participate in an E15 quality survey pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the EPA has not yet designated fuels other than gasoline and
highway diesel fuel as motor vehicle fuel, fuels such as E85 (E51-83)
are not yet subject to the EPA's F&FA regulations. By regulating all
E16-83 ethanol blends together in a similar fashion and clarifying that
E16-50 blends are not required to meet the requirements for gasoline
under this proposal, we are resolving the ambiguity of E16-50 blends
with respect to their treatment under both our F&FA program and in-use
fuel quality regulations. We are exempting E16-50 blends that are used
in FFVs from the designation for gasoline and we are not designating
EFF blends (E16-83) as motor vehicle fuels under the F&FA program in
this proposal.\61\ The EFF blends would only become subject to F&FA
regulations at such point in the future when the EPA takes action to
designate them as motor vehicle fuels. Under this proposal, motor-
vehicle gasoline-ethanol blends that have been registered by the EPA
for use in conventional gasoline vehicles such as E15 would continue to
be subject to our existing F&FA regulations. If in the future, a blend
such as E20 that would be subject to the proposed requirements for EFF
under this proposal were to be granted a waiver under CAA section
211(f) to allow its use in conventional gasoline vehicles, it would no
longer be subject to the requirements for EFF and would become subject
to all of the requirements applicable to gasoline, including
registration under the F&FA program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 70.51 regarding the
requirements for motor vehicle gasoline under the F&FA program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The only current EPA fuel quality requirement for E85 is that it
must be substantially similar (sub-sim) to vehicle certification
fuel.\62\ E85 has historically been produced by blending certified
gasoline or BOBs with DFE. When E85 is made solely from EPA-compliant
gasoline, BOBs, and DFE, the EPA can be assured that the fuel is in
compliance with the requirement that in-use E85 must be sub-sim to FFV
certification fuel. Under this circumstance, the EPA is also assured
that E85 fuel quality meets the same sulfur, benzene, and RVP
requirements that apply to gasoline and is suitable to maintain the in-
use emissions performance of FFVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ CAA section 211(f) requires that all fuels and fuel
additives introduced into commerce must be substantially similar to
the fuel used to certify vehicles. Vehicle certification fuel must
meet the EPA specifications for use during vehicle emissions testing
to demonstrate compliance with vehicle emissions standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of stakeholders have requested that the EPA promulgate
regulations to allow the use of natural gasoline as a blendstock to
produce EFF due to its lower cost compared to gasoline. Natural
gasoline is an inexpensive and increasingly plentiful byproduct of the
ongoing expansion in domestic natural gas and crude oil production, and
its use to make EFF would decrease EFF production costs. If this
savings were passed along to consumers, it may help increase demand for
EFF. Due to the relative high volatility of natural gasoline and the
low volatility of ethanol, the use of natural gasoline to make E85
could also facilitate the manufacture of E85 in the upper end of its
allowable range in ethanol content (i.e., 70 to 83 volume percent
ethanol) while maintaining compliance with ASTM minimum volatility
specifications.\63\ Hence, the use of natural gasoline as an EFF
blendstock could increase not only the demand for EFF in FFVs, but also
the use of EFF with higher-level ethanol concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ ASTM D5798-14 sets minimum volatility specifications for
E85 to ensure startability and drivability. The low volatility of
ethanol makes it difficult for high level ethanol blends to meet the
minimum RVP specification using gasoline and BOBs. ASTM allows the
ethanol concentration of E85 to be as low as 51 volume percent to
allow sufficient hydrocarbon blendstocks to be used to facilitate
compliance with the minimum volatility specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current industry consensus-based controls on the quality of
natural gasoline for use as an EFF blendstock \64\ are not adequate to
ensure the emissions control performance of FFVs.\65\ Hence, there is
currently no way that E85 blenders can use natural gasoline as a
blendstock without potentially running afoul of the current sub-sim
requirement for E85. Natural gasoline can have high sulfur and benzene
content, potentially resulting in high levels of these harmful
components in EFF. We believe that if natural gasoline used to produce
EFF contains chemical elements other than CHONS (e.g., metals and
salts), either naturally or through addition, it could also quickly
destroy the effectiveness of FFV emissions control catalysts, which
could lead to a substantial increase in emissions from FFVs. Although
the high RVP of natural gasoline can be beneficial in producing EFF
that meets minimum volatility requirements, the use of too much natural
gasoline as an EFF blendstock can also result in EFF that exceeds the
maximum RVP of fuels suitable for use in FFVs, resulting in diminished
evaporative emissions control performance of FFVs. Thus, significant
concern exists about the potential increase in FFV emissions that might
result from the use of natural gasoline of uncontrolled quality as an
EFF blendstock. Therefore, we believe that it is important to hold EFF
to standards that provide an equivalent level of environmental
protection as the current standards for gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ ASTM D8011-16, ``Standard Specification for Natural
Gasoline as a Blendstock in Ethanol Fuel Blends or as a Denaturant
for Fuel Ethanol.''
    \65\ See section IV.C.7 in this proposal for a discussion of the
proposed controls on natural gasoline EFF blendstock and the current
industry consensus controls on natural gasoline used as an E51-83
blendstock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal includes standards and compliance provisions that
would allow the use of natural gasoline as a blendstock to produce EFF
while providing an equivalent level of environmental performance to
that for gasoline. Under this proposal, there would be two classes of
natural gasoline that could be used to produce EFF: Certified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock and uncertified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock. Certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock would be
certified by its producer as being compliant with standards for sulfur,
benzene, and CHONS.\66\ EFF producers that use certified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock would have more streamlined requirements
compared to producers that use uncertified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock with respect to demonstrating compliance with the proposed
sulfur, benzene, and CHONS standards. EFF producers that use
uncertified natural gasoline EFF blendstock would have more flexibility
in the natural gasoline that could be used as an EFF blendstock but
would have additional requirements to demonstrate compliance with the
proposed sulfur, benzene, and CHONS standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Maximum T90 distillation point, final boiling point, and
RVP standards would also apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed requirements are designed to assure that EFF produced
with natural gasoline will meet the sub-sim requirements, protect
emissions control systems on FFVs, and assure that FFVs that use EFF
achieve the same or better emissions control performance as
conventional gasoline vehicles. Alternatively, we are requesting

comment on formalizing the current approved practice that would require
EFF to be produced only with EPA-compliant gasoline, BOBs, and DFE.
This would be a much simpler program to implement and enforce, but
would preclude the use of natural gasoline as an EFF blendstock.
    This proposal includes three options that EFF producers could use
to demonstrate compliance with the proposed standards, as discussed in
the following sections. The EFF full-refiner and EFF bulk blender-
refiner certification options are intended for EFF producers upstream
of retail or wholesale purchaser consumer (WPC) facilities (e.g.,
petroleum terminals or ethanol plants).\67\ The EFF blender pump-
refiner option is intended for producers of EFF at retail or WPC
facilities using a blender pump. This proposal also includes
streamlined provisions for producers of gasoline at blender pumps. We
are soliciting comments on all aspects of this proposal, as well as
alternative requirements that would address the public health and
welfare effects of EFF and its impacts on emissions control devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Bulk blenders create finished fuel by blending different
fuel components just prior to when the fuel ``breaks bulk'' at
terminals as is dispensed into a tank truck for delivery to fuel
retail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal would provide substantial additional flexibility for
EFF producers that accommodate current market realities while ensuring
that EFF used in FFVs is of sufficient quality to control pollution.
The regulatory burden for the EFF producers who choose to take
advantage of these flexibilities would be modest in comparison to the
economic benefit realized by taking advantage of the flexibility, and
largely consistent with current industry practices.\68\ In addition,
the increased flexibility to produce EFF that would be provided by this
rule, could result in the increased use of ethanol in motor fuels,
thereby furthering the goals for increased use of renewable fuels under
the RFS program. By facilitating the use of plentiful and inexpensive
domestic natural gasoline in EFF, this rule, when finalized, could also
result in reduced fuel costs to consumers and improved energy security.
Absent the amendments contained in this proposal, the EPA would have to
rely on the existing regulatory requirements to prevent a potentially
substantial increase in vehicle emissions from the use of EFF that
failed to meet the fuel quality standards necessary for vehicles to
maintain proper emission performance. Doing so would not provide as
robust and transparent a level of environmental and emissions control
protection as the requirements in this proposal and could be disruptive
to the production of higher-level ethanol blends. In addition to
ensuring the environmental performance of EFF used in FFVs, the
provisions in this proposal could prevent added costs to FFV owners who
might otherwise face premature repairs or replacement of emissions
control equipment (e.g., vehicle catalyst) from the use of poor quality
fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Additional registration, testing, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements would apply to certain parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. EFF Full-Refiner Option
    Under the first option for producing EFF (the ``EFF full-refiner
option''), uncertified natural gasoline EFF blendstock could be used to
produce EFF provided that each batch is sampled and tested to
demonstrate compliance with sulfur, benzene, and RVP standards similar
to the requirements for a gasoline refiner. EFF full-refiners could
also use certified gasoline, BOBs, certified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock, DFE, and undenatured ethanol as EFF blendstocks.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ In order to use undenatured ethanol as a blendstock, the
EFF full-refiner would be required to be an ethanol producer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the EFF full-refiner option, uncertified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock of relatively higher sulfur and benzene content compared to
certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock could be used to produce EFF
as long as the potential impact on the sulfur and benzene levels in the
finished EFF was mitigated by the use of lower sulfur/benzene DFE or
undenatured ethanol. Ethanol producers have stated that allowing for
such ``ethanol dilution'' would be important to broaden the potential
pool of natural gasoline that could be used as EFF blendstock. Similar
to the requirements for gasoline refiners, we are proposing that EFF
full-refiners would be subject to a 0.62 volume percent annual average
benzene standard, a 10 ppm annual average sulfur standard, an 80 ppm
refinery gate per-gallon sulfur cap for the EFF they produce, and that
the EFF they produce must be comprised solely of CHONS. Similar to the
sulfur and benzene standards for gasoline refiners, compliance with the
average sulfur and benzene standards for EFF produced or imported under
the full-refiner option would be evaluated annually on an EFF refinery-
by-refinery basis. However, we are not proposing to include EFF sulfur
or benzene credit banking and trading (BT) provisions because we do not
believe that such provisions are needed to mitigate the burden of
compliance as was the case under the EPA's gasoline sulfur and benzene
programs.
    We are proposing that EFF produced by EFF full-refiners and EFF
bulk blender-refiners and EFF sold at retail without further blending
at a blender pump would be subject to a 9.0 psi RVP standard in CG
areas where gasoline is subject to a 9.0 psi RVP standard, a 7.8 psi
RVP standard in conventional gasoline areas where gasoline is subject
to a 7.8 psi RVP standard, and a 7.0 psi RVP standard in reformulated
gasoline (RFG) areas.\70\ Alternatively, for all conventional gasoline
areas we are also requesting comment on setting a uniform 9.0 psi RVP
standard for EFF produced by full-refiners and EFF bulk blender-
refiners. As discussed in section IV.C.3 of this preamble, these
proposed EFF RVP requirements are necessary to ensure that the RVP of
EFF blends produced at blender pumps does not exceed the evaporative
emissions control capabilities of FFVs.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Requiring EFF to meet a 7.0 RVP standard in RFG areas
should provide the same level of evaporative emissions control as
that provided by compliance with the RFG complex emissions model.
    \71\ These proposed RVP standards for EFF produced upstream of
blender pumps and other proposed requirements for blender pump-
refiners would ensure that the RVP of EFF made at blender pumps is
expected to be less than 10 psi in 9 psi CG areas, less than 8.8 psi
in 7.8 CG areas, and less than 8.0 psi in RFG areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We expect that producers of EFF would only take on the additional
compliance burden under the EFF full-refiner option to the extent that
the proposed flexibility to use uncertified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock would be economically advantageous. Producers that do not
wish to take on the additional burden could use the streamlined
compliance provisions under the EFF bulk blender-refiner option. We
anticipate that some ethanol producers and perhaps some crude oil
refineries may use the EFF full-refiner option.
    Ethanol producers have stated that the proposed per-batch testing
requirement is not consistent with the current practice of producing
E85 by in-line blending as the fuel is dispensed into a tank truck for
delivery downstream. Therefore, we are also requesting comment on
alternatives to in-tank testing of each batch of finished EFF to
streamline the compliance demonstration process. To demonstrate that
EFF made with natural gasoline contains no non-CHONS elements, EFF
full-refiners would be required to maintain records to document that
the natural gasoline was sourced from a

natural gas processing facility or petroleum refinery. EFF full-
refiners would be subject to registration, recordkeeping, reporting,
and PTD requirements similar to those for a gasoline refiner. We are
also requesting comment on whether EFF full-refiners should be required
to participate in the proposed EFF quality survey.
2. EFF Bulk Blender-Refiner Option
    The EFF full-refiner option would provide parties with the most
blending flexibility, in exchange for taking on the added testing
burden to demonstrate compliance. We anticipate that the majority of
EFF would continue to be made by bulk blenders at petroleum terminals
and ethanol plants where the per-batch testing requirement under the
full-refiner option may not be practicable. Therefore, this proposal
contains a second option for streamlined production of EFF (the ``EFF
bulk blender-refiner option'') for producers that only use blend
components that have been certified upstream as meeting the applicable
sulfur, benzene, and CHONS requirements. The standards and compliance
demonstration requirements under this option are similar to those that
apply to oxygenate blenders under the EPA's gasoline quality
requirements.\72\ EFF bulk blender-refiners could use only certified
natural gasoline EFF blendstock as well as certified gasoline, BOBs,
and DFE that have been certified upstream for compliance with sulfur,
benzene, and CHONS specifications.\73\ We anticipate that all terminals
and most ethanol productions plants would use the EFF bulk blender-
refiner option to demonstrate that the EFF they produce is in
compliance with the proposed requirements.\74\ Because of the reduced
ability for EFF produced by EFF bulk blender-refiners to be high in
sulfur, benzene, or non-CHONS, there would be reduced requirements for
EFF bulk blender-refiners to demonstrate compliance with the proposed
sulfur, benzene, and CHONS requirements. The proposed 10 ppm annual
average sulfur standard, 0.62 volume percent annual average benzene
standard, and CHONS requirement would still apply to EFF bulk blender-
refiners. However, EFF bulk blender-refiners could demonstrate
compliance with these standards and would be excused from most if not
all of the per-batch sampling and testing requirements that apply under
the EFF full-refiner option by maintaining PTDs to demonstrate that
they used only approved EFF blendstocks and by participating in the
proposed EFF quality survey. In parallel with the EPA's gasoline sulfur
program, a 95 ppm per-gallon sulfur cap would also apply to EFF bulk
blender-refiners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ In producing finished gasoline, gasoline oxygenate blenders
must use oxygenates and BOBs that have been certified by their
respective producers as being compliant with applicable sulfur and
benzene standards, and CHONS requirements. The benzene content and
CHONS compliance of the finished gasoline produced by oxygenate
blenders is governed by the blend components used. Hence, oxygenate
blenders are deemed to be in compliance with gasoline benzene and
CHONS requirements if they use only approved blends components.
There is the potential for sulfur addition from contamination during
distribution and the use of sulfur containing additives downstream
of the gasoline refinery. Therefore, gasoline oxygenate blenders and
other parties in the downstream gasoline distribution system are
subject to a downstream sulfur standard that accommodates this
potential increase in fuel sulfur downstream of the refinery during
distribution. The BOBs used by gasoline oxygenate blenders are
formulated to assure compliance with the applicable RVP requirements
when blended at the approved blend ratio with ethanol. Hence,
oxygenate blenders are not required to conduct sampling and testing
to demonstrate compliance with gasoline RVP requirements if they are
using only the approved blend components.
    \73\ Ethanol producers could also use undenatured ethanol as an
EFF blendstock.
    \74\ Crude oil refineries have a facility that acts as a
terminal for the purposes of distributing finished fuels. We expect
that most such crude oil refiners could also use the EFF bulk
blender-refiner option for the EFF they produce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also proposing that EFF bulk blender-refiners would be
subject to the same RVP specifications proposed for EFF full-refiners.
If EFF bulk blender-refiners limited the blendstocks they use to DFE
and certified gasoline or BOBs that do not take advantage of the 1 psi
waiver for E10, the EFF RVP blending characteristics would ensure
compliance with the proposed RVP specifications for EFF. Therefore, we
are proposing that EFF bulk blender-refiners that use only DFE and
certified gasoline or BOBs that do not take advantage of the 1 psi RVP
waiver for E10 could demonstrate compliance with the proposed RVP
requirements for EFF simply by keeping records of the blendstocks they
used and participating in the proposed EFF quality survey. Thus, such
EFF bulk blender-refiners would not be required to conduct RVP testing
on the EFF they produce.
    The relatively higher volatility of certified gasoline or BOBs that
take advantage of the 1 psi waiver for E10, and/or certified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock means that EFF blends made using these
blendstocks could potentially result in the finished EFF exceeding the
proposed RVP specifications. Therefore, when EFF bulk blender-refiners
use certified gasoline or BOBs that take advantage of the 1 psi waiver
for E10, and/or certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock, there would
be additional requirements to demonstrate compliance with the proposed
RVP standards for EFF. EFF bulk blender-refiners that use these
blendstocks could demonstrate compliance with the proposed RVP
requirements through per-batch testing. However, since RVP testing of
the small tank truck-sized batches of EFF that we expect EFF bulk
blender-refiners would produce may be impractical, we are proposing
that an RVP compliance tool could be used in lieu of per-batch testing
to demonstrate compliance with the proposed RVP requirements by EFF
bulk blender-refiners that use gasoline or BOBs that take advantage of
the 1 psi waiver and/or certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock to
produce EFF.\75\ The methods that EFF bulk blender-refiners may use to
demonstrate compliance with the proposed RVP requirements for EFF are
summarized in Table IV.B.2-1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ The RVP compliance tool would use information on the RVP of
the blendstocks used and the blend ratios to produce EFF to
calculate the RVP of the finished blend. See section IV.F.3 of this
preamble.

 Table IV.B.2-1--Methods Available to EFF Bulk Blender-Refiners To Demonstrate Compliance With the Proposed EFF
                                                  Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Compliance demonstration method
        Hydrocarbon blendstocks        -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Blendstock PTDs          Compliance tool               Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Gasoline & BOBs that do not take      Yes....................  Yes....................  Yes.
 advantage of the E10 1 psi waiver.
--Gasoline & BOBs that do take          No.....................  Yes....................  Yes.
 advantage of the E10 1 psi RVP waiver.
--Certified natural gasoline EFF
 blendstock.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also proposing registration, recordkeeping, reporting, and
PTD language requirements for EFF bulk blender-refiners. To ensure
compliance, the producers of certified natural gasoline used by EFF
bulk blender-refiners would be required to demonstrate that their
product is compliant with EPA fuel quality requirements. EFF bulk
blender-refiners would rely on the PTDs from the producers of the
blendstocks they use to produce EFF to demonstrate compliance with the
proposed sulfur, benzene, and CHONS requirements, rather than per-batch
testing. We are proposing new registration, reporting, sampling,
testing, and PTD requirements for producers of certified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock to demonstrate that their product meets the
following proposed standards: 10 ppm per-gallon sulfur cap, 0.62 volume
percent benzene cap, 275 [deg]F T90 distillation cap, 375 [deg]F final
boiling point cap, and 15 psi RVP cap. These sulfur and benzene
standards for certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock are necessary
to ensure that finished EFF has comparable levels of these fuel
parameters to the levels present in gasoline when the potential
dilution of these fuel parameters by ethanol cannot be evaluated as
under the EFF full-refiner option. The T90 and final boiling point
specifications would ensure that an uncharacteristic amount of higher
boiling fraction hydrocarbons are not present. The RVP of EFF made with
certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock would be controlled by the
maximum RVP specifications for EFF discussed above. The proposed 15 psi
RVP cap for certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock would help to
ensure that an inappropriately high concentration of higher boiling
compounds that are not typically native to natural gasoline are not
present in significant quantities.
    It is possible that a significant volume of natural gasoline that
meets the proposed specifications for certified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock without further processing could be segregated from the
broader natural gasoline pool. Although there would be additional costs
in segregating such naturally ``sweet'' natural gasoline from the
general natural gasoline pool for use as certified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock, such segregation costs would likely be lower than the
additional processing costs to reduce the sulfur and benzene content of
natural gasoline from the general natural gasoline pool to meet the
proposed specifications. Therefore, segregation of such naturally sweet
natural gasoline may be the initial means used to produce compliant
certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock. Gasoline refiners would also
find natural gasoline meeting the proposed standards for certified
natural gasoline EFF blendstock a desirable gasoline blendstock.\76\
The additional processing costs to produce certified natural gasoline
EFF blendstock meeting the proposed specifications are estimated to be
the same or less than the cost to gasoline refiners to meet the
applicable sulfur and benzene standards for gasoline. We expect that
there would be no additional processing costs associated with natural
gasoline meeting the proposed maximum RVP specification since we
believe that the proposed 15 psi RVP cap is consistent with existing
industry practice. The proposed T90 and final boiling specifications
are consistent with the more stringent industry specifications.\77\
There would be additional costs in transporting certified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock to EFF bulk blender-refiners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Refiners that use certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock
to produce gasoline would be subject to all of the requirements
applicable to a gasoline refiner, including per-batch testing.
    \77\ See section IV.C.7 of this preamble for a discussion of the
proposed controls on natural gasoline EFF blendstock and the current
industry consensus controls on natural gasoline used as an E51-83
blendstock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The use of certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock to produce EFF
would be voluntary. We expect that producers of certified natural
gasoline and EFF bulk blender-refiners would only take on the
additional costs to the extent that the proposed flexibility to use
certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock to produce EFF would be
economically advantageous. However, we expect that the cost savings
from the use of certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock meeting the
proposed standards compared to the use of gasoline or BOBs would far
outweigh the costs of providing natural gasoline that meets the
proposed specifications. EFF bulk blender-refiners that do not wish to
take advantage of the proposed flexibility to use certified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock could continue to blend EFF using gasoline,
BOBs, and DFE as current E85 blenders do.
3. EFF Blender Pump-Refiner Option
    Compliance with the existing per-batch testing requirements in a
retail setting is impractical because each vehicle fill-up would be
considered a batch. Therefore, this proposal also includes a third
option for the streamlined production of EFF by EFF blender pump-
refiners at fuel retail and WPC facilities. The proposed EFF blender
pump-refiner option does not have a parallel under current EPA fuels
regulations. Historically, gasoline retailers have not produced or
blended fuel, but only received certified batches of gasoline of like
ethanol content (e.g., E0, E10, or E15) for delivery into segregated
storage tanks. This commingling of certified gasoline did not require
any further demonstration of compliance beyond maintaining product
transfer documents. Gasoline retailers have produced mid-grade octane
gasoline by mixing regular and premium grades at the pump for decades.
However, this is commingling two previously certified gasolines and
mixing of two previously certified gasoline would be expected to always
result in a compliant mixture. The proposed blender pump-refiner
provisions, in combination with the proposed provisions to regulate
E16-50 with E51-83 rather than continuing to treat E16-50 as gasoline,
would allow EFF blender pump-refiners to continue to operate with
minimal additional burden.
    To ensure proper fuel quality without placing unworkable testing
requirements on each batch produced by a blender pump, we are proposing
to limit the parent blends that can be used at blender pumps to produce
EFF blends to compliant gasoline (E0, E10 with or without the 1 psi
waiver, and E15) and EFF that satisfies the proposed fuel quality
requirements.\78\ The proposed 10 ppm annual average sulfur standard,
0.62 volume percent annual average benzene standard, and CHONS
requirement for EFF would apply to EFF blender pump-refiners. However,
EFF blender pump-refiners could demonstrate compliance with these
requirements simply by maintaining PTDs to demonstrate that they used
only approved EFF parent blends and by participating in the proposed
EFF quality survey.\79\ Since the parent blends used by EFF blender
pump-refiners would be required to be compliant with the applicable
sulfur, benzene, and CHONS requirements, the linear blending
characteristics of these fuel parameters would ensure that the
resulting intermediate blends are also compliant.\80\ In parallel with
the EPA's

gasoline sulfur program, a 95 ppm per-gallon sulfur cap would also
apply to EFF blender pump-refiners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ We are also seeking comment on allowing DFE to be used as a
parent blend at blender pumps.
    \79\ Dedicated EFF dispensers (e.g., conventional E85
dispensers) would also would be required to participate in the
proposed EFF quality survey.
    \80\ Parent blends used at blender pumps would also be required
to be compliant with the applicable RVP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the gasoline volatility program, EFF parent blends
at blender pumps and EFF at dedicated EFF dispensers would be required
to be compliant with the proposed RVP requirements annually from June 1
through September 15 of each year. Also consistent with the gasoline
volatility program, we are proposing a May 1 through September 15 RVP
compliance period for all upstream parties to aid in the seasonal
transition to RVP compliant EFF at retail facilities. EFF blender pump-
refiners and operators of dedicated EFF dispensers would primarily rely
on PTDs and participation in the proposed EFF quality survey to
demonstrate compliance with the proposed RVP requirements. However,
such retailers would also need to manage their EFF fuel deliveries to
ensure that wintertime EFF that is not subject to the proposed RVP
requirements is turned over to summertime RVP-compliant EFF by the
proposed June 1 compliance date.\81\ We are requesting comment on
whether the proposed May 1 RVP compliance date for EFF upstream of
retail and WPC facilities provides sufficient opportunity for EFF
retail and WPC tank turnover as is the case for the seasonal tank
turnover of gasoline retail and WPC tanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ This is analogous to the management of gasoline deliveries
by gasoline retailers to facilitate compliance with the seasonal RVP
requirements for gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that the RVP requirements on the parent blends used at
blender pumps would provide effective control of the RVP of EFF
produced at blender pumps. This is because the certification testing
requirements for FFVs result in FFVs being equipped with evaporative
emissions control equipment that is sized to control emissions when a
10 psi fuel is used. Conventional gasoline vehicles have evaporative
emissions control equipment that is sized to control emissions from a
9.0 psi fuel. The proposed parent blend requirements for blender pump-
refiners would ensure that the RVP of EFF blends made at blender pumps
is expected to be less than 10 psi. This is for the worst case
situation in CG areas where a 9.0 psi gasoline standard and the 1 psi
waiver for E10 applies. In other areas with lower gasoline volatility
requirements the RVP of EFF made at blender pumps would be
correspondingly lower. Therefore, we believe that setting an RVP
standard for E16-50 produced at blender pumps would not be necessary to
prevent an increase in evaporative emissions from FFVs.\82\ The EPA may
reevaluate the need to implement additional controls on the RVP of E16-
50 blends produced at blender pumps in a later action if testing of
such blends indicates that additional controls are needed. We request
comment on whether such additional controls are needed at this
time.\83\ The proposed requirements for parent blends used at blender
pumps and the expected maximum RVP of the EFF produced at blender pumps
that would result from these requirements are summarized in Table
IV.B.3-1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Although EFF blends made at blender pumps would not be
subject to a specific RVP standard, the parent blends used at
blender pumps, including the EFF RVP parent blend, would be subject
to the applicable RVP standard.
    \83\ See section IV.C.3 of this preamble for additional
discussion on the proposed RVP provisions for EFF.

 Table IV.B.3-1--Proposed Blender Pump Parent Blend Requirements and Expected Maximum RVP of EFF Blends Produced
                                                at Blender Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    EFF parent blend
                                          Potential gasoline     (maximum RVP standard   Expected maximum RVP of
                 Area                   parent blends (maximum   for EFF full-refiners      EFF blends made at
                                                 RVP)            and EFF bulk blender-       blender pump **
                                                                      refiners) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.0 RVP CG Area with 1 psi E10 Waiver  10.0 psi E10...........  9.0 psi EFF............  10.0 psi
                                       9.0 psi E0.............
                                       9.0 psi E15............
9.0 RVP CG Area without 1 psi E10      9.0 psi E10............  9.0 psi EFF............  10.0 psi
 Waiver.                               9.0 psi E0.............
                                       9.0 psi E15............
7.8 RVP CG Area with 1 psi E10 Waiver  8.8 psi E10............  7.8 psi EFF............  8.8 psi
                                       7.8 psi E0.............
                                       7.8 psi E15............
7.8 RVP CG Area without 1 psi E10      7.8 psi E10............  7.8 psi EFF............  8.8 psi
 Waiver.                               7.8 psi E0.............
                                       7.8 psi E15............
RFG Area.............................  7.0 psi E10............  7.0 psi EFF............  8.0 psi
                                       7.0 psi E0.............
                                       7.0 psi E15............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These maximum RVP standards would apply to EFF sold from dedicated EFF dispensers as well as to EFF parent
  blends at blender pumps.

4. Requirements for Gasoline Blender Pump-Refiners
    Under the current regulations, fuel retailers that produce E10 or
E15 at blender pumps would be subject to the gasoline refiner
provisions that require per-batch sulfur, benzene, and RVP testing.\84\
This proposal includes provisions that would allow gasoline blender
pump-refiners that produce E15 to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements for gasoline refiners from September 16 through May 31 by
using only approved parent blends, analogous to those proposed for EFF
produced at blender pumps. We are also proposing provisions that could
be used by blender pump-refiners that produce E15 from June 1 through
September 15 in some circumstance. We are also requesting comment on
similar provisions that might be used to regulate blender pumps that
produce E10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ RVP testing would apply from June 1 through September 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Requirements for Other Parties in the EFF Distribution System
    All parties in the EFF distribution chain downstream of EFF full-
refiners and EFF bulk blender-refiners and upstream of EFF blender
pump-refiners would be subject to the proposed sulfur, benzene, RVP,
and CHONS

requirements. Compliance with these standards could be demonstrated by
these parties by maintaining records on the EFF batches they handle.

C. Standards for Ethanol Flex Fuel

    The goal of these proposed quality standards for EFF is to ensure
that FFVs provide the same level of emissions control performance as
conventional gasoline vehicles. Since FFVs are equipped with the same
catalysts and emissions control systems to control emissions as are
conventional gasoline vehicles, FFV catalyst efficiency and emission
control performance is subject to the same deleterious effects from
fuel sulfur and atypical (non-CHONS) elements. The potential for
benzene emissions from FFVs also correlates to the benzene content of
the fuel used just as for conventional gasoline vehicles. The maximum
RVP of fuels used in FFVs also must not exceed the capacity of the
vehicle evaporative emissions control system, as it could result in
uncontrolled emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
    Similar to the gasoline sulfur program, the proposed standards that
would apply to various parties in the EFF production and distribution
system, and the means to demonstrate compliance with these standards
would vary depending on their ability to affect EFF quality. This
proposal contains three options under which an EFF producer can certify
that their product is compliant with the applicable standards: The
full-refiner option, the bulk blender-refiner option, and the blender
pump-refiner option.\85\ A detailed discussion of the proposed
standards is provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ The proposed EFF certification options are discussed in
section IV.D of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. EFF Sulfur Standards
    Under the Tier 3 gasoline program, the EPA promulgated a 10 ppm
annual average sulfur standard and 80 ppm refinery gate per-gallon
sulfur cap for gasoline in order to allow gasoline refiners flexibility
to accommodate brief excursions from the sulfur average standard during
upsets in the operation of gasoline desulfurization units.\86\
Similarly, we are proposing that a 10 ppm annual average sulfur
standard would apply to all EFF. EFF full-refiners would also be
subject to an 80 ppm refinery gate per-gallon sulfur cap similar to the
requirements for gasoline refiners. Although EFF full-refiners are not
expected to be desulfurizing EFF, but merely choosing which blendstocks
to use to produce EFF, we believe that this approach would provide them
with the flexibility to use an occasional batch of uncertified natural
gasoline blendstock that has a somewhat higher sulfur content provided
that they comply with the proposed 10 ppm annual average sulfur
standard. We believe that this could help facilitate the use of natural
gasoline as an EFF blendstock while maintaining the environmental goals
of the program. EFF full-refiners would be required to test each batch
of EFF to demonstrate compliance with these sulfur standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 10 ppm annual average sulfur standard would apply to all
parties throughout the EFF distribution system as well as to EFF full-
refiners. However, parties other than the EFF full-refiner, such as
bulk blenders, distributors, and retailers, would be deemed to be in
compliance with the 10 ppm annual average sulfur standard if they
maintain records to demonstrate they did not introduce uncertified
blendstocks into the EFF they produce or distribute. The sulfur content
of EFF produced by bulk blender-refiners and blender pump-refiners
would be governed by the blending restrictions that accompany these
certification options. All of the approved blend components would be
subject to a 10 ppm annual average sulfur standard or a more protective
10 ppm per-gallon sulfur cap standard.\87\ Depending on the sulfur
content of the blend components used, the sulfur content of an
individual batch of EFF could be greater than 10 ppm. However, the
requirements on the blendstocks used by EFF bulk blender-refiners and
EFF blender pump-refiners would ensure compliance with the 10 ppm
annual average sulfur standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Gasoline and BOBs are currently subject to a 10 ppm annual
average sulfur standard. We are proposing a 10 ppm per-gallon sulfur
cap for certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the downstream gasoline sulfur standard under the
current Tier 2 gasoline program and the Tier 3 gasoline program that
will become effective January 1, 2017, we are proposing that EFF would
be subject to a 95 ppm per-gallon sulfur cap standard downstream of EFF
full-refiner facilities. This 95 ppm per-gallon sulfur cap would apply
to EFF bulk blender-refiners, EFF blender pump-refiners and all other
parties in the EFF distribution system downstream of EFF full-refiners.
We believe that this would be sufficient to accommodate the use of
gasoline that meets the 95 ppm per-gallon sulfur cap as an EFF
blendstock by EFF bulk blender-refiners, and sulfur contamination from
the use of downstream sulfur-containing EFF additives. An additional 15
ppm from the 80 ppm refinery gate sulfur cap was provided for gasoline
downstream of the refinery gate under the Tier 3 gasoline program to
allow for the most extreme cases where sulfur might be added to
gasoline as a result of contamination during distribution or through
the use of additives when sulfur is an essential functional component
in the additive (e.g., corrosion control, demulsifiers). Sulfur
contamination during gasoline distribution is typically limited to less
than 2 ppm. High sulfur additives are only used to remedy specific
instances of gasoline quality problems where their treatment rate is
governed by the desire to limit the added cost from their use.
    We believe that distributors of EFF should be able to limit sulfur
contamination at least as effectively as distributors of gasoline
because EFF cannot be distributed by pipeline, which is where there is
the highest potential for sulfur contamination of gasoline. The one
link in the EFF production chain where unique concerns may exist
regarding limiting sulfur contamination is in the distribution of
certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock. The procedures necessary to
limit contamination to the level required under this proposal may not
be familiar to distributors of natural gasoline since natural gasoline
is typically subject to broader quality specifications than those
proposed for use as an EFF blendstock. Hence, there may be an increased
chance for sulfur contamination of certified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock during distribution from other higher-sulfur natural
gasoline in the distribution chain during the initial phase-in of the
program. The proposed 10 ppm per-gallon sulfur cap on certified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock would apply throughout the distribution chain,
including at the EFF full-refinery or bulk blender-refinery that uses
certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock to make EFF. Therefore,
sulfur contamination during the distribution of certified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock should not impact the sulfur content of EFF. We
would work with the producers, distributors, and users of certified
natural gasoline EFF blendstock to make them aware of their
responsibility to limit contamination during distribution during the
implementation of the final rule.
    Gasoline additives exist that are suitable for use in EFF. To the
extent that additives may be specifically designed for use in EFF, we
believe that such additives would not require higher sulfur content as
an essential functional component to a greater extent than that

for additives designed solely for use in gasoline. Hence, we believe
that the proposed 95 ppm downstream per-gallon sulfur cap for EFF would
also be sufficient to accommodate even the most extreme cases of where
sulfur contamination is at an unavoidable maximum and the maximum
treatment rate of sulfur-containing additives is needed to address in-
use quality problems. We anticipate that the vast majority of EFF would
be close to the proposed 10 ppm annual average sulfur standard. Under
the current Tier 2 gasoline program that places an average 30 ppm
sulfur specification on refineries, gasoline survey data indicates that
in-use gasoline sulfur average is 21 ppm with only 18 percent of the
samples in the survey above 30 ppm, 2 percent above 50 ppm, and no
samples above 80 ppm.\88\ We intend to review in-use EFF and gasoline
data after the implementation of the EPA's Tier 3 gasoline sulfur
program and evaluate whether it would be possible to reduce the 80 ppm
refinery gate and/or the 95 ppm downstream per-gallon sulfur caps for
EFF and/or gasoline in a later action.\89\ If such reductions are
possible, it would provide improved ability for the EPA to more readily
detect the potential addition of illegal high-sulfur blendstocks to EFF
and/or gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Based on a review of 2013-2015 U.S. retail gasoline sulfur
data from the proprietary Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers North
American Fuel Survey. These data are available for purchase from the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 803 7th Street NW., Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20001.
    \89\ The gasoline 10 ppm annual average sulfur standard under
the EPA's Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program will become effective on
January 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The gasoline sulfur control program includes banking and trading
(BT) provisions for sulfur credits across gasoline production
facilities and companies. These BT provisions were included to address
concerns that it would be difficult and costly for refiners to install
the necessary desulfurization equipment to reduce the sulfur content of
gasoline down to a 10 ppm annual average due to the high levels of
sulfur naturally occurring in crude oil. In comparison, EFF producers
could comply with the proposed sulfur specifications simply by using
existing low sulfur DFE and gasoline as blendstocks as they do
currently. Such EFF producers would have only minimal additional
recordkeeping and PTD requirements as a result of this proposal.\90\
Since EFF full-refiners and importers are not expected to need to
install desulfurization equipment to produce EFF that complies with the
proposed standards, we do not expect that a subset of EFF full-refiners
would face a substantially greater compliance burden compared to others
as was the case for gasoline refiners under the EPA's gasoline sulfur
program. Therefore, credit trading among EFF full-refiners and
importers is not necessary to ease the burden of compliance as it was
under the gasoline sulfur program. Consequently, we are proposing that
compliance with the proposed average standard sulfur standard for EFF
would be evaluated on an EFF refinery-by-refinery basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ The only current means for a producer of E51-83 to be
assured of compliance with the current requirement that E51-83 must
be substantially similar to the fuel used during FFV vehicle
certification is to limit the blendstocks used to gasoline, BOBs,
and DFE. E16-50 is currently subject to all of the requirements for
gasoline. This proposal would regulate all gasoline-ethanol blends
that may only be used in FFVs (E16-83) as a group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    API and AFPM commented on the Tier 3 proposal that BT provisions
should be included for E16-50 producers and that the trading of credits
generated under such provisions should be allowed to be used by
gasoline refiners to demonstrate compliance with the gasoline sulfur
standards. We do not believe that there is a need to allow any
additional source of sulfur credits to enable compliance with the Tier
3 gasoline standards, and given the large volume difference, we believe
allowing gasoline sulfur credits to be used for EFF compliance would
circumvent reducing EFF sulfur levels to 10 ppm. Therefore, we are not
proposing to allow any credit trading between EFF and gasoline.
2. EFF Benzene Standards
    We are proposing that EFF would be subject to the same 0.62 volume
percent annual average benzene standard that applies to gasoline. The
Tier 3 proposal requested comment on the potential that EFF might be
able to satisfy more stringent benzene requirements due to a potential
increased benzene dilution effect in higher ethanol content blends.\91\
We agree with the comments received that this would not be practical
because of the uncertain benzene contribution to EFF from gasoline used
as an EFF blendstock that is required to meet a 0.62 volume percent
annual average benzene standard. This would particularly be an issue
for lower-level ethanol content EFF blends such as E30 to the extent
they may be produced upstream of a blender pump by an EFF full-refiner
or bulk blender-refiner in the future rather than at a blender pump. In
addition, holding EFF to a 0.62 volume percent annual average benzene
standard would ensure an equivalent level of environmental protection
as is provided by the requirements for gasoline while providing EFF
full-refiners with greater flexibility in the natural gasoline they
could use as an EFF blendstock. Therefore, while we believe that EFF
produced by EFF full-refiners will typically be below 0.62 volume
percent benzene concentration due to dilution from ethanol, we are
proposing to set the benzene standard at the same 0.62 volume percent
annual average applicable to gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See 78 FR 29936-29938 (May 21, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EFF full-refiners would be required to test each batch of EFF to
demonstrate compliance with the proposed annual average benzene
standard. The 0.62 volume percent annual average benzene standard would
apply to all parties throughout the EFF distribution system as well as
to EFF full-refiners. However, parties other than EFF full-refiners,
such as bulk blenders, distributors, and retailers, would be deemed to
be in compliance with the 0.62 volume percent annual average benzene
standard if they maintain records to demonstrate that they did not
introduce uncertified blendstocks into the EFF they produce or
distribute. Similar to the discussion above regarding sulfur, we are
proposing that the benzene content of EFF produced by bulk blender-
refiners and blender pump-refiners would be governed by the blending
restrictions that accompany these certification options. All of the
approved blend components would be subject to a 0.62 volume percent
annual average benzene standard or a more protective benzene per-gallon
cap standard.\92\ Depending on the benzene level of any gasoline
blendstock used, the benzene level of an individual batch of EFF could
be greater than 0.62 volume percent. However, the requirements on the
blendstocks used by EFF bulk blender-refiners and EFF blender pump-
refiners would ensure compliance on an annual average basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Gasoline and BOBs are subject to a 0.62 volume percent
annual average benzene standard. We are proposing a 0.62 volume
percent benzene per-gallon cap for certified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the proposed EFF sulfur standards, we are also not
proposing a BT program for the EFF benzene standards. We believe that
the same conditions that led the EPA to include provisions under the
gasoline benzene program for BT of benzene credits are not present for
EFF full-refiners and importers. We do not expect that EFF full-
refiners and importers would need to install processing equipment to
remove benzene from EFF to meet the proposed 0.62 volume percent annual
average benzene standard as was the

case for gasoline refiners. EFF full-refiners and importers could
comply with the proposed benzene specifications simply by using
existing low-benzene DFE and gasoline as blendstocks as they do
currently. Such EFF producers would have only minimal additional
recordkeeping and PTD requirements as a result of this proposal. Hence,
we are proposing that compliance with the proposed 0.62 volume percent
annual average benzene standard would be evaluated annually on an EFF
refinery-by-refinery basis.
3. EFF Volatility Standards
    Volatility is a measure of the propensity of a liquid to evaporate.
RVP is a standard measure of fuel volatility at 100[emsp14][deg]F. The
amount of evaporative emissions from a gasoline blend is closely
related to its volatility. The components of gasoline and EFF have
different volatilities because of their unique chemical make-up. The
RVP of a finished gasoline made solely from the various hydrocarbons in
the gasoline boiling range is essentially proportional to the RVP and
blend ratios of the individual hydrocarbon blend components. That is to
say, the RVP of gasoline hydrocarbons blends linearly similar to
gasoline sulfur and benzene content. This is not the case when ethanol
is added to gasoline. The addition of ethanol to gasoline increases the
volatility of the blend until a concentration of approximately 10
volume percent, after which increasing ethanol concentration slowly
decreases blend volatility. For example, for ethanol blends made with a
9 psi RVP gasoline (E0), the RVP increases to approximately 10 psi at
10 volume percent ethanol (E10) then decreases gradually with increased
ethanol concentration to 9 psi at 50 volume percent ethanol (E50), and
continues to decrease at a more pronounced rate to 6 psi at 80 volume
percent ethanol (E80).\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ SAE technical paper 2007-01-4006, ``A Model for Estimating
Vapor Pressures of Commingled Ethanol Fuels,'' Sam R. Reddy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously explained, FFVs are equipped with the same type of
emissions control equipment to limit evaporative VOC emissions as are
conventional gasoline vehicles. Controlling the volatility of EFF is
important to limit the evaporative emissions from FFVs. Higher fuel
volatility levels generates additional fuel vapor in a vehicle or
engine fuel system that can cause ``breakthrough'' emissions from the
evaporative emission control system of a vehicle or engine.\94\
Therefore, consistent with the EPA approach to addressing evaporative
emissions from gasoline, we believe that it is appropriate to set
maximum RVP standards for EFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Breakthrough evaporative emissions refers to the condition
where the evaporative emissions control system of a vehicle becomes
saturated, and further gasoline vapor generated is simply purged
into the environment without being combusted in the engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that the maximum RVP requirements for gasoline are an
appropriate benchmark to consider in determining what RVP standards to
set for EFF. A 9.0 psi RVP maximum applies to gasoline in many CG
areas, while a 7.8 psi RVP applies in certain southern CG areas where
ambient temperatures are warmer, causing fuel volatility to be higher
for a given RVP.\95\ The RVP of RFG is governed by a VOC performance
model that takes into account fuel VOC performance parameters other
than fuel volatility. Hence, there is no set regulatory RVP maximum for
RFG from June 1 through September 15. However, our review of RFG
production data indicates that the RVP of RFG is typically about 7.0
psi from June 1 through September 15.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ The EPA maximum RVP requirements for gasoline are
applicable from May 1 through September 15 for parties in the
gasoline production system other than gasoline retailers and WPCs.
These requirements apply to gasoline retailers and WPCs from June 1
through September 15. See 40 CFR 80.27. A 1 psi RVP waiver was
granted by Congress in 1990 to gasoline-ethanol blends of at least 9
volume percent and no greater than 10 volume percent ethanol (i.e.,
E10) in CG areas. With the subsequent spread of E10 nationwide, E10
is now subject to a 10 psi RVP maximum in most CG areas and an 8.8
psi maximum in certain southern CG areas. As a result, much of
conventional gasoline currently has volatility as high as 10 psi.
Since conventional gasoline vehicles are designed for 9 psi, this
leads to breakthrough VOC emissions from vehicle evaporative
emissions control systems in CG areas. The 1 psi waiver for E10 does
not apply to E10 in RFG areas. Hence, there is not the same issue
with breakthrough evaporative emissions from the use of E10 in RFG
areas. The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) sent letters to the EPA requesting
that the EPA effectively eliminate the relevance of the 1 psi RVP
waiver for E10.
    \96\ See the memorandum, ``Volatility of Reformulated
Gasoline,'' available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although FFVs are equipped with the same type of evaporative
emissions control equipment as conventional gasoline vehicles,
differences in the evaporative emissions testing requirements results
in the evaporative emissions control equipment on FFVs being more
robust than that installed on conventional gasoline vehicles. The
capacity of vehicle evaporative emissions control equipment is driven
by the vehicle evaporative emissions certification testing
requirements. Vehicle evaporative emissions certification testing
includes testing to evaluate both diurnal and refueling evaporative
emissions. A 9.0 psi test fuel is specified for both diurnal and
refueling evaporative emissions certification testing for conventional
gasoline vehicles. Hence, the evaporative emissions control systems of
conventional gasoline vehicles are sized to reliably cope with a
maximum 9.0 psi RVP in-use fuel without breakthrough evaporative
emissions.
    Historically, and at present, FFVs are certified for both diurnal
and refueling evaporative emissions compliance on the highest
volatility fuel typically encountered in-use during the May 1 through
September 15 volatility control period (i.e., E10 at 10 psi RVP),
resulting in evaporative emissions control systems that are sized and
designed to handle additional fuel vapor as compared to conventional
gasoline vehicles. Beginning with the Tier 3 vehicle standards, a 9.0
psi test fuel will be required for diurnal evaporative emissions
testing for certification for FFVs as well as for conventional gasoline
vehicles. However, a 10 psi test fuel was retained for FFV refueling
emissions certification testing. The Tier 3 rule concluded that the RVP
of the refueling emissions test is expected to continue to drive the
capacity of evaporative control equipment on FFVs.\97\ Therefore, we
believe that FFVs operated on 10 psi in-use EFF would provide an
equivalent level of evaporative emissions control to conventional
gasoline vehicles operated on 9.0 psi in-use gasoline. Hence, we
believe that in-use EFF should not exceed 10 psi to control the
evaporative emissions from FFVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See 79 FR 23509 (April 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, as noted above, the RVP standard for gasoline in
some areas is set below 9.0 psi (at 7.8 psi in certain CG areas or
effectively 7.0 psi in RFG areas) to provide greater protection from
excess emissions, either due to climatic considerations or ambient
pollution concentrations.\98\ We believe that it is appropriate to
reflect these lower limits for EFF as well in these areas for these
reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ It should be noted that RFG areas fall into three
categories depending on VOC regions (North vs. South) and whether
the area is part of the VOC adjusted area (see 40 CFR 80.71 and
80.40(c)). Based on an analysis of the distribution of RVP samples,
it is much simpler to have one RVP standard of 7.0 psi versus having
three separate standards for EFF. Creating three different standards
would potentially create fungibility issues with different types of
RFG EFF and make the program much more complex, making it more
burdensome for parties to comply. See the memorandum, ``Volatility
of Reformulated Gasoline,'' available in the docket for this action.

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

    The manufacture of EFF blends at blender pumps presents unique
challenges with respect to ensuring volatility control since the RVP of
such blends is often higher than that of either parent blend. For
example, the RVP of EFF blends made at a blender pump using two parent
blends (E10 and EFF), each less than 9 psi RVP, would be somewhat
higher than 9 psi.\99\ Nevertheless, since the RVP of EFF blends made
at blender pumps is a direct function of the RVP of the parent blends
used (which would be produced by EFF full-refiners and bulk blender-
refiners), the volatility of EFF blends made at blender pumps can be
controlled by setting appropriate RVP standards for the parent blends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See the memorandum, ``Volatility of Ethanol Blends Made at
Blender Pumps,'' available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We conducted RVP modeling to evaluate what RVP standards for the
EFF blends used as parent blends at blender pumps would provide
adequate control of the RVP of EFF blends produced at blender
pumps.\100\ The modeling assumed that gasoline compliant with locally
applicable RVP requirements would be used as the other parent
blend.\101\ This modeling indicates that limiting the RVP of EFF
produced by full-refiners, importers, and bulk blender-refiners to 9.0
psi in CG areas subject to a 9.0 psi gasoline RVP standard would ensure
that the RVP of EFF produced at blender pumps is expected to be below
10 psi. Limiting the RVP of EFF produced by full-refiners, importers,
and bulk blender-refiners to 7.8 psi in CG areas where a 7.8 psi RVP
standard applies to gasoline would likewise ensure that EFF blends made
at blender pumps is expected to be below 8.8 psi. Similarly, limiting
the RVP of EFF produced by full-refiners, importers, and bulk blender-
refiners to 7.0 psi in RFG areas would ensure that EFF made at blender
pumps is be expected to be below 8.0 psi. As a result of the greater
capability of FFVs to control evaporative emissions compared to
conventional gasoline vehicles, we believe that controlling the RVP of
EFF to 8.8 psi in CG areas where gasoline is subject to a 7.8 psi RVP
standard and to 8.0 psi in RFG areas would provide a comparable level
of evaporative emissions for FFVs operated on EFF compared to
conventional gasoline vehicles operated on gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Id.
    \101\ See Table IV.B.3-1 in this preamble for a summary of the
proposed blender pump parent blend requirements and expected
resulting maximum RVP of EFF blends produced at blender pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, we believe that limiting the RVP of EFF
produced at blender pumps to the target levels described above would
provide a comparable level of evaporative emissions for FFVs operated
on EFF compared to conventional gasoline vehicles operated on gasoline.
The RVP modeling results indicate that the RVP of EFF blends made at
blender pumps would exceed the target maximums by only as much as 0.2
psi using worst-case assumptions.\102\ Given the unlikelihood of the
alignment of these worse-case conditions \103\ and the believed
conservative nature of the RVP model,\104\ we do not anticipate such
higher levels to be seen in-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ The RVP of EFF made at blender pumps would typically be
significantly below the target levels.
    \103\ The marginal exceedances of the target RVP for EFF blends
made at retail that are indicated by the RVP modeling primarily are
associated with the use of E0 as a parent blend. The vast majority
of gasoline in the U.S. is E10. There is relatively little E0
available at retail and which is typically sold from dedicated E0
dispensers, rather than at blender pumps, due to marketing
considerations.
    \104\ Based on anecdotal information from parties familiar with
the RVP model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we are proposing that the RVP requirements for EFF for
full-refiners, importers, and bulk blender-refiners would generally
track those of gasoline, with a maximum RVP of 9.0 or 7.8 psi for CG
areas (depending on the applicable gasoline RVP standard), and an RVP
maximum of 7.0 psi for RFG areas (which is comparable to the average
RVP of RFG). We are soliciting comment on these standards. We also seek
comment on setting a 9.0 RVP standard for EFF produced by full-
refiners, importers, and bulk blender-refiners for use in all CG areas
rather than imposing lower standards commensurate with the lower
gasoline RVP standards that apply in certain areas.
    We believe that the proposed parent blend requirements for EFF
blender pump-refiners, including the proposed RVP standards for EFF
produced by EFF full-refiners and bulk blender-refiners discussed above
would provide sufficient control of the RVP of EFF made at blender
pumps. Therefore, we do not believe that an RVP standard for EFF
produced at blender pumps is needed at this time. We are also proposing
an independent survey of the RVP of EFF at blender pumps.\105\ The EPA
would monitor the RVP of EFF produced at blender pumps, and if the
results of this evaluation indicate that additional controls of EFF at
blender pumps are warranted, such controls may be proposed in a later
action. We request comment on whether the EPA should implement
additional measures to control EFF volatility at this time. Such
additional measures might include: (1) Additional limitations on the
gasoline parent blends used, such as prohibiting the use of E0 as a
parent blend; (2) Further restrictions on the amount of natural
gasoline that could be used; and/or (3) A lower RVP maximum for the
natural gasoline EFF blendstock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ The proposed EFF quality survey requirements are discussed
in section IV.F.9 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the gasoline RVP requirements, we are proposing that the
proposed EFF RVP standards would apply to EFF retailers and WPCs from
June 1 through September 15 and to all other parties in the EFF
production and distribution system from May 1 through September 15 of
each year. Thus, a retailer or WPC would be liable for RVP violations
if their EFF parent blends or EFF blends distributed from a dedicated
dispenser exceeded these RVP limits from June 1 through September 15
and upstream parties would be liable for the RVP of the EFF they
produce or distribute from May 1 through September 15. The EPA could
evaluate compliance with these standards by sampling and testing the
EFF parent blends from the underground storage tank. We seek comment on
whether the EPA could evaluate compliance by setting the blender pump
to dispense EFF only, flushing the pump, and collecting a sample from
the blender pump dispenser.
    We believe that E51-83 blends produced with the hydrocarbon
blendstocks allowed under the current requirements for E51-83 (gasoline
and BOBs) would necessarily meet the proposed maximum RVP requirements
as a result of the volatility blending characteristics. In fact, at
high ethanol concentrations, E85 is currently challenged to have
sufficiently high RVP to meet the minimum ASTM volatility specification
for proper vehicle cold start and driveability. Therefore, the proposed
RVP requirements would not result in a further constraint to E51-83 RVP
blending practices compared to the current situation. Rather, the
proposed increased flexibility to use natural gasoline as an EFF blend
component would likely allow the RVP of EFF to increase up to the
evaporative control limits of FFVs. This should not only help E51-83
meet the minimum ASTM volatility specification at greater ethanol
concentrations, but also reduce the cost of all EFF and potentially
improve the exhaust emission performance of FFVs. Since the proposed
EFF RVP standards parallel those for gasoline, this would

not constitute increase in the stringency of the standards for E16-50
EFF blends that are currently subject to all of the requirements
applicable to gasoline, including the gasoline RVP standards.
    ASTM has set minimum volatility specifications on E51-83 for safety
reasons and to ensure adequate startability and drivability, which are
critical for exhaust emission performance.\106\ Since rapid engine
start-up, warm-up, and drivability is important for vehicles to comply
with the proposed Tier 3 exhaust emission standards, the Tier 3
proposal requested comment on whether it would be important that the
EPA impose minimum volatility standards for E51-83 consistent with
those in the ASTM standard. The comments indicated that concerns about
E51-83 meeting ASTM minimum volatility standards have essentially been
resolved by the change in the ASTM standard from a minimum 68 volume
percent ethanol specification to a 51 volume percent
specification.\107\ We believe that the increased flexibility that this
proposal would provide by allowing natural gasoline to be used as an
EFF blendstock would also help to resolve any remaining concerns about
EFF not meeting an appropriate RVP minimum, and at the same time enable
the use of higher levels of ethanol to do so. The EPA is not aware of
concerns about instances of excessively low volatility of E16-50
causing startability and driveability problems that could increase FFV
emissions. We believe such concerns do not exist for E16-50 blends
because the effect of increasing ethanol concentrations in higher level
ethanol blends on depressing gasoline blend volatility is most
pronounced for E51-83 blends. Therefore, we are not proposing RVP
minimum specifications for EFF at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ ASTM D5798-14, ``Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel
Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines.''
    \107\ The change by ASTM to a minimum 51 volume percent ethanol
specification was made to allow more hydrocarbons to be used in the
blend to help meet minimum volatility requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. EFF Elemental Composition Requirements
    Elements that can poison (deactivate) vehicle emission control
catalysts such as anions or cations (e.g., metals) can exist naturally
in petroleum deposits or can be added in the process of extracting such
deposits. They can also become entrained in either petroleum or ethanol
products through contamination or be purposely added to a fuel. CAA
section 211(f)(1) requires that fuel and fuel additives used in
commerce must be ``substantially similar'' to fuel used in
certification. This requirement applies to all fuels used in motor
vehicles, including the fuels used in FFVs. On July 28, 1981 (46 FR
38582), the EPA finalized an interpretation of the term ``substantially
similar'' in terms of a fuel or fuel additive's elemental content in
motor vehicle gasoline. The fuel or fuel additive elemental content in
this ``substantially similar'' interpretive rule was limited to CHONS.
Refiners are required to limit the elemental composition of the
gasoline they produce to CHONS, except for trace quantities of other
atypical elements.
    Emissions certification testing of FFVs is required using both the
test fuel specified for conventional gasoline vehicles and a high
ethanol content FFV test fuel (E83). Regulatory specifications for
conventional gasoline emissions certification test fuel have long
existed to ensure that atypical elements are not present. Regulatory
specifications for the high-ethanol content FFV certification test fuel
were finalized in the Tier 3 final rule and will become mandatory for
model year (MY) 2017 FFVs.\108\ These regulations ensure that FFV
exhaust emissions test fuel is composed of only CHONS. Prior to the FFV
test fuel specifications finalized in the Tier 3 rule, the EPA practice
has been to blend FFV test fuel using indolene (E0) with neat
(undenatured) ethanol. These blendstocks are composed only of CHONS. It
is our understanding that manufacturers of FFVs have followed EPA
practice when blending FFV exhaust emissions certification test fuel.
Thus, FFV certification test fuel has been composed solely of CHONS
prior to the Tier 3 rule that clarified this requirement. Hence, it has
been a long standing EPA policy that in-use EFF fuel must be composed
of only CHONS. We are proposing regulatory specifications to clarify
this requirement for all in-use EFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014) and 40 CFR 1065.725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Non-CHONS elements are typically removed during the processes used
to produce gasoline compliant with EPA sulfur standards at crude oil
refineries. Hence, the EPA has had good assurance that gasoline
refiners are complying with the CHONS requirement despite the lack of a
testing requirement or specific limit on the quantities of atypical
elements that may be present in gasoline. The main potential source of
atypical elements in gasoline is additives added to gasoline after the
gasoline is produced at a crude oil refinery; however, such additives
are also required to be CHONS.
    E51-83 was also assured to be composed of only CHONS when gasoline
and BOBs were the only hydrocarbon blendstocks used in its manufacture.
E16-50 has been assured to be CHONS by the current provisions that
apply the requirements applicable to gasoline to these blends and the
fact that it is typically blended from E51-83 and E10. This proposal
includes provisions to treat all E16-83 as EFF and to allow EFF full-
refiners, importers, and EFF bulk blender-refiners to use natural
gasoline to produce EFF. There is no existing CHONS requirement for
natural gasoline used as an EFF blendstock. Therefore we are proposing
that EFF would be required to be CHONS, and are proposing additional
CHONS requirements on natural gasoline EFF blendstock. We believe that
the proposed provisions for natural gasoline EFF blendstock and the
existing provisions for the other EFF blendstocks would ensure that EFF
would be CHONS.\109\ Therefore, we are not proposing a testing
requirement or specific limit on the quantities of atypical elements
that may be present in finished EFF at this time. The EPA intends to
further evaluate the potential presence of non-CHONS elements in EFF as
well as in gasoline and may propose additional control measures in the
future if warranted. We request comment on whether additional controls
may be needed to prevent the presence of non-CHONS elements in EFF as
well as gasoline, with associated supporting data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ The other proposed EFF blendstocks are finished gasoline,
BOBs, DFE, and undenatured ethanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Additives Used in EFF
    Special provisions were provided under the gasoline sulfur program
to accommodate additives that require sulfur in their functional
components. These provisions allowed the continued use of such
important additives while ensuring compliance with the 95 ppm
downstream per-gallon sulfur cap for gasoline. We are proposing that
additives used in EFF would be subject to the same sulfur requirements
that apply to additives used in gasoline.\110\ Under this proposal, an
additive would be required to contribute no more than 3 ppm to the
sulfur content of EFF when used at the maximum recommended treatment
rate. The additive manufacturer would be required to

maintain records of its additive production quality control activities
that demonstrate that the sulfur content of the additive is compliant
with this requirement. The 3 ppm maximum was determined to be
sufficient to accommodate all gasoline additives, and we believe that
additives used in EFF do not differ from gasoline additives with
respect to the sulfur content necessary to provide the additive's
functionality. These proposed requirements would allow for the
continued use of important EFF additives while ensuring compliance with
the proposed 95 ppm per-gallon sulfur cap for EFF. We are also
proposing that manufacturers of additives for use in EFF certify that
there are no non-CHONS elements present. The use of additives that
contain non-CHONS elements such as metals in EFF would be prohibited
unless the EPA were to determine that the use of such an additive would
not cause or contribute to regulated emissions failures of FFVs, and
was granted a waiver to allow its use in EFF pursuant to the
requirements of CAA section 211. Similar to gasoline additives, which
have no benzene requirements, we believe that benzene requirements for
additives used in EFF are not necessary because benzene is not a
typical additive component and the 1 volume percent cap on additive
concentration would further limit any potential impact on finished
fuels from the limited benzene content of additives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ EFF additives are sold for use at a concentration of less
than 1.0 volume percent in EFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that there would be no need for the use of additives in
certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock from the point of its
production to its use to produce EFF. Therefore, we are proposing to
prohibit the addition of additives to certified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock. We request comment on whether provisions including sulfur
standards are needed to facilitate the use of additives in certified
natural gasoline EFF blendstock. If we were to finalize provisions to
allow the use of additives in certified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock, the use of additives that contain non-CHONS elements such
as metals would be prohibited unless the EPA were to determine that the
use of such an additive would not cause or contribute to regulated
emissions failures of FFVs, and granted a waiver to allow its use in
EFF pursuant to the requirements of CAA section 211.
    We also believe that there would be no need for the use of
additives in uncertified natural gasoline EFF blendstock from the point
of its production to its use to produce EFF. EFF full-refiners that use
uncertified natural gasoline EFF blendstock are required to test each
batch of finished EFF. Therefore the potential impact on the sulfur and
benzene content from the possible addition of additives to uncertified
natural gasoline EFF blendstock would be reflected in the per-batch EFF
testing required of EFF full-refiners, and there would be no need for
sulfur or other standards for such additives. The use of additives that
contain non-CHONS elements such as metals in uncertified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock would be prohibited unless the EPA were to
determine that the use of such an additive would not cause or
contribute to regulated emissions failures of FFVs, and granted a
waiver to allow its use in EFF pursuant to the requirements of CAA
section 211. We are proposing that EFF full-refiners would be required
to secure a PTD from the uncertified natural gasoline EFF blendstock
supplier that demonstrates that it contains no non-CHONS elements.
6. EFF Deposit Control
    The current deposit control regulations require that the gasoline
portion of E51-83 must contain a certified deposit control additive at
a concentration at least as great as that used during gasoline deposit
control additive certification testing (referred to as the lowest
additive concentration or LAC).\111\ The addition of ethanol to
gasoline, with deposit control additive at the LAC, to produce E51-83
results in a deposit control additive concentration that is lower than
the LAC due to the increased dilution from the additional ethanol. The
EPA is not aware of data on the deposit control needs of FFVs that
operate on E51-83. It is unclear the extent to which the current
requirements are effective in aiding the control of deposits in FFV
engine and fuel supply systems that result from the use of EFF.
Stakeholders have stated that as additive concentration diminishes due
to dilution with DFE, there is a point where the presence of a deposit
control additive ceases to be beneficial and can actually contribute to
deposit formation. Certain deposit control additives are also not
completely soluble in high ethanol content blends. In light of this,
the Tier 3 proposal requested comment on removing the requirement that
the gasoline portion of E51-83 must contain a deposit control additive
until the specific deposit control needs of these blends can be
evaluated. To the extent that E16-50 would no longer be treated as
gasoline, we also requested comment on not applying gasoline deposit
control standards to these blends pending further study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See 40 CFR 80.161(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continue to believe that the current deposit control requirement
for the gasoline portion of E51-83 is not providing a meaningful
benefit to deposit control in these blends and may actually contribute
to deposits. There is currently insufficient data regarding the
potential effects of deposits on FFV emissions and what regulatory
specifications may be appropriate for deposit control additives used in
EFF. Likewise there are no test procedures that might be used for
regulatory purposes. Therefore, we are proposing to amend the
regulations to remove the requirement that the gasoline portion of E51-
83 must contain a certified deposit control additive.
    There are similar concerns regarding using deposit control
additives certified for gasoline use in E16-50. Consequently we are
also proposing to defer setting deposit control requirements for E16-
50. We appreciate the concerns expressed in the comments on the Tier 3
proposal that all spark ignition fuels, including EFF, should be
required to provide a minimum level of deposit control. We may consider
adopting deposit control requirements for EFF in a later action should
appropriate deposit additives and test procedures be developed for use
with EFF and data become available to establish that there is
sufficient environmental need. In the meantime, we believe that the
resolution of this issue is best left to the marketplace.
7. Standards for Blendstocks Used by EFF Full-Refiners and Bulk
Blender-Refiners
    EPA-compliant gasoline, BOBs, and DFE can be used to produce E85
under the current regulatory requirements. There are already
regulations in place under the EPA's gasoline program regarding the
sulfur, benzene, and presence of atypical elements in such blendstocks
that assure they are of sufficient quality for use in vehicle fuels
(including all EFF). This proposal would create a new classification of
certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock that could also be used by
EFF bulk blender-refiners. This proposal would also create a new
classification of uncertified natural gasoline EFF blendstock that
could be used by EFF full-refiners. Therefore, new fuel quality
requirements are needed for such natural gasoline EFF blendstocks. We
are proposing that hydrocarbons that are imported for use as an EFF
blendstock must be sourced from a foreign refiner that is registered
with the EPA. We believe that this requirement is

necessary to provide the EPA with sufficient oversight to ensure that
such hydrocarbon blendstocks meet the proposed quality specifications.
We are also requesting comment on allowing butane and pentane that are
approved for downstream blending into gasoline to be used by EFF full-
refiners and bulk blender-refiners.
a. Certified Natural Gasoline EFF Blendstock
    To ensure that the use of certified natural gasoline as an EFF
blendstock by EFF full-refiners and bulk blender-refiners does not
result in increased FFV emissions, we are proposing that producers of
certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock must demonstrate compliance
with proposed quality requirements regarding sulfur and benzene
content. We are also proposing that certified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock be composed solely of CHONS.
    The natural gasoline that is typically used to denature ethanol is
likely unsuitably high in sulfur and benzene content to ensure adequate
FFV emission control performance.\112\ The EPA set a 330 ppm per-gallon
sulfur cap on ethanol denaturant effective January 1, 2017, concurrent
with the implementation of the Tier 3 sulfur program. The use of
denaturant with 330 ppm sulfur at the maximum 3 volume percent
denaturant concentration finalized under the Tier 3 program would
result in 10 ppm sulfur content for the resulting DFE, consistent with
the Tier 3 requirements for DFE. The EPA did not finalize a benzene
specification for DFE because it was judged that the presence of the 3
volume percent cap on denaturant concentration finalized under the Tier
3 program would limit benzene concentration in DFE to well below the
0.62 volume percent annual average applicable for gasoline. These
specifications assume dilution of the sulfur and benzene content of the
denaturant with 97 percent neat (undenatured) ethanol that is assumed
to be free of sulfur and benzene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ We have insufficient data on the sulfur and benzene
content of natural gasoline used to denature ethanol to characterize
the extent of this concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, if ethanol denaturant is used as a blendstock in EFF, the
concentration of such denaturant relative to the undenatured ethanol
used would be substantially higher than in DFE, resulting in
insufficient dilution of the sulfur and benzene present in the
denaturant. For example, if 30 percent denaturant at 330 ppm sulfur was
used with 70 percent undenatured ethanol to make E70, the resulting
sulfur content of the finished E70 would consistently be close to 100
ppm. Such consistently high sulfur levels in EFF would result in
significant FFV emissions control catalyst performance degradation and
a substantial increase in FFV emissions.
    Therefore, to ensure that the emissions control equipment of FFVs
running on EFF are not impaired and that FFVs have the same emissions
performance as conventional gasoline vehicles running on gasoline, we
are proposing that certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock would be
required to meet a 10 ppm per-gallon sulfur cap and a 0.62 volume
percent per-gallon benzene cap. These proposed standards would be
consistent with the average standards applicable for gasoline and would
ensure that the sulfur and benzene content of EFF made by bulk blender-
refiners is equivalent to the levels found in gasoline without the need
to impose a per-batch testing requirement.\113\ Setting cap standards
for blendstocks used by blenders where additional testing is not
required and that are equivalent to the average standards applicable to
refiners (where per-batch testing is required) is consistent with the
established approach for DFE and butane/pentane blended into gasoline
and will help facilitate enforcement by allowing the EPA to evaluate
compliance on a batch-by-batch basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ The gasoline 10 ppm annual average sulfur standard under
EPA's Tier 3 gasoline program will become effective January 1, 2017
(40 CFR 80.1603(a)). The gasoline 0.62 volume percent annual average
benzene standard became effective January 1, 2011 (40 CFR
80.1230(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing that certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock
would be required to be composed solely of CHONS similar to the
requirement for gasoline producers. To ensure that certified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock is CHONS, we are proposing that it would be
required to be sourced from either a natural gas processing facility or
a crude oil refinery. We are proposing that a natural gas processing
plant means a facility designed to ``clean'' raw natural gas by
separating impurities and various non-methane hydrocarbons and fluids
to produce what is known as ``pipeline quality'' dry natural gas. A gas
processing plant is used to recover natural gas liquids including
natural gasoline and to remove other substances such as sulfur and
benzene from natural gasoline EFF blendstock as needed.\114\ We believe
that the processing steps used to produce certified natural gasoline
EFF blendstock at a natural gas processing plant or crude oil refinery
would provide adequate assurance that non-CHONS elements are not
present or would be removed, as opposed to other potential sources of
similar boiling range materials. To the extent that non-CHONS elements
are present in raw natural gas liquids, they would primarily be present
in the heavier boiling fractions that would be removed at natural gas
processing plants and crude oil refineries in the processes used to
produce natural gasoline. We are also proposing that the natural
gasoline must have received processing at a natural gas processing
plant or crude oil refinery, such as in a distillation tower and/or
desulfurization unit. These provisions would preclude a natural gas
processing plant or crude oil refinery from purchasing natural gasoline
and reselling it for use as certified natural gasoline without the
natural gasoline having been subjected to processing to assure its
quality. The proposed distillation specifications for certified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock discussed below would provide additional
assurance that non-CHONS elements are not present by requiring that
high boiling fraction materials are not present in significant
quantities. Existing provisions for the other EFF blendstocks would
continue to ensure that they are CHONS.\115\ Therefore, we are not
proposing a testing requirement or specific limit on the quantities of
atypical elements that may be present in certified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock at this time. The EPA intends to further evaluate the
potential presence of non-CHONS elements in certified natural gasoline
EFF blendstock and may propose additional control measures in the
future if warranted. We request comment on whether additional controls
may be needed to prevent the presence of non-CHONS elements in natural
gasoline EFF blendstock, with associated supporting data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ The proposed definition of natural gas processing facility
is based on a definition used by the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/FactSheets/FSNaturalGasProcessingPlants.htm.
    \115\ The other proposed EFF blendstocks are finished gasoline,
gasoline BOBs, DFE, and undenatured ethanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To prevent an inappropriately high concentration of high boiling
point hydrocarbons in natural gasoline, we are proposing 275 [deg]F T90
distillation and 375 [deg]F final boiling point specifications
consistent with a commonly observed

industry consensus specification.\116\ We believe that most natural
gasoline, and in particular that which is a by-product of natural gas
production, would typically be well below these limits naturally. Since
natural gasoline is typically lighter than gasoline, these standards
would act as a backstop to prevent heavy hydrocarbons that could lead
to increased FFV emissions from being present in natural gasoline. We
understand that some distributors of natural gasoline observe 365
[deg]F T90 distillation and 437 [deg]F final boiling point
specifications for the natural gasoline they handle.\117\ However, we
believe that these specifications would allow for the presence of an
inappropriately high concentration of high boiling point hydrocarbons
in natural gasoline used as an EFF blendstock, which could lead to
elevated exhaust emissions. Additionally these specifications are not
necessary to allow for adequate supply of certified natural gasoline,
and could make enforcement against inappropriate addition of compounds
to EFF more difficult. We request comment on whether the proposed
specifications are appropriate or whether different specifications are
needed to be adequately protective, such as simply establishing a 300
[deg]F final boiling point specification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ Gas Processors Association Standard 3132-84, ``Natural
Gasoline Specifications and Test Methods.''
    \117\ ASTM D8011-16, ``Standard Specification for Natural
Gasoline as a Blendstock in Ethanol Fuel Blends or as a Denaturant
for Fuel Ethanol.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing that certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock
would be subject to a 15 psi RVP maximum specification. This would
provide additional assurance that an abnormally high fraction of higher
boiling compounds are not present that could lead to unexpected vehicle
performance issues that could adversely impact FFV emissions. We
believe that this is consistent with current industry practice that
limits natural gasoline RVP to below atmospheric pressure (14.7 psi) to
avoid the need for more costly storage vessels.
    We are also proposing that refiners and importers of certified
natural gasoline EFF blendstock would be required to register with the
EPA, submit batch reports annually, and issue PTDs indicating that
their product is suitable for use by EFF bulk blender-refiners. We are
proposing that the PTD also include the RVP of the natural gasoline to
facilitate use of the proposed RVP tool to demonstrate compliance by
EFF bulk blender-refiners with the proposed maximum RVP specification.
    The proposed RVP requirements for EFF would typically limit the
amount of natural gasoline that could be used to make EFF from May 1
through September 15 for parties upstream of retail and WPC facilities
to about 30 volume percent.\118\ However, from September 16 through
April 30 for parties upstream of retail and WPC facilities, it would
technically be possible to use natural gasoline as the sole hydrocarbon
blendstock in EFF while still meeting the ASTM RVP maximum requirement
absent additional controls. In the most extreme case, this might result
in an E16 blend made with 84 percent natural gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ This assumes a 12 psi RVP for the natural gasoline used as
an EFF blendstock. Due to variability in natural gasoline RVP, the
use of more or less natural gasoline to produce EFF could be
possible while maintaining compliance with the proposed EFF RVP
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The industry consensus ASTM standard for E51-83 allows the use of
natural gasoline as a blendstock.\119\ However, there is currently no
ASTM standard for E16-50 blends where natural gasoline could be the
primary hydrocarbon blendstock.\120\ There could be operability issues
that arise from the use of natural gasoline as the primary hydrocarbon
blendstock in E16-50 that have yet to be addressed. Additionally, while
permitted, it is not clear that ASTM envisioned natural gasoline to be
used in E51-83 in concentrations up to 49 volume percent. Given the
wide variability in the composition and distillation range of natural
gasoline and its potential to naturally contain atypical compounds in
concentrations greater than found in refined gasoline, a limit of 30
volume percent may be more appropriate. Therefore, to address concerns
that the potential overuse of natural gasoline to produce EFF might
result in unforeseen vehicle operability and/or emission performance
problems, we are proposing to limit the amount of natural gasoline that
may be used as a blendstock to produce EFF with DFE and other approved
blendstocks to 30 volume percent.\121\ Natural gasoline is often used
as a denaturant in DFE and beginning with the January 1, 2017,
implementation date for the Tier 3 gasoline program, the denaturant
concentration in DFE will be limited to 3 volume percent.\122\ The
proposed 30 volume percent limit on the use of natural gasoline as an
EFF blendstock would not include the amount of natural gasoline used to
denature ethanol. Thus, if 30 volume percent natural gasoline
blendstock was added to 70 volume percent DFE containing natural
gasoline as a denaturant, the concentration of natural gasoline in the
finished EFF blend would be approximately 32 volume percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ ASTM D5798-15, ``Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel
Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines.''
    \120\ ASTM D7794-14, ``Standard Practice for Blending Mid-Level
Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Vehicles with Automotive
Spark-Ignition Engines,'' specifies procedures for blending mid-
level ethanol blends (E16-50) using E51-83 that conforms to ASTM
D5798-15. Under ASTM D5798-15, E51-83 may be produced using natural
gasoline as a blendstock provided that the finished E51-83 meets all
the specifications including maximum RVP.
    \121\ The proposed 30 volume percent limit on natural gasoline
used as an EFF blendstock would apply to the sum of certified
natural gasoline EFF blendstock and uncertified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock used to produce EFF.
    \122\ See 40 CFR 80.1610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that these proposed standards are necessary to ensure
that the proposed flexibility to allow natural gasoline use as an EFF
blendstock would not result in increased FFV emissions. ASTM recently
published a standard that for the first time put in place a level of
quality control for natural gasoline used as an E51-83 blendstock.\123\
This ASTM standard noted that it would be appropriate for such
blendstock used in the U.S. outside of California to meet a 30 ppm
sulfur maximum consistent with the current 30 ppm average gasoline
sulfur requirement under the EPA's Tier 2 gasoline program, and a 0.62
volume percent benzene cap consistent with the EPA's gasoline benzene
program.\124\ The ASTM standard also noted that the 30 ppm sulfur
maximum would be adjusted to remain consistent with the gasoline 10 ppm
average sulfur standard when the EPA's Tier 3 gasoline program is
implemented on January 1, 2017. This approach is consistent with our
proposal to match the sulfur and benzene cap standards to the average
standards currently applicable for gasoline. The ASTM standard also
notes the importance of preventing the presence of non-CHONS elements
in natural gasoline and states that work is underway to evaluate this
potential concern. Therefore, the ASTM standard should help to prepare
industry to comply with the EPA's proposed specifications for natural
gasoline EFF blendstock. Some states require compliance with ASTM fuel
standards. Hence, the ASTM standard for natural gasoline may provide
some additional assurance of compliance with the

proposed requirements in this proposal. However, the ASTM standards are
voluntary industry consensus standards that are not enforceable
nationwide. As discussed above, the proposed requirements for natural
gasoline EFF blendstock also contain a number of provisions and
safeguards, including EPA compliance oversight, that are not present in
the ASTM standard. Therefore, as with many of our other fuel standards,
these proposed provisions would provide substantially greater assurance
that the quality of natural gasoline used as an EFF blendstock is
sufficient to support the EPA's emissions control goals for FFVs
compared the ASTM standard alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ ASTM D8011-16, Standard Specification for Natural Gasoline
as a Blendstock in Ethanol Fuel Blends or as a Denaturant for Fuel
Ethanol.''
    \124\ The Tier 2 program's 30 ppm annual average sulfur standard
in 40 CFR 80.195(a)(1) will be replaced by the Tier 3 program's 10
ppm annual average sulfur standard beginning January 1, 2017 (40 CFR
1603(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe the economic incentive provided by this new flexibility
would be sufficient for natural gasoline producers to take the
necessary steps to provide certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock to
EFF full-refiners and bulk blender-refiners. For example, E70 could be
produced with approximately 30 volume percent natural gasoline while
meeting the proposed 9 psi maximum RVP standard in CG areas.\125\
Depending on the cost of the blendstocks used, E70 made with natural
gasoline could be approximately 5 percent less costly on an energy
adjusted basis compared to using gasoline as the sole hydrocarbon
blendstock.\126\ EFF could also continue to be manufactured using
gasoline/BOBs as under current regulatory requirements. Hence, a
potential shortage of natural gasoline that meets the proposed
specifications for use an EFF blendstock would not interfere with the
production of EFF compared to the current requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ The amount of high-volatility natural gasoline that could
be used as an EFF blendstock would be governed by what regional RVP
specification applied to EFF.
    \126\ The cost of ethanol, gasoline, and natural gasoline tend
to vary over time both individually and in relation to one another.
See the memorandum, ``Potential Impact on E85 Cost from the use of
Natural Gasoline as Blendstock,'' available in the docket for this
action. The relationship between the price of E85 compared to the
price of E10 and E85 sales was discussed in the 2014-2016 RFS final
rule (80 FR 77420, December 14, 2015). See Figure II.E.2.iii-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Uncertified Natural Gasoline EFF Blendstock
    EFF full-refiners could use uncertified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock provided that they demonstrate that each batch: (1) Was
sourced from a natural gas processing plant or crude oil refinery; (2)
Meets 275 [deg]F T90 distillation and 375 [deg]F final boiling point
specifications; and (3) Meets a maximum 15 psi RVP specification. These
requirements parallel those proposed above for certified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock to ensure that non-CHONS elements are not
present and that an undue fraction of heavy or light boiling fractions
are not present. EFF full-refiners could test each batch of uncertified
natural gasoline EFF blendstock to demonstrate compliance with the
proposed T90, final boiling point, and maximum RVP specifications. EFF
full-refiners would also need to obtain documentation from their
suppliers that demonstrates that uncertified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock was sourced from a processing unit such as a distillation
tower and/or desulfurization unit at natural gas processing plant or
crude oil refinery. Such documentation would need to establish that the
uncertified natural gasoline had received some processing at a natural
gas processing plant or crude oil refinery, such as in a distillation
tower and/or desulfurization unit. We are not proposing sulfur or
benzene specifications for uncertified natural gasoline EFF blendstock
because EFF full-refiners would already be required to test each
finished batch of EFF to demonstrate compliance with the proposed
sulfur and benzene specifications for EFF.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ EFF full-refiners would also be required to test each
batch of EFF to demonstrate compliance with the proposed EFF RVP
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Butane and Pentane
    We request comment on allowing butane and pentane that meets the
requirements for downstream gasoline blending to be used as blendstocks
by EFF full-refiners and bulk blender-refiners.\128\ We further request
comment on whether their use as EFF blendstocks should be limited to
the period from September 16 through April 30. Butane and pentane
blended into gasoline downstream of the refinery are required to meet a
10 ppm per-gallon sulfur cap under the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program.
Such butane and pentane are also required to meet a 0.03 volume percent
benzene cap. These standards would ensure that butane and pentane are
suitable for use as EFF blendstocks with respect to sulfur and benzene
content. The gasoline program requirements for these blendstocks would
also ensure that atypical elements are not present. However, they are
not typically used currently for producing EFF and their high
volatility could constrain their use. We request comment on whether
allowing the use of butane and pentane as EFF blendstocks could result
in unforeseen distillation issues for the final EFF blend. The
potential existence of adverse impacts on the properties of the
finished EFF blend is the primary reason why we are not proposing to
allow the use of butane and pentane as EFF blendstocks at this time.
Another complicating factor is that the proposed RVP compliance tool
would not adequately cover butane and pentane blending in its current
form.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ The requirements for butane blended into gasoline
downstream of the refinery are contained in 40 CFR 80.82. The
requirements for pentane blended into gasoline downstream of the
refinery are contained in 40 CFR 80.85 and 80.86.
    \129\ The proposed RVP compliance tool is discussed in section
IV.F.3 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Potential Additional Grades of DFE and Natural Gasoline
    Ethanol producers have requested that the EPA consider a means to
certify a grade of DFE that meets lower sulfur and benzene caps for use
with a grade of certified natural gasoline EFF blendstock that meets
higher sulfur and benzene standards than those proposed above. The
respective sulfur and benzene standards for these grades would be set
to provide equivalent sulfur and benzene levels in the finished EFF
blends produced as would be achieved by using DFE that meets the
existing requirements \130\ and certified natural gasoline EFF
blendstock that meets the proposed sulfur and benzene standards. This
approach would be similar to that outlined in the recent ASTM standard
for natural gasoline used in higher level ethanol blends.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ The requirements for DFE are contained in 40 CFR 80.1610.
    \131\ ASTM D8011-16, ``Standard Specification for Natural
Gasoline as a Blendstock in Ethanol Fuel Blends or as a Denaturant
for Ethanol Fuel.'' See table X1.2. The use of natural gasoline
grade EFB2 as an E51-83 blendstock in the ASTM standard assumes the
concurrent use of DFE meeting the California's sulfur and benzene
specifications (10 ppm sulfur and 0.06 volume percent benzene). This
would ensure a level of control of EFF sulfur content consistent
with the requirements under the EPA's Tier 2 gasoline sulfur
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The use of undenatured ethanol as an EFF blendstock rather than DFE
might provide even more opportunity for dilution of the sulfur and
benzene content of natural gasoline used as an EFF blendstock. Hence,
there may also be the potential for yet another grade of certified
natural gasoline EFF blendstock with somewhat higher sulfur and benzene
specifications to be used at ethanol production plants in combination
with undenatured ethanol to make EFF. Under such an approach, the
sulfur and benzene content of the undenatured ethanol could be
considered negligible provided that the producer maintains production
quality control records to demonstrate that

sulfur was not introduced as a by-product of the production process.
    Ethanol producers stated that including such additional grades of
DFE and natural gasoline EFF blendstock would allow access to a larger
volume of natural gasoline for blending into EFF. This approach would
necessitate additional product segregation, PTD, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements to ensure that the different grades of
certified natural gasoline were used under the appropriate
circumstances. For example, all parties in the production and
distribution system would need to segregate and keep records on the
various grades of certified natural gasoline they handle and maintain
PTD records. We request comment on this approach, including what
standards would be appropriate for the additional grades of DFE and
natural gasoline EFF blendstock discussed above, and the means of
simplifying its implementation while ensuring enforceability.
8. Exemptions From EFF Requirements
    The following paragraphs discuss several provisions and exemptions
from the proposed EFF standards in special circumstances.
a. EFF Used in Military Applications
    Due to national security considerations, some of the EPA's existing
regulations allow the military to request and receive National Security
Exemptions (NSEs) for vehicles, engines, and equipment from emissions
regulations if the operational requirements for such vehicles, engines,
or equipment warrant such an exemption. In our diesel fuel program and
the Tier 2 and Tier 3 gasoline sulfur programs, we provide an exemption
for fuel used in tactical military vehicles and nonroad engines and
equipment with a NSE from the vehicle and engine emissions standards.
Fuel used in these applications would also be exempt if it is used in
tactical military vehicles, engines, or equipment that are not covered
by an NSE but, for national security reasons (such as the need to be
ready for immediate deployment overseas), need to be fueled on the same
fuel as those with an NSE. We are proposing to extend this exemption to
EFF as well.
b. EFF Used in Research, Development, and Testing
    Similar to existing EPA fuels programs, we are proposing to allow
for requests for an exemption from the EFF standards for EFF used for
research, development, and testing purposes (``R&D exemption''). We
recognize that there may be legitimate research programs that require
the use of EFF with benzene, sulfur, or RVP levels greater than those
allowed under the proposed EFF requirements. Thus, we are proposing
provisions for obtaining an exemption from the prohibition against
persons producing, distributing, transporting, storing, selling, or
dispensing EFF that does not meet the EFF standards, where such fuel is
necessary to conduct a research, development, or testing program.
    Parties seeking an R&D exemption would be required to submit an
application for exemption to the EPA that describes the purpose and
scope of the program, and the reasons why the noncompliant EFF is
necessary. Upon presentation of the required information, an exemption
could be granted at the discretion of the EPA, with the condition that
the EPA could withdraw the exemption in the event the EPA determines
the exemption is not justified. In addition, an exemption based on
false or inaccurate information would be considered void ab initio. EFF
subject to an exemption would be exempt from certain provisions of this
rule, including the sulfur standards, provided certain requirements are
met. These requirements include the segregation of the exempt EFF from
non-exempt EFF, identification of the exempt EFF on PTDs, and pump
labeling.
c. EFF for Export
    EFF produced for export, and that is actually exported for use in a
foreign country, would be considered exempt from the fuel content
standards and other requirements of the proposed EFF program. In order
to exclude exported EFF, refiners would have to retain records to
demonstrate that the EFF was exported. Such EFF would have to be
designated by the EFF refiner for export, and the PTD would have to
state that the EFF is for ``export only;'' otherwise, the EFF would be
considered as intended for use in the U.S. and subject to the proposed
EFF standards. EFF intended for export would be required to be
segregated from all EFF intended for use in the U.S. Distributing or
dispensing such fuel for domestic use would be illegal.
d. California EFF
    The current State of California requirements for EFF do not
parallel those we are proposing for EFF.\132\ California defines E85 as
containing a minimum ethanol content of 79 volume percent ethanol as
opposed to the 51 volume percent minimum set by ASTM.\133\ The quality
of E85 in California is controlled by narrow restrictions on the
blendstocks that may be used to blend E85: California compliant
gasoline and DFE. Natural gasoline is not currently allowed as an E85
blendstock in California. Beyond this, California has a maximum 8.7 psi
RVP requirement and a 40 ppm maximum sulfur standard for E85.
California currently does not have specific regulations for E16-78
ethanol blends. Hence, E16-78 blends are currently prohibited for sale
in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ The California regulations for E85 are contained in 13
Code of California Regulations (CCR) 2292.4.
    \133\ ASTM D5798-15 ``Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel
Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing to exempt California EFF from the requirements in
this proposal provided that California EFF is segregated from federally
compliant EFF, and PTD and recordkeeping requirements are observed for
California EFF. These proposed requirements are similar to those
associated with the current exemption from federal sulfur standards for
California diesel fuel that meets California diesel fuel standard. We
believe that it is appropriate to exempt California EFF from the
requirements in this proposal to allow California the latitude to
regulate EFF in a manner that is consistent with the state's unique air
quality needs and the requirements under the state's Low Carbon Fuel
Standard (LCFS) program.\134\ We also understand that California is
considering amending the sulfur and RVP specifications for E85 and
implementing specifications for E16-78 ethanol blends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ The California LCFS regulations are contained in Cal Code
Regs. tit.17, Sec.  95480.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Other Special Provisions and Potential Exemptions
    Additionally, in existing EPA fuels programs we have included
exemptions for racing fuel and for fuel used in the U.S. territories of
Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. We have
included these same exemptions for the proposed EFF requirements and
request comment on whether or not such exemptions would be needed for
this program.

D. Certification of Ethanol Flex Fuel

    All producers or importers of EFF are considered EFF refiners, and
thus responsible for demonstrating that the EFF blends they produce or
import meet EPA quality requirements. This proposal contains three
options under

which EFF refiners could demonstrate compliance with the proposed EFF
quality requirements (i.e., ``certify''), which are tailored to the
party's ability to affect fuel quality. Given the potential challenges
associated with batch sampling, testing, and reporting for the
relatively small batches of EFF typically produced, we are proposing
options with compliance demonstration requirements that are
commensurate with the party's ability to affect EFF quality. These
options are further discussed below.
1. EFF Full-Refiner Certification Option
    Under the proposed EFF full-refiner option, refiners and importers
of EFF blends could use certified and uncertified natural gasoline
ethanol flex fuel blendstock, certified gasoline, BOBs, DFE, and
undenatured ethanol as EFF blendstocks,\135\ provided that they conduct
per-batch sulfur, benzene, and RVP testing to demonstrate compliance
with the proposed standards. The requirements under this option
parallel those for a gasoline refiner, and we expect that producers
would only take on the regulatory burden under this option if the cost
advantages that accompany the additional blending flexibility justify
the added cost of demonstrating compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ Allowing the use of undenatured ethanol as an EFF
blendstock would allow ethanol producers to meet the Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) ethanol denaturant requirements
in the same blending operation used to produce EFF, rather than
force the ethanol to be denatured in a separate step. This might
also allow for additional flexibility in the quality of the natural
gasoline that might be used as a blendstock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EFF full-refiners would be required to register each facility,
provide annual reports on the EFF produced, issue compliant PTDs for
each EFF batch, and maintain records to demonstrate compliance. As part
of the proposed annual reporting requirement, EFF full-refiners would
be required to certify that the EFF they produced or imported is
compliant with the proposed CHONS requirement in addition to providing
batch test data to demonstrate compliance with the other proposed
quality requirements. EFF full-refiners would have complete
responsibility to demonstrate compliance of the uncertified natural
gasoline they use as an EFF blendstock with the proposed requirements.
To support that the uncertified natural gasoline is CHONS, EFF full-
refiners would be required to maintain records to demonstrate the
uncertified natural gasoline blendstock used was sourced only from
processing units at natural gas processing plants or crude oil
refineries and that no non-CHONS additives were added.\136\ Such
records could be bills of lading from the natural gasoline supplier.
EFF full-refiners would also be required to maintain records to
demonstrate that the natural gasoline used met the proposed maximum
T90, final boiling point, and RVP specifications to ensure that high
boiling point hydrocarbon contaminants and an unrepresentative fraction
of light boiling point hydrocarbons are not present.\137\ Such records
could be from testing of the natural gasoline performed at the EFF
full-refinery, or of test results provided by the natural gasoline
supplier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ The natural gasoline must have received some processing at
a natural gas processing plant or crude oil refinery, such as in a
distillation tower and/or desulfurization unit.
    \137\ See section IV.C.7 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing that EFF full-refiners would be the only party
that could designate natural gasoline as uncertified natural gasoline
EFF blendstock and that uncertified natural gasoline blendstock could
not be transferred to another party. EFF full-refiners could use bills
of lading and certificates of analysis from their natural gasoline
supplier to help demonstrate compliance with the requirements for
uncertified natural gasoline EFF blendstock. Therefore, we believe that
there is no practical reason to allow an entity upstream of an EFF
full-refinery to designate natural gasoline as uncertified natural
gasoline EFF blendstock or for natural gasoline designated as
uncertified natural gasoline EFF blendstock to be transferred to
another party.
    We are proposing that EFF batch certification testing would be
conducted on a ``certification tank'' of EFF where individual samples
are drawn from the top, middle, and bottom of the tank to ensure that