations. The EPA has provided this affirmative defense
opportunity to parties in other fuels programs (e.g., the E15 survey
program).
    Even though the EFF quality survey program is similar to other EPA
fuels program surveys, we are proposing some significant changes to the
survey design to accommodate blender pumps and EFF stations. We believe
that the proposed survey design can effectively help assure compliance
without imposing unnecessary burden on responsible parties. However, we
are interested if there are changes to the proposed EFF survey program
that could improve its effectiveness in assuring compliance or further
reduce costs for responsible parties. One option to reduce costs would
be to find alternatives to ensuring compliance at the retail level
without sampling and testing. For example, the independent surveyor
could review the PTDs of parent fuels to ensure that EFF blender pump-
refiners only received certified gasoline and EFF for EFF production
through a blender pump. This PTD review could be less expensive than
the sampling and testing of EFF and could replace some of the sampling
that needs to occur under the proposed EFF survey program. The EPA is
not proposing this option over concerns that retail stations may not
wish to allow an independent surveyor to review their PTDs and thus
diminish response rates in the proposed survey program. We seek comment
on allowing independent surveyors to review PTDs in lieu of taking an
EFF sample and testing it for compliance and whether there are any
additional survey design changes that should be incorporated in the
proposed EFF survey program.

G. Simplified EFF Alternatives

    The proposed provisions to allow the use of natural gasoline as a
blendstock to produce EFF could reduce the cost of EFF and result in
the increased use of ethanol to help meet the RFS mandates. However,
the use of natural gasoline would also introduce complications,
necessitate the substantial new provisions discussed in this proposal,
and increase the EPA's burden to ensure that EFF meets environmentally
protective standards. Accordingly, we are also seeking comment on
implementing two alternative simpler programs to regulate EFF.
    The first alternative would only allow the use of EPA-compliant
gasoline, BOBs, and DFE as EFF blendstocks. This would parallel the
current requirements in California while still expanding the allowable
range of ethanol blends.
    A number of the provisions in this proposal would remain unchanged
under this simpler approach. For example, we would still propose to
treat E16-50 in a similar way to other EFF blends that may only be used
in FFVs (E51-83), and would defer consideration of requiring compliance
with the F&FA program requirements for all EFF to a future action. The
proposed EFF blender pump-refiner provisions would also remain the
same.
    Since parties that produce EFF would only be using DFE and EPA-
compliant gasoline or BOBs, they would not have to conduct any sampling
or testing to demonstrate compliance with any of the proposed
requirements for EFF, including the RVP requirements. The only
programmatic requirements for EFF bulk blender-refiners would be to
register with the EPA, keep PTDs and other records regarding their
blending activities, and submit simple annual reports with information
regarding the EFF batches they produced during the year.
    The second alternative would allow EFF producers to use certified
natural gasoline EFF blendstocks in addition to certified gasoline and
BOBs, but would not allow the use of uncertified natural gasoline EFF
blendstocks. Thus, the EFF full-refiner certification option would no
longer be included. There are several benefits of this proposed
approach, as it would allow the increased use of natural gasoline to
produce EFF, thereby reducing the costs, and would also assure that the
overall emissions from EFF are no greater than emissions from the
production of EFF with certified gasoline without the complications
necessitated by the use of uncertified natural gasoline. The EFF full-
refiner option would allow natural gasoline with higher benzene and
sulfur levels to be used to produce EFF, provided that tests on the
finished EFF demonstrated the same level of control as provided for
gasoline under the current regulations. The added complexity under the
EFF full-refiner option, which is needed to

ensure that the use of higher sulfur and benzene natural gasoline does
not result in increased emissions, may create confusion among regulated
parties and increase the likelihood of violations for downstream
parties.
    We request comment on whether the increased flexibility of allowing
the use of either certified or uncertified natural gasoline as an EFF
blendstock justifies the EPA promulgating the previously discussed
comprehensive compliance provisions and the increased burden of
governmental oversight, or whether it would be more appropriate to
implement one of the simpler programs described above.

H. Statutory Authority for Proposed EFF Requirements

    FFVs have been manufactured and introduced into commerce for more
than two decades and are typically designed to operate on gasoline and
any gasoline-ethanol mixture of up to 83 percent ethanol. These fuels
contribute to emissions of VOC and NOX that result in the
formation of both ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
These pollutants present a significant risk of harm to public health
and welfare. Given the environmental and health effects of evaporative
emissions from fuels, the EPA has responded by consistently setting
requirements to address such emissions. For example, beginning in 1971,
the EPA established a series of evaporative control requirements for
vehicles and engines, under CAA section 202(b). Similarly, beginning in
1989, the EPA set volatility requirements for gasoline under CAA
section 211(c) by requiring that gasoline meet a maximum RVP of 9.0 psi
during the ozone high season. In 1990, Congress ratified these
regulations by promulgating CAA section 211(h). The EPA has also
limited sulfur in gasoline in its Tier 3 rule under CAA section
211(c),\184\ and has limited levels of benzene under the Mobile Source
Air Toxics (MSAT) rule.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ See 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014).
    \185\ See 72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When operating on gasoline, FFV emissions are minimized due to the
existing gasoline content requirements (i.e., sulfur, benzene, CHONS,
and RVP). Currently, the only fuel requirement for higher ethanol
blends used in FFVs is that it has to be either substantially similar
to certification fuel or have a waiver under CAA section 211(f). FFVs
are also equipped with the same type of emission control systems as
conventional gasoline vehicles and are generally subject to the same
emissions standards. Therefore, we believe that in order to maintain
emissions control performance, FFVs need EFF that meet quality
specifications similar to those for gasoline, such as the 10 ppm annual
average sulfur standard in the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program,\186\ and
the 0.62 volume percent annual average benzene standard in the gasoline
benzene program.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ See 40 CFR part 80, subpart O.
    \187\ See 40 CFR part 80, subpart L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to regulate EFF content pursuant to our
authority under CAA section 211(c). We are proposing sulfur, benzene,
and RVP controls for EFF based on both of the criteria in section
211(c). This section allows the EPA to establish a fuel control if at
least one of the following two criteria is met: (1) The emission
products of the fuel cause or contribute to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare;
\188\ or (2) The emissions products of the fuel will impair to a
significant degree the performance of any emissions control device or
system which is either in general use or which the Administrator finds
has been developed to a point where in a reasonable time it will be in
general use or which the administrator finds has been developed to a
point where in a reasonable time it will be in general use were the
fuel control to be adopted.\189\ We are also proposing to limit EFF to
CHONS using our authority under CAA section 211(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ See CAA section 211(c)(1)(A).
    \189\ See CAA section 211(c)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Section 211(c)(1)(A)
    Under the first criterion of CAA section 211(c)(1), we believe that
EFF with current levels of sulfur, benzene, and RVP causes or
contributes to ambient levels of ozone, PM and air toxics that endanger
the public health and welfare. EFF containing sulfur at the current
levels increases emissions of NOX and PM from FFVs and as
such contributes to the formation of ozone and PM in the atmosphere.
EFF with current RVP levels is a source of VOC emissions and as such
contributes to the formation of ozone in the atmosphere. In addition,
EFF is also a source of MSATs. MSATs are present in gasoline and
gasoline-ethanol blends or their additives and are emitted to the air
when EFF evaporates or passes through FFV engines.
    The EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
ambient concentrations of PM and ozone.\190\ PM is a highly complex
mixture of substances that exist as discrete particles. Particles span
many sizes and shapes and may consist of hundreds of different
chemicals. PM is linked to a broad range of health effects.\191\ There
are well documented studies on the health effects associated with both
short-term and long-term PM exposure. Short-term PM2.5
exposure has been associated with increased cardiovascular and
respiratory effects and mortality.\192\ With regard to long-term
exposure, there are also studies that demonstrate a link between long-
term exposure to PM2.5 with an array of cardiovascular
effects such as heart attacks, congestive heart failure, stroke, and
mortality.\193\ Specific groups within the general population are at
increased risk for experiencing adverse health effects related to PM
exposures, including children, older adults, and individuals with pre-
existing heart and lung disease. Further, environmental and welfare
effects of PM2.5 include reduced visibility in certain parts
of the country, overall contamination through deposition to terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems and soiling and aesthetic damage by corroding
and degrading buildings and monuments.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ See 40 CFR 50.18 and 50.19.
    \191\ See 78 FR 3103-3104 (January 15, 2013).
    \192\ U.S. EPA, ``2009 Final Report: Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter,'' EPA/600/R-08/139F, at chapter 2
(sections 2.3.1-2) and chapter 6.
    \193\ Id. at chapter 7.
    \194\ Id. at chapter 2 (sections 2.5.1-3) and chapter 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ground level ozone pollution is typically formed through reactions
involving VOC and NOX in the lower atmosphere in the
presence of sunlight. In humans, exposure to ozone can irritate the
respiratory system, reduce lung function and aggravate asthma and other
lung diseases.\195\ Several groups are at increased risk for ozone-
related health effects, including people with asthma, children, older
adults, and outdoor workers. In addition ozone has effects on
vegetation and ecosystems.\196\ These effects include visible foliar
injury, impacts on tree growth, productivity and carbon storage, and
crop yield loss.\197\ The proposed EFF sulfur and RVP controls would
reduce emissions of NOX and VOCs which

contribute to ambient concentrations of PM and ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ U.S. EPA, ``2013 Final Report: Integrated Science
Assessment for Ozone,'' EPA/600/R-10/076F, at chapter 6.